Talk:The Bends (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nearly two months since this was nominated, so I will conduct a review! --K. Peake 09:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Should Oxfordshire really be wikilinked since it is a county?

I wikilinked 2 Oxfordshire, one in the intro and second in the Writing section, I think it's enough

List experimental rock under genres here like you have in the body

Though this genre is from a reliable source, I do not feel "The Bends" is experimental enough to be added in the infobox

That does seem quite inconsistent if it is listed under genres in comp, so maybe just say it includes elements instead? --K. Peake 06:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamer Gunner (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The writing sentence should be the second of the lead, followed by the recording one

Done

"it was released by" → "the song was released by"

Done

Move the Irish Singles Chart position to being before the other versions, Best Of and most performed info, which I will instruct to re-order

Done

"was included on" → "was included on their greatest hits album," with the wikilink, moving this to the second to last sentence of the lead

Done

"or various artists." → "or other artists, such as..." followed by examples and make this the sentence after the above one

Done, with keeping "various" as it is a type of an album's artist

""The Bends" was written in" → "The song was written in"

Done

"before recording it" → "before recording was done"

Done

Again, is the wikilink on Oxfordshire needed?
Remove producer introduction to John Leckie since this is provided in the body

Done

The most performed sentence should be the one before the greatest hits album in the new order

Done

The musical and sections sentences should come before the rest of the comp/lyrics info

Done

"to be more humorous." → "to be of a humorous nature."

Done

I don't see pressures as actually being sourced anywhere in the body; it seems to be something more similar to sickness

Fixed

"the success of "Creep."" → "the success of "Creep"."

Done

You should add a sentence about critical reception after lyrics, followed by one mentioning some of the accolades

Done

Remove the especially Brian May part because this is too much detail for the lead

Done

Writing and recording

"and was originally titled "The Benz."" → "originally going under the title of "The Benz"."

Done, without adding "of"

"credited to all" → "while credited to all"

Done

Remove the comma after debut album

Done

""["The Bends"] is one" → ""['The Bends'] is one" per the rules on each double speech marks inside quotations

Done

"numerous times earlier." → "numerous times prior to release." and add the weird quote from one of the band members

Done

[7][8][9][10][11] is too many refs at the end of a sentence; you could add them all to a footnote, but I would suggest only keeping sources here confirming it was performed multiple times before release, rather than ones like Far Out Magazine that focus on specific performances

Done

"recorded a 4-track demo" → "recorded a four-track demo" per MOS:NUM

I think this word must be written like this as it a type of a demonstration.

Thinking more about it in this context, you are correct. --K. Peake 06:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove commas around Jim Warren

Done

Are you sure Oxfordshire should be wikilinked since it is a county?
"that produced "High and Dry."" → "that produced "High and Dry"." with the pipe

This double article will be separated into two articles soon, so it's best to leave it like that

I had no idea but now I am aware, keep any of these wikilinks. --K. Peake 06:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"their upcoming second album," → "their then-upcoming second album"

Done

"to be nominated as" → "to be considered as" since nominated is not really the appropriate term here

Became "selected as a potential follow-up single"

That works --K. Peake 06:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"recorded on the same day" – is this really appropriate language after "as well as"?

Removed

"took two-week sessions for" → "spent two-weeks working on"

Done

"it was recorded in" → "the song was recorded in"

Done

"and Yorke's vocals were more" → "with Yorke's vocals including more"

more what?

""bombastic," Radiohead added "tinkling" sound effects" → ""bombastic", Radiohead added "tinkling" sound effects," per MOS:QUOTE

Done without adding the comma

You needn't add that, but move the ref to the end of the sentence instead. --K. Peake 06:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Composition

Music

Does [28] really work as a source for the song being hard rock since that genre is mentioned in the sentence before "The Bends"?

