Talk:Machine Head (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Two articles were both nominated on August 8, 2020 under albums, so I decided it was time to go through one! On first glance, this looks alright but needs some fixes which I will point out soon. --K. Peake 05:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Cover art needs alt text
• Remove venue parameter as that is for live recordings
• Grand Hotel, Montreux, Switzerland with the 16 Track Rolling Stones Mobile Studio → Grand Hotel, Montreux, Switzerland with the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio - with the appropriate target
• Hlist should not be used for genres, plus neither of them are sourced in the body
• Other cover needs alt text
• "studio album released by the English" → "studio album by English"
• "It was recorded during December 1971 in Montreux, Switzerland, and released in March 1972." → "It was released on 25 March 1972, through Purple Records. The album was recorded throughout December 1971 in Montreux, Switzerland."
• The opening sentence of the second para should be in the first instead
• "wanted a dedicated time" → "wanted a dedicated amount of time"
• "it burned to" → "the Casino burned to"
• The alternative venue sentence should be the one that starts the second para
• "at the Grand Hotel," → "in the Grand Hotel," with the target and this is to be more specific in prose
• Where is the winter statement backed up in the body?
• "which they converted" → "with them converting the hotel"
• "suitable for recording." → "to be suitable for recording."
• The third para should begin with a sentence or two about the album's critical reception, giving a positive/negative overview and adding what praised/panned
• "Machine Head is often cited as a major influence..." by who? and this belongs at the end of the para
• "following its release." → "following release."
• "reached number 1" → "reached number one"
• "20 weeks. It reached number 7" → "20 weeks, while reaching number seven"
• "the United States, in August 1973," → "the United States in August 1973,"
• The lead is too short currently; add some info about the single releases

I started going through these replies, and got about 3/4 of the way through when I realised I disagree with much of what you've said. Specifically, the good article criteria 1b. only requires specific MOS adherence to a small number of things, your suggestions for prose make the article more verbose and difficult to parse, and I really don't have any opinion on hlist (fortunately neither do our readers or the GA criteria), and per WP:LEADLENGTH, for an article around 15-16K of prose, a three paragraph lead is about right. The Rambling Man, I don't suppose you could have a look at this one? I know you go into just as much depth, but normally I agree with pretty much all of your suggestions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd certainly be happy to review it from my perspective if we all think that would be beneficial. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the problem I've got with the above is they don't specifically say how they make the article better (at least a link to the relevant bit of the MOS can allow me to find out myself somewhat). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Glad to hear from you so quickly, even if I do not exactly come to agreements with your comments. I would like to explain that firstly, I am responding to these comments now because I was editing this GA review page for hours during which you made them and I was initially unaware. To continue, I made my comments to advise you on how the article could be written better from a constructive standpoint; feel free to reply to any specific ones that may stand out as incorrect, since we all make mistakes. As for hlist, that is written against at Template:Infobox song so should never be used in articles. I also wrote of the lead that it should be three paragraphs if you look, my issue was never with how many paras but more so how the content was organised. The MOS I believe needs improving is the lead layout; the opening para is two lines long, that obviously needs merging and any singles info is missing totally from the lead too. The Rambling Man Hi, it is glad to see someone else wanting to step in and help out. Unfortunately, I had written out practically all of my suggestions by the time I saw your edit so don't you think it would be unfair for me to stop reviewing this article totally at this point even if you do have experience with Ritchie333? --K. Peake 20:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Taking a couple of examples, "The opening sentence of the second para should be in the first instead" - why? ""to record an album in a" → "to record an album with a"" sounds wrong, ""it burned to" → "the casino burned to" is wrong because you will repeat words, "with the target and this is to be more specific in prose" doesn't make sense (what is the target? what is not specific?), ""following its release." → "following release." is (AFAIK) not correct British English. Best advice I can give you is User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing. The problem with your comments is that you have stripped all context away from them, making it an incredibly long and arduous task to go and work out what you mean (only to refer you to the above comments). My advice for doing GA reviews is to start off with some comment that shows you have read the article and what your opinion is on it, or a bit of the article you enjoyed reading. A bit of empathy for the nominator (who's probably spent quite a bit of time preparing the article) goes a long way to setting up a good rapport. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I have clearly explained that the opening para is too short at only two sentences, which gives context as to why the sentence should be moved upwards. Admittedly, maybe the record album quote is a bit awkward and could stay as it is, though the one where I suggested a change of it to something else is necessary because you can't use that short terminology too much. When told to add a target, I thought you would know that meant target to the appropriate wiki using [[ ]], though I did not call this a wikilink because the | has to be used in the middle, and my comment meant that the reason I put forward suggestion was because it is more specific than what's currently there. Some of your comments just sound like lazy reading or misinterpretation of what I said, even though a few things do sound kinda awkward. --K. Peake 05:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

