Talk:Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

Albums GA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alternative music GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:Maintained

Phonetic Alphabet

Maybe this is of little concern to anyone, or maybe it's just purely obvious, but the words "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" come from the phonetic alphabet. I would consider this ironic (although probably also purposeful) coming from the band "Wilco".

"ironic" statement

isn't saying "ironically, Reprise and Nonesuch are both Time Warner companies." a POV statement? Why is this ironic? It seems simply to be the way things work in the land of giant corporations. Time Warner owns both companies because the two will make different decisions. It hopes both will profit. Both child companies attepmt to do different things to make a profit--namely, appeal to different markets and/or use differing advertising techniques to reach those markets. This all seems totally natural. — vijay (Talk) 07:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic because the same company paid for the same recording twice, which is illogical no matter how you look at it. It may be the way things work in the land of megacorporations, as you say, but that doesn't make it any more reasonable. I might also add that nearly all large record companies have so little brand identity anyway that the number of records sold would not have been affected by which company released it in the end. (This, of course, is not considering the subsequent publicity received by the album after Reprise rejected it, but I think you get the point.) — Fedallah 17:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streamed vs Leaked

I think the history books should show that the decision for the band to stream YHF for free on their official web site had nothing to do with being dumped by Reprise - it was in direct reaction to MP3s of the album surfacing all over the internet. It was probably one of the most illegally downloaded albums on the web by the time they started streaming it. Please leave this in the article.

Chart numbers for YHF

The Wilco article claims YHF entered the charts at #12, the YHF article says #13 this should be checked and cited.

Someone has cited the actual issue of Billboard. This also agrees with the all music guide entry which give a peak position at #13. I'm going to correct the Wilco article and copy the citation from here. -MrFizyx 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status

This article is exceptionally detailed, well-written, and in my opinion meets all the criteria for Good Article designation.--NPswimdude500 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement

More chart information would be helpful (e.g. how the album fared in terms of sales in the weeks following its release). Additionally, while it is not necessary by any means, a table would greatly increase the visual appeal of the tracklisting by making it cleaner and more organized. These additions, in my opinion, would bring the article to a level where it is ready for Featured Article consideration.--NPswimdude500 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it sound like?

This article, aside from a genre listing of "Alternative rock" in the infobox and linking to a sound clip, doesn't describe the music at all. Can someone talk about the music itself? Or maybe that's not as interesting as the history. -Freekee 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the greatest challenge the popular music WikiProjects (musicians, albums, songs) will be facing. How shall we describe music in an objective, useful (and scholarly?) fashion? –Unint 05:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]