Talk:Pink Floyd/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very clear and readable. Very engaging prose.

   B. MoS compliance:

   The lead does not adequately deal with the band. There are statements, such as: "Pink Floyd's work is marked by philosophical lyrics, sonic experimentation, innovative album cover art, and elaborate live shows." where the information is not followed up in the main body of the article

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some statements need closer citing or adjusting

   C. No original research:

   I feel comfortable the material is all sourced

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Some of the major aspects which are mentioned in the lead are not dealt with.

   B. Focused:

   Too much focus on history to the detriment of other aspects of the topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Appears to be neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   There have been various reverts, but within expected parameters for a high profile article

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg needs FUR.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next few days and give an initial assessment. SilkTork *^YES! 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Depth of detail

This is a very well written and well presented article with good referencing. I haven't finished reading it yet, but a couple of concerns have come up which are worth discussing.

• The depth of detail. There is an intense concentration of detail, and at times I wonder if there is a little too much for an encyclopedia entry. Statements such as "His first meeting with Waters had been when the latter asked to borrow a cigarette (a request Wright declined)", "Jenner traced Waters and Mason to their flat", "At the All Saints Hall they were confronted by an audience whose members were often under the influence of drugs, and who arrived with few or no expectations" seem more appropriate for a form, such as a book, where there is time and space for such incidentals, but serve to hinder a quick understanding of the essentials which is what is required for a general encyclopedia entry.
  • I'd tend to agree. I'll chop some of it out. It was written pretty-much as I read the source material. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Organisation

• Organisation of material. Chronological is a common and accepted way of presenting information. However, it should be considered if that should be almost the only way of presenting information. A chronological overview of the band's development is very welcome - though there are other aspects that could be explored, and a structure considered for how best to organise that information so a reader can get to the detail quickly and easily - that is, without having to read the entire article, especially given the length of the article.
  • I'm not particularly a supporter of categorising details in an article. I prefer the chronological format wherever possible, but I think that using album names is the best way to organise things. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • For the reader looking for specific information, having the material organised in an easily searchable manner is essential, and is the essence of how encyclopedias are structured. I empathise with your desire to write a chronological story, but would say that is not always the most helpful for the reader. Someone who wants specific information on the [Roger Waters David Gilmour feud http://www.google.com/search?q=roger+waters+david+gilmour+feud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a], for example, would like a useful summary in an easy to find place. Currently the dispute is spread throughout the article, and a reader has to work through a lot of irrelevant material to get at it. I understand the sense of pride one can get from shaping an article, but the article is there for the reader, so consideration of the reader's needs - even when that means perhaps shaping an article in an inelegant manner - should be an awareness ever present in all editors' minds. SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That's a good point, however the Gilmour/Waters feud isn't really so simple. The infighting was between all four, those two are most often quoted because Gilmour was the one who took over the band once Waters had left. I think that the reader might be better off looking to the individual biogs, most especially Waters (who has over time fallen out with just about everyone he's met) however I haven't yet gotten around to those. I will one day though, I promise you that. Wright will probably be the first. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Consider restructuring this article so that there is a fair balance between live performance, critical commentary and history. At the moment it could be renamed more appropriately History of Pink Floyd.
  • I don't think that would work at all, in fact I'd object very strongly to any such suggestion. You'd just have a great deal of duplication of text, from this, to a 'history of' article, to the individual album articles. Better to have things in one place. Pink Floyd is 'finished' really, I can't see any more albums or tours from them, so anything you write is going to be historical in context. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Converting this into History of Pink Floyd was not a genuine suggestion. I was making a point about the current focus of the article. Sorry to alarm you! SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Phew! Parrot of Doom 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Live performances

• Live performances are not covered - there is a brief mention of live performances in passing, but nothing organised and in depth. (Ah - I see, the live performances are dealt with in a different article).
  • Its a whole other article in itself. Where important, I've included details about touring (Barrett going mad, DSotM, Animals, and most importantly The Wall). I think though that the band is best known for its recorded work, rather than its live work, as most people can relate to the albums they may have in their collection. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

