Talk:Polka Party!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Polka Party! has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 7, 2013. (Reviewed version).

== Al's worst selling album ==

The articles about Toothless People and Ruthless People say that 'Polka Party!' is Weird Al's worst selling album. Since I don't know any reliable sources for this and I am also too tired to look for them right now (and because my English is pretty bad as well) I do not want to write this into the article. This [1] is the only thing that I found. de:Benutzer:Lockenlord -- 84.133.183.181 (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==album discontinued==

I removed the line regarding the album being discontinued as of August 2009. I don't see any evidence of this one any websites. in fact, Al's site shows that all of his albums are available for sale. there is a similar comment posted on pages for some of Al's other albums.

Short Circuit? Not Ed McMahon?

The intro section states that Here's Johnny is inspired by the movie Short Circuit, but the later description (as well as the lyrics to the song) does not support this.

2warped@gmail.com 66.41.250.223 (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no one seems to mention that "one of those days" is a style parody of george thorogood, sounds a lot like him to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.174.243.12 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polka Party!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this one--listened to this album far too many times as a kid. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks as always for your contributions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Cox is a DAB page; none of these seem to be the right guy. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the link, since, as you pointed out, it doesn't look like he has an article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"purchased full ads" -- do you mean "full-page ads"?
Yeah, that's what I meant. Whoops!
Sonny Burke's article states that he died 1980; this album came out 1986. Different Sonny Burke?
I think it must be. Otherwise there was some time travel involved here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See minor clarity points above.~~ Spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Another good article! Thanks for your speedy responses.