Talk:Achilles Last Stand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

I took out a ton of stuff that was already in the article. --75.73.153.252 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Apostrophe

What prompted the changing of this article's name? On the back cover of Presence there is no apostrophe [1] Of course is a very minor issue but I think the title should be reverted back. IrisKawling 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ONLY heavy metal

Okay, every "harder" Led Zepp song has hard rock beside heavy metal at the genres... I've listened to their entire catalogue and without a doubt, studio or live, explosive drumming, thundering bass, army of guitar overdubs, wailing/screaming (ect) vocals, this is one of their heaviest songs... this should only be heavy metal... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehsomething (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Genre : Heavy metal?

Heavy metal, and add Classic rock 174.3.214.24 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Speed metal

This song is speed metal. I don't see why it couldn't be. This is pretty fast for an LZ song. I want your opinions on whether speed metal should be mentioned or not. FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a serious post? A fast hard rock song is not speed metal. It's just a fast hard rock song. You will never find a cite that passes WP:RS to would support that nonsense. Fair Deal (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The song is heavy metal, like "Immigrant Song", is very fast and has progressive explosion of the battery of John.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
ALS is an agressive/ fast hard rock number. Scieberking (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Zeppelin are not metal; fuckin' get off it already. Radiopathy •talk• 00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Nice one Radio! ;-) Scieberking (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Chords for Piano or Guitar

Does anyone know any piano chords for Hombre Triste by Bruce Dickinson? What Key is it in possiblly A-minor Ionian mode or tonality.

Bruce if you get this have you heard any Autom Sounds or the sounds of Spain? What does it sound like digitally?

Check this out, The Killing Words Intro, Omega 3rd part, Building a Mystery by Sarah McLauglin intro, Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver dan (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


Silver dan (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Dan_SilverSilver dan (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Led Zeppelin Achilles Last Stand.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Led Zeppelin Achilles Last Stand.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done some fixes. Hope it has now enough licensing information. Scieberking (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Achilles Last Stand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Markworthen (talk · contribs) 19:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is B-class, and close to Good Article status, but it needs a bit more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The article needs some copy editing to meet GA criteria. For example, from the lead paragraph:
    "... began writing it in the summer of 1975 and were influenced by Eastern music, mythology, and travels." ==> "travels" needs explication, e.g., "their travels, especially time spent in Morocco."
    "... and one of their most complex, with different interwoven sections and multiple overdubbed guitar parts." ==> "different interwoven sections" could be improved by describing two sections that are interwoven. The goal would be to give the reader an aural or visual "picture" of this aspect of the song. I don't possess enough knowledge on this point to offer an example.
    Also see this edit I made, as another example.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
Photographs or other images needed.
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No images yet. (But see suggestions, below.)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
No images yet. (But see suggestions, below.)
  1. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article is close to GA status. I recommend that interested Wikipedians (1) request copy editing by the Guild of Copy Editors or recruit a particularly skilled writer or two to fine-tune the prose; (2) add some images, e.g., of Achilles; Jimmy Page or Page and Plant during the band's 1977 tour or subsequent performances; and (3) Nominate the article for GA Review again. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Markworthen: Thanks for your suggestions. I added a request for copy editing. I have a question about the photo of Page and Plant: it shows Page playing a twin-neck guitar, but in the article he is quoted as saying "I thought I'd have to use the twin-neck [6- and 12-string Gibson EDS-1275 guitar] but it actually sounded better with the six string using different effects." Would readers find this inconsistent? I added the photo of Jones playing an 8-string bass, which is referenced in the article. It's not very good quality, but the choices at Commons are limited. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow, good catch! I will remove the photo for the reason you stated. Thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems like there should be some mention of the missing apostrophe in the song's title. Surely one of the cited sources mentions it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Shadwick (Led Zeppelin: The Story of a Band and Their Music 1968–1980) appears to be the only one who discusses the song in any detail who uses "Achilles' Last Stand", but does not explain why he deviates from the actual title. It is common for the titles of popular music songs to not adhere to formal grammatical rules ("Nuthin' but a 'G' Thang", etc.) and most readers will understand this. However, in the interest of completeness, I added an explanatory footnote. BTW, good catch on the Fast cite oversight. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Blank space before blockquote

After "lyrics:" (second paragraph in the Background section) there is a large blank space before the quoted text. In an unpublished edit I changed the wiki markup from {{clear|left}} {{quote| ... }} to <blockquote> ... </blockquote> and the blank space disappeared. I did not actually make such a change in the wiki markup because there might be a reason to keep it as is (that I don't know about).

