Talk:Barbara Gogan

A photo or two would be a great addition

I don't have rights to any photos, either current or past, of Barbara Gogan or her recent albums. If anyone sees this who does, that might make a richer experience for the reader. Thanks. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

New Sources

I've compiled some additional sources on Barbara Gogan (below). Feedback or assistance verifying or expanding the content by any noninvolved editors would be welcome. I will be adding direct links here to these today as I have time. Thank you so much! — Adrian

Newly identified possible key sources:

• Women Make Noise: Girl Bands from Motown to the Modern, Julia Downes et al., 2015

There is only a passing mention of Gogan in this book on page 196 although it does confirm she was mentioned in NME's "Women in Rock" issue in March 1980. The sentence where she's mentioned is "The feature brought together post-punk bands including The Raincoats and The Au Pairs with new romantic vocalist Barbara Gogan, all-girl metal band Girlschool and a grudging participating by The Mo-dettes, who criticized the whole enterprise as reinforcing an artificial gender-based division between musicians." Nnev66 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Real Life Rock: The Complete Top Ten Columns, 1986–2014, Greil Marcus, 2015, p. 504

added this to article Nnev66 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Post Punk Diary: 1980–1982, George Gimarc, 1997, p. 36

Nothing to use in this one which is on archive.org Nnev66 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Season of the Witch: The Book of Goth, Cathi Unsworth, 2024
• The England’s Dreaming Tapes, Jon Savage, 2010, p. 736

Newly identified possible additional sources for reference:

• New Women in Rock, Liz Thomson, 1982, p. 46
• Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: True Life Stories of Women in Pop, Sue Steward & Sheryl Garratt, 1984
• The Trouser Press Record Guide, Ira Robbins, 1991, p. 492
• Billboard, 4 Oct 1997, p. 30
• The Virgin Encyclopedia of 80s Music, Colin Larkin, 2003, p. 377

added this to article Nnev66 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin, 1992 & 1995
• Complete UK Hit Albums 1956–2005, Graham Betts, 2005, p. 309
• Collins Complete UK Hit Singles 1952–2004, Graham Betts, 2004, p. 586
• The Peel Sessions, Ken Garner, 2010
• BBC Music Magazine, Vol. 6, 1998, p. 62
• The Wire, Vols. 173–178, 1998, p. 33
• The Nation, Vol. 238, 1984, p. 697
• Enciclopedia rock anni ’80, Riccardo Bertoncelli, 1989, p. 529
• The Literature of Rock II, 1979–1983, Frank W. Hoffmann, B. Lee Cooper & Lee Ann Hoffmann, 1986
• The Great British Mistake: Post Punk Fanzines: 1979–84, Tom Vague, 2017

Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Adrian.stewart.music. I appreciate your zeal, and I recognize that you are new (your account is 4 days old), but it's unclear why you would include 2 long lists of unconfirmed sources here, and on 13 WikiProject talkpages. Please look again at the response on the Women in Red talkpage, where you sought feedback... guidance and assistance. These lists of possible references do not demonstrate a connection with the subject. If you wish to indicate which are confirmed sources, and include their URLs (see: verifiability) that might be useful information. Of course, we are all volunteers, so if you lack time and inclination to indicate which ones are confirmed, no worries. Just recognize that the lists, as is, are superfluous. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Please forgive my error in not quite understanding about this! I will take this guidance and learn from it. I appreciate your taking time to provide this advice and will strive to improve. I see now how it really didn't fit in those talk areas as another editor also mentioned it is really up to us original authors to take on the responsibility. I am deep diving into some sources today - tomorrow. Sorry again for my mistake. Hoping to unearth some good stuff from these sources as I do more in-depth research. With much appreciation, Adrian. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Adrian.stewart.music. While you're looking at the references, could you take a look at the URLs that you'd added to support the text in the "Barbara+Marco (2020–present)" section? From what I can see, they all return some form of "page not found" error. (The bandcamp.com URLs return "something isn't here", the brooklynrail.org URL is "page not found", the dvoxmagazine.com webpage just says "coming soon / under construction", the klubikon.com URL says "File Not Found", etc. While webpages and websites move/change over time, and WP:LINKROT therefore creeps in, it is less common for references that were only recently added....) Guliolopez (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I will investigate and fix these today. Thank you! Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I've also noticed a lot of dead links, which sometimes happen because the link used in the reference is not the right link. Since many of these were added yesterday and were for articles in the past, I don't understand why this is happening. @Adrian.stewart.music, if you could check the links before you add them to the article and if incorrect find the correct ones that would save us a lot of time. Note some links look like they may never have existed and some sourced content is just wrong, i.e. really fails verification as opposed to failing verification because the wrong link was added. Nnev66 (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I am perplexed too! I was able to find and read these sources, but now they appear as dead links. I started searching in the way back machine so I could copy URLs from there that would not show as dead links. I have created one so far, but haven't had the chance today yet to put it in with work demands. However, I will persist and keep refining and improving the article. I am so appreciative of your time and support with guiding and adding the citation you added. More tomorrow. I think I just need a little time off-screen as I've been going all days since Sept 7 on this project (which I'm loving, just need a moment to rest) :) cheers and thank you again, Adrian Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Hi all, Thank you to everyone who provided feedback and guidance on this article. Your suggestions have helped improve its quality, and I look forward to continuing to refine it with the goal of eventually achieving GA status. Best regards, Adrian Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

