Talk:Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Expansion

The article needs (per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other):

  • To get rid of the weasel word "Most sources speculate about the potential success of the song" in the Possible reception section.
  • basic facts such as sales figures, release date, and which record charts the song has appeared on

Hyacinth 12:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] File

The articles I have read describe the song as available as an MP3 from iTunes, not an M4P. Hyacinth 11:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Those articles are incorrect. I have the actual song file from iTunes and it is indeed an m4p (AAC) file. iTunes offers no other format, nor does any other online store offer the song. Cjmarsicano 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In reality though, M4Ps are MP4s. -- Zanimum 01:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other has failed, for the following reason:

It looks generally very good and suitable for listing on GA, but the expansion tag should either be addressed or removed before it can be listed. One suggestions I'd make, though, is to not have a quote from a magazine in the very first sentence - just describe what the article is about and save quotes for later on, otherwise it looks somewhat like a fan piece. Worldtraveller 00:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Both quotes simply describe the song without being positive, so I'm not sure how they would make the article look like a "fan piece".
More importantly, are you saying that attempting to address the impediments to this being a featured article means that it can't be a good one? Isn't that what good articles are? Hyacinth 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
See Henry Cowell. Hyacinth 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "He Was a Friend of Mine"

"He Was a Friend of Mine' is credited to McGuinn/Traditional, it seems likely that this is where Nelson heard it, and it does not sound like a blues song. Perhaps we could call it a folk standard also performed by the Byrds? Hyacinth 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Called it "traditional". Hyacinth 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has passed

The Good article nomination for Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other has passed.

I found it well written, everything was referenced, and basically a good article.

Thankyoubaby 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was skeptical at first, but it's an interesting read and well cited. Nice job! Kafziel 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Similar songs"

Seems to me neither of the songs listed there are at all similar; I'm considering striking this section, as the analysis seems OR. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Section merged and improved. Hyacinth 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Title

The cover of Nelson's single lists the title as "Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly (Fond of Each Other)", that is, without the comma and with parentheses. Why is this not listed anywhere in the article? And what, if anyone (anywhere) knows, what his impetus for slightly altering the title? -- Kicking222 02:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps its grammar or some other standard. I notice that most of the sources use the comma. Hyacinth 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson support of gay rights - OR?

The statement:

Nelson's recording suggests that, in addition to other causes, he supports gay rights ref name=Caballeros>Mayhew, Malcolm (February, 2006). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_km4467/is_200602/ai_n16296672 "Gay Caballeros" Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Accessed 05/08/07. end ref

smacks of OR - I was unable to access the reference to verify and so I hid the comment within the article until someone can verify and re-write in less ambiguous terms.207.69.137.21 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How does it smack of OR? I would argue it smacks of common knowledge. I have readded the comment and found a link for the citation, which is and was used elsewhere in the article.
See Wikipedia:Cite_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22. Hyacinth (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)