Talk:Progressive rock

Latest comment: 9 days ago by ~2026-32318-86 in topic Rich inhanced
Former good articleProgressive rock was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
December 16, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Useless references

edit

I have fixed the no-target reference errors. These have been a feature of this "good" article for a decade or more. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Article review

edit

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

  • The 2010-2020s section is quite short. I think this needs to be expanded and updated.
  • There is an orange "sources may not verify text" banner at the top of the "Proto-prog and psychedelia" section: has this been resolved?
  • There are a few uncited statements in the article.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Beatles bias

edit

How is there 19 mentions of the Beatles yet only 4 mentions of Frank Zappa and Soft Machine on an article about progressive rock??? It feels like total revisionism, the Beatles should be mentioned in passing for the influence of Sgt. Pepper. There's no reason Rubber Soul should be mentioned here, when an album like Freak Out! made use of 2 8+ minute songs with a wide range of diverse influences. Aradicus77 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Like come on no mention of We're Only In It for the Money, Absolutely Free and Uncle Meat? Aradicus77 (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The 2010-2020s section is quite short. I think this needs to be expanded and updated. There is an orange "sources may not verify text" banner at the top of the "Proto-prog and psychedelia" section, placed in 2016. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rich inhanced

edit