Talk:Breakfast with Girls

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Launchballer (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• ... that despite receiving negative reviews from critics upon release, fans would later call Self's Breakfast with Girls a "masterpiece"?

• • ALT1: ... that Self based their album Breakfast with Girls on a novel? Source: ^[2]
  • ALT2: ... that Matt Mahaffey's bio encouraged fans to listen to Breakfast with Girls whilst on acid? Source: ^[3]
  • ALT3: ... that Self recorded their third studio album Breakfast with Girls simultaneously with their fourth? Source: ^[4]
  • Reviewed:

KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC).

• Taking this up, along with the other nom of the fifth album. Will be commenting shortly. M. Billoo 12:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@KmartEmployeeTor: Hi. Thank you for this well-written, well-sourced, long enough, and a new GA; no QPQ required yet. Image 1 non-free cover art, 2 is a self-work, and 3 is a text-based image. But again, a few visible WP:DUPLINKs, and some confusions with WP:INLINE:

• The reference #8 is used eight times, but I cannot see some of them supporting the prose. Can you please confirm?
  • ...wishing to contain toy songs to Gizmodgery.
  • ...so he wrote the song in a failed attempt to quit.
  • ...encouraging fans to listen to the album whilst on acid.
• For reference #10, it says "a mix of - um, everything" instead of "a little bit of everything," see WP:".
• Geffen Records, who absorbed DreamWorks... This could be a real-world fact but I still cannot see it in the INLINE reference #13.
• Official website used as reference #26, but I cannot see any mention of the 1958 novella here.
• Reference #38 shows error, I think the correct one should be ... Right?
• Reference #41 indeed shows the nomination, but it is neither visible on Awards website nor on Awards Wikipedia.

Other than that, I see no major problems in the article. For the original hook, the journalist pointed fans instead of himself calling it a masterpiece. ALT3 is sourced, but does not seem interesting or unusual. Thank you! M. Billoo 21:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• @M.Billoo2000: Sorry about not being able to respond, as I was busy with work. I will fix these as soon as I can. Reference #8 is a multi-part interview. It was not cited by me but by a different user, I assume they only link the first part of the interview as to not confuse readers. KmartEmployeeTor 10:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@KmartEmployeeTor: Hi, thank you for your contributions! I see that the issues have been Fixed. Just one concern, my search engine redirects Nashville Awards back to Country Awards, and I am still unable to check its WP:N. Is it worth mentioning? M. Billoo 20:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@KmartEmployeeTor: I see no other issues so I am marking it good to go. I will prefer ALT2 with slight rewording "listen" into something else as WP:QUIRKY, though I have no problem with the original hook as well. I am not sure if other hooks can qualify being subjective, except the one with "masterpiece". However, the Awards issue needs an eye. Thank you! M. Billoo 12:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@KmartEmployeeTor and M.Billoo2000: As noted at WT:DYK, there is a source-text integrity to be fixed before the article can appear on the main page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Dclemens1971: Does this mean this statement from WP:DYKHOOK: "The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information"? Also discussed here, where I said that if someone clicks the hook, he may Ctrl+F / search the matching keyword within the article and its INLINE. Am I right? While reviewing, I noticed that this article is majorly written in own wordings and it was hard to search the keywords, because many of them were rephrased, unless someone reads the whole and extracts the summary again. Or, is there any other meaning of source-text integrity which I am lacking? M. Billoo 17:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Adding some ALT hooks, please check. All hooks are subjective and primary, but reported by the secondary references under WP:IV. I still think this may qualify because the album title is interesting and we may not spoil the hook by talking about music. I may also ping the original nominator KmartEmployeeTor and the GAN reviewer RedShellMomentum if they can come up with more interesting hooks. Thank you! M. Billoo 13:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • ALT2a: ... that Matt Mahaffey wanted Breakfast with Girls on acid?
  • ALT3a: ... that Breakfast with Girls was under process before moving to "a toy instrument album" on weekend?
  • ALT4: ... that Self had Brunch after two months because Breakfast with Girls took two years and was still "chopped"?
  • ALT5: ... that Breakfast with Girls was described as "a constant battle between good & evil"?
  • ALT6 ... that Brunch was considered a consolation for delays to those who preordered Breakfast with Girls?

