Talk:Achilles Last Stand/GA2

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

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


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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Don't hesitate to change anything I've done if it improves the article. Miniapolis 19:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Miniapolis: Take a look at my suggestions to get a better understanding. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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GA1, both the reviewer and copy editor have made numerous improvements to the article, so the original suggestions are no longer applicable (see Talk:Achilles Last Stand#Achilles Last Stand copyedit for their comments).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)[reply]
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[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

Background and lyrics[edit]

  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • ""Achilles Last Stand"'s working title" → "the working title of "Achilles Last Stand""

Composition and recording[edit]

  • "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)[reply]
  • "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"
  • "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)[reply]

Release and performance[edit]

  • "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)[reply]
  • Done.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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"

Reception[edit]

  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "Brian Downing calls it" → "Brian Downing called it"

Cover versions[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

  • Make these the notes section

Citations[edit]

  • Create a references section with these
  • 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[edit]

  • Give these their own section "Bibliography" as they should be under that, not references

Final comments and verdict[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Added Page as producer & Harwood as engineer in "Composition and recording" with ref. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Achilles_Last_Stand/GA2&oldid=905466245"