Talk:Queen (band)/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll give this a go. This is one of the most popular musician / band articles on Wikipedia, so it's worth making a GA out of it.

Lead

• Queen did not originally have John Deacon playing bass. Use "the best known" or similar
• I think the opening paragraph needs to briefly mention their commercial success.
• "adopted his familiar stage name" sounds a bit odd
• "their eponymous debut album" - make the wikilink as close to the article title as you can, otherwise readers might be confused by what's linked there
• "Queen enjoyed success in the UK with their debut" - I don't believe it had any commercial success until later records were released
• "The latter featured "Bohemian Rhapsody"" doesn't explain what "Bohemian Rhapsody" is. Suggest something like "The album included the single "Bohemian Rhapsody..."
• "contained two of rock's most recognisable anthems" - "most recognisable" sounds POV and not something you can specifically attribute to a source. I tend to go for commercial success like chart positions or sales figures instead.
• "their performance at 1985's Live Aid is widely regarded as one of the greatest in rock history" - It was a memorable gig, sure, but I think this is still overdoing it. If you can find multiple sources (The Guardian, The Independent and Rolling Stone would be my three of choice) that specifically state that they thought it was one of the greatest in rock history, use that
• I think the Freddie Mercury Tribute could go in the lead - wasn't it one of the biggest memorial gigs ever?
• Likewise for We Will Rock You (the musical) - it's been a major part of the Queen "brand" for a decade, at least

History

• The paragraph is cited to a wayback machine archive of queenfans.com. That doesn't sound like a reliable source
• Brian May and Tim Staffell had also played together in the band 1984
• The second paragraph appears be entirely cited to a self published fansite.
• The quote is possibly a bit too long and could be reworded
• "The band had a number of bass players during this period who did not fit with the band's chemistry." Who were they, and why did they not fit in?
• "It was not until February 1971 that they settled on John Deacon" Why specifically was Deacon chosen? (eg: for his quiet demeanour, electronic skills, good musicianship)
• All but the last citation in the third paragraph refer to unreliable sources
• How is famouslogos.net a reliable source?
• "In 1972 Queen entered discussions with Trident Studios after being spotted at De La Lane Studios" - the correct title is "De Lane Lea Studios", why would a band be talking to a recording studio (as opposed to, say, its management) and why were they in De Lane Lea in the first place?
• The fifth paragraph is cited to a site advertising Norman Sheffield's book. For a GA quality book source, we typically need title, author, publisher, page and ISBN.
• "In July 1973, Queen finally under under a Trident/EMI deal released their eponymous debut album" - this needs rewording, also avoid "easter egg links" where it's not obvious from "eponymous debut album" to which article the link is pointing to.
• "The album was received well by critics; .... Chicago's Daily Herald called it an "above average debut"" - should be "well received", also "above average" is not the same as "received well"
• The Rolling Stone reference cites it appearing at #31 in its "100 Greatest Guitar Songs of All Time" but doesn't appear to cite the rest of the preceding text
• "features rock photographer Mick Rock's iconic image" - POV; who is it "iconic" to?
• "The Freddie Mercury-written" - per WP:LASTNAME should simply be "The Mercury-written"
• "The album is the first real testament to the band's distinctive layered sound, and features long complex instrumental passages, fantasy-themed lyrics, and musical virtuosity" - this is a personal opinion and should be expressed as such, not as fact
• "the song "The March of the Black Queen", a six-minute epic which lacks a chorus or song structure, bearing similarity to Queen's later work, "Bohemian Rhapsody"" - this sounds like original research
• Is the Daily Vault a reliable source?

I'm afraid I think I'm going to have to fail the review at that point. I'd be happy to carry on if I was just listing minor questions or suggestions, but just from the first section I see major issues with unreliable sources, uncited text, original research and POV pushing. I don't think it's likely that this is going to pass the GA criteria without a significant amount of work. I would strongly recommend if anyone is up to the task to get some good book sources on the band (example here) and work through sections one at a time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)