Talk:Van der Graaf Generator/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I tend to work at a glacial place too, though I'll point out I will be off wiki for a week or two effective 23rd October (that's a week Tuesday) so anything still outstanding on that date will either have to wait or somebody else will need to fix it. Mark in wiki (talk · contribs) has been a useful peer-reviewer for this article so far, so he might be amenable for doing some of the changes / improvements. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria[edit]

Pass
  • Stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. Prose is good. Editors will often see different ways of presenting information and text, but that is part of ongoing editing. I have tweaked a bit here and there as I have read, but I've found nothing of any concern so far. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All MoS apart from Lead.
  • Images now OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage now OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourced. The article has plenty of inline cites. There are the occasional lines which come under the GA criteria, such as Fish's opinion of Hammill, which are not closely cited, but these are very occasional, and are not a cause for concern as the material is not controversial or even significant. Sources I've checked do support what is said in the article, and they are appropriate sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Article seems fair, and in keeping with what I have been reading in sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus. Yes, that's better, though I think some consideration could be given to moving the detail of "A new sound was established..." to the Music style section, leaving behind a brief summary. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query
  • Images. There is a visible credit on File:David Jackson musician.jpg - can the image be trimmed, or a another image used? The caption may also be a little long. The other images are OK, though I wonder about the value (other than decoration) of the first Hammill image in the Formation and early years section. Given that the image is not contemporaneous with the text, and that we do have another image later on which is contemporaneous with the text, I'm wondering if it is both redundant and misleading. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think we need to do something here, I'm just not quite sure what at the moment. Basically, what's happened is we've thrown a bunch of free images at the article and seen what stuck. I don't like the picture that was on the main infobox, but it's the only free image I can find that shows all of the current line-up. There are better images of the trio, but at best they are CC-BY-NC-SA, and claiming fair use in the infobox may not pass due to free images being available (albeit not as good). As far as I know, the image of David Jackson is the best free image going - the only other one I know of is File:David Jackson (rock musician).jpg. Perhaps we could change the caption to "David Jackson (pictured in 2009) performed with the band throughout the 1970s and during their 2005 reunion" which is fairly neutral and substantiated by sources in the article. Regarding the infobox image, a further possibility is to take a composite of heads shots from other free images, like File:Pinkfloyd.png. I'll have a think about the rest and get back to you! --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - the David Jackson picture has been reduced in size, watermark information moved to the description and retagged, and the caption simplified as described above. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. We still have the 2009 Peter Hammill image in a section talking about the band during 1967-1972, which is awkward. It's not a deal breaker, but the image does appear to be inappropriate. What is really frustrating is that while at Weeley I took a lot of pictures of bands, but I didn't keep those pictures. I sold them to a school friend! I wish I had them now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
You could try writing to vdggmatters@vandergraafgenerator.co.uk for permission to use some pictures they have on the website. Here's some they have of them during 1975-76. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
We could (and if this article passes GAN and we want to submit it to FAC, we should), but I think that would be more of a long term thing. One possibility, which I've used on other articles, is to have a picture of a place or venue that the article references - in this case we could use this image of Manchester University Students Union (which is CC-BY-SA 2.0) with a caption like "The band originally formed as students at Manchester University". How does that sound as a solution? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
That would in my view be more appropriate, and so meet the GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Now done. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Broad coverage. There's a good deal of information on history, but perhaps not enough on musical style - and what there is, tends to be lost in the history text. There is a useful paragraph starting "A new sound was established..." which could be used as the basis for a section on musical style. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Some information on critical assessment of the band - particularly a handy summary in the lead, would be useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
I've made a start on the "Musical Style" section and will hopefully get this completed this evening, and transfer a brief summary to the lead. Other things I want to put in are reviews of major albums, Banton's background as a church organist being crucial to the band's sound (mentioned in a few sources). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, that makes a significant difference. The section needs a bit of work, but that it's there and competent, meets the GA criteria for me. I've tagged a couple of uncited direct quotes. And I'm unclear on this wording: "Hammill thinks the reason for the style of the band evolved due to...." SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
