Talk:Led Zeppelin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is ready I will review it over the next couple of days. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Its ready. Thanks for taking this on so quickly.--SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I will do this review in pieces as I have time. Feel free to wait until I finish all my comments or answer them as we go. I see this is a collaborative process so if something comes up that you disagree with I welcome discussion. I will do an initial read through, mainly focusing on the prose, and make suggestions as I go and then look at the other criteria. I generally go beyond the Ga criteria and offer general advice on how I think the article can be improved. Saying that in whether this passes will ultimately depend on the criteria, so disagreeing with a suggestion will almost never result in a fail. It would be appreciated if you answer under each comment, even if it is a " Done", so I can keep track of where we are up to. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That is all extremely good news. Ultimately we would like to get this to FA status, so advice that goes beyond the GA material will be very welcome. I am willing to take a lead and make sure we respond to each point, but, for the benefit of other editors, I am happy for others to chip in or produce responses.--SabreBD (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Page's first choice for the lead singer was Terry Reid, but Terry declined the offer and suggested Robert Plant, a Stourbridge singer for the Band of Joy and Hobbstweedle Would consider either removing the "the" from in front of "Band of Joy" or capitalising and blue link "The Band of Joy". I had a double take when reading this sentence.

 Done: I took the second option. Hopefully that is clearer now.--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Page suggested that they play "Train Kept A-Rollin'", an originally jump blues song popularised in a rockabilly version by Johnny Burnette, that had been given new life by The Yardbirds. Grammar. Switch "an originally" to "originally an" maybe?

 Done: I think this reads better now with "originally a".--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shortly afterwards, the group played together on the final day of sessions for the P.J. Proby album, Three Week Hero This is a little awkward, e.g. "final day of sessions". Feel like it also needs some more context, something to tie it in better with the paragraph. Could shortly afterwards be clarified (days, weeks, months). Nitpicky - but "the group played together" is repeated in close succession in this paragraph.

 Done (I think): I couldn't find a date for the session so I tried to make this clearer and used what the source says, that it was shortly before the departure for Scandinavia, but please check that I have managed to resolve this one.--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: That would be August 25, 1968.

- August 12, 1968 = First Rehearsal

- August 25, 1968 = Studio session for PJ Proby album

Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those Scieberking. We will also need a citation if we put them in, but lets see if AIRcorn thinks the issue is resolved.--AIRcorn (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The weather this weekend was too good to sit inside the house all day on the computer, plus I just got the last series of The Wire. What you have  Done looks good. I would not worry too much about the exact date unless it can be reliably sourced. AIRcorn (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all, sir. Season 5, huh? I guess it's pretty cool. The reference from the official site is here. Thanks a bunch. Scieberking (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• 'On 14 October 1968, the band announced the new name and played their first show at the University of Surrey in Guildford on 25 October, followed by a short British tour.' Another nitpick, but this sentence would read better with a semi colon separating the last clause. "...October; this was followed by a short British tour."

 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Richard Cole organised their first North American tour at the end of the year, and would become a major figure for the group. In what way would he become a major figure?

 Done. Its hard to say exactly what Cole did without straying into a detailed biography (and possible lawsuit), so I summed this up as "touring life".--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The first show was in Denver on 26 December 1968, before playing several dates in western cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. "before playing" or "followed by"? Western cities is possibly a bit too ambiguous. Salt Lake City and Las Vegas are western when compared to Denver, so is Honolulu. maybe cities along the west coast or just plain California. Unless of course they did play Vegas.

 Done. When I looked up the details it turned out to be just the two cities on the West Coast. There is an important point about them playing California, which became an area of major support for the band, but I am not sure if we need to say this at this point or not - so opinions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• 'The use of guitar riffs, lumbering rhythms, psychedelic blues, groovy, bluesy shuffles and hints of English folk, made it a pivotal record in the creation of hard rock and heavy metal' Feel this needs either a better citation or to be attributed to Stephen Erlewine.

