Talk:Syd Barrett

GA Reassessment

Syd Barrett

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Closing as Keep (WP:INVOLVED, WP:IAR) as the review opener is happy to keep it as a GA following improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

1. Large portions of cited text were removed from the article last August which I feel harms the overall quality.
2. There's a maintenance template indicating verfication is needed for footnote ref 122.
3. There's a clarification needed template after a sentence in the death section which refers to something called "cambridge 2005", presumably a book but I can find no evidence of its existence.
4. Footnote reference 99 is for a fansite called "pinkfloydfan.net" which doesn't satisfy WP:RS. If someone wants to cite Record Collector they should cite it directly rather than copyvio duplicates on fansites.
5. Footnote 109 references a fan created database of bootleg records and also a fansite "echoeshub", neither of which satisfies WP:RS,
6. Several other similar non RS fansites are cited. No point in listing every one.
7. Reference formats are inconsistent. And in some cases, citations to print magazine or newspaper are missing page numbers, bylines and other detail. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

   The article has deteriorated somewhat in the last 10 years and wouldn't pass GA now. I have book sources available to fix this, and if I can improve the sourcing this week, I will, otherwise I'm going to reluctantly suggest a delist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

   Having had a closer look, I think this one is salvageable. I was expecting to have to rewrite large sections, but it seems that this is simply an unwatched article that has been degraded by inexperienced editors. Regarding, Several other similar non RS fansites are cited. No point in listing every one. I am going through and tagging claims with {{better source needed}} to remind me to do them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm interested to know why you think the article improvements by Popcornfud in August 2024 harmed the quality of the article. In view, they did the exact opposite - they improved it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think they improved the article? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

As the edit summaries said, "this is all detail more about Pink Floyd, and should be covered in the main Pink Floyd article. keep the focus here on Syd Barrett" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess I disagree with that assessment. Barrett was a member of Pink Floyd, so some detail of his former band, especially reliably cited detail in proper context, seems useful. Especially when most of the other issues I raised here were left unaddressed. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, your reference updates have been helpful! Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There's tons of detail about Pink Floyd in the article, but it has to be kept to an appropriate degree of context. For example, most of this detail about Piper at the Gates of Dawn is about Pink Floyd in general, with little specificity to Barrett. We don't need a quote from Nick Mason discussing their debut single, not here. Popcornfud (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm getting there with sources and verification; things look in better shape. There are still a few things left that I want to tidy up though, plus then I plan to do a copyedit of the whole article (unless Popcornfud gets there first). Then I think it'll be okay to retain its GA status. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is looking in better shape now, so I'm going to conclude we should keep it as a good article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit has introduced language that I believe doesn't match the source. From what I remember of the Schaffner book, groupies did not make the claim to Meades. The quote itself is from Meades and his allegation was against the groupies for committing the act. Popcornfud, are you verifying any of these changes to cited material before changing the meaning? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't intend to change the meaning there. I misunderstood what the previous prose was trying to say, and on rereading it, I don't feel too guilty about that, as it was a fairly baffling sentence. Fixed. Popcornfud (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. With that corrected it seems much better. Yes, the old sentence was clumsy and unclear. I give thumbs up to keeping it as GA. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:07, 14 April 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2026

Opinions of others

In 2002, biographer Tim Willis raised the possibility that Barrett had Asperger syndrome. His sister Rosemary Barrett also discussed the possibility of Asperger syndrome in relation to her brother in an interview. In 2015, journalist Mario Campanella proposed in the journal Clinical Neuropsychiatry that Barrett may have had Asperger syndrome rather than schizophrenia, citing behavioural and social characteristics reportedly present from childhood and adolescence. ~2026-51114-86 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

References