A Passionate Interest in Continuing to Improve the Barbara Gogan Article

I noticed that the article was designated a C rank/class by an accomplished, long-time editor, but that this morning or so, another editor changed it to Starter Class. The reason given by the editor was that 'there didn't seem to be interest in fixing issues." As noted in my Thank you for your help entry, I will be striving to improve the article so it can apply for B class and will be working on it most days for the foreseeable future. Any and all editors interested in helping are most welcome, but I'll keep on trucking. Further, I have asked my mentor for any guidance on what steps I may take next and have also joined my first Wikipedia Project group - Women in Red! So, I'm quite excited and dedicated to this article and to continuing to help bring other articles into being in the future. In addition: Per WP:ASSESS, article ratings are fluid and reflect the article’s present state. Since I’ll be working on improvements daily, a higher rating may be justified soon. I have reverted the article class back to C. Many thanks again all. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Progress update

Today I made the following edits:

• Clarified a discrepancy in album release dates.
• Added a page number to a reference for accuracy.

Next steps:

• Expand lead paragraph and early life section in a neutral, well-sourced way.
• Continue smoothing prose for readability and reducing redundancies.
• Research additional reliable sources on Barbara+Marco and LAVA.

Notes: Research takes time, and I may not have substantial new material to add for a week or two, but I am committed to continuing improvements. My goal is to bring the article to B-class and eventually Good Article status. (edited this comment for conciseness; no change in substance. Many thanks to all editors and volunteers contributing to Wikipedia. — Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Update 17 September 2025

Fixed a minor spelling error and continued reviewing the article for clarity. Note that The Passions is the official name of the band and as a proper name it both words should be capitalized, even in mid-sentence as per please diregard the prior sentence and thanks to the other editors for guidance on Wikipedia's style concensus on this. I misread it initially. Other upcoming additions this week will include 3 or 4 other notable covers by famous bands, including the Foo Fighters. I have to track down their liner notes and secondary sources first. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Update: 22 September 2025

- Removed a redundant phrase in the early career section. - Continuing to search for additional verifiable sources and additional crit reviews.Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: 23 September 2025

Thank you @AwerDiWeGo, for your helpful edits! I wanted to ask your guidance in the version history, where you say: Also, elsewhere, a good encyclpedia's article shouldn't have fragments that read like a WP deletion discussion, like "this publication covered the topic", but tell the readers what that publication said about the topic; I didn't touch anything though, just pointing it out. Question: Do you think it would strengthen the article to state what the Irish Independent said about the topic as well what the Daily Record said on the topic? I think that is the part you are referring to, correct? If so, I will work on this over the next week! Thank you again for the great advice and helpful edits. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC) Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to those two. I was also referring to a third one ("The album received coverage in Billboard") that's the easiest of the three to address by simply deleting the sentence, because the two citations after that sentence also support the sentence before, and the presence of the citation to Billboard already conveys that the album received coverage in Billboard. Of course, if instead of deleting the sentence, you prefer to rewrite it... it's more work, but it's up to you (and I forgot what that Billboard source said anyway, so I have no opinion). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@AwerDiWeGo Thank you so much! Okay, I will work on this! I see what you mean about the Billboard coverage too - I will look into it again, and if there is nothing worth adding there, I'll just remove that sentence. I'll also work on the other two. Many thanks again for all! Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: 24 September 2025

Upon helpful guidance from AwerDiWeGo, I included one substantive detail on Gogan for each of these sources: the Daily Record and the Irish Independent. I also reviewed the Billboard article on Sarah Lee's album. I think it's still valueable to keep that mention of coverage to help support notabilty as it shows her involved with a recognized project. I was sure to state the coverage is about Lee's album and not about Gogan's lyric writing, in the article. Finally, I found a high-quality independent critical review source for the Barbara+Marco section - the Italian web magazine called 'Sherwood', which covers this kind of niche alternative and electronic music. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: 27 September 2025