The quotes were just missing the right reference tags, so that was easy to fix. The odd sentence comes from the way I seem to write articles, which is to write a sentence, edit it, change it about a bit, then save it when it looks right. Obviously there I took two sentences and mashed them together, not quite realising what I'd done! Anyway, should all be okay now. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
I understand that method, I tend to use it myself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus. Perhaps more of a layout issue really - the Formation and early years section is quite long. Some of the material could perhaps be moved to the Musical style section ("A new sound was established...."), and/or the section could perhaps be split up - maybe at the point where the "classic lineup" is established. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was thinking about this too. I think we could do with another section. I've split it into "Formation and early years (1967-69)" and "Classic lineup (1969-72)". --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research. Some of the opinion in the lead regarding Graaf's musical style appears to be unsourced and may be original research. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some or most of the paragraph starting with "A new sound was established" is original research as well, I think. Mark in wiki (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
The summary of the band's history in AllMusic is a useful guide to presenting the same thing in the lead. A mention of the band's major recordings is helpful - H to He Who Am the Only One and Pawn Hearts? As a rough rule of thumb, a summary of the important points of each section should appear in the lead. If a section is felt not worth summarising then perhaps it shouldn't be a section. There is an influence section which doesn't appear to be summarised in the lead, but when you read that section, it's not saying much - and some of it doesn't appear to be about influence, but about musical style and about personal preference. If it were not that Lydon is famous, what is it that he is saying that is worthwhile, and where does it belong in the article? Things said in the lead should be a summary of what's in the main body, so the "the signature Van der Graaf Generator sound" material should match what is said in the article, but mostly it doesn't - it stands alone, apart from a few fragments, such as the dark nature of the music and the use of the Hammond organ. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what's it worth, I would say that the major recordings by VdGG would be Pawn Hearts, Godbluff and possibly Still Life too. (I remember having read in an interview somewhere that Guy Evans used the word "Godbluff" as an answer to the question what-does-your-music-sound-like.) I believe the relevance of the fact that Lydon said he was an admirer, is the fact that VdGG are often considered prog yet are remarkably one of the few prog bands not rejected by the punk scene of 1976-ish (like ELP and Yes for instance). I do not know how to properly phrase that, but there is a marked difference between the romanticism of Yes and bombast of ELP on the one hand and the punkish, experimental crazyness of VdGG, which was (I believe) what endeared VdGG to Lydon. Mark in wiki (talk) 2:01 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Your order of major albums is close to that by the readers of Best Albums. The only album that appears on acclaimedmusic's top 3,000 list is Pawn Hearts. The critics list collected at http://www.rocklist.co.uk/index.htm are worth looking at (you need to do a site search for Van Der Graaf, which cannot be saved unfortunately so I can't link to it) - Graaf albums appear in good lists, such as by The Guardian, and that would be worth mentioning in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There was a lot of stuff in the lead, and I tried to leave it alone, though in retrospect I should have just redone it all once the article had finished. There's nowhere in the main article that mentions Evan's "rolling, jazz rock like drumming", so that's original research. Let me run off and give it another go.
As for essential albums - well this review written by Andy Thompson, who contributed to Mellotron (book) and might be considered a mellotron / prog expert, states "though the four from The Least We Can Do... to Godbluff are probably their peak". The Mojo source I have used in the article suggests Pawn Hearts was a peak moment for the band, so that might be the one to focus on. Regarding Lydon, as well as Mark's notes that someone known as a punk singer liking what's known as a prog band goes against conventional wisdom, it keeps cropping up in sources - the article uses several and here and here (I was at this gig!) are other ones I haven't used. It's a notable fact because multiple, independent, reliable sources mention it - simples. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - lucky to be at that gig! Interesting to see that the concert stub is worth £250! SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the Barbican gig last year! --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has now been updated to reflect the main article. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing. Reading through again, I feel that perhaps it is a bit loose in places. "Charisma rejected the idea of a double album", ""Theme One" was an instrumental piece, originally written by Beatles producer George Martin as a fanfare for the BBC radio station Radio 1", would be better with close inline cites. And I hadn't realised that vandergraafgenerator.co.uk is a fan site, not an official site, so I'd like to check that out a bit more. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bits here you refer to were part of the article before I started expanding it. I left them in to avoid appearances of ownership, but I agree it would be nice to just revisit this bit and put a source on it.
