Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Led Zeppelin/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:46, 7 March 2012.

Led Zeppelin

 * Nominator(s):  SabreBD  (talk)  and Scieberking (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We are nominating this article because we believe it meets the criteria for construction and style. The article has not been peer reviewed, but was recently promoted to GA status and points for further improvement noted in that process have been implemented and sufficient time has elapsed for editors to consider and implement some further changes. As the major recent editors of the article are the editors most likely to be able to implement any suggestions and requirements that arise as a result of the FA process. SabreBD  (talk)   and Scieberking (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The lead contains this sentence, repeated in the text: "The band are widely considered to be one of the most successful, innovative and influential groups in the history of music." This, as stated, seems a touch hyperbolic, and does not seem to be evidenced in these extreme terms by the sources. I suggest you modify by rephrasing as "...in the history of rock music." Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would change it to "history of popular music", as they have not only influenced rock musicians.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a source that says this for popular music, so I suggest adjusting both instances to fit that and adding the reference to the main body.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not entirely happy with the source I had in my back pocket, so I have adjusted the sentence slightly to say they were one of the most influential rock bands in popular music and provided a source that supports that. Happy to discuss this solution or others.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose at this point, as there are too many problems with references. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No citations to "Could a Robert Plant-free Led Zeppelin tour succeed?" or MacBain
 * FN 50: page(s)?
 * Check formatting of quotes within quotes
 * Ranges should use endashes
 * Be consistent in whether or not ranges are abbreviated
 * Be consistent in whether website names are upper- or lower-case, and whether shortened citations using them include the .com (or similar)
 * Be consistent in how websites are formatted
 * FN 167, 171, 184: page(s)?
 * Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books, and if so what information is included
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Rey 1997? This? This?
 * ISBN for Cope?
 * Why so many citations to Britannica?
 * Publisher for Grossman, Hunter?
 * ISBN and publisher for Fortnam?
 * Be consistent in how Guardian and Rolling Stone refs are notated
 * Page(s) for Pond 1988?
 * Where in Ontario was Rey published?
 * How are you ordering works with no author? It's mostly alphabetical by publication, but not always
 * Be consistent in what location info is included for books and how it is formatted
 * Since this process discourages breaking up comments it is probably easiest to say that I believe I have resolved these issues, with the few exceptions below. (To follow what has been done and how, it is probably easiest to look at the recent article history.) However, this is quite complex so I may have missed something or made an error, and if so please let me know. Issues that I have not implemented are: the interview at This - as I think a case can be made in an interview like this to say this is a reliable source, unless we have reason to believe the interview is not genuine. If that is not acceptable I will find a substitute or remove the text it supports. I was also unsure what point was being made about Britannica (Fast 2011): I can only see this used for one reference - perhaps there is some confusion (or a now resolved technical issue) with the book by the same person (Fast 2001), which is the key musicological text on the band.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment about the opening line: "Led Zeppelin were an English rock band"; shouldn't it be "Led Zeppelin was an English rock band" as we're talking about only ONE band and the name is singular (as opposed to, say, The Beatles, which is a plural name)? Jimknut (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In British English all bands are treated as plural - see American and British English differences.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.