Would changing the wiki markup to blockquote format work, or should we keep it as is? @Ojorojo:

Note: I realize that the appearance of web pages often differs between devices, operating systems, and browsers. The blank space I reference appeared when I was on a Windows 10 desktop using the Chrome browser (both updated regularly). Since this is a relatively common configuration, I believe the "blank space" merits discussion.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 07:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I try not to use {{clear}} because of different screen sizes, fonts, etc., but when I added the quote (isn't {{quote}} just an easier form of <blockquote>?), it aligned with the preceding paragraph and left a large space to the left (beneath the Achilles image). So I added clear. I experimented some more without clear (using both quote & blockquote) and by changing the page width by a hair, the space disappears. So I'll go with whatever the standard practice is on this, with the goal of eliminating as much unneeded space as possible. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
This may be moot with the text recently added to the paragraph. I removed clear and it's OK. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Achilles Last Stand copyedit

[Copied from User talk:Ojorojo#Achilles Last Stand copyedit with pings removed]

{{re|Miniapolis}} Thank you very much for your improvements. I notice that two points by {{u|Markworthen}} were not covered ("'travels' needs explication' and "'different interwoven sections' could be improved by describing two sections that are interwoven"). For a rather short article, I felt that this was too much detail for the lead (and for the music, maybe too technical). Any suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. FWIW, I agree that a lot of detail isn't required in the lead. I believe that you mentioned their travel destinations, and I think I removed "different" from "different interwoven sections" as redundant. Unlike FAs (which are promoted by committee), GAs are assessed by one editor. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
(i) I also appreciate your work on the article [[User:Miniapolis|Miniapolis]]. :-) (ii) I changed "travels" to "exposure to diverse cultures and musical traditions during their travels" (diff). (iii) I personally do not understand what "interwoven sections" means, but I don't think it's a big deal, particularly since both of you believe the current text suffices. (iv) I experimented with a couple of edits to improve the layout (blank space after the long quote). It looks good to me on my PC and iPhone 6S. My PC is a Windows 10 desktop using Chrome (Version 75.0.3770.100 (Official Build) (64-bit)). I also used a free online tool to see how it looks on other browsers. Best I can tell, it renders well on Firefox, Safari, Opera, and older versions of Chrome. But free online tools can only do so much, thus the results are limited. (v) I support submitting the article for a GA Review as I personally believe it passes muster. But, as y'all know, another editor will make the call. (Not that a "fail" cannot be "appealed".)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvements, Mark, and I agree (FWIW) that it's a GA. "Interwoven sections" is slightly vague, but as a longtime copyeditor I've developed pretty good filters for puffery and woo and it didn't trip either one . All the best, Miniapolis 18:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
{{re|Markworthen}} Also thanks and for checking it out on different devices (maybe this should be standard for reviews). I'm going to copy this discussion to the talk page and hopefully it will help move things along. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

B-class for WP:SONGS

I noticed that WikiProject Songs had the article rated C-class on the project's quality scale. I reviewed the B-class criteria, just to make sure (triple-check!), and then added the appropriate WP:SONGS template with the B-class criteria checked off.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Achilles Last Stand/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 06:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for taking this on. I notice that many of your comments pertain to stylistic preferences and would change efforts already undertaken by the previous reviewer Markworthen and the Guild of Copy Editors Miniapolis. I don't want to start making changes, just to find them changed further or reverted (one of the GA criteria is stability). I'd like to hear from them on how this can be avoided. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Some of the information wouldn't change efforts: writing out the source(s) for hard rock, adding personnel, writing about cover versions and editing the notes section can be done. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't hesitate to change anything I've done if it improves the article. Miniapolis 19:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Miniapolis: Take a look at my suggestions to get a better understanding. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but after my copyedit I have no horse in this race and am busy copyediting another article. Miniapolis 19:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: The copy-editor believes edits from the suggestions are fine and having looked at GA1, it doesn't contradict my suggestions. Kyle Peake (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Since the GA1, both the reviewer and copy editor have made numerous improvements to the article, so the original suggestions are no longer applicable (see Talk:Achilles Last Stand#Achilles Last Stand copyedit for their comments). I'd still like to hear from Markworthen, but it looks like he's taking a break for the holiday. Meanwhile, I can't find a couple of requirements that you have noted (see entries below). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lead

