Talk:Led Zeppelin/Draft
This article and the whole cluster is really amazing! Well done, Meg! --Larry Sanger 08:49, 7 March 2008 (CST)
- Thanks, Larry. I really appreciate the kudos. Meg Ireland 17:28, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
Great work! The only thing I'm seeing which is slightly jarring is the Related Articles subpage. The list of bootlegs needs to be on the Discography subpage, and the Related Articles page ought to follow the hierarchical form used on other RA subpages - see Biology/Related Articles for a standard example. The point of the RA subpages is that people can use them to navigate to higher level categories (in this case: popular music, rock music), to subtopics (which would, in this case, be albums, musicians, tours and songs that have their own article cluster), and related articles (for musical subjects, that would be similar bands and peformers, related genres and bands that members of this band have been in before or after this band - in this case, The Yardbirds, XYZ etc.). Currently, the Related Articles page doesn't actually link to any other related articles. The list of all the people who have been in the band should probably be in Catalogs. Congratulations and thank you for all the hard work you've obviously put in on these pages! –Tom Morris 14:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers Tom, Done. Meg Ireland 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is looking really good
This band has defined rock music worldwide. I couldn't imagine anyone really doing them justice, but this article seems to touch on most, if not all of the defining characteristics of "what Led Zeppelin" is all about.
I do have one stylistic suggestion however. Perhaps place the image of the symbols from LZ:IV directly above, or directly below the main picture in the infobox? Those symbols were, and still are a prominent part of the Led Zeppelin image, and shoud have just as prominent a place in the article.
Otherwise, AMAZING job.Drew R. Smith 13:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Mahalo nui loa. Meg Ireland 10:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Approval nomination
Sorry all that I missed this article until now (I had watchlisted the wrong page...). It definitely meets the standards for an approved article, and Meg should be congratulated. I suggest another copyedit to make sure all of the narrative sentences use the past tense. The primary author has done a great job documenting the importance of the band (with citations throughout) that I removed the weakening words in the lede. Led Zeppelin was one of the most successful bands of the 70s. That is a documented fact. They are one of the most influential bands in the world -- that has also been documented as often as any of the other facts in the article. An author who wants to reintroduce the "it has been said that they are..." etc. (of the sort that Wikipedia likes so much) will need to demonstrate that there really is ambivalence about LZ in the rock history literature.
The article is not perfect (and a specialist in popular music can probably see many other ways): I think Stairway to Heaven should be mentioned in the lede. "The interaction of all four musicians on stage gave their live performances a visual counterpoint to voluminous intertwined harmonic and rhythmic structures of their compositions" is fine writing, but not sure it's been proven (any more than other bands) in the article. The plagiarism accusations/suits needs to be added to give a balanced view -- it does not need to be as long as WP's discussion of the issue (where it unbalances the article against the band), but should be there somewhere. It would be best if these areas could be addressed before next week's Approved version. In the long run, more discussion of musical style is important: the group's music is being analyzed and dissected in the musicological literature now, and inclusion of those aspects is important (and is missing on other free, web-resources about the group); but I wouldn't expect this discussion to be added by next week.
I also think the focus on the next edition should be on trimming the article about 20-30% (and splitting off longer subarticles on specific periods if need be) -- it's a bit long as an introduction to the topic. For instance, the paragraph beginning, "As producer, Page spent most of the 1990s remastering the entire Led Zeppelin back catalogue including the two-volume Led Zeppelin box set and three-disc Remasters set..." is quite detailed, but for an encyclopedia article I wonder if it would be better summed up as, "Most of the catalogue was remastered and reissued in the early 90s. This was a period that, after many false starts and delays, produced a reunion concert in April 1994." (Or something like that, I may have got the details wrong). We want to give more details for LZ fans, but also want to let novices find out all the important details about the group in one 10-15 minute read. I think the subarticle approach will eventually let us do that.
But these are comments for the future. For now congrats again to Meg for her detailed and important article that improves Citizendium and the web as a whole. Michael Scott Cuthbert 11:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reunion concerts were in 1985, 1988, and 2007, although there were other minor get togethers during the interceding period. Meg Ireland 03:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
APPROVED Version 1.0
Approved 1.1
As an editor (inactive) of the music group, I see Meg Ireland's changes to the Draft (as of 20 April) as definite improvements and recommend to the constables that they promote it to the approved version. Sorry that I'm not active enough on this project to know how to do this directly (if that's possible), but hope that this mark of approval suffices. Best, Michael Scott Cuthbert 09:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A note on number
British English allows both singular and plural number agreement with collective nouns in singular form. So Led Zeppelin was... and Led Zeppelin were... are both possible, but the plural form is preferred. 'My bank are dreadful' is another example. John Stephenson 12:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Image/caption agreement
The image captioned "Led Zeppelin backstage at Knebworth Festival, August 1979" shows them outside, standing in a field. I doubt this is a "backstage" photo. Huw Powell (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I assumed it was an outdoor festival, where 'backstage' more or less means 'not on stage'. Would something like 'behind the scenes' be an improvement? Ro Thorpe (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is just a promotional photograph released around that time. Note that they are not wearing stage clothing, and there is no one and not a thing in sight. I would think that captioning it "Promotional photograph from 1979" would be safely accurate. Huw Powell (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed it would. But perhaps the expert knows. Ro Thorpe (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Huw, I've clarified the description. Meg Ireland (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, that's much nicer! Huw Powell (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Huw, I've clarified the description. Meg Ireland (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed it would. But perhaps the expert knows. Ro Thorpe (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is just a promotional photograph released around that time. Note that they are not wearing stage clothing, and there is no one and not a thing in sight. I would think that captioning it "Promotional photograph from 1979" would be safely accurate. Huw Powell (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)