Regarding vandergraafgenerator.co.uk, the key point here is that most of the sources that are hosted on it are scans of old magazines and newspapers, so even if you don't trust that site as a reliable source, you can (at least in theory) refer back to the original publications to verify the information. The only place that's not necessarily the case are a handful of interviews - this is more of a tricky argument, but I think I can justify it because the information present is repeated in other published sources, just not in as much depth, and they have been sitting online in a reasonably prominent place for some time without any complaint from the interviewees. So the odds that the source is misleading or inaccurate are fairly low. My overall impression is that vandergraafgenerator.co.uk is very much an aggregator of information - it contains next to no personal opinion and original research, and everything seems to have been based from some external source. Not solid cast iron arguments, though, so up to consensus to decide what we do here, I guess. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've sprinkled a few facts around as it's easier to then spot what needs citing (I tend to do this on articles that I am cleaning up, as it is easier to keep track of what needs working on, and also to invite others to help out). I am largely in agreement with you regarding the use of some (most?) of the material on the fan site. It is helpful when a site compiles documents. In these cases it is not the site that is the source - they are merely the portal or repository, such as a library or Google. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The three {{facts}} you've added are all cited to reference 17 - the reason I didn't tag each sentence was because it was redundant. Rather than just reverting this, I'll pull direct quotes out and cite specific page numbers of the CD notes. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The liner notes were written by Mark Powell of AllMusic, so he can be credited as author when formatting the cites. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • "are somewhat unique among prog rock bands to count John Lydon as a fan" - is this appropriate for the lead? Seems important to mention in the influence section that the band had some form of impact on Lydon's songwriting, but perhaps not merely that he was a fan. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - this can go. It was originally in just the lead, but I expanded the "influences" section and found more sources to substantiate the claim in depth. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pressures leading to this included financial difficulties, the theft of the band's gear and transport in London, combined with Mercury's refusal to let the band record and Stratton-Smith's refusal to let the other members of the band sign to Mercury too, as he did not think the deal was fair to the band (only Hammill remained now of the original three who had signed with Mercury)." There's a lot happening in this sentence. Can it be broken up? And can "transport" be clarified? Was their van stolen? SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a go at breaking up this sentence, and explained about the theft (van and equipment). Please help, because I'm not a native speaker of English. Mark in wiki (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a GA requirement, but raised here while doing the review. Do all the External links meet WP:EL? SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crikey, there's a lot of them. Let's take each one in turn :
  • Hammill's official site - Yes, because it does mention VDGG on a semi-regular basis.
  • Van der Graaf Generator fan site - Yes, because it contains lots of archive material
  • Other official sites of band members - Not sure. I think I would only put them in they talk specifically about the band. Otherwise, they belong on the articles to the individual's in question
  • Music City discography - No, because it duplicates content in the article.
  • Family tree - As above.
  • Russian page - No, because it's a fansite that doesn't really add significant content over what the article does (or could) contain.
  • Trouser Press - No, but because it's a reliable source and instead should be mined for information. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Nic Potter's and David Jackson's websites hardly ever talk about VdGG (if at all). So they should all go, apart from sofasound and vdgg.co.uk. And I would say, first vdgg.co.uk and then sofasound. Mark in wiki (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sessions ... displayed a somewhat tauter, more streamlined sound." Whose opinion is being given here? I've read the nearest cited source - [1], and I can't pick up on that statement. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. I've found some comparable opinions from two magazine cuttings, though they specifically refer to Godbluff, so I've reorganised this part of the article slightly. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

OK. At this stage it looks like the article meets the bulk of the GA criteria. The two areas of concern are the lead, and the sourcing. Neither of these are major issues, and should be cleared up with seven days work so I'm putting on hold. Though I say seven days, I'm willing to extend that. I'd rather the article was passed than failed, and it's very close, so failing would not be appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the question regarding the unsourced opinion in the lead, but that will be resolved when the two main areas of concern are resolved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say seven days, but as stated at the top of the review, "I'll point out I will be off wiki for a week or two effective 23rd October". So in fact I've got one day :-/ Still, I'll see what I can do. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that you are going away, and will not fail the article due to no activity while you are absent. Also, other people may get stuck in and do the work, so no worries. The seven days is the standard time, and that is what the software says when "onhold" is put into the template. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything's covered now - the lead has been redone and the remaining problems with sources have also been resolved. Is there anything else left? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass[edit]

This is a very useful introduction to a quirky and interesting band. This meets the requirements of the GA criteria, and provides readers with a readable and informative article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Van_der_Graaf_Generator/GA1&oldid=1142447282"