Talk:Shoegaze/GA1 · Paulipedia

GA review

GA toolbox
Authorship Citation bot Copyvio detector External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Aradicus77 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ceoil (talk · contribs) 23:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Some quick comments

of the 120 references, some 60 (ie 50%) are cited to Pinkard, which is way, way too much given the vast literature out there.
The article as is is really a development timeline. The "characteristics" section should be at least a third of the article. Would also add more on the type of effects and guitars used, the division between soft and hard shoegaze, the burying of the vocals, etc.
The extent and severity of the backlash against the first wave in the British Weekly music press is understated. Would expand on this - Looking back now, some of it is very funny, but also shows how that press then was alL about image and had no interest in actual music.
My Bloody Valentine did NOT influence Shoegaze: they were the original band! The "The Scene That Celebrates Itself" were mainly Ride, Lush and Slowdive, but collectively...at the time...they were all Shoegaze.
Should be in BRITENG.
More later. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Good points. I mentioned that Pinkard issue at the talk page prior. But yes there should be more talk on effects pedals on the page since its central to the genre, and I did try to add more talk about how much the press disparaged the term though another user had an issue with expanding on that point. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, re "disparaged"...maybe I should watch the talk page more. Slowdive in particlar got hammered and were mocked during interviews. Do you have access to Rock's Backpages? Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah I used it a lot, have any good articles or interviews I should read there? Aradicus77 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Aradicus, do you intend to revisit the article? Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Failing this due to lack of engagement, and also, the article wasn't ready as evidenced by an insufficient survey of the sources and focus on micro-trends without any appreciation of cultural origins or defining musicality. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)