Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zmbro (talk · contribs) 19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. – zmbro _(talk) 19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna act more collaborative than I normally do. I'm noticing tons of refs that need fixing that I'll do on my own and I'll request feedback from other areas afterwards. – zmbro _(talk) 19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, I have to confess that reference formatting makes my head hurt. As long as there is enough information to verify the claims, it should be easy to fix for those who know what's what. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Concerns

Current audio sample doesn't give any info that necessitates it being here. Also, this song is almost 24 minutes. Per WP:SAMPLE, it could be much longer than 30 seconds.

The main use is to try and explain some of the song structure more easily, and also to break up the flow of text. This is normally done with images, but there are no suitable free ones to use in this instance. The sample was taken from the Meddle article, which was uploaded by Parrot of Doom back in 2009. It can't be more than 30 seconds, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples says "As a rule of thumb, samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter."

Damn. Well I still think the caption would be a little more relevant. – zmbro _(talk) 00:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could we use this image with a caption like "'Echoes' is credited to all four members of Pink Floyd (pictured in 1971)."?

I think that's a copyright violation of the middle of the gatefold Meddle LP, which is owned by EMI. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pink Floyd, 1971.jpg. I'm not exactly sure why it hasn't been deleted, to be honest.

Covers should be in prose

Done

Personnel isn't sourced, I'd imagine Guesdon and Margotin would have that as I've seen their Zeppelin and Springsteen books

Done, it is. The GA criteria says inline sources are only for "controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". But it's known amongst fans that Gilmour played quite a lot of bass in the studio instead of Waters, so maybe this is controversial?

Manning, Toby isn't used

It used to be, but it's been taken over by Povey, Mabbett, Blake, Guesdon / Margotin etc. which are more up to date and detailed. Shall I get rid of it?

Yes, if it's not going to be used there's no point of it being here. – zmbro _(talk) 21:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get more reviews? I can check out Rock's Backpages but I would search for other modern ones

I'd love to but I've struggled to find them! I went through my book sources and pulled out what I could, but trying to find a neutral review from a reliable source is like looking for a needle in a haystack given all I can get back from an online search is tons of fan sites which would never be acceptable in a GA. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll investigate Rock's Backpages and report back. – zmbro _(talk) 21:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Rock's Backpages? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here – zmbro _(talk) 23:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damn absolutely nothing. Few reviews of Obscured and a bunch of live reviews but no reviews of Meddle or insights. That's a bust. I would check newspapers.com but I no longer have my free trial. – zmbro _(talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm surprised about the lack of sources for this, I expected a lot more. The only other place I could try is The Times newspaper archive, but I'm sceptical there'll be anything, and my other newspaper subscriptions have all expired too :-( Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This song chart at all?

No, it never charted anywhere, it was only ever released as an album track, and was commercially unsuccessful in the US.

Are surfer.com and The Surfer Journal reliable?

Moot point, Mabbett cites everything here.

Doing a quick look at the Pitchfork review, I found "As their fame rose and bassist Roger Waters seized ever-tighter creative control across the ‘70s, the music increasingly favored solemnity over whimsy, formalism over exploration. 'Echoes'—and Meddle as a whole—sit at the intersection of these two approaches, offering a hazy preview of Pink Floyd’s future as international stars without yet abandoning their past as visionary young ruffians." These types of things can and should be incorporated into "reception".

I did look at that source but concluded it mostly repeated information in the books, but I've dropped a bit in.

What I got so far. – zmbro _(talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are smash.com and johncoulthart.com reliable? – zmbro _(talk) 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Smash in WP:RSN, and it backs up a primary source (Nick Mason) so it's not likely to be contentious. For the Coulthart blog, I'm undecided. I can't find another source, but it's tangential to the song, so in the worst case we could simply remove it. Elsewhere, I've been looking for other sources, and found this, this and this, which are all typical examples of things not suitable for GA-quality sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you putting years in brackets everywhere? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found adding release years for albums/songs/films is customary for these types of articles. At least that's what I've been told for all my GAs/FAs. – zmbro _(talk) 14:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could we add some reception to the lead? Like a summary? – zmbro _(talk) 14:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now we've got a bit more detail from sources, I don't see why not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right it look's much better. After another read through I'm happy to ✓ Pass – zmbro _(talk) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Zmbro, this is a good review, concentrating on the right things - working together as a team (I'm useless at ref formatting and infoboxes) and suggesting ways the article can be much better, far beyond what a single editor can do. FWIW I want to see if I can kick Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd back into life - an initial aim would be to make Pink Floyd discography a good topic, which requires more work to get the discography past FLC and all important albums and songs through GA. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I actually just noticed that it seems largely inactive. In fact, I've noticed a good majority of band-based WikiProjects are inactive and were really only active between 2008–2012. I'm not sure why that is. I'd love to help out with Floyd but I unfortunately got no books for them. Nevertheless if you need assistance with Pink Floyd discography I can do my best to help with that. Don't be shy to ask. – zmbro _(talk) 17:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]