Talk:Shades of Deep Purple/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: Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had an original UK Parlophone LP for about 25 years and know the album and band's history inside out. No obvious problems with referencing or layout that leap out, bar one or two citations containing interviews being perhaps worth discussing, so this should be quick to pass. The DPAS' Simon Robinson is a known expert on the band and thorough researcher, and I assume he wrote the CD liner notes, so if you used them, this is very likely to be all factually correct. Some of the wording is a little confusing with some jargon, and I'll list those issues in more depth soon. More later.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up so promptly this review. I could find no name associated with the writing of the CD booklets of the first three DP albums, although Simon Robinson wrote and signed the booklet for Deep Purple in Rock. If you have confirmation of his involvement his name should be added in the reference section. Feel free to directly correct or suggest any changes in wording and syntax, to comply with the British English use stated at the top of the article. I look forward to reading you review. Lewismaster (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've found This Barnes & Noble source which credits Simon Robinson with writing the sleeve notes. He's been writing DP reissue sleeve notes since the late 1970s. Have to get back to "real" work now, but I'll start listing issues later today. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, specific comments follow:

Lead and general issues

• Three paragraphs are about right for the lead. I would merge the fourth (single sentence) paragraph with the third

Done.

• The quotations in the article are a little long. You need to be careful with these, as overlong quotations can be considered borderline copyvios.

I trimmed them down.

• The album covers, all of which are non-free, should be as small as possible ie: the size used in the article (180x180?) but no more.

For Wikipedia:Non-free content#Meeting the minimal usage criterion and Template:Infobox album#Cover, 300x300 pixels is the ideal size.

• I don't believe the audio sample of "Hush" has a good rationale for non-free use. The accompanying text should explain explicitly why the information contained in the audio cannot practically be represented as text.

I used the automatic rationale provided by Wikipedia when uploading audio samples. I customized the rationale to accommodate the use of the song in the article.

Background

• I'm not sure about at a lot of this. Yes, it's cited to reliable sources, but it reads more about what influences were generally around in early 1968, rather than anything specific to do with Deep Purple.

I'm not sure about this myself and asked for peer review about it, but nobody answered. I think that the musical trends developing in the UK at the time were important for the musicians of Deep Purple and critics remarked how this album is a mix of different genres in vogue in 1968. I tried to relate the band and album to what was happening in British music in that period, in particular to psychedelic and progressive rock. In my opinion, the accessibility of the article for a reader who is not necessarily an expert of Deep Purple or of the music of the 1960s is enhanced by paragraphs like this. This is especially true for debut albums where a little more background can be useful to the casual reader. What do you think about it? I, as a reader, would like my encyclopedia to be very user-friendly and accessible.

Okay, I think I would just generally ensure that the influences were ones that Purple specifically called on when they first got together. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I added those influences in the Musical Style section. Lewismaster (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• "In this situation of creative turmoil during the summer of 1967," - who had "creative turmoil"? The Beatles had just released one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed albums of all time, after all.

Syd Barrett more likely. The turmoil belongs to the British music scene, coming up with new bands, genres and milestone albums in such a short time span. I changed the words accordingly

• "the members would get on and off the band" - how do you get "on and off a band"? I'd go for something like "the group would contain a revolving cast of non-permanent members"

The words were taken from the CD booklet and from Thompson's book. I changed words as suggested.

• "to Lord the expert guitarist Ritchie Blackmore" - "expert" is POV, just "guitarist Ritchie Blackmore" will do - his experience is covered by the following sentences

Done

• "where he had met Carlo Little" - this is the second mention, so per WP:MOSNAME, just "Little" will do here. Also we don't hear anything else about him after this sentence - do we know why he wasn't considered for the final line-up? (Given he taught Keith Moon how to play and turned down an offer to play with the Rolling Stones, I'd say he should have been a strong candidate)

Done. The band did not ask Little to join because they had already hired Bobby Clarke, who was a celebrity among drummers.[1]

• "For the bass guitar slot, Lord signed up his friend Nick Simper, whose fame at the time came from his membership" - this is awkward phrasing. We already know Nick Simper is a bassist - how about "Lord suggested that Simper join as bassist"?

