Talk:Green Bullfrog/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

This article is quite short, but it is one of the oldest albums GANs nevertheless so I will review for the GAN backlog drive! --K. Peake 10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for a non-charting album recorded by an ad-hoc group in two days over 50 years ago that is only really notable because the individual players are, I think this is as good as we're going to get it. Unless, of course, you know different... :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 The shortness is not really an issue when there's been a lack of coverage, I was just commenting on how noticeable it is. --K. Peake 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Separate recording dates using bullet points instead per Template:Infobox album

Do you mean you use Template:Ubl? I'm afraid I'm a bit of an ignoramus when it comes to infobox fields :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean to use the same bullet points I have for this review. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Done, I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this works. --K. Peake 20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the venue parameter, as that is for live recordings

There is no venue parameter, only the studio Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the catalogue number since only the label should be listed in its parameter

Says who? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen the catalog number listed in the infobox before, even when it is known; they list it in the body on these occasions. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the engineer from producer

Martin Birch has a longstanding career producing Deep Purple and several other related groups; it is through this recording he continued engineering some of Purple's classic albums Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That means he is notable for writing about in prose, which you have done; only actual producers go in this parameter though. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've borrowed the style off Who's Next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That article passed as a GA a while back though and it is not a good model since the producers there actually violate the current guidelines at Template:Infobox album, as does the engineer being here for this album... remember, Wiki guidelines change. --K. Peake 20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the genre from the opening sentence since it is the one of the album, not the band

I don't understand what you mean. There wasn't really a band as such. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove "rock" from the opening sentence since that is not the appropriate place for the genre if it's the one of the album. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "an ad-hoc band of musicians" → "an ad-hoc band of the same name"

I don't like that, it's longer prose. Maybe just "an ad-hoc band" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but could you call this an "eponymous album" or something that indicates the name of the band? --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not really the name of the band, only the album. The "band" as such didn't have a name; in an analogous manner, Mick Jagger, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Ry Cooder and Nicky Hopkins didn't form a band called Jamming with Edward! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand you somewhat, but shouldn't you still introduce the name of the credited group in the lead? --K. Peake 20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove introduction to who Derek Lawrence is, as that is enough in the body

Have trimmed this a bit Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Identify the studio as Kingsway because that was the name at the time, but target to De Lane Lea Studios still

Are you sure that's correct? While this is not what I'd call a reliable source, it gives claim to the name De Lane Lea being present upon opening in 1947. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I did not know... keep as is then. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink reissues

I think that violates MOS:OVERLINK Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I see this term regularly linked in GA-class articles, so I beg to differ. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The album was" → "Green Bullfrog was" but the link between lack of success and pseudonym listings is not sourced in the body

Trimmed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "performed on the record." → "performed on the album." but where is the speculation sourced?

Fixed. It is implied by the ECY reissue, but not actually stated up front. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Background

• Retitle to Background and recording

Would rather not, that's longer Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This section deals with the recording as well though, making the title fully appropriate. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I had a quick look at other GAs I've written - Thick as a Brick, Led Zeppelin III, Tommy (The Who album) and Nursery Cryme and they don't do this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Those all passed over two years ago though, plus that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and background/recording aren't the same thing so if a section deals with both, it should be retitled. --K. Peake 20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The essay you cite here says, verbatim, "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." I think you'll need to come to terms with not having a consensus for this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Img looks good!
• "The album was the idea of" → "Green Bullfrog was the idea of"

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• [1] should be solely at the end of the first para since it is the only ref there

Oh yeah Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Target session player to Session musician and remove the comma afterwards as well as the later wikilink

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "and Sutch" → "and Screaming Lord Sutch" because this is a band name, not a person and does alumni make sense here?

I don't understand what you mean. Screaming Lord Sutch had some of the most prominent musicians from the 60s and 70s in his band at one point or another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused and thought it was a band not a performer; still change because this is not his real name. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Change to "Sutch" per WP:LASTNAME and consistency. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

• [2][1] should be put in numerical order

sassen frassen rassen Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "It was recorded" → "They were recorded" since this is about the backing tracks

Not in British English Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Lawrence, and bought along Purple's" → "Lawrence and brought along the band's"

"the band" might be construed as Green Bullfrog in this context. Better to be specific. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You should not be referring to a band by the last word of their name, though, like it's a person... --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It is well-known that Deep Purple fans refer to the group as "Purple". Here's the first source I could think of. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a fanpage though, it is a Wikipedia article and you are not supposed to use abbreviations for artists unless it's someone's literal surname. --K. Peake 20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reword to mention the road being near the studio, specifically