When splitting out material into a sub-article it is useful to leave a summary behind. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Essentially, what a reader would like in an article on Pink Floyd is for the lead to give an overview of the band covering the main points, such as a short statement about the band's reputation for their live performances ("Pink Floyd's work is marked by .... elaborate live shows"). The reader might then wish to go read a little bit more about the live performances - not an entire article, but something more than the brief sentence in the lead. So they would want to go to a section in the article that deals with the live performances. If they then wish more detailed information they can leave the parent article and visit the sub-article. I just had a look at Pink Floyd live performances to see if it would be possible to bring over the lead section from that article as a summary in this one, but the lead is not adequate. It means writing up a summary from scratch. SilkTork *^YES! 17:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can do that no problem. Give me a couple of days to sort it out. I'll create a section and summarise the links between albums and concerts, venues, and try to include how The Wall came about. Parrot of Doom 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. SilkTork *^YES! 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit more. As I add bits here and there, I'll join the prose up and attempt to create a summary of their 25-30 years of concerts. Parrot of Doom 14:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I think I've covered the major points. Take a look and see what you think. Sorry its taken a while, other articles have grabbed my attention. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

• Almost the entire article is the history of the band, with a relatively short Legacy section, which perhaps doesn't quite get to grips with the reason the band are so notable.
  • I always have trouble with these sections. I'm open to suggestions. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, they can be tricky I agree. SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

General editing

• These are just thoughts at this stage, but there may be points, such as broad coverage and focus, which need to be considered as regards meeting the GA criteria.
  • I'd agree with this. Really, what it needs is a couple of editors like yourself to read through and make suggestions. I'd guess that about 95% or more of the article is my writing. Although this is one of the most popular pages on Wiki, with hundreds of watchers, most users make minor edits, and don't actually make the structural changes which may be required. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That is fairly typical. I often find that I can make one or two edits on an article which actually amount to over 50% of the content of an article that been in existence for five years with several hundred edits. Most edits tend to be very minor indeed! At other times I can be one of those people who drive by and make a very minor edit. I think I made some minor edits to this article a couple of years ago - if I recall, at that time (when it was a Featured Article) it said in the opening sentence that Pink Floyd was formed in Cambridge. I am willing to roll up my sleeves and get stuck in with editing this article - though that may have to wait a few days. SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'll finish reading it over the next couple of days, and then do an assessment. SilkTork *^YES! 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • • • The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned! Parrot of Doom 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• I'm looking at how the content matches the sources, OR, bias, etc. This tends to be a tricky aspect, and I usually pick on a handful of statements and see how they match up with the sources.

"Meddle is often considered to be the first 'definitive' Pink Floyd album" is a big statement. The source does support what is said - but I am concerned with the use of "often", as the source doesn't quite say that. None of these sources (found from the Meddle article) support the statement - [1], [2], [3], [4], though this one does - [5]. I think the statement just needs more careful wording to reflect what sources do indicate. Example: "Some reviewers have commentated that Meddle is a transitional album marking the departure from Syd Barrett's influence to the modern Pink Floyd." SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • How about this? Parrot of Doom 13:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reworded to make it match the sources and put in the two sources. SilkTork *^YES! 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This statement appears unsourced: "Internal conflicts threatened the future of the band. Waters had taken to arriving at each venue alone, and departing immediately, and Gilmour's wife Ginger did not get along with Waters' new girlfriend. On one occasion, Wright flew back to England threatening to leave the band." SilkTork *^YES! 11:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Blake pp252-253 Parrot of Doom 13:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Waters was invited to join the band as the tour reached Europe, but declined, later expressing his annoyance that some Floyd songs were being performed again in large venues" appears to be unsourced.