• Retitle to Background and development
• "years, and earlier albums such as" → "years and their earlier studio albums, such as"
• Put the release year of Deep Purple in Rock in brackets
• "and Fireball had been recorded" → "and Fireball (1971), were recorded"
• "felt that studio work" → "felt that them working in the studio"
• "of their live performance," → "of their live performances,"
• "and wanted to try" → "therefore they wanted to try"
• "sessions as it sounded better," → "sessions because it sounded better,"
• "wanted to try" → "he also wanted to try"
• "outside a typical sound-proofed" → "outside of a typical sound-proofed"
• "They were also advised" → "Deep Purple were advised"
• "outside the UK," → "outside the United Kingdom,"
• "The group toured the UK in September and October 1971," → "The band toured the UK from September to October of 1971,"
• "that would later end up on" → "that was ultimately released on"
• "The group then began" → "They then began"
• "of the US, but this was cancelled" → "of the United States, which ended up being cancelled"
• "when singer Ian Gillan contracted" → "due to singer Ian Gillan contracting"
• "began thinking about possible future solo work," → "started to think about possible solo work for the future,"
• "the band as a whole" → "Deep Purple as a whole"
• "away from the" → "getting away from the"
• "in December 1971, at Montreux Casino in Switzerland." → "at Montreux Casino in Switzerland during December 1971."
• "owned by the Rolling Stones" → "that is owned by the Rolling Stones" with the moved wikilink
• "and hotel reservations made." → "and hotel reservations were made."
• "was a large arena built" → "was a large arena, built"
• "Pink Floyd and" → "Pink Floyd, and"
• "all performed there." → "all performed at Montreux Casino."
• "the band arrived there on 3 December." → "Deep Purple arrived there on 3 December 1971."
• "last concert date remained," → "last concert date was remaining at the time,"
• "the group tentatively" → "the band tentatively"
• "performing a live show at the Casino," → "to perform a live show at Montreux Casino,"

Recording

• The quote box needs a dash before Ian Gillan's name to attribute it to him properly and that intro needs a full-stop at the end of it
• "last gig at the casino" → "last gig at Montreux Casino"
• "The group at the time included" → "At the time, the group included"
• "but about an hour" → "though about an hour"
• "The band stopped" → "The group stopped"
• "The management then ordered" → "After this, management ordered"
• "in the casino's basement" → "in the Casino's basement"
• "had been safely moved outside," → "had been safely evacuated,"
• "drifted from the burning casino and rested" → "drifted away from it, which rested"
• "relocated the band" → "relocated Deep Purple"
• "said he woke up" → "recalled that he woke up"
• "Later Gillan, based on the title," → "Based on the title, Gillan later"
• "the lyrics describing the band's" → "the lyrics of the song, which describe the band"
• "in Montreux, recording the Machine Head album." → "in Montreux for the recording of Machine Head." with the wikilink
• "of Machine Head's album cover." → "for the album's cover."
• Wikilink the Rolling Stones on the quote box and target mobile recording unit to Rolling Stones Mobile Studio
• Again, the dash is missing for attributing the quote
• "As a new location the Pavilion" → "As a new location, the Pavilion"
• "as nearby residents" → "since nearby residents"
• "the noise the band made." → "the noise that Deep Purple made."
• "in which to record and settled on" → "for recording and settled with"
• "they set up at" → "Deep Purple set up at"
• "the recording van the band" → "the recording van, the band"
• "that they stopped listening" → "that Deep Purple stopped listening"
• "until they were satisfied with" → "until satisfied with"
• "A closed circuit television system" → "A closed-circuit television system" with the wikilink
• "could communicate to" → "could communicate with"
• "to see the band" → "to see them"
• Shouldn't the last para be in the release part of the article instead?
• "in support of the album" → "in support of Machine Head"
• "March and April was" → "March and April of that year was"
• "The first shows in the UK were at" → "The first shows in the UK for the album were performed at"
• "in June." → "in June 1972."
• "In August, the group toured" → "Two months later, the band toured"
• "become the double-live Made in Japan album." → "become the double live album Made in Japan (1972)."
• "would be included on" → "were included on"
• Target "Highway Star" to Highway Star (song)
• Wikilink "Space Truckin'"
• "Made in Japan LP" → "Made in Japan album"