As the source mentioned, translated "The band hadn't completely abandoned hard rock as they did on the title track and 'Bones'", so, genre-wise, the title track is hard rock

Grunge should not be included as a genre when post-grunge is, as that is a sub-genre

I think the track is more post-grunge as the genre merges grunge with hard rock, while grunge is more hardcore, also grunge was dead in this era

My point is that when a sub-genre in post-grunge is included, it is probably appropriate to remove grunge. --K. Peake 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the comma after post-grunge per British English and move [30] to the end of the sentence, before [31]

Done

Distortion effects should come before the vocals part since musical elements belong first, also remove the comma between effects/vocals

Done

Remove MusicTAP because that is an unreliable source with no staff page

Done

"and Christopher Burns of" → "while Christopher Burns of"

Done

"in "The Bends" opening line:" → "when focusing on "The Bends" opening line:"

Done

"go from here?"." → "go from here?"" because the question mark ends the sentence

Done

"compared to the work" → "that was compared to the work"

Done

"It is played in" → "The song is played in"

Done

Wikilink tempo

Done

Write out beats per minute and add BPM in brackets instead

Done

Pipe range to Vocal range

Done

Wikilink chord progression

Done

add9 appears to be a formatting mistake; what is supposed to be the symbol showing up instead?

Actually I don't know, if you know, edit it if necessary

I replaced the sup template with sub, which seems to be right. --K. Peake 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"by the three guitarists, Yorke, Jonny Greenwood, and" → "by the three guitarists: Yorke; Jonny Greenwood; and"

Done

Add release year of "How Soon Is Now?"

Done

Pipe multi-tracked to Multitrack recording

Done

"low in the mix." → "appearing low in the mix."

Done

Lyrics

Quote box looks good!
"The lyrics were" → "The lyrics of "The Bends" were" because this is a new sub-section

Done

"faithlessness, and stasis." → "faithlessness and stasis." per British English

Done

Specify whose trip the Sixties part is referencing

The source did not specify

"to your gigs." Yorke later" → "to your gigs"; Yorke later" per overly short sentences

Done

"your friends are."" → "your friends are"." per MOS:QUOTE

Done Tamer Gunner (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence feels like a run-on when it gets to the "which, despite achieving" part, so you should start a new sentence here with "Despite this achieving" or "Despite the song achieving", depending on the meaning of the source (I can't access it)

If you or someone else has a better way to simplify this long sentence, do it

I have already specified that you can split into a second sentence at the achieving part, furthermore when "it also caused them" is written in the new context this will read smoothly. --K. Peake 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamer Gunner (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"also caused them" → "it also caused them"

Done

"also were compared" → "were also compared" and add release years of the songs in brackets

Done

"by Elvis Costello, and" → "by Elvis Costello and"

Done

"the recurring lines" → "the recurring lines,"

I added : instead of ,

"about other bands'" → "at other bands'"

Done

Add the release years of the Oasis songs

Done

"and "Rock 'n' Roll Star."" → "and "Rock 'n' Roll Star"."

Done

[45] should be solely at the end of the sentence

Done

"repeated "accusation" line:" → "repeated query line:" per the source saying the line is not used as an accusation at this point

Done

"when I need you?"." → "when I need you?""

Done

Release

Pipe B-side to A-side and B-side

Done

"titled "The Benz,"" → "titled "The Benz","

Done

Remove 1993 after 23 February because that year is implied by its usage earlier on in this sentence

Done

"second album, The Bends,[52][53] released on" → "second album The Bends on" moving [52][53] to the end of the sentence before [54]

The [52][53] sources says The Bends was released on 13 March, but [54] says it was first released in Japan on 8 March, so it is better to leave them

Wikilink 7-inch vinyl per MOS:LINK2SECT and was this the second track too; be clear?

Done, but it's enough to put one "second track", clear sentence

Grammatically, this does seem clear. --K. Peake 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove full-stop from inside the song title and mention when this was released

Done

Pipe compilations to Compilation album

Done

Remove comma after third album

Done

[61] should be solely at the end of the sentence per it not following punctuation

Done

""Bones," recorded at" → ""Bones", both recorded at"

Done

"included in online music stores, including" → "included on" since Amazon is the only one able to be listed

Done

Remove eBay per discussion

Done

"Its artwork features" → "The accompanying artwork features"

Done

"and in Belgium by EMI Belgium in May 1996, included" → "while issued in Belgium by EMI Belgium in May 1996, including" with the pipe, also cite the single release instead because the current source provides none of this info
If the single release does not source the artwork part, then remove this info since it is not backed up currently
Remove wikilink on David Bowie

The first wikilink was for "Bowie pastiche", I put another wikilink in this section for the full name

Well remove the one on his surname then per MOS:LINKSTYLE --K. Peake 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"bands including Pulp, Blur, and" → "bands such as Pulp, Blur and"

