Talk:Four More Respected Gentlemen

Four More Respected Gentlemen has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 25, 2022. (Reviewed version).

The Kinks (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Kinks, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.The KinksWikipedia:WikiProject The KinksTemplate:WikiProject The KinksThe Kinks articles

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

July 2018 test pressing claims

"In addition at least one test pressing was manufactured, it is currently (as of July, 2018) in the possession of a collector in the U.S. midwest, who obtained it indirectly from a former Warner Bros employee." And so on. These are fascinating and detailed claims, and I can find no other reference to them on the internet. Please provide sources, and more detail.

In addition, the July revisions talk about confusion over Greg Shaw's track listings for two different Kinks albums/compilations. Is the track listing in the current article the same as the one on the newly-discovered test pressing, or is that the listing that is in error? It would be great to have this cleared up (perhaps by detailing the two track listings.

The article sounds like original research, perhaps by someone who has seen this test presssing. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Four More Respected Gentlemen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 10:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copyvio check - I reviewed all matches over 3% found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns - matches are titles. Similarly, no concerns from the couple of offline sources that I checked.
Image - FUR is OK. Image is relevant.

Background

Optionally, expand slightly on "In September 1967, the Kinks issued their album Something Else by the Kinks in the UK" - e.g. add some info like "English rock band", year they formed, Something Else by the Kinks being their fifth UK studio album

I expanded it a bit, including "English rock band" and "fifth UK studio album".

Having looked at Bandleader, I don't think there would be much to be gained by wikilining it.

Agreed.

"Davies initially thought about making a solo LP, but as recording sessions persisted into June 1968, his idea merged into plans for the Kinks' next studio album" - it doesn't seem quite right to say that the "idea merged", unless this about the concept for an album rather than the solo v group issue.

Hinman uses the word "mutated", so I paraphrased it into "merged", but now that you point it out I see that it isn't a helpful description. I've changed it to "evolved".

History

The Neill quote box text could perhaps be converted to prose in the body text instead, but not a blocker to GA status to keep as-is.

I think I'd like to keep it, as it helps break up the text nicely.

Content

"Johnny Rogan" can be just "Rogan" as he's mentioned in the previous section.

Done.

Track listing

Looks slightly odd to have a notes section for the track listing straight before the Notes section for the article, but I dont have a better option. (No action required.)

I'd reorganize it differently if I could, but I think it's best to have the track listing notes right there lest we make it harder to find for the reader.

Notes

No issues.

References

Spot check on "a situation which resulted in confusion for the band's fans" - OK.
Spot check on "Johnny Rogan simply writes it was stopped while Reprise waited for Village Green's UK release" - OK
Spot check on "In his 1994 autobiography, Ray Davies writes the album was going to be called Four More Well-Respected Men" - OK
Hinman & Brabazon (1994) seems like an OK WP:SPS, given that Hinman (2004) is from an established publisher and Hinman appears to be well-regarded. The other sources all look OK.

Yes, I've included Hinman & Brabazon's book because I think it meets Wiki's standard for using a SPS. As you mention, Hinman was later published by a reputable publisher. Additionally, he is recognized as the leading Kinks expert by numerous authors. Andy Miller's book (2003), Peter Doggett's liner notes to Village Green's 1998 reissue and Dave Davies's autobiography (1996) all cite his 1994 book when they produce dates, since the 2004 one was not yet published. Miller also describes Hinman & Brabazon's book as "the standard Kinks' reference work and a truly magnificent feat of diligence and research" (p. 146). Academic Carey Fleiner includes it in the further reading section of her 2017 book The Kinks: A Thoroughly English Phenomenon. She adds that next to the 2004 book, it is "[a]nother top reference tool" which "[c]omplements Hinman's other work on the Kinks" (p. 204).

Infobox and lead

No issues with NPOV. Breadth and depth seems fine given what I saw in some of the sources. I made one trivial script-suggested edit - if there's any reason to revert it, feel free to do so. Thanks for your work on the article, Tkbrett. I only have a couple of minor points above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review BennyOnTheLoose. Responses above. Tkbrett (✉) 19:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.