Talk:Led Zeppelin II/GA2

GA Review

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

OK, I will begin a review of the article (which looks pretty good actually) here: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The album features further development of the lyrical themes established on their debut album, Led Zeppelin (1969), creating a work which became even more widely acclaimed and arguably more influential than its predecessor.

I know it's Led Zeppelin, but the 'even' seems to be maybe a bit too effusive :)

The first segment The album features further development of the lyrical themes established on their debut album doesn't flow greatly but it isn't a dealbreaker for GAN. Maybe for FAC it will need some tweaking.

while selling over 500,000 copies in its first year of release - "while" not needed here as the first is not contrasting to the second (unless I am missing something?)

it has received recognition from --> "it has been recognised by.." (nicer flow?)

Some of the recording studios utilised by the band were far from state-of-the-art "used" is plainer and simpler than "utilised", and "state-of the art" is jargony, how about "primitive"?

Nitpicking here, but making sure the refs are all laid out the same is good, eg refs 13 and 14 have authors "John Smith" when they should be "Smith, John". Any authors which could be added for web refs would be good.

It has been suggested that Led Zeppelin II largely wrote the blueprint for 1970s hard rock - who suggested it would be good here, or change to make the band the subject of the sentence.

Only a couple of things above and yer home and hosed. Good work and nice read. (humming "Whole lotta love guitar riff now...) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC) More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK back to it - The finished tracks reflect the raw, evolving sound of the band and their innovations as live performers. - I am nt sure what 'innovations' is referring to here. Looks odd. Casliber (talk · contribs)
- Casliber, I've been editing to the standards set by FA albums such as Dookie, and Blood Sugar Sex Magik, and using them as a guide. Many of them have the "Accolades" section directly above the "tracklist" section and after the "Reception" section. Should the current section be restored back to this position? MegX (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okies, don't know where everyone went to, but refs 13, 14 have been fixed and names added to others. MegX (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most sorry, got sidetracked...ok, over the line for mine.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]