On this and other Erlewine related points below, I am not quite sure what is being asked. The wording is close to what Erlewine writes and the references follow immediately, so I assumed attribution was clear. Was this a suggestion that we should just quote him?--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Now  Done. I have tried to make clear who is saying what (partly through quotation) and found a more general reference for the influence.--SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Plant received no credit for his songwriting contributions, because of his previous association with CBS Records. What association?

 Done. To be honest I thought I had already changed this one. The reason later given was that he was under contract. Wall (I think) suggests its just that Plant didn't contribute very much to the first album and his position was insecure. He is probably right that the reason wasn't legal, but I don't think that we need to get into this level of detail, so I just changed this to reflect the reason given.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The band further developed ideas established on their debut album, creating a work which became very widely acclaimed and highly influential Similar probelm to the other Stephen Erlewine reference. Widely is generally considered a weasel word. Same could probably be said about highly influential.

See my comments on Erlewine above. On the weasel words: I guess we can cut them out, but what do we do when an album was widely praised and highly influential and the source says so? I notice that the Beatles article described Sgt Pepper as "widely regarded as a masterpiece", is that sort of wording significantly different in some way?--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I think I have managed to avoid more of the weasely wording and some clearer attribution.--SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• It has been suggested that Led Zeppelin II largely wrote the blueprint for heavy metal bands that followed it By who?

Erlewine. Do we need the name in there?--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I found a citation that was dealing more generally with music.--SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Without the band's consent or under their protest, however, some songs were released as singles, particularly in the US. Is this referenced in When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin. I feel a citation needs to be put next to this sentence. I ordered a copy of the book from the local library, although it won't be free for a while, to check this statement and others. Not sure about the use of however without checking the source.

 Done I added the reference again immediately after the sentence. It is hard to sum up with very complex issue. There were two British singles (one very rare one in the time of the band) and how much opposition each band got when released in the US is debatable. It may be hard to come up with a more accurate summary in appropriate space.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Some early Led Zeppelin concerts lasted more than four hours, with expanded, improvised live versions of their song repertoire. Would remove the second comma and replace it with "and" or "or" depending on what you are trying to say.

 Done? I changed it to "and". They were expanded by improvisation - is that meaning conveyed now?--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• One alleged example of such extravagance was the shark episode, or red snapper incident, which is said to have taken place at the Edgewater Inn in Seattle, Washington, on 28 July 1969 Can more information be given, succinct and tasteful if possible. If not the link will suffice.

I am not sure this can be expanded in a tasteful way. The best I can think of that it was an "alleged sexual act". I think the feeling of editors that they didn't see the need to dwell on what is a disputed, which probably did not involve the band and may not have happened at all. My feeling is that the link is sufficient and that only the fact that it became part of the legend of the band is notable, not the incident itself. Other editors may disagree and I am happy to consider such views.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sacre. The shark episode is not only a legend, but also a conspiracy theory imho. I don't think contheos are neutral, so... linking to this myth is sufficient.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SabreBD and GOP. Wikilink alone is sufficient. Scieberking (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry if this sounds cryptic, but the way it is at the moment I feel it is either saying too much or not enough. The amount of detail given in that sentence is just crying out for more information. If no more information is to be presented it could be shortened. This would give it more appropriate due weight while still retaining the wikilink. An idea could be to link it to the previous section "...developed a reputation for off-stage excess, including an alleged incident involving a shark." With a wikilink to the incident. Up to you guys, it won't be failed on this point. AIRcorn (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Over time, its reputation improved, and Led Zeppelin III is now generally praised. Can't check against the source, but have some similar concerns as with the Erlewine references. A bit ambiguous by using generally and whom was it praised by.

