Talk:Mothership (Led Zeppelin album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mothership (Led Zeppelin album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Led Zeppelin Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Led Zeppelin, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Led Zeppelin-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the members page, to join the project.Led ZeppelinWikipedia:WikiProject Led ZeppelinTemplate:WikiProject Led ZeppelinLed Zeppelin articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

same album

Anyone notice all these songs (Besides 'D'yer Mak'er') were released in a dual-disc compilation album? I mean what's the point of even releasing this, although I'm a huge Led Zeppelin fan and probably will buy it. 71.238.255.214 08:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remasters

Compare this one with the Mothership. ridiculous. On Remasters, you have 26 Tracks (15+11), on Mothership it's only 24 (13+11). Most of the songs are the same. On Remasters, you get Celebration Days, The Battle of Evermore and Misty Mountain Hop which aren't on Mothership. Mothership however has When the Levee Breaks. One song to beat three others...? That's for each of the first disks. On disk 2 the only difference is The Rain Song (Remasters) instead of Over The Hills And Far Away (Mothership).
OK, if I had to choose between those two today, I would maybe actually go for mothership because the cover of Remasters wasn't such a beauty. But if I already owned Remasters, why buy the other one? Sorry, a bit off-topic perhaps...--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you get the music ruined because of the "remastering" process... ie. applying excessive dynamic range compression. The songs on this album sound terrible. Please don't buy it. See: Loudness war

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mothership (Led Zeppelin album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Start class:

   * Y A reasonably complete infobox
   * Y A lead section giving an overview of the album
   * Y A track listing
   * N Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient)
   * Y Categorisation at least by artist and year

C class:

   * N All the start class criteria
   * Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art
   * Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
   * Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
   * N A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians.

B class:

   * N All the C class criteria
   * Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
   * N A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
   * N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
   * Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS

Your assessment is incorrect. The article clearly shows multiple references and lists personnel. MegX (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Beresford Hotel, Glasgow, Scotland. Unsourced. Unlikely.

The unsourced claim was made that the cover is a graphical interpretation of the Beresford Hotel, Glasgow, Scotland. Not only is the claim unsourced, but it is also unlikely on the face of the matter. All the cover and the hotel have in common is Art Deco styling. There are no distinctive details of the hotel that appear on the cover. Acorrector (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Album Cover

Would be nice to know what that cover is. It looks nice. Where did it come from? 2600:4040:93E7:5A00:11C2:1092:C42B:EC26 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]