Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
This article is quite short, but it is one of the oldest albums GANs nevertheless so I will review for the GAN backlog drive! --
K. Peake10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, for a non-charting album recorded by an ad-hoc group in two days over 50 years ago that is only really notable because the individual players are, I think this is as good as we're going to get it. Unless, of course, you know different... :-)
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I have never seen the catalog number listed in the infobox before, even when it is known; they list it in the body on these occasions. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
That means he is notable for writing about in prose, which you have done; only actual producers go in this parameter though. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
That article passed as a GA a while back though and it is not a good model since the producers there actually violate the current guidelines at
Template:Infobox album, as does the engineer being here for this album... remember, Wiki guidelines change. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Remove the genre from the opening sentence since it is the one of the album, not the band
Remove "rock" from the opening sentence since that is not the appropriate place for the genre if it's the one of the album. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"an ad-hoc band of musicians" → "an ad-hoc band of the same name"
Those all passed over two years ago though, plus that is a
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and background/recording aren't the same thing so if a section deals with both, it should be retitled. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The essay you cite here says, verbatim, "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." I think you'll need to come to terms with not having a consensus for this.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Img looks good!
"The album was the idea of" → "Green Bullfrog was the idea of"
This is not a fanpage though, it is a Wikipedia article and you are not supposed to use abbreviations for artists unless it's someone's literal surname. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Reword to mention the road being near the studio, specifically
Targeting the genre of a musical work is not overlinking, plus you have done this in the lead and the one to rock and roll is incorrect anyway. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"is basically the" this is not appropriate language; try something like "is the same as the" or "is an alternate version of"
Try to change to something else that is not "after" though, due to repeating the word twice in the same sentence. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I've split it between the second (recording dates and venues) and fourth (pseudonyms), which talks about the recording dates and venues. It makes more sense to put it there than to bolt it on the end of the list of pseudonyms.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"The album was completed with" → "Green Bullfrog was completed with"
Oh, I knew you understood the unreliability but initially thought you were questioning who wrote in the previous revision. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"the LP was released, so it was not promoted and was not" → "the album was released, so it was not promoted and not" plus if there is a link to the pseudonyms, mention it here
But you have used "the album" most recently and it's not like you're really offending anyone by re-stating the title a para later. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, I'll trust you on that. I'm kind of interested to know why, but on the other hand I wouldn't really complain that much if the MOS said it had to be in 40 point bold red with the <blink> tag :-D
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Maybe then, as the review may mean there was little put into the album anyway, but replace ... with [...] since that's used for giving pauses in quotes. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Are you sure there aren't any more reviews that could be added, maybe even from the book sources?
Add the "Credits adapted from..." part at the top of the section with the appropriate media notes
I can, but the original LP (as explained in the article) doesn't cite the actual players. However, I don't think this violates the
verifiability policy here as the information is available in the article and sourced appropriately. Also, I've never been particularly comfortable about the way refs sort of dangle on track listings like this, but I can't think of a better way of doing it.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
On hold until all of the issues are fixed, though this article's shortness does not prevent it from being well-written! --
K. Peake16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of the issues above, though some need further discussion. In particular, I'm going to see if I can dig out any more reviews from reliable sources (emphasis mine, I can find plenty of unreliable and self-published ones....) and a source that debunks claims Jeff Beck was on it.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, there doesn't look like there's too much outstanding at the moment. For the remainder, I've tried to get hold of a second opinion, but I haven't had much success. I would say, however, that not much of the MOS is required in the
GA criteria. It would be a different story at FAC, obviously, but then over there you've got multiple people chipping their 2c in, making consensus a bit easier. Anyway, I'll have a read through again in the morning and see what I think.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ritchie333 Disagreements are bound to happen; it is not needed to call for a second opinion unless the reviewer has dropped out or shown no interest to sympathise with your viewpoint, though I have been able to see both sides. Regarding the retitle request for background, I guess you can keep as is actually because it's not really offending anyone. --
K. Peake07:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
To be clear, I didn't mean put the review on "second opinion", I meant just pop onto a colleague's talk page and say something like, "Hey, don't suppose you can remember if we normally link "blah" or not?"
Anyway, I've updated a couple of other things, and as things stand, I think everything has been addressed, and what remains is either a difference of opinion or open to interpretation without breaking the GA criteria. So I would say we're done. Any further thoughts?