Done

[67] should be solely at the end of the sentence before [68]

Done

""slightly" different lyrics, and" → "moderately different lyrics and" to avoid too much quoting of single words

Done

Critical reception

Mention the Hot Press and People reviewers by name

Done

Remove wikilink on "Planet Telex"

There was 1 wikilink for the footnote 2; I kept the other wikilink cause it comes first in the section

"of Santa Cruz Sentinel" → "of the Santa Cruz Sentinel" and put some of this review into your own words per WP:QUOTEFARM

Done for adding "the", but for the "own" words I can't find thing suitable in my head, so you can help with some ideas or adding directly if you can. Tamer Gunner (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the second sentence of the review, try something like "Kleinedler appreciated the "seemingly self-pitying line", seeing it as not really self-pity but "what defines Radiohead"." --K. Peake 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamer Gunner (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks a lot better and I added the word instead to smoothen it out, however you need to remember to sign off comments since the revision history shows many have relied on auto-signing by SineBot. --K. Peake 16:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"of Chicago Tribune" → "of the Chicago Tribune"

Done

"wrote that the song" → "wrote that the song is"

Done

Mention the name of the CMJ New Music Monthly reviewer

Done

Legacy

"wrote that it was" → "wrote that the song is"

Done

Remove commas around the 2007 and 2010 books, also move [78] solely to the end of the sentence

Done

"likened "The Bends" to" → "likened the song to" to avoid overusage of the title

Done

"wrote: "On "The Bends"," → "wrote: "On 'The Bends'," per rules on double speech marks inside quotes

Done

Remove BuzzFeed per WP:RSP

Done

"named it the" → "ranked the track as the" plus shouldn't this sentence have the year listed like the following one?

Done

Pipe Vulture to Vulture.com per MOS:LINK2SECT

Done

"named it the 76th best," → "listed the song as the band's 76th best,"

Done

Live performances

"most performed songs,[88] and" → "most performed songs and" moving [88] to the end of the sentence instead

Done

"It was first performed" → "The song was first performed"

Done

Wikilink Tel Aviv

Done

"in Chicago Illinois in June,[92] and" → "in Chicago, Illinois in June and" per overly obvious wikilink and move [92] solely to the end of the sentence

Done

Add a relevant img instead because no performance at the Centre Ball is mentioned
"(1995),[95] and the 2009 reissue" → "(1995) and the 2009 reissue", moving [95] solely to the end of the sentence

Done

"they performed it in their performance" → "the band performed it for their set"

Done

"on the 2009 reissue of The Bends "Special Collectors Edition" on DVD." → "on the 2009 DVD "Special Collectors Edition" reissue." per this already having been introduced

Done

"in the setlists of" → "on the setlists of"

Done

"1997 festival [[Eurockéennes|Les Eurockéennes de Belfort in France in July,[105] and" → "July festival Les Eurockéennes de Belfort in France and" moving [105] solely to the end of the sentence

Done

"(2003),[110] and In Rainbows" → "(2003) and In Rainbows" moving [110] solely to the end of the sentence

Done

"they performed it" → "they performed a rendition of it"

Done

Remove comma after ninth album

Done

Covers and other usage

Retitle to Cover versions and media usage
"wrote on the single notes:" → "wrote in the single's notes:"

Done

Wikilink bonus track per MOS:LINK2SECT

Done

Remove comma after eighth album

Done

The quote about recording in 97/98 is actually from a band member so attribute appropriately, also do not use double speech marks inside quotes
"it in other live performances in" → "it on other occasions in" moving [123] solely to the end of the sentence

Done

Remove Rosie Carney version per WP:SONGCOVER, unless you can add enough info to justify the inclusion

Track listings

Only pipe to 02 Forum Kentish Town on the first instance

Personnel

Retitle to Credits and personnel

Done

Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel

Done

Remove pipe on The White Chocolate Farm

Credits to Thom Yorke

He has been wikilinked previously, though; see WP:OVERLINK. --K. Peake 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

See MOS:TABLECAPTION

Done Tamer Gunner (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Retitle to Notes and references

Done

Footnotes

Pipe "Planet Telex" to Planet Telex / High and Dry
"of "The Bends," while" → "of "The Bends", while"

Done

Citations

Copyvio score looks quality at 27.5%!!!
Remove or replace refs 2 and 84 per WP:RSP