Hopefully, I have strengthened the lead section today by putting source names in front of any quotes or attributions in the prose (whichI've cited. But I unintentionally caused a cite error on 14 in the references and since I'm still kind of new, I am going to have to read up on how to fix that. I will be combing through the rest of the article to see where else I can name sources explicitly at the beginnings of phrases for which they have been cited. I think there are about a handful left that just need that tweaking so it's explicitly that the language came from the source. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

20-minute assessment

@Adrian.stewart.music: Hi! Here's a 20-minute assessment of this article, as requested. Slightly adjusting how I do these so feedback is more generalized than specific:

• Copyvio looks good. Pings some proper names, but that's not an issue. Spookyaki (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note that on Wikipedia, you want to avoid using curly apostrophes and quotes. See MOS:CQ. For example, the possessive form of the Passions should be rendered as the Passions', not the Passions’. Spookyaki (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• There are several uncited claims in the article. For example, the Passions' disbandment date has no citation attached to it. Every claim made in the article needs to be cited by the end of the paragraph or sooner to comply with good article criteria. Spookyaki (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Removed date of disbandment- ty! Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• I think the list of the Passions' albums in the eponymous section, "The Passions (1978–1983)", should either be deleted to avoid redundancy with the Discography section or have its items integrated chronologically into the prose. Spookyaki (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Deleted them. Thank you again. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Generally, if you can, I would avoid one-sentence paragraphs, which can disrupt flow. See MOS:PARA. Spookyaki (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Merged the with longer paragraphs. Thank you. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Personal pet-peeve, but I don't think semicolons are necessary in most cases. You can just split the sentence into two. Spookyaki (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Removed semicolon, broke sentence into two. Thank you. Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Some subjective claims should probably be attributed unless there's very strong consensus across multiple sources. For example, "They also developed distinctive forms of assertiveness." Is this original research? Or is it someone's perspective? Spookyaki (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• To improve the prose, I would recommend limiting use of the passive voice. This isn't an absolute rule, but the passive voice sometimes leads to unnecessarily complicated prose, sometimes prose that is too timid. In the worst cases it can lead to tortured, confusing, incomprehensible sentences. The latter isn't the case here, but clauses like Gogan has contributed live music for performances by LAVA... could be improved by switching to active voice: Gogan has contributed live music for performances by LAVA...

• As a self-published source, Bandcamp is generally considered unreliable per the New pages patrol source guide. Would replace with another source if possible. Spookyaki (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That's all I've got. I think the lack of citations for come claims is the biggest issue here, and could cause the article to auto-fail. However, I do think this is, on the whole, a strongly-written article about an interesting figure in modern music history. Thanks for your hard work, and I hope this helps! Spookyaki (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Spookyaki. I'm so grateful to you for taking time to review this article and for providing such incredibly helpful notes and guidance on what I can improve. I will work may way through each improvement, beginning with ensuring there are citations for all claims. This is an amazing help and a "shot in the arm" to learn what you thought was strong about it so far as well. Cheers and thanks again, Adrian Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: 9 October 2025 - cont to fix identified issues

Fixed some issues as per guidance from @Spookyakiwith passive voice & Clarified attributions. One outstanding attributions remain to fix , such as description of Barbara+Marco’s sound. Aside from that notability is solid and with a couple more critical coverage sources smoothing of prose, double checking dates, and a photo, hoping it can achieve GA in the near future Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

A general comment about this write up on Barbara Gogan. The Passions were a little known indie bad at the time and as time has passed, they haven't stood the test of it, unlike say Joy Division who also had one hit but became huge in time after they ceased to be. (I'm literally the only one I know who has an album by the Passions!) So the short Wikipedia article on The Passions is about the length it should be for the little musical impact they had. Yet what I find strange is the write up on Barbara Gogan is larger than the write up about the Passions. This unheard of singer certainly wasn't bigger than the band itself - maybe she was marginally bigger than the other members of the band who don't have write ups at all, yet probably should if you apply similar standards. Ask a random stranger on the street who Barbara Gogan is, and 99.99pc of them won’t know. At most, they may have heard of their one hit “I’m in love with a German film star.” In fact, Gogan has a write up just as large as that of Poly Styrene which is odd, and almost as large as that of Siouxsie Sioux who had a major impact!

Also, the term feminism and it synonyms are mentioned a suspiciously excessive amount in this short (but longer than it should be) article. If it was an article about Gloria Steinem or the Pankhursts it would make sense, but not here. If you want to be a feminist that is also a Wikipedia editor, great. But you should not be a “feminist Wikipedia editor”. This strikes me a major anti-intellectual assault on WK’s high standards of objectivity. Wikipedia is something I hold dear and I don’t want to see it being vandalised essentially – cos where does it stop, creationists getting their thuppence in on the origin of the species??

All this leads me to one question, what exactly is going on? ~2026-26323-32 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)