Talk:Meddle/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Parrot of Doom in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Looks good so far. Most of the stuff I noticed was related to the writing, and there weren't any major errors. With some alt text and audio samples this will be very close to featureable.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Mostly solid, only a few nitpicks
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- "It was released in October 1971, and is often considered to be the album which best demonstrates the band's change in genre from psychedelic rock, to progressive rock." Perhaps reword? The ""often considered to be" reminds me of "some say..." wording. Perhaps something like "Released in October 1971, the album demonstrates the band's change in genre from psychedelic rock to progressive rock."?
- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- "With no clear idea of the content, or direction which the album would take," sounds redundant. How about "With no clear idea of the direction which the album would take"?
- They literally had nothing to work with. They started with a blank page, whereas most other Floyd albums had material 'in reserve'. I think its important to state that they had no content. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I understand now, but I still don't like the wording if that's the meaning. How about "With no material to work with and no clear idea of the album's direction,"?
- Works for me, done. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I understand now, but I still don't like the wording if that's the meaning. How about "With no material to work with and no clear idea of the album's direction,"?
- They literally had nothing to work with. They started with a blank page, whereas most other Floyd albums had material 'in reserve'. I think its important to state that they had no content. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Echoes" is italicized in the lead.
- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Although each of the group's later albums would be unified by a central theme written entirely by Roger Waters," While Waters definitely dominated from DSotM to The Final Cut, the wording here implies that every post-Meddle Floyd album had Waters leading the way, which is certainly not the case for everything after The Final Cut. Also, didn't some of their later albums have songwriting by other members? Make it clear that this is lyrical content. Reword this to indicate that the upcoming trend of Waters-dominated writing was not on each of their later albums.
- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Reviews were mixed, and although it was successful in the United Kingdom" Indicate that it was commercially, not necessarily critically, successful in the UK.
- This is only a lead, it isn't necessary to explain in detail. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know, but the way it's worded it almost seems like it might mean "Reviews were mixed, and although it was [critically] successful in the United Kingdom [it didn't perform (commercially) well in the states]." I don't think the intended meaning is lost, but it's just ambiguous enough that I think it should be reworded into something more clearer.
- Fair enough, I've changed it as suggested. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know, but the way it's worded it almost seems like it might mean "Reviews were mixed, and although it was [critically] successful in the United Kingdom [it didn't perform (commercially) well in the states]." I don't think the intended meaning is lost, but it's just ambiguous enough that I think it should be reworded into something more clearer.
- This is only a lead, it isn't necessary to explain in detail. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- ""Seamus" often tops polls as the worst song Pink Floyd ever created, however the band would later use animals again, in Animals." These two things are unrelated.
- The source used links the two, as a failed experiment later revisited. I've reworded it slightly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- The "however" is the problem, because it's not made clear that Animals was considered a success. Using "but" would work better. Alternatively, if any of the members or prominent Floyd-related people refer to it as a "failed experiment" or some variation, you could reword this to something like ""Seamus" often tops polls as the worst song Pink Floyd ever created, and although [someone] considered the song's use of animal sounds a "[whatever]" the band would later use animal sounds again to greater effect, in Animals."
- I haven't seen any band members mention Seamus with anything but a metaphorical 'wry smile', but I agree that 'but' is better than 'however' and I've changed it to suit. Personlly though I like Seamus :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- The "however" is the problem, because it's not made clear that Animals was considered a success. Using "but" would work better. Alternatively, if any of the members or prominent Floyd-related people refer to it as a "failed experiment" or some variation, you could reword this to something like ""Seamus" often tops polls as the worst song Pink Floyd ever created, and although [someone] considered the song's use of animal sounds a "[whatever]" the band would later use animal sounds again to greater effect, in Animals."
- The source used links the two, as a failed experiment later revisited. I've reworded it slightly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- ""Echoes" was recorded almost entirely at Air Studios. It was completed in July 1971." These short sentences should be combined.
- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is more of a FAC-level critique, but: "lacklustre publicity on the part of Capitol Records led to weak sales in the US, and a chart position of #70." How exactly was publicity lacklustre? What was Capitol's failure?
- I think its pretty self-explanatory, however I won't really be able to expand upon this until I've completed this, which will contain much more information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good, again I'm not really worried so much about this one.
- I think its pretty self-explanatory, however I won't really be able to expand upon this until I've completed this, which will contain much more information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- "One of These Days" was released as a single." has a [citation needed].
- Hidden for now. I should be able to source this in a few days as I progress through the sources I'm using for my sandbox. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't "Reissues" be a subsection of "Release"?
- Can't see anything about it at WP:ALBUM but I have no objections to any changes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I only ask this because it was a subsection on DSotM. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Good point actually, since I may eventually attempt to create a Featured Topic on Pink Floyd. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I only ask this because it was a subsection on DSotM. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can't see anything about it at WP:ALBUM but I have no objections to any changes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- The columns in the Personnel section seem unnecessary, and the Additional personnel subsection looks lobsided right now. I'd recommend removing them. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done, that section needs unifying style-wise with other Floyd albums, I'll get around to that at some point. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)