Blake p367 Parrot of Doom 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I'll have a look at these later. Can I ask, which sources do you possess? First, bacon butties for my tea. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a bit more support for some of the contentious "inside" material, such as "The bassist had forbidden any members of Pink Floyd from attending his concerts" - which appears to come from Comfortably Numb — The Inside Story of Pink Floyd. A number of other sources feel it enough to simply mention Water's tour - [6] without the extra detail - and I wonder what value is being added by including it. I would rather see such contentious material rather more widely reported than from one source. SilkTork *^YES! 11:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be tricky. Blake is probably the most comprehensive history of Floyd, and I haven't really spotted any glaring mistakes. Mason errs on the side of caution (understandably), and the band's latter history post-dates Schaffner's book. I only just got the Povey book this week, so I'll see what that says. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a highly regarded book. My concern is in the selection of material from the book. I think going back to my earlier comment about having a section specially for band disputes, then selection of material which deals with internal disputes would be acceptable in such a section. But the same material is inappropriate when placed elsewhere - using comments such as "The bassist had forbidden any members of Pink Floyd from attending his concerts" when talking about the Pink Floyd tour, and when other sources do not, is pushing the dispute to the fore, and so is actually pushing hard against NPOV. What is the focus of the section? The dispute or the tour? Here is the paragraph:

Page 300 of Mason's book goes some way toward backing this statement up. I've added a note to that line, with a reference on the end of the note. Parrot of Doom 20:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Early rehearsals for the upcoming tour were chaotic, with Mason and Wright completely out of practice, and realising he'd taken on too much work Gilmour asked Bob Ezrin to take charge. As the new band toured throughout North America, Waters' Radio K.A.O.S. tour was, on occasion, close by. The bassist had forbidden any members of Pink Floyd from attending his concerts, which were generally in smaller venues than those housing his former band's performances. Waters issued a writ for copyright fees for the band's use of the flying pig, and Pink Floyd responded by attaching a huge set of male genitalia to its underside to distinguish it from his design. However, by November 1987 Waters appeared to admit defeat, and on 23 December a legal settlement was finally reached. Mason and Gilmour were allowed use of the Pink Floyd name in perpetuity, and Waters would be granted, amongst other things, The Wall. The bickering continued however, with Waters issuing the occasional slight against his former friends, and Gilmour and Mason responding by making light of Waters claims that they would fail without him.[229] The Sun printed a story about Waters, who it claimed had paid an artist to create 150 toilet rolls with Gilmour's face on every sheet. Waters later rubbished this story,[230] but it serves to illustrate how deeply divided the two parties had now become.[231] The tour continued into 1988, and then 1989. In Venice, the band played to an audience of 200,000 fans at the Piazza San Marco. The resulting storm of protest over the city's lack of toilet provision, first aid, and accommodation, resulted in the resignation of Mayor Antonio Casellati and his government.[232] At the end of the tour Pink Floyd released Delicate Sound of Thunder,[233] and in 1989 a concert video—Delicate Sound of Thunder concert video in 1989.

I have boldened the bits that are not about the tour but are about the dispute. As you can see the paragraph starts and finishes with the tour, but the majority of the paragraph is about the dispute. That's too much weight given to a subject that hasn't got its own section in the article. And even within a section devoted to the dispute there would be questions raised about including a disputed (and rather trivial story) about printed toilet rolls. SilkTork *^YES! 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of creating sections and subsections and moving things around so that articles can be organised like a bookshelf. I do not think a 'dispute' section is at all appropriate, there is simply far too much history to present this in any other way than chronologically; the disputes started during production of Wish You Were Here. That's a 10-year period you'd have to pick apart, it'd be like pulling threads from a tapestry. I think that 'spent force' as a section header is more than enough to illustrate the troubled relationships. I don't see an issue with NPOV - there are many things in each book that are not present in the other - Mason's comment about the pig in the hotel room isn't replicated in any other books (AFAIK), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. After having read the Blake book from cover to cover, I'm happy that it presents an entirely neutral biography of the band. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall

• Overall: I feel this is an excellent article in many respects. My concerns are largely the focus of the material. The lead needs to be expanded to cover the topic and article more fully. Other aspects of the band, such as the live performances, the critical response, and the early Syd Barrett singles, need more coverage. The history should be cut back, and dates inserted into the section headings. Some minor details regarding the sourcing / statements need attention. I'll notify the nominator and significant contributors. SilkTork *^YES! 11:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the article's excellence. However, I disagree that the lede needs to be expanded. After a couple minor edits, I think it is as perfect as it can be for the time being. The rest of the article has flow and is informative. Well referenced.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

I've added a Fair Use Rationale to [7] Parrot of Doom 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. SilkTork *^YES! 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Focus

Each time I look at the article I am concerned at how difficult it is to navigate through the material and get a grasp of the main details. I feel that a trimming is needed to remove some material that stands in the way of the reader getting to the essentials. I also feel that it would be helpful to follow common practice and put dates on the history sub-sections. The classic line up sub-division appears too soon as A Saucerful of Secrets contains Barrett. Some consideration could be given to division of history along these lines - Origins 1963-1964 / Syd Barret years 1964-1968 19/ Transition 1968-1975 / Roger Waters years 1976-1984 / David Gilmour years 1987-1994 / Live 8 to the present. SilkTork *^YES! 10:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, and isn't something I'd have a problem with. IIRC initially I had titles like 'and then there were four' and such, but another user renamed them all. Classic lineup is obviously wrong, perhaps something like "The decline of Barrett" or such? I'm slightly uncomfortable about "Roger Waters years" as Animals and The Wall contain some superb contributions from Gilmour (half of animals is Gilmour's work).

Feel free to trim anything you like - I've been doing this for a few weeks now, most recently as I've expanded the Album articles and moved things out. I'd like some of the funny stuff to remain (the pig in the hotel room, or shooting out the lights). Parrot of Doom 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the headings. See what you think. Parrot of Doom 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

happy

I'm pretty happy now that this fulfills the GA criteria. Parrot of Doom 10:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Philcha

Philcha has offered to take over this review for me, which I am very happy about. My Wikipedia access time has reduced considerably recently, and I do not wish to hold up this review any longer because I don't have the time to concentrate on what is required. Good luck. SilkTork *^YES! 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold

Philcha is no longer able to take over this review. I have had another close look at the article to see if in good conscience I could pass it against my understanding of the criteria; however, I feel the WP:Lead does not quite cover the topic - another paragraph would be welcome, covering such matters as the important period between Barrett's departure and the recording of A Momentary Lapse of Reason - also there would need to be more adequate coverage of some of the items mentioned in the first two sentences: "earned recognition for their psychedelic and space rock music"; "their progressive rock music"; "the use of philosophical lyrics, sonic experimentation, innovative album cover art, and elaborate live shows" (this now has a decent section - enough perhaps for GA standards, though could do with some more attention to tighten it a bit (trim for focus), and at the same time add material to cover the period between the early London shows and the In the Flesh tour). Also, the amount of material on each of the albums is more than needed for this article which is intended to be an over view of the band's career, so the article does not stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Wikipedia:Summary style is our guidance here - especially WP:DETAIL, which explains quite clearly the background to why this article needs to be trimmed. The material in this article is very good, and can be usefully moved to the respective album articles.

I empathise with Parrot of Doom's hesitation in moving the material; when I spent some time editing the article to move material I found it difficult judging which material should be moved, and also felt a sense of regret in having to reduce this article. However, we must at all times remember we are not just writing for ourselves, but for a very broad audience. The aim of providing for all readers is very well captured in WP:DETAIL, so it is not a case or "removing" the material, but of organising it in a more appropriate manner.

I have a few options now. The option of passing as a GA is not open as I have explained above. I could again try to tackle the article myself, though I have found this a quite difficult and time-consuming task, one that my present domestic situation as a house-husband makes even more difficult (my daughter demands more of my attention than any of my previous jobs!). I could ask for someone else to take over the review (passing the buck really, but a fresh person might have the energy to get things done - and may also have a different perspective to myself - while my own view is that this article doesn't meet GA criteria, another reviewer might think otherwise). I could ask for a second opinion to check if I am not being overly scrupulous. I could put this on hold for another period to see if the work I have requested above is done. Or I could fail the article.