Songs

• Img needs alt text
• Main text is not backed up for the claim that he is referred to by that name and the sentence needs a full-stop at the end
• "was written on a" → "was written by Deep Purple while they were on a"
• "to the opening" → "to their opening"
• "The group's management had arranged the band" → "The band's management had arranged for them"
• Target music journalists to Music journalism
• "One of them asked" → "One of the journalists asked"
• "riff, saying, "like this"." → "riff while saying, "like this.""
• "a set of lyrics around" → "a set of lyrics around:"
• "a rock'n'roll band"." → "a rock'n'roll band.""
• "The group completed the arrangement in" → "Deep Purple completed the arrangement during"
• "to the show that evening." → "to the show on the evening of the gig."
• "around a figure he learned" → "around a figure that he learned"
• "to Bach progressions" → "to Bach's progressions" with the target
• "had a working title of" → "went under the working title of"
• "on the LP jacket." → "on the jacket of Machine Head."
• "and lyrics refers" → "and lyrics refer"
• "wrote the main riff" → "wrote the song's main riff"
• Add release year of Lennon's track in brackets
• "and enjoyed that riff" → "and he enjoyed the riff"
• "was played live once" → "was played live"
• Add when the performance was
• "years later after" → "years later, after"
• "was originally recorded" → "was initially recorded"
• "original recording. It was" → "original recording; however, it was"
• "It was also" → "The track was also"
• "joined the band" → joined Deep Purple"
• The para starting with the info about "Never Before" should be merged with the one above it
• "considered by the group" → "considered by the band"
• Target single to Single (music)
• "It was played" → "The song was played"
• Img needs alt text and a full-stop to end the main text
• "the experience recording the album," → "the experiences gone through for the recording of Machine Head,"
• "The title referred to" → "The title of the track referred to"
• "was the only one recorded" → "was the only one from the album that was recorded"
• "Blackmore came up with the opening" → "Blackmore contributed the opening"
• "because it was simple" → "due to being simple"
• "title for it was" → "title of the track was"
• "and rock music generally, the group" → "and of rock music in general, the band"
• "of the songs on" → "of the tracks from"
• "It was subsequently a major" → "The song was subsequently a major"
• "reaching No. 4 in the Billboard Hot 100." → "reaching number four on the Billboard Hot 100."
• "has performed the song as part of his" → "has performed the song live as part of his"
• [28] should be solely at the end of the sentence before [29]
• "towards the end of the live show," → "towards the end of the live shows,"
• "workout “Wring That Neck”, before being" → "workout "Wring That Neck", and was later"
• "while Blackmore said it" → "while Blackmore stated it"
• Add release years of the songs in this sentence in brackets
• "It was designed to be" → "The song was designed to be"
• "which were then joined together." → "with them then being joined together."
• "The group sat around" → "Deep Purple sat around"
• Add release year of "Mandrake Root" in brackets
• "It was retained as the last number" → "The song remained the last number"
• "left the group" → "left the band"
• Last para should be merged with the above one
• "but not included on the album." → "but was ultimately not included on the album."
• "as the B-side on the" → "as the B-side to the" with the target
• "on the album's 25th anniversary edition." → "on the 25th anniversary edition of Machine Head."

Cover

• This section is very small, so the release info should be moved to it instead; retitle to Release and artwork
• The release info should be the opening para of this section, while the following one should be the second
• "The front cover was" → "The cover art of Machine Head was"
• "which the group stood in" → "that Deep Purple stood in"
• "The inner sleeve" → "The album's inner sleeve" and this should be merged with the above para since it is only two sentences
• "and manager Tony Edwards," → "and his manager Tony Edwards,"
• "previously used for" → "that were previously used for"
• "to whom the album was" → "to whom Machine Head was"