  • Remove the refs from the infobox and invoke them in the Composition and recording section with text describing the song as "hard rock"
  • Done. I also moved the duration citation. These were included because of vandalism, so I added hidden notes instead. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Rest of infobox looks good
  • "is a song by the English rock group Led Zeppelin." → "is a song by English rock group Led Zeppelin, released as the opening track on their seventh studio album, Presence (1976)."
  • "began writing it" → "began writing the song"
  • "At ten-and-a-half minutes" → "Running for ten-and-a-half minutes"
I think I discern your concern here. For example, in this hypothetical sentence, "at ten miles he took a water break and then began to feel woozy" it's not clear if the sentence refers to "the ten-mile mark" (ten miles after the start) in a 26.2-mile race, or "at ten miles to go before the finish line". But in this article, I think most readers readily ascertain that the preposition "at" references the song's length because immediately afterwards one reads, "it is one of the group's longest studio recordings" (emphasis added).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "and one of their most complex" → "and also one of their most complex" as it is the same sentence
I regard "also" as redundant in this instance, but it's a close call. See And Also on DailyWritingTips.com.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was released in March 1976 as the opening track of the band's seventh studio album, Presence." remove this as it can be described in the opening sentence as I explained
  • "The song received mainly positive reviews, with some critics" → "The song received mainly positive reviews from music critics, with some of them"
  • "to other epic Zeppelin songs" → "to other Led Zeppelin songs" as epic isn't encyclopedic (plus only one critic used the word) and the band name isn't mentioned for another two sentences
  • The review in Classic Rock also mentions "epic". Other authors use "epic", including Fast: "The collection of songs that belong to this mythic/epic category obviously includes ['Achilles' and five other LZ songs], all of which are lengthly, multisectioned pieces with lyrics that allude to the mythological/spiritual/philosophical spheres to varying degrees." I think the idea has merit. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
My concern is that "epic" has become an overused slang term with a new (expanded) meaning, and many readers will interpret the word in that way. "Yeah man, even Wikipedia says the song is epic!"   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "The band featured it" → "The band performed it"
  • The idea is that it had some prominence that "performed" doesn't convey. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You have a point actually, it mentions concerts so is obvious that it means featured in the setlist. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. ;-)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "called it his favourite Led Zeppelin song" → "called the song his favourite Led Zeppelin track"
  • I'm not in favor of calling songs "tracks" more than necessary ("opening track" is used three sentences back). It makes them seem more like products than pieces of music (many song articles focus way too much on the commercial or "release" aspect of music, IMO). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Background and lyrics

  • "limit their time in the UK (alluded to in the song's opening lines: "It was an April morning when they told us we should go, and as I turned to you, you smiled at me, how could we say no").[6]" → "limit their time in the UK. This is alluded to in the song's opening lines: "It was an April morning when they told us we should go, and as I turned to you, you smiled at me, how could we say no."[6]"
  • "Page and Plant" → "Jimmy Page and Robert Plant" as they were solely referenced in the introduction so can be given full names once in the body
  • "Although the song" → "Although "Achilles Last Stand"" as you write "the title" in the next sentence
  • "focus on the group's travels" → "center around the group's travels"
  • "severely injured his ankle.[13] (Achilles was brought down by an arrow to his calcaneal tendon.)" → "severely injured his ankle.[13], as Achilles was brought down by an arrow to his calcaneal tendon." this gives a better explanation of the connection
  • I think somehow tying the two together is better. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I changed it per Kyle's suggestion, but I think it works okay either way.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ""Achilles Last Stand"'s working title" → "the working title of "Achilles Last Stand""

Composition and recording

  • "30-second excerpt with vocal and guitar verses" should have a full-stop
  • According to WP:CAPFRAG, "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "At 3:42 the song shifts" → "At 3:42, the song shifts"
  • "switch to 5/4 time[18] (the rest is notated in 4/4 time in the key of E minor with a moderately-fast tempo of 146 beats per minute).[19]" → "switch to 5/4 time,[18] with the rest being notated in 4/4 time in the key of E minor with a moderately-fast tempo of 146 beats per minute.[19]"
  • "went to Munich to record Presence" → "went to Munich for the recording of Presence"
  • Seems like an unnecessary prepositional phrase to me.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "saw its effectiveness" → "saw the effectiveness"
I edited that part to read, "... although Page objected at first, he soon recognized the effectiveness of Jones' innovation."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Release and performance

  • "Swan Song Records released Presence" → "Swan Song Records released Led Zeppelin's seventh studio album Presence"
  • "but in November (after Plant had sufficiently recovered) Led Zeppelin" → "but in November, after Plant had sufficiently recovered, Led Zeppelin"
  • "Page recalled," → "Page recalled:" as it is the line below
  • "which the group added" → "that the group added"
  • This started as "that", but was changed to "which". An Oxford dictionary includes: "The general rule in British English is that, in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, which can replace that. However, in non-restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves only to give additional information, that cannot be used ... In US English which is generally used only for non-restrictive relative clauses." Since "only" is used, it appears restrictive and in British English either is acceptable. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "A live performance at the Knebworth Festival 1979" → "A live performance of the song at the Knebworth Festival 1979"
  • "and was released" → "and was later released"
  • Done.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't including "in 2003" sufficient to convey "later"? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reception