Rephrased

• In my sleeve notes for Deep Purple Anthology, Bobby Clarke is named multiple times as Bobby Woodman. I had at least one other book source that referred to him as such.

The drummer played in different groups using both his real surname Woodman and his pseudonym Bobby Clarke. He became famous with the name Clarke playing with Vince Taylor in the 60s. The CD Booklet uses Bobby Woodman, Thompson uses Bobby Clarke. Wikipedia has an article for Bobby Clarke, which I guess is his best known name.

Hmm ... unless that article is a featured article (which it isn't), I wouldn't trust it for anything really (and even then I'd use the sources cited in the article rather than the article itself) In fact, I think only the age of Bobbie Clarke (created before 2010) prevents me from putting a {{blp prod}} tag on it. I would personally go with Woodman as I think that's what name he went under when he auditioned for Purple, as well as being his real name, so its the most appropriate in this context. Here are a few other related sources that refer to him as Woodman : [2] [3] [4] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed to Woodman. Lewismaster (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Early days of development

• This section can be simply called "Early development"

Done.

• "Roundabout retired at Deeves Hall" - "retired" is what you do when you give up a career for good, this needs rewording

Changed.

• "that summoned dozens of aspiring vocalists to audition for the new band" - this is probably redundant, the rest of the preceding sentence clarifies what we need to know here

Cut.

• "Rod Stewart was among the many would-be-frontmen who were dismissed" - confusing, suggest "Rod Stewart attended the auditions, but was unsuccessful"

Changed

• "Clarke was unhappy with the direction the band was heading" - according to interviews I've read (sorry, can't remember where) it was because he couldn't get on with Blackmore (not too hard to believe, that)

According to Thompson and Simper, Clarke was too old-fashioned, bound to rock & roll style and not happy to experiment. There is no mention of Blackmore, but instead his dismissal appears to be a common decision. The CD booklet says that it was Mick Angus, one of the vocalists at the auditions, who first expressed dissatisfaction with Clarke's playing.

• "and some occasional glimpses with the instrumentals" - occasional glimpses of what?

Rephrased

• "before the call came from Roundabout's management" - suggest "before being contacted by Roundabout's management"

Changed as suggested

• "to reduce the number of instrumental tracks on the album" - can you reword this, to avoid two sentences both ending in "album"

Done

• "With those three well inducted" - this doesn't make sense

Changed

• "which had earlier been covered by Cream and The Maze, the band Evans and Paice came from" - you don't need the last part of this sentence, we already know who The Maze are

Cut

• ""Hey Joe", a song originally, but disputably, written by Billy Roberts" - who disputed it? Certainly it was credited on Fifth Dimension as such, and released when Jimi Hendrix was still doing club gigs in New York.

The author of the song is disputed. Billy Roberts copyrighted the song, but his partner Len Partridge claimed to be co-writer of the song.[5] Added reference for this dispute.

• "The Jimi Hendrix Experience had recorded a version of the song in late 1966, which was used as the main inspiration for the arrangement although, as well as "I'm So Glad", the track was heavily blown up and stretched in length" - I think this needs rewording, "blown up" means either an explosion or a significant enlargement in size. How about "The arrangement was mostly based on the 1966 hit version by Jimi Hendrix, but included a section of Maurice Ravel's ...." (sorry, can't remember which piece it is)

Rephrased. The classical music section of the song is a note by note execution of The Miller's Dance from De Falla's ballet. It is confirmed by the music expert Janell Duxbury in her book Rockin' the Classics and Classicizin' the Rock and here [6]. The rhythm underneath is reminiscent of the Bòlero by Ravel. I changed the reference in the Musical style section accordingly.

Okay, if a commercially published book says it, and it's more recent than a 45 year old LP back cover, then we should use that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The band also picked up a song" - "The band also recorded a song" sounds better

changed word

Recording

• "The band began intensive rehearsals after an agreed set list" - "intensive" is POV, and who agreed the set list and why?

