Talk:Richard Wright (musician)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Good work so far! The following things should still be adressed:

Lead: No need to put the reference behind the tours statement. But it needs to be behind the aquivalent in the article body, where it is lacking.

As the comment said in the article body, I didn't think this was "information challenged or likely to be challenged" but I've dropped a source in Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd: as well as harmonies on "The Scarecrow" and "Chapter 24". needs a source.

As this isn't particularly important, I've removed it Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other work: and two Barrett's songs - I guess it's and two of Barrett's songs?

I've removed this - "Arnold Layne" is the only one sources give any prominence to Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life: to whom he dedicated Broken China - I cannot find that in the source.

Ah, mea culpa on this one, I haven't listened to Broken China for about ten years and assumed the dedication would be easy to source, but it appears not, so I've removed it. There's quite a bit on Broken China elsewhere in the article anyway that is sourced.Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the dedication in the booklet? You could use that as a source, provided it is written there somewhere. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CD booklet just says "Thanks to Millie" and is one of several people credited; I don't think that counts as "dedicated to". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment: second paragraph: The last sentence needs a source.

Now, I can probably ferret one out somewhere if I try hard enough, but I sincerely believe it is not original research to watch Live and Pompeii and observe Rick is playing a grand piano (at 6:00 on "Echoes Part I") a Hammond M-102 (eg: at 28:00 on "A Saucerful of Secrets"), a grand piano and a Farfisa Compact Duo (57:19 on "Echoes Part II"). I can drop these cites in (citing the DVD with publisher, serial number etc) if necessary but it seems a bit like citing that the Pope is Catholic if you ask me ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discography: several entries need sources.

Again, I do not think saying Rick appeared on Live in Gdansk is particularly "material likely to be challenged" but I dare say Povey's book or AllMusic will be able to cite all of these. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References: ref #32 is not only offline, but can also not be considered reliable.

Reworded with the same information from Mason's autobiography Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: The source of Mark Blake 1996, where exactly was that published?

It would help if I had remembered to include the URL for the interview, now done. While Brain Damage is a fanzine, it's a highly regarded one, Mark Blake is a respected music journalist who has had work published in The Times and The Daily Telegraph and the interview was authorised by EMI Records so I've no reason not to trust its factual content. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, so good. I give the nominator(s) the usual seven days to adress the issues at hand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: I think all the issues have been addressed - can you take another look? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the changes! I would disagree with your comments on the equipment section though. That might be obvious for music enthusiasts, but those instruments and the concert in particular cannot be considered common knowledge. A citation of the concert DVD or something along those lines would be very helpful. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: I did cite the reissue DVD using timings, but it's in a footnote at the bottom to avoid clutter in the main text. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I misread that... Then it's a pass, congrats! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! About time we had another Floyd biography at GA. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! The review made me listen to a couple of the early albums again. Great stuff! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: Well my favourite era of Floyd is from about '68-'72, where Rick was at the height of his contributions, and any live show would feature much jamming and improvisation. The later stuff is okay, I saw them on the Division Bell tour and the light show was amazing, but listening to it back I can't help feeling they could have cut costs by getting rid of the band and just playing the original albums along to the lights and video. Anyway ... have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd and see what other work there is to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]