  • "The song received mostly positive reviews from music critics." should be add the top of the section
  • "Spin's Jon Young" → "In a more negative review, Jon Young of Spin"
  • "review of Presence by Classic Rock Review" → "review of Presence published by Classic Rock Review" as its not a person
  • "journey"; however, the reviewer" → "journey," though the reviewer"
  • ""last true epic".[34]" → ""last true epic."[34]"
  • I try to use logical quotation style: "On the English Wikipedia, use the 'logical quotation' style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." In the ref, "last true epic" was not followed by punctuation. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The sentence currently reads:

In a retrospective review of Presence (Deluxe Edition), Andrew Doscas of PopMatters described "Achilles Last Stand" as the band's "last true epic".[34]

That looks good to me.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Brian Downing calls it" → "Brian Downing called it"

Cover versions

  • Change main article template to see also
  • Write about the cover versions in prose, otherwise the section is pointless
  • Linked in a "See also" section instead. The separate bare "Cover versions" section format with {{Main}} is used in so many LZ articles, it is accepted as normal. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  • Comments below about the ref layout being inaccurate
"Title: Editors may use any reasonable section title that they choose.[10] The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material.
Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is questionable in some contexts ...
If multiple sections are wanted, then some possibilities include:
  • For a list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes: "Notes", "Endnotes", or "Footnotes"
  • For a list of full citations or general references: "References" or "Works cited""
Is there another guideline that explains "accurate" vs "inaccurate" for these uses? This also applies to the following three subsections. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I checked several song FAs and there isn't any consistency, except most use only one "References" section (don't use the shortened footnotes format). I've associated "Bibliography" with a general list of books on the subject and not necessarily used for the topic. It would be helpful if someone could come up with a good format to use with "explanatory footnotes", "shortened footnotes", and "full references/sources". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Footnotes

  • Make these the notes section
    • See "Notes". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations

  • Create a references section with these
    • See "Notes". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Archive them all using the fix dead links tool and tick the box for archiving non-dead refs
  • AllMusic shouldn't be italicized on ref 13

References

  • Give these their own section "Bibliography" as they should be under that, not references
    • See "Notes". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Final comments and verdict

Well-written article, just a few issues that need sorting and then it'll be good. Add a personnel section as it is known who played instruments as well as the writers and producers, plus the album page gives info on who engineered and mixed that can be included in personnel so it is required.  On hold for now, great work though! --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  • "Personnel" sections are not mentioned in WP:SONGS#Article content. Is there another guideline that applies? (WP:ALBUMSTYLE, which is not a formal policy or guideline, applies to albums, not songs.) —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ojorojo They should be as you need a source to verify that is the list of producers and writers; don't know why this is not stated as if you look at other GAs on Wikipedia they tend to have the personnel section. Kyle Peake (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A separate personnel section may be appropriate when there is a long list of writers, producers, studios, extra musicians, backup singers, etc. However, only the four group members were involved on "Achilles" and each is discussed and referenced in the main body of the article. The names included in the Presence article are for an album release and not for a particular song; a note about Page as the producer can be added in the recording section. WP:OVERSECTION advises against creating very short sections – in this case, it would duplicate the four names that are already mentioned several times. There are many song GAs that don't have a separate personnel section and regardless, that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Added Page as producer & Harwood as engineer in "Composition and recording" with ref. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ojorojo: Ok then, could you sort out some other issues please like the cover versions section, since some of the issues raised by me don't oppose other editors in any way so can be done without debate? Kyle Peake (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I've incorporated many of your suggestions and will try to find where proposed wordings won't change something added by others in the last two months. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Ojorojo Mostly looks good, but could you re-add the cover versions section and write about the covers as there was three so it can be done? I meant add the see also template for covers at the top of that section with my comment. Once that is done, I will have no problem passing this. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Only cover versions that meet the requirements of WP:SONGCOVER should be added to song articles. There is no indication that any of the three are "important enough to have gained attention in their own right [as] discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song". The AllMusic reviews of A Change of Seasons, In the Name of My Father, and The String Quartet Tribute to Led Zeppelin don't mention it. I doubt further searches would turn up anything more than a listing or passing mention. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
There's been enough civil discussion between both you and the other user on here to make this article stable and it looks good, so I will ✓ Pass this. Well done! --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Kyle Peake, Markworthen, and Miniapolis for your contributions. Almost a year ago, the article was a redirect. Now, it's the first Zeppelin song GA. —22:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Reminds me of taking "Violent Crimes" from a redirect to GA in less than a year haha! Nice working with you, if you ever want to ask me anything my talk page will always get a response. --Kyle Peake (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Achilles_Last_Stand/Archive_1&oldid=1136494048"