Rephrased

• "Ritchie Blackmore convinced a friend of his, Derek Lawrence, to produce" - produce what? " to be the album's producer" would be better

Changed as suggested

• "recorded singles and sold them over to the United States" - confusing, how about "recorded singles for release in the United States"

Changed as suggested

• "remaining positively impressed" - confusing, "positively" is probably redundant

Cut

• "in between March and April" - there isn't anything between March and April, this needs rewording

Done

• "as well as two newcomers" - "as well as two new songs" sounds better

Changed as suggested

• "both quickly written and arranged by the band for that purpose" - what purpose?

The purpose of recording the demos. Rephrased.

• "Help!" was also previewed by EMI" - I don't understand what "previewed" means in the context

Rephrased

• "his grandmother's favorite song" - "song" is an easter egg quote, it's not obvious where it links to (particularly on a mobile)

Rephrased

• "This was the debut tour for the band and the first time the new songs were played live," - we already know this from what's written, and I don't understand what the second part of this sentence means

Rephrased

• "the cable containing Tetragrammaton's decision to sign them had arrived" - what does "cable" mean? Suggest "Tetragrammaton had confirmed they wished to sign the band"

Rephrased

• "the budget provided by HEC and used for promotion and equipment was nearly spent" - convolutive, just say "HEC had nearly spent all their budget for promotion and equipment"

Changed as suggested

• "In this period, the band relocated at Highleigh Manor," - just say "The band relocated to Highleigh Manor"

Done

• "There, with aforementioned Derek Lawrence producing" - we already know this, just say "There, with Lawrence"

Done

• "they quickly recorded the material they had intensively rehearsed and which made up their live set" - overcomplicated, suggested "they recorded the recently gigged material"

Changed as suggested

• "For this reason the songs had to be arranged and rehearsed in advance" - we've already been told the songs were rehearsed several times, this needs rewording

Fixed

• "recorded almost live in one or two takes" - what do you mean by "almost live"?

Fixed

• "with prelude entitled "Happiness"" - should be "with a prelude entitled "Happiness" (and isn't this based off a bit of classical music too?)

Rephrased

• "completing the recording of their debut album" - don't need "of their debut album", we know it is

Cut

• "The tracks required quite a large amount of mixing" - "quite a large amount" is POV, for example Garbage's Version 2.0 took (IIRC) a year to mix. I think this album had slightly less time!

Rephrased

• "The final mixing was made later the same day, concluding the band's duties in studio." - don't need the second half of the sentence (and it is grammatically incorrect anyway)

Cut

Release

• "The finished album was taken to Tetragrammaton representatives that had come to London and the material proved to be more than satisfactory for the label" - the wording sounds too complicate. How about "The finished album was taken to Tetragrammaton's representatives in London, who approved its release"

Changed as suggested

• "band members were clothed in hip styles and fashions at the famous Mr. Fish Emporium, where they did the obligatory photo-shoot" - "hip styles and fashions" and "famous" are POV, and since when was a photo-shoot "obligatory"?

Rephrased

• "and the band notoriety grew considerably" - grammar, suggest "and the band's fame grew considerably"

Changed as suggested

• "and raced up the Billboard Pop Chart, ultimately peaking at No. 24" - words to watch, just say "and reached number 24 in the Billboard charts". If it really raced up the charts, it would have hit number one

Done

• "However, the TV passage" - what's a "TV passage"?

Rephrased

• "Shades of Deep Purple was reissued many times all over the world, often in a set with the two following albums recorded by the Mk. I line-up." - this sentence is unreferenced

Added reference

Musical style

• "who cured the arrangements" - "cured" is something doctors do, or a thing you do with ham, this needs rewording

Done

• "transpires from the riffs much similar to the song "Foxy Lady" - grammar problems here

Rewritten

• "with rather complex lyrics provided by Evans;" - complex according to whom?

Simper and some critics considered Evans' lyrics unusual and complex. They did not refer specifically to these songs. Cut.

• "was a common tread at the time" - what does "tread" mean in this context?