Done for ref 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamer Gunner (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink Far Out Magazine on ref 9

Done

Remove or replace ref 16 because this is a forum, clearly violating WP:SELFPUB
Remove or replace refs 32 and 69 per WP:RSSM
Remove or replace ref 36 per the source having no staff page or any other evidence of reliability

Done

Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 40

Done

Remove or replace refs 55 and 66 per WP:UGC
Amazon → Amazon.com on ref 57 and pipe to Amazon (company)

Done

Fix MOS:CAPS issues with refs 61, 117, 119 and 123

Done for just ref 61

Remove pipe on Amazon.co.uk for ref 63

Done

Remove or replace ref 64 per discussion

Done

Should ref 72 really have the location parameter when it is the same as the paper's city?

Removed

Wikilink CMJ New Music Monthly on ref 75 per MOS:LINK2SECT

Done

WP:OVERLINK of The Gazette on ref 79
Pipe Billboard to Billboard (magazine) on ref 80

Done

Pipe Vulture to Vulture.com on ref 87 per MOS:LINK2SECT
Wikilink Audacy on ref 88

Done

I have my doubts about ref 94's reliability because Rock Cellar Magazine says nothing apart from that it is a source for music news, rock & roll, and celebrities, so what makes this reliable?
Crack Magazine → Crack on ref 97, piping to Crack (magazine)

Done

Pipe Radio X to Radio X (United Kingdom) on ref 104

Done

Fix MOS:CAPS issues with ref 108 and why are you citing the user as the author? If she wrote this, then remove per unreliability.
Wikilink New York Daily News on ref 116

Done

Wikilink Atwood Magazine on ref 125

Done

Sources

Wikilink ECW Press

Done

Pipe Omnibus to Omnibus Press

Done

Pipe Boxtree to Macmillan Publishers

Done

Wikilink Soft Skull Press

Done

Wikilink Routledge

Done

External links

Good

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; there is a good amount of reliable sources but these aren't detrimental to the article, so I won't be quick failing. --K. Peake 20:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a note to say that a number of these recommendations, such as changing "Radiohead/they" to "the band" and "The Bends" or "it" to "the song" appear to introduce a large amount of elegant variation, which is usually detrimental. See WP:ELEVAR for more information on that. Popcornfud (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornfud I understand that this may appear to be a problem in some areas, but when you have used terms like "it", "they" or "the band" consecutively, it can become unclear what you are referring to, especially with the former term. --K. Peake 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornfud A good number of days have past since your last comments; any updates on this? --K. Peake 18:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you ask: personally I feel the article is a bit overstuffed. I question if all the detail is necessary, I think the prose is overwrought in places, and I think there's an overabundance of citations. I think the whole thing could use a haircut. I also don't agree that many of the replacements of pronouns benefits clarity. But hey, I'm not the reviewer here. Popcornfud (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornfud Some of the prose changes may be a bit repetitive and if you want to point out which specifically, I am more than willing to take a further look. Also, the detail thing is not a problem but reliable sources have to be used per guidelines otherwise GA status is not acheivable. --K. Peake 17:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The use of pronouns doesn't seem repetitive to me - that's what pronouns are for - and the use of elegant variation is distracting. Again, see WP:ELEVAR.

And yeah, naturally, articles require reliable sources. I'm talking about when statements that only require one citation have two or three - ie WP:CITEOVERKILL. This bogs down prose and makes things harder to verify, not easier, because it's not clear what information is in what citation. Popcornfud (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornfud I understand what you are getting at here; would you prefer if I had a look through this article with a different mindset and only pointed out missed issues of a high importance, or if you went over which changes were not implemented and I thought them through deeper? --K. Peake 19:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without wanting to sound pissy, it isn't important to me whether this article passes the GA review or not - GA/FA reviews aren't an area of interest for me. I'm just making some observations as someone who has worked on pretty much every Radiohead article extensively. I think you should just do what you think is best, and I'll continue to edit the article when I see areas for improvement, like I do any other article. Though if there is anything specifically you'd like my help or thoughts on, by all means ask. Popcornfud (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✗ Fail honestly the prose and layout is too sloppy, plus there is still a reasonable amount of unreliable sources. I appreciate the effort you have put in to this article, but not every GA review passes. Best of my wishes! --K. Peake 16:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]