Talk:Led Zeppelin IV/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 14:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't need much work – I'll try to get to it in the next few days. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on the edits in the sandbox:


 * I don't see an issue with putting citations in the infobox - every now and again a random new editor changes infobox fields, and putting the source there is an easy way of stopping arguments
 * Reasonable explanation. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think "Johns had just worked on engineering" is slightly more correct, as it clarifies the timeframe
 * OK (many of these wording suggestions may be personal preference, so please treat as such). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Have you got a page number for the Mick Wall source?
 * Wall often has material that isn't found in any other bios (LZ or Hendrix), which makes me suspicious. Since it's not an important point, Fleetwood Mac may be left out. I try not to use Wall as a ref, but: p. 186 (First St. Martin's Griffin Edition: November 2010). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've left that out (and taken out the Fleetwood Mac reference) for the time being. I haven't really investigated Wall as a source but I know it's come in for a bit of criticism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Is the markup helpful or should I add the comments here? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The markup was useful to easily find things to fix, the problem you might have is changing everything not discussed above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * How about if i feel that something important has not been changed, I add it here? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Might be easier. These days when I'm reviewing GAs, I tend to copyedit fairly obvious things and bring up things that aren't during the review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Couple more things:

Re: Going to California - It's important to state that the musical style was influenced by Joni Mitchell, as opposed to the song being about her specifically.
 * That seems to be the common view. Popoff adds "partially inspired by the Joni Mitchell song 'California'." But Shadwick sees it differently. Up to you. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Just go with the common view, I reckon. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"and became the highest selling album in the US not to top the Billboard album chart, peaking at #2 behind There's a Riot Goin' On by Sly and the Family Stone and Music by Carole King." - the two Billboard 200 citations show the two chart topping albums, with LZ IV stuck behind them on number two. That should be enough to verify it. The trouble is, the book citations (and quite a few other places) which would normally be better sources all say it was stuck behind Tapestry - they're wrong!
 * The refs show that is was indeed No. 2, but not that it was the biggest selling album not to reach No. 1. This notion came from somewhere or else it's OR. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This source confirms only three albums have sold more in the US than this one, and via the various Billboard citations (which should show they all topped the chart), you can avoid any synthesis - but then you need six citations for one fact, which suggests it's really not that important enough (otherwise a single source would have mentioned it!), so thus trimmed! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Reissues - the remastering happened in 1990, it just took a while for everything to get released

Note to self here to get a more up to date ref for the 37 million sold, and to sync List of best-selling albums up with it (now done)

Everything else has been covered, I think. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking good. I'll wrap it up soon after checking the citations. I did notice: United Kingdom and United States spelled out in full several times in the table in "Awards and recognition" (is the publication country even necessary?); in "Personnel", common instruments should not be linked; in "Charts", those without citations should be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Charts and certifications stuff in albums generally make my head hurt, use lots of strange templates, and generally don't seem to need improvement on first glance (that doesn't mean they shouldn't be checked over, of course). Links in personnel credits seem to be inconsistent between GAs; for example, Tommy (album) and Who's Next have them, while Quadrophenia doesn't. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Charts tables are sometimes subject to subtle vandalism and for a GA should have inline citations. What is "Record World Album Charts"? (Chartstats should be replaced with OCC) MOS:OVERLINK advises against linking common terms.  Readers of music articles should understand drums, bass guitar, vocal, etc., and the instrument articles don't have any discussion of LZ IV that would be informative (EMS VCS 3 is not mentioned in the article). —Ojorojo (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed about inline citations, for the same reason having them in the infobox can be useful - I'd be interested to see how many times my edit summary matches "Undid revision by (x) aww jeez not this again" after somebody changes the "genre" field on an infobox without a source. I've replaced chartstats with one of the Lewis book sources, which is just as good. I'm ambivalent about links in personnel, you could say "do it else I'll fail the review" ;-) .... as for the VCS3, where is it? Lewis says the synth on "Four Sticks" is a Moog. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * One of the problem with personnel on Zep albums is that aside from the first album and (for some reason), Houses of the Holy, there are no credits as to who played what, so it has to be worked out second-hand from other sources. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I spot checked a few citations in the Charts and Certifications sections and some are dead or don't have the info. Maybe remove these or update the links. Also, 26, 35, 49 don't work for me. I think we're about done. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed the certifications / charts stuff down - with the best will in the world I don't think anything outside the UK / US and maybe a few other English speaking countries is particularly significant; if the information passed verification, well that would be nice, but it doesn't. The two Times citations are subscription-only, while the Mojo source works okay for me. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I hear riots are already breaking out in Buenos Aires... I see the problem with the Mojo link and fixed it, along with a couple of other things. Not sure why most of the Certifications table is italicized. (now it's not). —Ojorojo (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


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

<hr width=50%>Most of my comments are in my sandbox or above. Good work Ritchie. More Zeppelin articles need this. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm going to get them all to GA as soon as - I've just held off for the minute while I get a backlog of reviews done. Thanks for a really good review, too. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)