Talk:The Book of Taliesyn/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 16:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi there, I'll review this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• At first glance, it seems at least four or five paragraphs end without citations. I can see the sources are listed within some sentences, but they should come after.

Thank you for picking up my submission. I'll wait for your complete review to start the correction process. Lewismaster (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, may take a little time though. Sometimes I add comments across a few days. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, take all the time you need. I'm quite busy myself. Lewismaster (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The situation was quite the opposite at home, where the band had been heavily criticized by media and audience." Why, if their debut album hadn't even been released in the UK?

Both critics and audience criticized the band for their music, their appearance and their attitude since their live debut and during the first short UK tour. The result of that initial bad reception was that Deep Purple were later ignored by the press and their releases did not sell. Thompson and Robinson describe in great detail those first negative impressions, which the band made before any record was issued. I added another reference for Robinson.

• "a single sung by Ike & Tina Turner in 1966" Sung sounds a bit weird here, how about released by?

Ok, done.

• "neither Tetragrammaton nor EMI had any use for them" EMI is mentioned for the first time here, could add they were their UK label.

added Deep Purple's British label

• "Moreover, the eight tracks recorded in May and performed live" What happened to these tracks?

They are Shades of Deep Purple tracks. Fixed

• It seems odd that the "release" section comes after musical style and cover. Would logically come after, as it does in most other articles.

I don't know. I followed the MoS sequence. It can be easily changed if you really think that it's important.

That's funny. Doesb't make sense to me, anyone know why the order is like that there? Ritchie? FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No idea. When anyone says "it's in the MoS" my eyes tend to glaze over and I look for another article to edit ;-) ... I tend to put musical style straight in the "Recording" section, explaining the style of the songs, how they recorded. The only real deal-breaker for a GA is MOS:LAYOUT which just says " Contributors are advised to follow their instincts in proposing an order for sections in the body then seek community consensus in establishing a final order." I'm personally happy with what Lewis has done here, it didn't detract from me learning a bit about this rather overlooked album. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright. By the way, such "rules" can be challenged, I've done that before, with good results. I think I'll bring it up on the talk page of that guide. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "and shows a more mature band in greater control of its own means of expression.[38] The mood is darker[18] and the compositions are generally longer and more complex than in their debut album,[10]" Claims like these need attribution in the text, as to who said these things.

Many people said those things. I rewrote the paragraph and added more references.

• "even though songwriting and arrangements are considered by critics Deep Purple's first real group effort." What is meant by this? Written a bit weirdly.

Rephrased

• "the guitarist defined the album "lame"" I think "as lame" would sound better.

Done

• Evans isn't introduced at first mention (full name, role).

Fixed

• Same for Simper.

Fixed

• Lord's role isn't mentioned either.

Fixed

• "Cover art and sleeve notes convey Tetragrammaton's decision to aim the album at the vast American hippie audience, which was very influential in the US at the time.[18] The notes in particular were written in a mystical tone, evoking the bard Taliesyn as a spiritual guide and comparing listening to the songs to an exploration in the band members' souls.[19]" Wouldn't this make more sense under the cover section?

I agree. Moved.

• "changing to "Hard Road" the title of the instrumental "Wring That Neck"" This does not seem like standard English sentence structure (swap the position of the songs and move "to").

Fixed.

• "already recorded and released in the US their third album Deep Purple" Same with the position of "in the US" here, should be moved to the end of the sentence.

Fixed

• " only single extracted" Extracted seems a bit odd word choice.

Fixed

• "which contains as bonus tracks previously unreleased recordings taken from the sessions of August and December 1968 and from TV shows appearances" Move "as bonus tracks" to end of the sentence.

Fixed

• "increased even more Deep Purple's popularity in the US" Even more should be moved to the end of the sentence. That is the main grammar issue of the article, weird sentence structure.

Rephrased.

• "which would have been released by Tetragrammaton in the US only in June 1969." Odd tense. Would have been makes it seem as if it never happened.

Fixed

• "new takes at songs from their published albums" Takes on songs. Also, "published" is a weird choice of word, this is not a book (despite the name)...

Fixed

• "when they learned that for his young age Paice could be drafted for the Vietnam War." How old?

21. Added the age.

• Any word on why the covers of the reissues have been changed?

Actually the only issue with a different cover is the Remastered Edition by EMI of 2000. The label repackaged the new editions of the three albums by the Mk.I line-up with similar cover art, probably to give a sense of continuity to the reissues. However, I found no source to confirm my assumption.

• The lead seems a bit long for an article this length. Could do with three paragraphs.
• The lead should be a summary of the whole article, some things are described in too much details, such as the cover and Taliesin stuff, whereas for example critical opinions are not mentioned.
• "Despite these marketing gimmicks" These things are not called "gimmicks" in the article, there should not be conclusions and info in the lead not found in the article.

I shortened the lead and rephrased some parts. Do you think it works better now?

• I'd replace "extracted" and "published" with more conventional terms (released) throughout the article.

Done

• That's about it from me. Perhaps Ritchie333 has something to add, he seems to be well versed in Deep Purple history.

I contacted him for a second opinion. Lewismaster (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, though I already did that by "pinging" him. I'll respond to your answers later today. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have an original 1969 Harvest vinyl copy somewhere but I don't think I've listened to it for about 20 years at least. I can't really think of much to add, which isn't surprising since FunkMonk does a good job with album GA reviews. The main fact I think is missing is that "River Deep, Mountain High" started with an arrangement of "Also sprach Zarathustra" bolted on the front. Since the tour narrative goes up to 1969, I would drop in somewhere that Blackmore, Lord and (to a lesser extent) Paice were getting fed up of the pop / hippie sound and wanted straight hard rock, which of course led to the Mk II line-up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Also sprach Zarathustra" is cited in the musical style section. As suggested, I added a line about Evans and Simper's dismissal. Lewismaster (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Well, I learned something from reading this article, so it must be good! Have to admit I never liked MkI much as MkII is just so much better, but some of their stuff wasn't too bad I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Everything is looking nicely, so I'll go ahead and pass this. By the way, I feel quite nostalgic towards the MK1 albums, since I brought them with me on a long vacation when I was 18, and had nothing else to listen to... FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The first Deep Purple LP I got was a double-set called "Anthology" in the late 1980s, that I bought reduced in Our Price in the days when vinyl was still the mainstay of the shop. Played the MKI tracks, "hmm not bad, nice organ", then turned over to hear In Rock's version of "Speed King" and that was it - MkII is the best. I bought a 25th anniversary CD of that years ago, but I've no idea where I've put it, otherwise that would be one to put on the "improve to GA" pile. Anyway, well done Lewis for another Purple GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you for you reviews... and for your memories! I must confess that I never listened to these albums before starting to write the articles and I knew nothing about Deep Purple Mk. I. It's all a discovery to me! I think that the Concerto is next... Lewismaster (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, I just started a section on album section order:[1] Also, just noticed that there are two paragraphs here under "Release" that end without citation, also one under "Touring"... FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed two out of three. Lewismaster (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2014 (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.