Failing is not something I like to do. My intention on taking on a nomination is to see the article through to GA status, even if it means doing the work myself. But I am not in a position to do the work myself on this article as indicated above. It is a viable option, however.

I will put the article on hold for seven days (until December 10), and in the meantime I will seek a second opinion. SilkTork *^YES! 08:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at the article milestones, and when the article was delisted (quite rightly) from Featured status, the size and structure was acceptable. [8]. While the content and referencing needed attention, the way the article was organised was quite useful. I feel that the current organisation by album is not quite as helpful - it doesn't guide readers to the key moments in the group's history and development, nor does it highlight the significant albums. It may be that the previous structure could be combined in some way with the current structure. I do feel that very significant albums such as Dark Side, The Wall, and Piper could be given their own sections, while the other albums could be dealt with within key development sections, and some thought could be given to how those sections could be arranged.

Previous structure:

1.1 Origins: 1964–1965
1.2 Syd Barrett-led era: 1965–1967
1.3 Barrett's decline: 1967–1968
1.4 After Barrett's departure: 1968–1970
1.5 Breakthrough era: 1970–1975
1.6 Roger Waters-led era: 1976–1985
1.7 David Gilmour-led era: 1987–1994
1.8 Solo work and more: 1995–present

Current structure:

   1.1 Early years (1963–1967)
         o 1.1.1 Formation
         o 1.1.2 As "The Pink Floyd Sound"
         o 1.1.3 Signing with EMI
         o 1.1.4 The Piper at the Gates of Dawn
   1.2 Introduction of Gilmour and departure of Barrett (1968)
   1.3 Classic lineup (1968–1979)
         o 1.3.1 A Saucerful of Secrets
         o 1.3.2 Soundtracks
         o 1.3.3 Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother
         o 1.3.4 Meddle
         o 1.3.5 The Dark Side of the Moon
         o 1.3.6 Wish You Were Here
         o 1.3.7 Animals
         o 1.3.8 The Wall
   1.4 Waters-led era (1982–85)
         o 1.4.1 The Final Cut
         o 1.4.2 "Spent force"
   1.5 Gilmour-led era (1985–1994)
         o 1.5.1 A Momentary Lapse of Reason
         o 1.5.2 The Division Bell
   1.6 Classic lineup at Live 8
   1.7 Recent events

