Talk:Progressive rock
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Progressive rock article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | Progressive 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Other talk page banners | ||||||
| |||||||
Useless references
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)
Article review
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)
Beatles bias
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)
- 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)
GA Reassessment
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) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
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)
- @Aradicus77: You recently made a large edit to this article: are you interested in addressing the remaining concerns? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Which one removing Brutal prog? I removed it because none of the sources cited it as a subgenre of avant-prog or subgenre of progressive rock in general. The pitchfork source stated it was a blend of punk, jazz, skronk, metal and improv music. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
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
big big reviews ~2026-32318-86 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.