Huh? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It says "nearby", but is not entirely clear what you are referring to it being nearby. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah right. I've removed it. Readers can make up their own mind if Kingsway and CXR are nearby. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No offence here! --K. Peake 20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "and was persuaded" → "with him being persuaded"

I think that's more wordy Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Just remove the comma then, as this is not American English. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Target rock to Rock music per the listed genre

Think that violates MOS:OVERLINK Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Targeting the genre of a musical work is not overlinking, plus you have done this in the lead and the one to rock and roll is incorrect anyway. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "is basically the" this is not appropriate language; try something like "is the same as the" or "is an alternate version of"

Copyedited Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "which Purple had" → "which the band had"

Same issue Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink BBC

Or, more specifically, BBC Radio 1. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Neat addition! --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lowercase the Creations per MOS:THEMUSIC

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "first formed, and the session" → "first formed; the session"

I've copyedited it, stops the clauses being the wrong way round and flows better Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "after an in-joke" → "as the result of an in-joke"

Think that's more wordy Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Try to change to something else that is not "after" though, due to repeating the word twice in the same sentence. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "in The Outlaws" → "in the Outlaws" with the target

Didn't know we had an article on them, but it doesn't surprise me Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Chas 'n' Dave → Chas & Dave, for consistency

Okay - I'm not going to run off and start a requested move for that, because .... well .... life's too short. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "and Paice was nicknamed "Speedy" owing" → "while Paice was nicknamed "Speedy", owing"

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Merge the fifth para with the fourth one

I've split it between the second (recording dates and venues) and fourth (pseudonyms), which talks about the recording dates and venues. It makes more sense to put it there than to bolt it on the end of the list of pseudonyms. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The album was completed with" → "Green Bullfrog was completed with"

I've copyedited this so it's not necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jeff Beck is not mentioned by the AllMusic source, only the latter two

The Beck claim comes from this source, but I don't consider that particularly reliable (who wrote it, and on what authority did they base the information?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You will have to look under revision history to find that out and yes, the source is unreliable. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It was this edit, though the question was more rhetorical. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I knew you understood the unreliability but initially thought you were questioning who wrote in the previous revision. --K. Peake 20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Release

• Retitle to Release and reception

See above Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Similarly to my previous response, this section also deals with reception. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Allmusic → AllMusic

D'oh, fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Invoke [8] after the star rating instead

I think that's right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is the correct link, but you have accidentally added a duplicate AllMusic ref rather than using a refname. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh $%^%^&%^& ... fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Merge with the first para with the second one

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "in the US by" → "in the United States by"

Per, MOS:US, "While, in principle, either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate "United States" in any given article" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Target single to Single (music)

Think that breaks MOS:OVERLINK Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink "My Baby Left Me"

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "in the UK by" → "in the United Kingdom by"

I think MOS:US also applies here Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "the LP was released, so it was not promoted and was not" → "the album was released, so it was not promoted and not" plus if there is a link to the pseudonyms, mention it here

Copyedited to avoid this issue Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The album was re-released in" → "Green Bullfog was reissued in" with the wikilink

I want to try and avoid having two paragraphs both starting "Green Bullfrog"; also reissue sounds like MOS:OVERLINK. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But you have used "the album" most recently and it's not like you're really offending anyone by re-stating the title a para later. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink Guitar Player

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "September 1978 which correctly" → "September 1978, which correctly"

Tweaked Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "on the LP, but mistakenly credited Roger Glover." → "on the album, but mistakenly credited Glover."

I think per WP:LASTNAME this needs a full mention (and link) as it's the first time he's mentioned

Oh no, wait, he is mentioned earlier. Scratch that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes... so you need to remove the wikilink and his forename. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The album was remixed at" → "Green Bullfrog was remixed at"

"It" sounds better :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Been too long since you stated the title. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Peter Vince, and released on" → "Peter Vince, being released on" with the wikilink

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "and additional information and" → "alongside additional information and"

Copyedited Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "on the sessions." → "for the sessions."

Removed, I think it's obvious from context Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Merge the last two paras with the above one

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Ritchie Blackmore compilation" → "Blackmore compilation album"

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• AllMusic should not be italicised

Okay, I'll trust you on that. I'm kind of interested to know why, but on the other hand I wouldn't really complain that much if the MOS said it had to be in 40 point bold red with the <blink> tag :-D Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Look at the article to see why, for future reference. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "but felt there was "little ...." → "but he felt there is "little [...]"