Pending. The source doesn't seem to support this. I think I need to go check for something clear about the album's reception and reputation.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe WP:OR but the statement is 100% true. Q and Allmusic both gave favorable reviews. So did BBC Music, NME and others. Scieberking (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Frustratingly, I cannot find a source that sums up modern reviews or a changing attitude among reviewers, so it may be one of those cases of true but not verified. I have taken that out and put in a bit more explanation of the albums significance. If I do find a way of sourcing this in my reading I will come back and put something in to this effect.--SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Erlewine reviews. The trouble with presenting a review in Wikipedias voice is that it is just that reviewers opinion. I would prefer attribution, but there is some precedence (Wayne Gretzky springs to mind plus your beetles example) for statements that are borderline original research if there is general agreement that they are true. Not sure how they would go through FA now though, but Zeppelins influence is enough that this probably falls into that category. I do think it needs better evidence to be presented than we currently have. I don't mean a heap of citations following the sentence, but a reference to a book (ideally one not specifically concentrating on Led Zeppelin) or a reputable magazine would ease my mind. Also there is some concern that so many of the reviews come from one person. It would be good to mix it up with some non-Erlwine, non-Allmusic writers commenting on the albums. AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

OK I will work on some alternative sources, which will hopefully allow us to resolve these issues.--SabreBD (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have mixed it up again and where Erlewine has been used I have made it clear by using his name and (sometimes) directly quoting him.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

break

• The band's early popularity was dwarfed by their mid-70s successes and the latter period continues to define them. Not sure exactly what is meant here. Is it saying that the early seventies contained the most defining moments in their career?

 Done: I see what is intended here, but on reflection I think this is unnecessary, so I made it verifiable and combined it with the next sentence. I think this works but please check.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The album remained officially untitled and is most commonly referred to as Led Zeppelin IV, though it is variously referred to by the four symbols appearing on the record label, as Four Symbols and Untitled, Zoso, Runes, or IV This is a little confusing. Is the name "Four Symbols and Untitled" one name or two? "IV" doesn't match with the "variously referred to by the four symbols appearing on the record label" part.

 Done: the sentence didn't quite make sense. I separated the names based on the runes form the others. Hopefully clearer now.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Led Zeppelin IV is one of the best-selling albums in history and its massive popularity cemented Led Zeppelin's superstardom in the 1970s. This will need a good reference. Is it this one: "Davis, Erik (2005). Led Zeppelin IV. New York, NY: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1658-6."

 Done I am not quiet sure about Davis. We could cite one of the many books about the album, but on the basis that it is better to find this in a book about something else I have given citations for works on heavy rock and US culture that cover the ground I think.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The track "Stairway to Heaven", although never released as a single, is sometimes quoted as being the most requested,[55] and the most played[56] album-oriented rock FM radio song. Sometimes is a bit vague. Would be better to say is the most requested song played by the BBC or similar more specific.

"Album-orientated rock FM radio song" refers to a format in US radio, so its more than a single station would give. Not quite sure how to express that better, so I may have to come back to this one.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The predominately orange album cover of Houses of the Holy depicts images of nude children climbing the Giant's Causeway (in County Antrim, Northern Ireland). Probably don't need to say in County Antrim, Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland without the brackets would work.

 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• and the band embarked on another North American tour, again playing to record-breaking crowds Reference for the record breaking.

 Done I cannot find out what records they broke, the major biographies stress the equipment rather than the numbers, so I have adjusted the sentence to reflect that. If anyone does now then we can always change it back.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• On 19 April, over 70 people were arrested as about 1,000 fans tried to gatecrash Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum for two sold-out festival seating concerts, while others tried to gain entry by throwing rocks and bottles through glass doors. is "festival seating concerts" grammatically correct.

 Done I am not sure if we need "festival seating" (and I don't know what that means). So I am going to try just taking those two words.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The resulting album, In Through the Out Door, exhibited sonic experimentation that again drew mixed reactions from critics. Is this covered by the citation at the end of the paragraph? I will assume that is the case with the other cites in this section.

 Done I don't know either, as I don't have a copy of Lewis 2003. I put a reference in for that sentence from Wall that covers the reaction.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, the band still commanded legions of loyal fans, and the album easily reached number one in the UK and the US... "commanded legions of loyal fans" and "easily reached number one" may be little bit much.

 Done. I just took this out. Reaching no 1 in 2 weeks makes the point on its own.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• With this album's release, Led Zeppelin's entire catalogue again returned to the Billboard Top 200 in the weeks of 27 October and 3 November 1979. "again" is redundant

 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• A 4 December 1980 press statement confirmed the decision This appears out of place. Could it be combined with the next sentence?