The h is missing. I changed word anyway.

• "bluesing it up" - what does this mean?

I copied the expression from here [7]. Put into brackets as a citation.

• "the cover of "Hey Joe" was arranged inserting parts taken from El sombrero de tres picos ballet by Manuel de Falla" - are you sure about that? I thought it was a Maurice Ravel piece (hence why the original LP back cover [8] says "Dedicated to Bobby, Chris, Dave and Ravel" - Bobby, Chris and Dave being Bobby Woodman, Chris Curtis and Dave Curtiss respectively)

As said above, all sources confirm that the classical inserts are from De Falla's ballet.

Touring

• How about "Live performances" as a header? We can include MkII's treatment of the material

I'm not so sure about that. This section is truly about touring. I added some text about the songs performed by the Mk II line-up at the bottom. Do you think it needs a separate sub-section?

• "Deep Purple performed from the start a very loud and hard rocking live show" - confusing wording

Rephrased

• Screaming Lord Sutch is already linked once

delinked

• "receiving mostly cold receptions" - confusing, this could be interpreted as meaning they always caught the common cold

Fixed

• "Ian Paice's explanation for their lack of touring and promotion in England, reflected to Melody Maker:" - sentence is missing a finite verb

Rephrased and trimmed

Critical reception

• "More criticism rained down on them" - suggest "They were also criticised" instead

Changed as suggested

• What make blogcritics.com and about.com reliable sources?

David Bowling of Blogcritics is the author of books about music [9] and staff writer at the music reviews website Daily Vault[10] and I think that his opinion should be considered valid. He has no connection to the band and the network where his contribution was published is controlled by a team of staff editors who work with the writers.[11]

Okay, "controlled by a team of staff editors" was the key phrase I was looking for here, so as long as it's clear its his personal opinion, it can stay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dave White of About.com is a freelance music journalist and former radio DJ and can be considered an expert in what he writes about.[12]. He has no connection to the band and writes for a multi-awarded news network.[13]

However, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162#About.com from a few months back concluded that there was not sufficient editorial control for sources to be considerably reliable. Remember that our guidelines for self-published sources say that anyone can claim to be an expert on a topic. So I'm afraid I think this one will have to go. People will be looking at this section and trusting the opinions to be a good reflection of what contemporary critics think about it. Some (including me) think the album is okay but Made in Japan it is not!

This has become more important for GA reviews recently after a lengthy discussion on the suitability of Piero Scaruffi reviews, who would doubtless fit all the criteria you stated above, yet we concluded that his personal website was not a reliable source and opinion should not be used in a professional capacity. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the decisions taken. It's hard to keep track of all the discussions going on on Wikipedia and I was not aware of this one. I removed all the references to About.com. Lewismaster (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Charts

• The Japanese chart position has a tag against it

Removed

Summary

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

As it stands, there's a bit of work to do, mostly in the prose and ensuring that everything confirms to a neutral point of view, plus there are a few issues with non-free rationales and the caption on the audio. All of this should be easily fixable, however, so I'll put the review on hold to give you a chance to do that. Thanks for all the work you've put into the article so far. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I will start working on the issues that you raised as soon as possible. Actually, most of your remarks are about sentences that I inherited when I took over the article. I should have re-written it from scratch! Lewismaster (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That's sometimes the nature of GAs, I've certainly said "but I didn't write that bit" in response to review comments myself! Don't worry, IMHO the hardest part to solve is unverifiable and / or badly sourced content, and there's little of that here (plus it helps I've read up on the band's background myself). We'll get there and get this passed one way or another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I just published the first revision of the article following your suggestions. There are a few points that need discussion in the Background and Touring sections. I'm waiting for your input after a second check of the article. Thanks. Lewismaster (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a bit of a copyedit, and I think this article now meets the GA criteria, so I'm happy to say the review has passed. Well done for creating a thorough and informative article about this album. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and all the instructions you gave me. I will treasure them for future works. And now back to The Book of Taliesyn! Lewismaster (talk) 18:09, 22 February 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.