Talk:Quadrophenia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, the last sentence under 1996–97 tour and the last sentence under Other productions need refs.

The unreferenced sentences are all of the form "this recording was released on the [album with bluelink]" which I didn't think qualified as "material likely to be challenged", however it has now been challenged here, so I've dropped in AllMusic cites for all three. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well, it's probably best to end every paragraph with a source, just to be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the external links really needed? Some even seem dead.

My bad - I misread these as thewho.com (Official Site) versus thewho.net (fan site). Actually, thewho.net is not a bad fansite so I've left the main page. I'm glad I read it as one sentence in the article was a straight copyvio from it. (Note to self : always copyedit everything before submitting to GA!) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White space always irks me, but yeah, placing that first photo i's a bit tricky due to the short text. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious fix for that would be to expand the story a bit, which I can do from the original liner notes. I left the synopsis as cited from Neill & Kent's book as I figured a secondary source's summary of the plot would fit due weight correctly as opposed to the wall of unsourced original research that was there before I got hold of it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't hurt with a longer synopsis, I think... FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've beefed that up a bit and there's no gap now, at least on this monitor. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and uses it to sail out a rock" To a rock?

D'oh, fixed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" with Who's Next collaborator Glyn Johns in May 1972" Wouldn't producer be more to the point for most readers?

The trouble is, he's never been credited as a producer on the albums, even though he did a lot of work a producer would normally do, so it's factually incorrect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and decided to follow Frank Zappa's idea of producing a musical soundtrack that could produce a narrative in the same way as a film" Which Zappa albums are referred to here specifically?

Don't know, the source doesn't say. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"while the group put out old recordings" Old in what sense? Because they were previously recorded but unreleased?

Gone with "unreleased" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As last time, could be nice with each band member's role being clarified at first mention.

Done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Moon returned to his established drumming style on Quadrophenia." Could it be elaborated what this means?

The source used says, verbatim "Moon returned to an adventurousness of performing absent since Tommy". I'm not sure what else you could draw from that? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what his drumming style could be described as, but if the source doesn't say there, probably doesn't matter. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The original Polydor CD issue included the complete booklet in miniature" Why no year for this release?

I've rewritten this sentence - this is another one probably copied from thewho.net that I just tacked a source on the end of. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"writing in Creem gave a more critical response" May be interesting to elaborate a bit, as the good reviews had quotes.

I don't have the original review, only a secondary source reporting it. The source in question says "The greatest reservations came from Dave Marsh, who reviewed the work twice and on neither occasion found much that was positive" (which, incidentally explains why his Who biography is cited far less here than for Tommy and Who's Next, so I've had to look elsewhere). We could take it out, but it would help balance neutrality to have a negative review there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"IGN placed Quadrophenia at #1 in their list of the greatest classic rock albums of all time." Being a gaming magazine, does this really have much weight in this article?

Probably none, I've taken it out, although it's a good thing you raised this as this threw up a number of claims that were totally unsourced. I've tagged these as ^{[citation needed]} for the minute, as a quick search for sources just reveals mirrors that have taken copies of the article. I'd like to keep them in if I possibly can, particularly the Rolling Stone one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited Rolling Stone' but left the other (unsourced) awards out. This makes the section a little fallow, so I'll dig around for some review quotes instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered that this image[1] has been on Commons since 2006 without a compatible license, I nominated it for deletion, then we'll see what happens... Perhaps there are replacements.[2]

I wouldn't worry about it, I think this was just a picture for the sake of a picture. I've taken it out Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps be mentioned somewhere that Moon died (in the unlikely event that someone reading this didn't know), you jump from "his tenure with the band" to performances in the 90s with no explanation, yet you have "who replaced Entwistle following his death in 2002".

I've reworded this to mention this, which also makes the prose a bit simpler. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good, I guess the source issue you discovered is the last thing that needs solving. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've dropped in an original Rolling Stone review, a citation for the Best British Albums and a citation for RIAA Gold certification, which pretty much gets us back up to a reasonably broad coverage of how the album was received. Anything else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, looks good, will pass! FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]