Why the tense change? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Because even though the review was written in the past, the content of the album still exists. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that matches similar articles I've worked on, including particularly The Beatles (album), which has multiple regular editors looking at it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe then, as the review may mean there was little put into the album anyway, but replace ... with [...] since that's used for giving pauses in quotes. --K. Peake 20:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Are you sure there aren't any more reviews that could be added, maybe even from the book sources?

I'll have a look, give me a mo. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You try that! --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Track listing

LP

• Add the appropriate media notes to back up these track listings

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

CD reissue

• Add the media notes to back up this track listing

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Why are there asterixis here?

Should be clear now Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Target Ellas McDaniel to Bo Diddley

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Personnel

• Add the "Credits adapted from..." part at the top of the section with the appropriate media notes

I can, but the original LP (as explained in the article) doesn't cite the actual players. However, I don't think this violates the verifiability policy here as the information is available in the article and sourced appropriately. Also, I've never been particularly comfortable about the way refs sort of dangle on track listings like this, but I can't think of a better way of doing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is acceptable now, you just need citations for verification of things. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Notes

• Good

References

• Copyvio score looks slick at 1.0%; practically every ref is not an online source so I was expecting this!
• Wikilink AllMusic on ref 8, plus archive this one (it's the only ref with an actual URL)
• Wikilink EMI on ref 11

Both done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any appropriate target for John Blake out of the many articles that exist under the title?

It's John Blake (journalist). I know that's confusing that the article combines the bloke with the publishing company, but that's a problem for another time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink ECW Press
• Wikilink Omnibus Press

... and McFarland & Company Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, can't believe I forgot that! --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

External links

• Green Bullfrog - Deep Purple Podcast → Green Bullfrog at Deep Purple Podcast

Are you sure about that? I haven't seen it done that way before, but I'm happy to stand corrected if there are examples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No, this isn't really offending anyone so should be fine. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed, though this article's shortness does not prevent it from being well-written! --K. Peake 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of the issues above, though some need further discussion. In particular, I'm going to see if I can dig out any more reviews from reliable sources (emphasis mine, I can find plenty of unreliable and self-published ones....) and a source that debunks claims Jeff Beck was on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Good to see you respond so quickly, but you were confused in a lot of areas and I've gone over those above. --K. Peake 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Intermezzo

Okay, there doesn't look like there's too much outstanding at the moment. For the remainder, I've tried to get hold of a second opinion, but I haven't had much success. I would say, however, that not much of the MOS is required in the GA criteria. It would be a different story at FAC, obviously, but then over there you've got multiple people chipping their 2c in, making consensus a bit easier. Anyway, I'll have a read through again in the morning and see what I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Disagreements are bound to happen; it is not needed to call for a second opinion unless the reviewer has dropped out or shown no interest to sympathise with your viewpoint, though I have been able to see both sides. Regarding the retitle request for background, I guess you can keep as is actually because it's not really offending anyone. --K. Peake 07:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't mean put the review on "second opinion", I meant just pop onto a colleague's talk page and say something like, "Hey, don't suppose you can remember if we normally link "blah" or not?"

Anyway, I've updated a couple of other things, and as things stand, I think everything has been addressed, and what remains is either a difference of opinion or open to interpretation without breaking the GA criteria. So I would say we're done. Any further thoughts? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I will let rejected changes like the lack of retitling for sections slide because they are a necessity. However, rock should not be targeted to rock and roll because it is done so to rock music elsewhere, which can lead to confusion over the genre of the album for readers looking at the infobox/lead then body. Also, I know you may not like the comments being left about the infobox, but Template:Infobox album says, "Enter the name of the person(s) credited as the actual record producer(s). Do not include those listed as executive, co-, additional, vocal, etc., producers, unless a reliable source identifies their contribution as substantially the same as the main producers." This is a legitimate guideline not just me pulling some MOS out and if you look at articles where people are credited outside of the producers, they are either older ones or articles with low viewership, that nobody has got round to updating. --K. Peake 06:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Kyle Peake I missed the rock / rock and roll link; I've changed it to "blues-inflected cover versions" which reads a bit better. Regarding the infobox, well I thought Birch was mentioned in the article with a source, but on a closer look, he isn't, so there is a clear consensus to remove that per the guideline you linked to. So yup, these were both mistakes on my part. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 ✓ Pass now, great that we reached a consensus for the infobox and I changed the genre to blues for you since that's the sourced one! --K. Peake 10:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 No problem, it is good we managed to maintain civility despite having our disagreements here and there! --K. Peake 16:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)