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ritchie333 I will let rejected changes like the lack of retitling for sections slide because they are a necessity. However, rock should not be targeted to rock and roll because it is done so to rock music elsewhere, which can lead to confusion over the genre of the album for readers looking at the infobox/lead then body. Also, I know you may not like the comments being left about the infobox, but
Template:Infobox album says, "Enter the name of the person(s) credited as the actual record producer(s). Do not include those listed as executive, co-, additional, vocal, etc., producers, unless a reliable source identifies their contribution as substantially the same as the main producers." This is a legitimate guideline not just me pulling some MOS out and if you look at articles where people are credited outside of the producers, they are either older ones or articles with low viewership, that nobody has got round to updating. --
K. Peake06:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Kyle Peake I missed the rock / rock and roll link; I've changed it to "blues-inflected cover versions" which reads a bit better. Regarding the infobox, well I thought Birch was mentioned in the article with a source, but on a closer look, he isn't, so there is a clear consensus to remove that per the guideline you linked to. So yup, these were both mistakes on my part.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
This article is quite short, but it is one of the oldest albums GANs nevertheless so I will review for the GAN backlog drive! --
K. Peake10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, for a non-charting album recorded by an ad-hoc group in two days over 50 years ago that is only really notable because the individual players are, I think this is as good as we're going to get it. Unless, of course, you know different... :-)
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I have never seen the catalog number listed in the infobox before, even when it is known; they list it in the body on these occasions. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
That means he is notable for writing about in prose, which you have done; only actual producers go in this parameter though. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
That article passed as a GA a while back though and it is not a good model since the producers there actually violate the current guidelines at
Template:Infobox album, as does the engineer being here for this album... remember, Wiki guidelines change. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Remove the genre from the opening sentence since it is the one of the album, not the band
Remove "rock" from the opening sentence since that is not the appropriate place for the genre if it's the one of the album. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"an ad-hoc band of musicians" → "an ad-hoc band of the same name"
Those all passed over two years ago though, plus that is a
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and background/recording aren't the same thing so if a section deals with both, it should be retitled. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The essay you cite here says, verbatim, "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." I think you'll need to come to terms with not having a consensus for this.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Img looks good!
"The album was the idea of" → "Green Bullfrog was the idea of"
This is not a fanpage though, it is a Wikipedia article and you are not supposed to use abbreviations for artists unless it's someone's literal surname. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Reword to mention the road being near the studio, specifically
Targeting the genre of a musical work is not overlinking, plus you have done this in the lead and the one to rock and roll is incorrect anyway. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"is basically the" this is not appropriate language; try something like "is the same as the" or "is an alternate version of"
Try to change to something else that is not "after" though, due to repeating the word twice in the same sentence. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I've split it between the second (recording dates and venues) and fourth (pseudonyms), which talks about the recording dates and venues. It makes more sense to put it there than to bolt it on the end of the list of pseudonyms.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"The album was completed with" → "Green Bullfrog was completed with"
Oh, I knew you understood the unreliability but initially thought you were questioning who wrote in the previous revision. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"the LP was released, so it was not promoted and was not" → "the album was released, so it was not promoted and not" plus if there is a link to the pseudonyms, mention it here
But you have used "the album" most recently and it's not like you're really offending anyone by re-stating the title a para later. --
K. Peake08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, I'll trust you on that. I'm kind of interested to know why, but on the other hand I wouldn't really complain that much if the MOS said it had to be in 40 point bold red with the <blink> tag :-D
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Maybe then, as the review may mean there was little put into the album anyway, but replace ... with [...] since that's used for giving pauses in quotes. --
K. Peake20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Are you sure there aren't any more reviews that could be added, maybe even from the book sources?
Add the "Credits adapted from..." part at the top of the section with the appropriate media notes
I can, but the original LP (as explained in the article) doesn't cite the actual players. However, I don't think this violates the
verifiability policy here as the information is available in the article and sourced appropriately. Also, I've never been particularly comfortable about the way refs sort of dangle on track listings like this, but I can't think of a better way of doing it.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
On hold until all of the issues are fixed, though this article's shortness does not prevent it from being well-written! --
K. Peake16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of the issues above, though some need further discussion. In particular, I'm going to see if I can dig out any more reviews from reliable sources (emphasis mine, I can find plenty of unreliable and self-published ones....) and a source that debunks claims Jeff Beck was on it.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, there doesn't look like there's too much outstanding at the moment. For the remainder, I've tried to get hold of a second opinion, but I haven't had much success. I would say, however, that not much of the MOS is required in the
GA criteria. It would be a different story at FAC, obviously, but then over there you've got multiple people chipping their 2c in, making consensus a bit easier. Anyway, I'll have a read through again in the morning and see what I think.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ritchie333 Disagreements are bound to happen; it is not needed to call for a second opinion unless the reviewer has dropped out or shown no interest to sympathise with your viewpoint, though I have been able to see both sides. Regarding the retitle request for background, I guess you can keep as is actually because it's not really offending anyone. --
K. Peake07:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
To be clear, I didn't mean put the review on "second opinion", I meant just pop onto a colleague's talk page and say something like, "Hey, don't suppose you can remember if we normally link "blah" or not?"
Anyway, I've updated a couple of other things, and as things stand, I think everything has been addressed, and what remains is either a difference of opinion or open to interpretation without breaking the GA criteria. So I would say we're done. Any further thoughts?
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ritchie333 I will let rejected changes like the lack of retitling for sections slide because they are a necessity. However, rock should not be targeted to rock and roll because it is done so to rock music elsewhere, which can lead to confusion over the genre of the album for readers looking at the infobox/lead then body. Also, I know you may not like the comments being left about the infobox, but
Template:Infobox album says, "Enter the name of the person(s) credited as the actual record producer(s). Do not include those listed as executive, co-, additional, vocal, etc., producers, unless a reliable source identifies their contribution as substantially the same as the main producers." This is a legitimate guideline not just me pulling some MOS out and if you look at articles where people are credited outside of the producers, they are either older ones or articles with low viewership, that nobody has got round to updating. --
K. Peake06:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Kyle Peake I missed the rock / rock and roll link; I've changed it to "blues-inflected cover versions" which reads a bit better. Regarding the infobox, well I thought Birch was mentioned in the article with a source, but on a closer look, he isn't, so there is a clear consensus to remove that per the guideline you linked to. So yup, these were both mistakes on my part.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)reply