Talk:The Bends (album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: MoonJet (talk · contribs) 04:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article for you soon. MoonJet (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Let's start with the lead and infobox.
 * "Most tracks were produced by John Leckie, with extra production by Radiohead, Nigel Godrich and Jim Warren."
 * This sentence comes off as a little redundant. I would suggest replacing "extra production by" with "the help of."
 * ❌: I'm not sure that this is a necessary change, nor does it sound redundant.
 * "distinctive music videos were released."
 * What does "distinctive" mean here? How about replacing that bit with "music videos for some of the singles were released."
 * ✅: replaced it with "along with the release of music videos for several of the singles."
 * Now, for the infobox, the genre and producer field should have no wrapping. Use the template on "indie rock" and "Nigel Godrich." You would enter it like this: " indie rock " and " Nigel Godrich " MoonJet (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like you unlinked "indie rock" and "Nigel Godrich" when you did that. Please link them again. MoonJet (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like you unlinked "indie rock" and "Nigel Godrich" when you did that. Please link them again. MoonJet (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Now time for the background and recording sections.


 * "Guitarist Ed O'Brien said later:"


 * Swap the words "said" and "later."
 * "Recording was postponed so Leckie could work on the album Carnival of Light, by another Oxford band, Ride."
 * "Recording was postponed so Leckie could work on the album Carnival of Light, by another Oxford band, Ride."


 * Remove the commas in that sentence. Those don't come across as necessary.
 * ✅: Removed the first one, but the second one is necessary.
 * "Yorke said:"


 * I suggest replacing "said" with "stated," since the word "said" is in already in that same paragraph.
 * ❌: "Said" fits better here in my opinion, and I don't think it matters that a word was already used a couple sentences ago.
 * "EMI gave Radiohead nine weeks to record, planning to release the album in October 1994".


 * Change this to "EMI gave Radiohead nine weeks to record the album, planning to release it in October 1994."
 * ""The Bends", "Nice Dream" and "Just" were identified as potential singles and became the focus of the early sessions, which created tension"
 * ""The Bends", "Nice Dream" and "Just" were identified as potential singles and became the focus of the early sessions, which created tension"


 * "The Bends" is linked here. I would suggest linking "Just" too, since it's the first use of it past the lead.
 * ❌: "The Bends" is also already linked in the lede, should I remove that as well? I think that the songs should only be linked where they first appear, so I'd argue that the correct change here would be to unlink "The Bends" in this part of the article.
 * "In September, EMI released the My Iron Lung EP, comprising "My Iron Lung" plus Bends outtakes."


 * This is a bit redundant. I suggest replacing the second use of "My Iron Lung" with "of the track" (since we're still talking about the song "My Iron Lung").
 * "EMI grew concerned that he was taking too long;"
 * "EMI grew concerned that he was taking too long;"


 * Replace "taking" with "spending."
 * ❌: "Taking" fits better here since the phrase ends here with the semicolon, and "spending" would fit much better if the sentence continued.
 * "Much of "Just" was written by Greenwood,"


 * Unlink "Just" here, assuming you followed my instructions to link it above. MoonJet (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌: See above

Now let's do the rest of the article.


 * "Colin said that they wished to distinguish themselves from Pablo Honey, viewing The Bends as more representative of their style."


 * Generally, we use the surname of people past the first mention in the article. Though, I know he's not the only Greenwood in the band. Maybe say "C. Greenwood" instead? I've seen other articles using this same practice.
 * ✅: Just going to add "Greenwood" after each mention of them, as that is what other Radiohead articles do.
 * "He likened "The Bends" to the late music of the Beatles, described "My Iron Lung" as hard rock, and noted more subdued sounds on "Bullet Proof" and "High and Dry", showcasing Radiohead's "more plaintive and meditative side.""