Regarding the new edit of the "acid" line that had been the source-text integrity issue holding up the nomination, the new wording, with Mahaffey's bio wanting to listen to the album whilst on acid is unfortunately problematic: a bio can't want anything. I'd like to suggest, given the problematic nature of this entire claim—it seems pretty clear from the source being used that Mahaffey was unaware of his "bio" advocating that listeners take acid to listen to the album (and we only have the interviewer's statement that this is the case)—that this acid factoid be dropped from the article entirely. I've struck both ALT2 and ALT2a because they remain problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn’t be so fast @BlueMoonset:, it seems that I was actually WRONG! You see, while there exists no archive of Breakfast’s bio/press kit, we DO have an archive of Self’s previous album bio/press kit for The Half-Baked Serenade. (See:https://web.archive.org/web/19970524072853/http://www.mtsu.edu/~m_c_015d/pressrel.htm) As seen on the bio/press kit, not only did Mahaffey NOT write this, it was actually an employee from his label (as is common for most press releases). It is clear that when PiG Publications was interviewing Mahaffey about "your" (referring to the album's) bio/press kit, he wouldn’t have known it had recommended listening to the album whilst on acid as he hadn’t written it, but instead somebody from DreamWorks had. It should also be noted that while no archive of the Breakfast bio/press kit exists, we know there are atleast two separate versions. (See:https://www.flickr.com/photos/202800406@N04/55190826315/in/datetaken-public/) Because of this, I suggest the following:

• • ALT2b: "... that a bio for Breakfast with Girls recommended listening to it whilst on acid?"
  • ALT2c: "... that Matt Mahaffey was unaware a bio suggested listening to Breakfast with Girls whilst on acid?" KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@KmartEmployeeTor: Sorry, I just removed the claim from the article before seeing your reply. @BlueMoonset: Any comments on such rephrasing and putting the claim back in article, or any other hook? M. Billoo 07:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Billoo, I stand by what I said: this is a claim by an interviewer that it was mentioned in your bio that people should listen to Breakfast With Girls on acid without even specifying whether this was Self's bio, Mahaffey's bio, or what. That bios written for other album releases have been found, and there is a photo of promotional materials from the album, are none of them adequate sourcing; for a claim like this, you need the actual bio, and nothing readable in that photo mentions "on acid". KmartEmployeeTor, I don't see that this is adequate sourcing to support an "acid"-based hook even if a better-written version of the material was restored to article, and I doubt it would survive at WP:ERRORS if someone were to approve such a hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Do you have any comments on other ALT hooks, please? M. Billoo 06:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• New reviewer needed for remaining ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Dclemens1971: Any update since this was pulled and then new hooks were suggested soon; ALT3a, ALT4, ALT5, ALT6? M. Billoo 15:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

ALT3 and ALT4 I don't understand at all; ALT5 has a "so what" factor to it; ALT6 requires specialised knowledge to understand. I wouldn't approve any of these hooks. Unless new and better hooks are proposed I expect this nom is headed for DYKTIMEOUT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Thank you for responding, but please ping as well. Also pinging KmartEmployeeTor.

• ALT3 and 3a are saying that the Self band was recording this album on weekdays, while another album on weekends.
• ALT4 is saying that originally eighteen tracks were recorded for the album, but it was "chopped" and some tracks later featured on the extended play released months later, as also reflected in ALT6.
• Can you please elaborate "so what" factor, I did not understand the concern?
• My concern was to make this hook QUIRKY, so a new reader takes it not as a music hook in first glance.

Thank you. M. Billoo 00:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: "So what" is another way of saying "this is uninteresting to me", sorry for not using clearer language. This is not a nomination where I'm well-placed to find a hook interesting or to provide an effective review; I am only involved in that I found a source-text integrity issue when this was in prep. Since it wasn't cleared up in time, AJ29 pulled it from the prep. To that end, I don't intend to comment further here. Other editors are welcome to offer reviews of the hooks that have been suggested. I was offering my suggestion that new hooks were needed only because you pinged me. Thanks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• ... that while Breakfast with Girls initially received negative reviews, due its power pop style, it is retrospectively regarded as a masterpiece?

TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@KmartEmployeeTor, M.Billoo2000, AirshipJungleman29, BlueMoonset, and Dclemens1971:. TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Source: "most sElf fans consider it a masterpiece." Attribution needed in hook and article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29, KmartEmployeeTor, and TarnishedPath: ALT0b: ... that a critic noted Breakfast with Girls is called "a masterpiece" by fans despite receiving negative reviews from critics initially? M. Billoo 12:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

We could have ALT0c ... that while Breakfast with Girls initially received negative reviews, due its power pop style, Self fans regard it as a masterpiece?

But that is very much getting into so what territory. Of course fans of a band would like their albums. TarnishedPath^talk 12:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not fans in general, fans of the band. And this isn't "a critic", this is a student writer for a university culture magazine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

With this being long past DYKTIMEOUT and no progress on a new hook, unfortunately the time has come to mark this for closure. This can be brought to GA status if you want to try again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)