Release and reception

• Retitle to Critical reception, after you move the opening para to the above section and retitle that too
• Ratings box looks good
• "on the British charts" → "on the UK Albums Chart" with the wikilink
• "returning in May" → "returning in May 1971"
• "on initial release in 1972 the album peaked at" → "after its initial release in 1972, the album reached"
• "the album then peaked at number seven" → "it then reached number 7" per MOS:NUM on comparative values
• "and the album remained in" → "and Machine Head remained on"
• Target Billboard to Billboard (magazine)
• Target single to Single (music)
• Target Warner Brothers to Warner Records
• "as a single" → "as the second single from Machine Head"
• "It would become" → "The song would become"
• "reaching number 2" → "reaching number two"
• Should the Canadian RPM chart be referred to as plural or not? Also, target RPM to RPM (magazine)
• "and number 4" → "and number four"
• Citation(s) missing to back up some of the none US info
• In the below para, which will be the start of the section in the proposed order, add an opening sentence saying "Machine Head was met with positive reviews from music critics." or something similar
• Remove wikilinks on "Highway Star" and "Space Truckin'"
• "for the remaining songs:" → "of the remaining songs:"
• "Concluding: "I do" → "Concluding his review, Bangs admitted: "I do"
• "rated the album a B, writing" → "wrote of the album:" since we do not need to have his rating written out when it is in the box already
• Remove wikilink on Ritchie Blackmore
• Target classical to Classical music
• "was actually composed by" → "had been composed by"
• Remove target on Fireball
• "gigs on a bus" → "gigs while on a bus"
• Target Portsmouth Guild Hall to Portsmouth Guildhall
• The para below this one should be merged with it since they are both very small
• Prose looks good here though
• The Kerrang ranking should be separate from this para still, though the Observer and Classic Albums paras should be merged with it; split into a sub-section called Accolades too
• This sub-section should write out the accolades that are currently listed out in their own section in prose here, since that is only seven in the table plus three are unranked which is inappropriate for tables anyway
• "listed the album at No. 35 among the" → "ranked Machine Head at number 35 on their"
• "in 1989." → "list in 1989."
• "Machine Head as one of his ten" → "the album as one of his 10"
• "is the subject of" → "became the subject of"
• "Machine Head was released on" → "The album was released on"
• "(2001) in a new 5.1 channel mix" → "(2001), in a new 5.1 channel mix,"
• "mix, and more recently, also on" → "mix. It was later released via"
• "17 August 2011, by" → "17 August 2011, through"
• "in its Warner Premium Sound series (which" → "in the Warner Premium Sound series of the record label, which"
• "DVD-Audio version)." → "DVD-Audio version."

40th anniversary releases

• Wikilink EMI
• "it is a five-disc set accompanied with" → "the edition is a five-disc set, accompanied by a"
• Merge the second para with the first one as one sentence is too short for its own para
• "Also as part of the celebrations of the 40th anniversary celebrations," → "For also celebrating the 40th anniversary,"
• "a tribute album" → "a tribute album entitled"
• "in September 2012 by" → "in September 2012, through"

Track listing

• A citation is missing to back up that they wrote the songs. Also, add a sentence directly before that one saying "Credits adapted from..." and then write where, e.g. the liner notes if that is where they will be adapted from
• Total lengths are missing from being at the bottom of each release

Personnel

• Again, a citation is missing
• Target vocals to Singing
• Wikilink Rolling Stones Mobile Studio

Charts

• The chart positions for the album should use the sortable chart table which is commonly used on Wiki; take a look through most album GAs if you do not already know what I mean, this is because the one you are using here is outdated
• The sortable table should be for all of the years, but have the header Chart (1972-73) and remove the 1972 US position since the album later charted higher in 1973 so only that will stay in the table, I mean
• See MOS:TABLECAPTION
• Position → Peak position
• Remove the singles table as this lacks focus due to going into too much detail about the singles on the album article
• I may have further comments once you have made the fixes

Certifications

• See MOS:TABLECAPTION

Accolades

• Remove this section since I did say in this review about doing this as a sub-section, but delete the table altogether because one is not needed in this context