 * I would suggest using the full name of "Bullet Proof," since its the first mention of the song in the article.
 * "In "Just", Jonny and Colin create substantial space by playing octatonic scales that extend over four octaves—the album having an overall spacious tone"
 * "In "Just", Jonny and Colin create substantial space by playing octatonic scales that extend over four octaves—the album having an overall spacious tone"


 * Same as above. You might want to use "J. Greenwood" and "C. Greenwood." Alternatively, you can state "the Greenwood brothers." The same thing goes for all future mentions of them in the article.
 * "Journalist Rob Sheffield dubbed "Street Spirit (Fade Out)"—as well as "Planet Telex" and "High and Dry"—a "big-band dystopian epic".[31] The angular guitar riff on "Just" was influenced by John McGeoch's playing on the 1978 Magazine song "Shot By Both Sides": Jonny Greenwood said that it was "pretty much the same kind of idea."
 * "Journalist Rob Sheffield dubbed "Street Spirit (Fade Out)"—as well as "Planet Telex" and "High and Dry"—a "big-band dystopian epic".[31] The angular guitar riff on "Just" was influenced by John McGeoch's playing on the 1978 Magazine song "Shot By Both Sides": Jonny Greenwood said that it was "pretty much the same kind of idea."


 * This is the second mention of "Street Spirit" in the paragraph, so you might want to omit the "fade out" part.
 * "For The Bends, Yorke and Donwood hired a cassette camera and filmed objects including road signs, packaging and street lights."
 * "For The Bends, Yorke and Donwood hired a cassette camera and filmed objects including road signs, packaging and street lights."


 * What does "hired" mean here? Maybe replace that word with "acquired," since they didn't hire anyone, and is more clear.
 * In British English, "hired" is often used as a synonym for "rented". Also, it's the word the source uses.
 * "The buzz generated by such famous fans as R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe, combined with the distinctive music videos, helped sustain Radiohead's popularity outside the UK."


 * Replace "singer" with "vocalist." The latter is the preferred term on Wikipedia.
 * "Best-of lists"
 * "Best-of lists"


 * I suggest renaming this sub-section to "accolades." Also, what's the stray "I" doing at the end of the paragraph?

Well, I think that's pretty much everything. MoonJet (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Congrats. I have now passed this. MoonJet (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MoonJet and Tunakanski. Thank you both for getting involved in the Good Article process. I am, however, a little concerned at the GA Review because it doesn't show where the article has been checked against the GA criteria. What shows here is that MoonJet did a copy edit; however, it is not clear if other aspects have been assessed.

It helps to use a GA checklist, both to focus the review on the GA criteria, reminding the reviewer what needs to be done, and also to reassure other readers that the article has gone through an appropriate review. It is not mandatory, but it is helpful. Some templates are listed here: Good article nominations/templates. I've not read the article in depth, but a casual glance shows that there is unlikely to be concern about the prose, nor about citing - the article is richly cited. Nor is there likely to be concern about unnecessary depth as no section is particularly long, except the one on Recording. However, given that even though being richly cited, the article relies on only one in depth text (Mac Randall's Exit Music: The Radiohead Story) despite there being several major texts on the band, the Broad coverage aspect of the criteria would need to be examined (usually best done by a little research of the available material). The media used in the article would need to checked against the criteria. Do we need three images of recording studios - are they pertinent? Is there a valid non-free use rationale for the use of the two sound clips? Are all image captions succinct? These are concerns I have just from glancing at the article, without having read it, because I don't see these matters raised and discussed in the GA review.

MoonJet and Tunakanski would you mind re-running the GA Review, and ensuring that where there may be reasonable concerns that the article does not meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, that these matters are discussed, or at least mentioned that they have been examined and passed. My suggestion is that a tick list is used, and each item on the tick list is looked at and explicitly given a pass. It may be tedious, but that way there are no concerns that the article hasn't been given an appropriate review.

I would be willing to help out on this if requested. SilkTork (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I am definitely willing to continue this review if it is needed. It doesn't seem like MoonJet has responded yet, so it might be necessary for you to help out. ― TUNA × 03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any other problems in my review. Everything seems to be well-cited, and everything that should be cited are. That said, if the article should be cited to more in-depth sources, I'm sure that can easily be done. Here's a recently-published source that goes in-depth on all the album's songs, for example. That source would also be helpful for the song articles from this album.
 * As for the images and sound clips, everything seems to be fine here too. Maybe the second image caption could be altered a bit. MoonJet (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll initiate a GAR. The article looks sound, so I feel it would be extremely unlikely that it will end up being delisted, though perhaps a few items will be cleared up, and certainly there will be a reassurance that a full review has been done. SilkTork (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)