 Done. I combined them - didn't need statement twice.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Afterwards, they played a brief set with Tyler and Perry, with Jason Bonham on drums, then with Neil Young, while Michael Lee replaced Bonham on drums. First read through this made no sense. Looking at it after I posted it here I understand what it means, but it could probably be made clearer. The problem I think is too many commas made it difficult to work out what statements went with each other. Maybe it can be split into two sentences?

 Done. I think this is simpler and clearer now.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• In 1997, Atlantic released a single edit of "Whole Lotta Love" in the US and the UK, making it the only Led Zeppelin UK CD single. only Led Zeppelin single released in the UK?

Nope there was another very rare one on vinyl, so its the only one on CD, but not the only one.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Particularly from Houses of the Holy, the band also drew on a wide variety of genres, including world music,[14] and elements of early rock 'n' roll, jazz, country, funk, soul and reggae. I think this would be better without the Houses of the Holy part. Or as a second sentence "This was particularly evident in Houses of the Holy.

 Done. I think. The point I was trying to make here is that these influences are more apparent from (not on) Houses onwards. Hope that is clearer now.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the later stages of the band's career, Page took something of a back seat in composition and Jones became increasingly important in producing music, often on the keyboard, to which Plant often added lyrics before Page and Bonham developed their parts. This sentence could possibly be split.

 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Led Zeppelin were pivotal in the transition of the late-sixties rock movement from the central form of mass youth music to its macho, sexual "cock rock" form, as a male form of expression. This may need attribution.

 Done. I switched this to a quote and some very concise summary of the sociological debate. Not really the place to get into such claims, but worth noting.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Really good. Mainly nitpicks, but nothing that will stop it becoming a good article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some concerns about some borderline original research. I think this can be managed, but maybe with some better sources or attribution.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Happy with this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Obviously quite positive, but that is to be expected

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Fine

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Not an expert on images, but the fair use rational for using the t shirt in this article seems a little weak. Led Zeppelin merchandise is not really mentioned in the text, yet that is given as the rational for fair use.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is so close to passing.

Well that is very encouraging. I think it is going to be easiest to remove the T-shirt pic. This is the only illustration in the article that has copyright claimed for it and it is not the most important. I can find an alternative pic, but anything that depicts merchandise will, by definition, be likely to be copyright. I am open to suggestions and will mull this over while I sort out the "nitpicks" and source issues.--SabreBD (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I may have missed something or made an error, and there are a few issues that I have replied to rather than making adjustments, but, I think I have addressed all the issues raised. Let me know if there is anything else or something that is not yet done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a script, and I see "Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation." in

• Batchelor American Popular Culture Through History: the 1980s
• Erlewine All Music Guide Required Listening: Classic Rock, Led Zeppelin III review and BBC Session review

And this errors in Footnotes section:

• Ref 103: "Harv error: link to #CITEREFLewis2004 doesn't point to any citation."
• Ref 106: "Harv error: link to #CITEREFEarlwine2011 doesn't point to any citation."
• Ref 129: "Harv error: link to #CITEREFWall1993 doesn't point to any citation." and
• Ref 191: "Harv error: link to #CITEREFBBC_Home2006 doesn't point to any citation." - I fixed some refs, but I can't fix those, as I don't possess the books, etc. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 20:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed those, except Batchelor. I cannot see Batchelor on its own, there is Batchelor & Stoddart 2007, which does link to a note.--SabreBD (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is well and truly at good article standard so I am more than happy to give it the big green spot. Only things I can think of for further improvement are maybe trimming the "post break-up" section. I am not sure whether it is a case of recentism or that more sources exist for this section, but it seemed a bit long compared to the sections on the years that they were actually together. There might be some issues with the image licensing if you push for FAC. You might want to get an expert in the field to look at it, but I noticed one was sourced to the Italian Wikipedia, which might be problematic. All in all a nice article and I hope you try an get it on the front page. AIRcorn (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)