Talk:Lou Reed (album)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Lour72.jpg
Please go to
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Great work! Good article.
I really like the "Cross-Reference" box, with its "Remarks" section. Let's keep that! It's "Good Article"-type stuff.
Thing is, Lou Reed is a relatively poor album and an overall failure, in many people's opinions, including mine (and I'm a BIG Lou Reed fan!) so this article isn't likely to get a lot of attention. But there's no shame in having a great article about a mediocre piece of work.
I think if everybody who cares gives the Lou Reed articles a little TLC, some of them could achieve "Good Article" status. Just like some of Lou's albums are great American masterpieces of songwriting. I think Reed is every bit as important as Pink Floyd (let me be honest: He's more important; more artistically influential and personally intriguing), and look at the attention they get on Wikipedia!
That's about it -- I could talk about the album itself for a few paragraphs, but that's not the purpose of these Talk pages. Good work, contributors, and I hope to contribute positively to some Lou Reed articles myself, before the year is over.
--Ben Culture (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)