References

• Copyvio score reads at 34.6% realistically, says over 60% but that source is not cited even once in this article so you're good to go
• Make sure all of these that can be archived are done so by using the tool
• Give all of the refs accessdates
• Remove the author from ref 6 and wikilink Canongate Books
• Wikilink EMI on ref 13
• guitarworld.com should be change to Guitar World on ref 14 with the wikilink, citing as work/website instead. By the way, I know not to put italics in the parameter, I am doing it to show how the source looks when cited as such.
• Roger Glover official site should be cited as publisher instead for ref 22 and target to Roger Glover
• Are you sure ref 23 is a reliable source?
• Cite Planet Radio as publisher instead for ref 28 with the wikilink
• MOS:QWQ issues with ref 29
• Cite AllMusic as publisher instead for ref 35
• Do this for BBC Online on ref 36
• Remove the publisher from ref 37
• Fix ref 38 as it is a bare URL currently
• Remove the publisher from ref 40
• Cite Daily Vault as publisher for ref 41 and remove dailyvault.com
• Refs 43 and 72 are duplicates of ref 27
• WP:OVERLINK of Robert Christgau on ref 44
• Wikilink Eagle Rock Entertainment on ref 46
• Ref 50 is missing work/website/publisher parameter, plus the accessdate should not be italicised
• poparchives.com.au → Pop Archives on ref 53 (as publisher)
• Title, work/website, and date are not separated properly on ref 54
• Wiki.pomus.net should be publisher instead on ref 55
• infodisc.fr → InfoDisc on ref 56 and remove it from the title
• charts-surfer.de should be publisher instead for ref 57
• Same as above for dutchcharts.nl on ref 59 and remove the current publisher
• Do both of these for norwegiancharts.com and austriancharts.at on refs 60 and 61
• Remove target on Billboard for ref 65
• hitparade.ch should be publisher instead for ref 68 and remove the current publisher
• Same as above for charts.de on ref 69
• Is ref 70 needed if we already have 56?
• austriancharts.at should be publisher instead for ref 73 and remove the current publisher
• Same as above for dutchcharts.nl on ref 74, as well as ultatop.be (Flanders) on ref 75
• Remove Kerrang from the title of ref 81
• Remove Q from the title of ref 82 and cite that instead of Kerrang, with the target to Q (magazine)
• Remove Mojo from the title of ref 83 and target to Mojo (magazine)
• Remove Q from the title of ref 84
• Remove Kerrang from the title of ref 85
• Remove Classic Rock from the title of ref 86 and target to Classic Rock (magazine)
• Remove The Guardian from the title of ref 87 and cite instead of Classic Rock

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold after a review and I know that you may not have agreed with everything I said, but that is fine since I am willing to reason with you, constructively of course! The main issue I did notice throughout is that you make numerous paragraphs way too small, also the other user reviewing this is not really an option at this point after I worked my butt off for hours because it would be very unfair, in all goodness to them of course! --K. Peake 08:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a waste of my time. I'm closing the review as "not listed". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I understand that viewpoint, but you should have reached out to me for failing the article since you are not the reviewer; this is rather inappropriate behaviour and I would've failed it for you. --K. Peake 06:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, withdrawing a nomination is not "inappropriate behavior". "Inappropriate behavior" would look like cussing at a reviewer for claiming that you need to add Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images even though alt text is not mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. (That's a FA requirement, not a GA one.) Or for listing 200 trivial copyedits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing It is in the context that they failed the article themselves during the review process without reaching out to the reviewer, though would not have been inappropriate if they withdrew the nomination before it had been reviewed. Also, I did not come anywhere close to "cussing", I merely requested for alt text to be added. You are behaving inappropriately by making me out to be an aggressive reviewer, which is far from the truth. --K. Peake 07:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that anyone was cussing. I was giving cussing as an example of inappropriate behavior. Deciding that you don't want to engage with someone who proposes 200 minor edits, and saving him the trouble of marking the review finished by doing it yourself, is not inappropriate behavior.

I don't have an opinion about whether you are an "aggressive reviewer". I do know that you have listed a couple hundred very small changes, and that most of these aren't required by the GA criteria. I notice, for example, that WP:GACR says "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required", and that you have a long list changes you want to the formatting of references, e.g., adding wikilinks or moving a name from one part of the citation template to another. This level of nitpicking is usually reserved for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Perhaps you would be happier in that process? It has proven more congenial to editors who find the limits of the GA criteria too restrictive for their taste. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A belated comment, from an MoS stickler: I don't do a lot of GA reviews (I'm more involved in improving stuff to get from Start to B, or from B to WP:GAC, usually with no personal investment in the topic (i.e., they're not "my" articles). When I see a page that passes all the B criteria, and seems ready, aside from style quibbles, for GA examination, I find it better to just do some MoS compliance passes through it (citing the relevant MOS:FOO shortcuts so the more involved editors know why each twiddle is being made), and get most of that taken care of. This will also help it later for potential WP:FAC, which expects much more MoS compliance than is required for GA. It's not really fair to throw a firehose of MoS nit-picks at a GA nominee when the GA criteria require only some key MoS compliance matters. And, frankly, it's far less time-consuming to just do the MoS cleanup that recommend every point of an MoS cleanup and then argue with people about it. Time is precious. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)