It may be a natural consequence that with the trimming of detail on each of the albums, that the sub-sections will be absorbed into the higher level sections (so Final Cut and Spent force, for example, will be dealt with under the one heading of Gilmour-led era). I have often found that getting an appropriate structure aids in both editing and reading an article. SilkTork *^YES! 09:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had a quick look, I don't think the current structure's too bad. The inclusion of level 3s just makes it look more cluttered in a side-by-side comparison, that's all. I've combined 1.6 and 1.7 though. As to content, there's definitely too much detail on each album and I'll try and contribute to this over the next few days, time permitting. I envisage it will naturally end up with some album subsections collapsing into single sections (for instance, without looking back at the text so this may be a bad example, A Saucerful of Secrets–Meddle). I'll also try and find material for the items you've identified as mentioned in the lead only, and then give the lead what polishing I can. Perhaps if the article can be fixed up during the hold period, you would have time to complete the review? We can revisit that aspect later anyway but perhaps you can communicate prior to feeling forced to fail, should it come to that, if you need someone else to finish the review. PL290 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the previous layout was that it assumed too much. The breakthrough era could just as easily be seen to have been 1968 onwards. I can't see David Gilmour agreeing that Waters dominated the band from WYWH onwards, and he'd be correct. The only thing I think most people would agree on is that TFC was almost a Waters solo album. I don't think there's much missing from the lead section, if anything, and I'm quite dubious of the argument that much more can be deleted from the album sections - perhaps a couple more technical details, but nothing about the interpersonal relationships. Nearly all of the band's history can be neatly summarised by what happened during the production of each album. If Pink Floyd are notable for one thing, its their refusal to grow old and tired, and their ability to keep their music fresh, and competitive with their contemporaries. I'm growing somewhat concerned that this GA procedure is becoming more like an FAC. Parrot of Doom 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PL290, I've asked for a second opinion, and will keep the review open until then at least. Parrot of Doom, I'm applying GA criteria rather than FA. For example, I am not concerned about how cites are formatted (a FA requirement) simply that there are cites. Sometimes a GA review can become demanding - it all depends on the circumstances. In the time I have been reviewing this article I think I have reviewed and passed at least seven others, failed one, and delisted another. I understand your reluctance to let go of material you have assembled for this article - it can feel like you've worked for nothing; however it is worth reflecting that there is a strong consensus of opinion that the album material needs trimming. As I have said above (and as I was doing when working on the article), the material need not be wasted, as it can be moved into the album articles. SilkTork *^YES! 15:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If consensus demands that the album sections be reduced to, say, a single paragraph each, I'll withdraw the nomination. Pink Floyd's history cannot be so easily summarised. It isn't a threat, or me throwing my toys from the pram, and I'm not concerned with losing any information since I've massively expanded most of the Album articles anyway (they're all several orders of magnitude larger than their relevant sections here). I have all the major books and they're significant tomes - for a reason. Many bands just knock out albums to earn a bit more money. Floyd never did that. Their musical output and interpersonal relationships are so heavily intertwined that I feel any significant cuts in those areas would seriously undermine the integrity of the article. I don't mind losing some of the technical aspects, but some of the things that Floyd became famous for - such as the Animals cover image - can't reasonably be removed, as the imagery was used for years thereafter. As for readers not having the patience to read such a large article, well they can always go and read about a band that doesn't have a 40-year history. Parrot of Doom 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In recompense for the discomfort you experienced during this GA Review, you now have evidence that the question of length and detail has been thoroughly examined, and the article passed at a size of 117 kilobytes as meeting GA criteria for focus. There is a feeling by PL290, which I share, that some more weight can be taken off the history section; however, the article is not excessively long, and does not break any guidelines. Regards! SilkTork *^YES! 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

I have reviewed the aspects identified as questionable under 3B and 2B/3A, and I have made some further changes to address these, as has PoD. My opinion follows.

Focus (3B)

The "album" sections have now received some trimming to more of a summary style. They could benefit from further condensing (e.g., record company matters sometimes interrupt the narrative, such as during the first US tour, and The Wall still stands out as rather long), but I believe they now meet the GA criterion of staying focussed. On this note, the section titles imply a specific album focus, which perhaps exaggerates the perceived lack of focus since they are only intended as milestones in a timeframe rather than always "album sections" per se. Expanding some section names, where significantly more than the album is covered (e.g., off the top of my head, "The Wall and Wright's departure"), would help by giving the reader more accurate expectations of section content.

Aspects only mentioned in the lead (2B/3A)

I note that "elaborate live shows" has already been addressed. I have looked at each of the others identified:

• "psychedelic music": cited several times in article text
• "space rock music": not mentioned in article, so has now been removed from lead
• "their progressive rock music": mentioned in article (though more could be made of it).
• "the use of philosophical lyrics" - this is clear from, for example, discussion of Dark Side and Wish You Were Here lyrics
• "sonic experimentation": cited several times in article text
• "innovative album cover art": cited several times in article text, including the involvement of Hipgnosis

Conclusion

I have not carried out a full GA review since other aspects have already received comprehensive coverage. In respect of these items identified above for which a second opinion was sought, I believe there remains scope for further improvement but the article now meets the GA criteria. PL290 (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that PL290. Passing as GA. SilkTork *^YES! 15:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)