This is a note to let the main editors of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 21, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 21, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the eighth studio album by the English rock band the Beatles (pictured). Released on 1 June 1967, it was an immediate commercial and critical success. After the group retired from touring, Paul McCartney had an idea for a song involving an Edwardian era military band, and this developed into a plan to release an entire album as a performance by the fictional Sgt. Pepper band. Knowing they would not have to perform the tracks live, the Beatles adopted an experimental approach to composition, writing songs such as "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life". The producer George Martin's innovative recording of the album included the liberal application of signal processing. The cover, depicting the band in front of a collage of celebrities and historical figures, was designed by the English pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth. One of the best-selling albums of all time, Sgt. Pepper is regarded as an important work of British psychedelia and an early concept album. One music scholar has described it as "the most important and influential rock and roll album ever recorded". (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"PBR&B" is not the canonical term for this genre; it is a seldom-used slang term that is somewhat derogatory. While the article referenced on the Weeknd page mentions other artists associated with this genre, the term "PBR&B" is not listed exclusively as a genre on any other page on Wikipedia. While this type of music may casually be called PBR&B, more accurately the Weeknd is an R&B artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.30.197 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Blood on the Tracks page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. You reverted my changes to the Tutu entry. I appreciate you sending me a message rather than simply reverting the changes without comment.

This is certainly not my first contribution to Wikipedia. I've made edits under a username, which I've subsequently forgotten, and several IP addresses.

It is not accurate to say that Tutu was panned by contemporary jazz critics, which is why I removed it. First, there is no real evidence for this statement. The citation links to a single blog entry that claims, without attribution, that the album was rejected by jazz critics when it came out (as a predicate for his own review). Second, there is contrary evidence within the Tutu entry and elsewhere on Wikipedia. The only contemporary review offered gave Tutu a B+ and said it was his "best in a decade!" The album won a Grammy. Also, the Miles Davis page said that the album received rave reviews (albeit with no attribution, which is why I removed it on that page). Given the four pieces of evidence of varying quality: 1. The blog entry saying that jazz critics panned it (with no attribution) 2. The review giving it a B+ and saying it was Miles Davis's "Best in a decade" 3. The Wikipedia entry saying rave reviews (with no attribution) 4. The Grammy for the album

I thought (and think) that the best way to characterize the reviews are "mixed." If anything else, I'd characterize them as "positive" given the available information. Certainly, it is not justified to say that the album was "panned by contemporary jazz critics."

If you agree, please return my edits to the Tutu entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.213.142 (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "blog entry" or "with no attribution". The statement is clearly cited to citation ^[8] which is a review by Record Collector and clearly says "The jazz critics hated it". Robert Christgau, who is the only review in that section, is a rock/pop critic. Also, Grammy Awards are given/voted on by people associated with or part of the music industry, not critics. Dan56 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Neo soul you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you weigh in here on the talk page dan? You are usually good at these things. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple. A Rfc is currently open at Template talk:Track listing to finally settle the dispute. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give your opinion on the matter one last time. Lewismaster (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Neo soul you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Neo soul for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neo soul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raison d'être. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]