Animals (Pink Floyd album) 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 14, 2009 Good article nominee Listed April 27, 2010 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Albums 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 Pink Floyd High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd 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.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration. To-do list: Fair use Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use). Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done). Articles Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub. Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status. See COTM for monthly collabs. Project building Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner ((WPFloyd)) to all appropriate Talk pages. Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one? Progressive Rock High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock 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.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gilmour is doing back vocals on Dogs (song 2), the harmony under himself, at around 6:55 min. "you'll reap the harvest you have sown" and after "the bad blood slows and turns to stooooonnnnnneeeeee..." and after that also, in that same song. I don't have any sources for that, our human ears should be enough. I suggest adding an "harmony vocals" on song 2 for Gilmour.

Also, I think it's misleading that the songs are identified by their number on A (1-2) and B (1-2-3), and just under, in the credits section, we refer to it as 1-2-3-4-5. I would put Side A : 1-2 and Side B : 3-4-5.

Clyde Paquin (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the person that reverted your edits earlier, I am of the opinion that our human ears are not enough as it leaves things open to interpretation and as such, only reliable sources will suffice. With regards to the song numbers, I have not looked into that yet but will later. Robvanvee 05:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the numbers and it seems to be a standard MOS when gauging similar articles here and here for example. Robvanvee 14:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article for "Dogs" claims that Rick Wright did the harmonies but I am very very sceptical. Gilmour is known for being very good at vocal layering (see "Breathe", which he also sang all on his own) and it doesn't sound like Rick's voice to me. Listen closely to the lines "Good drown, go down, all alone, dragged down by the stone" - that's all David, both vocal lines.

On the other hand, the other band members clearly added harmonies to Roger's vocals on the finale, which is not recognized. "Ground down in the end", "found dead on the phone", "dragged down by the stone" have additional vocal lines that don't sound like Roger to me, although I can't say I could clearly identify them as either David or Rick either.

As far as reliable sources go, neither this article nor the one for Dogs give any for these specific claims, so I think it would be fair game to improve them to the point where us Pink Floyd buffs can say, "yes, that is correct". Of course, if the 5.1 mix ever sees the day of light, it will be much easier to listen to the individual tracks.Jules TH 16 (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the final sentence of the article's intro says, "It initially received mixed reviews, but gained more favourable reviews in later years, and is considered one of the band's best works."

Does this not require citations? 2600:6C40:667F:E9A9:568:21A:11EA:2F11 (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Packaging section, nestled between two paragraphs (actually, what should be at least three paragraphs, above, and one below) is this non-sequitur:

During the Isles of Wonder short film shot by Danny Boyle and shown as part of the Opening Ceremonies of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, the camera zooms down the length of the River Thames, from a small spring in the countryside all the way to the Olympic venue. During the fly-by, a pig can be seen floating above Battersea Power Station.

It's (first-party) cited, but nevertheless one might note that it's not actually about the Animals album or its packaging at all. It's the sort of random trivia that, if anything, belongs in a "References" or "In popular culture" section — or it would, if those weren't discouraged in general. But them being discouraged doesn't mean these things should just be inserted into the rest of the article instead. FeRDNYC (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Animals (Pink Floyd album) be renamed and moved to Animals (album). A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Animals (Pink Floyd album) → Animals (album) – I decided to look into why this album is so specifically disambiguated, and I saw that while there are multiple albums called Animal at Animal (disambiguation), there are only two plurally named Animals without a definite article preceding it, this and an album by the band This Town Needs Guns. Between the fact that page views for the Pink Floyd album are in the thousands for the last month alone, while the TTNG album only managed around a dozen per day in that time, Googling "Animals (album)" almost exclusively brings up results for this album as well as eponymous releases by the band the Animals (which contain the definite article in them, establishing the distinction immediately). To me, this seems like the WP:PDAB in this situation. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As you point out, Animals (This Town Needs Guns album) exists, so Animals (album) is still ambiguous. If we are going to disambiguate, we need to disambiguate fully. --woodensuperman 15:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this one has 26,609 views but the American one has 3,479, the British one has 1,622 and the This Town Needs Guns album has 244[[1]]. That's probably not enough for a PDAB even allowing for the difference with the "The". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I think the "The" establishes the difference in the case of the Animals albums, while the difference between this and the This Town Needs Gun is obvious enough to make this the primary topic. I think we should disambiguate with a hatnote like, "Not to be confused with The Animals (British album) or The Animals (American album)," as well as, "For the This Town Needs Guns album, see Animals (This Town Needs Guns album)." I think the definite article is very much a distinguishing factor, and leads me to believe this is the primary topic for albums simply called "Animals" without a "the" in front of them. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's correct; the only PDAB to consider here is Animals (This Town Needs Guns album). 162 etc. (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, and that album's page views are significantly lower than those of the Pink Floyd album -- this one has views in the thousands while the This Town Needs Guns album only has a few hundred. To me, that's a substantial enough difference to make this the primary topic. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't what we're looking at here; there's no way that this is getting moved to Animals. WP:PDAB is the relevant guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, WP:PDAB is what I meant -- I apologize for my mistake. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per above. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]