Talk:The High Llamas

Beach Boys Comparison

While the leading section where the High Llama's nearly collaborated with the Beach Boys can be kept, the section where that says that they are compared with the Beach Boys is not a good look on the leading section, in my opinion. Also it uses weasel words, "...comparisons are often drawn between..." who is making the comparisons?

Uh everybody who has listened to the music? It is mentioned in almost every magazine or web article written about them. There is even a quote in the body that explicitly references the pattern.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The High Llamas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This is my first GA review, so please feel free to double check it once I am finished. Also please note that this article was nommed Decemeber 2017 and has had many edits before my review. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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:
· · ·

Infobox

I fixed a minor misspelling of Jon.

Lead

I just reread this part and notice that some of this is not supported by the rest of the article with references: 1) The instruments/role that each band member plays (High Llamas about us only confirms Bennett and Murcott) 2) The year Murcott and Aves joined the band 3) The years that Visser and Bennent were in the band before leaving The only parts that the High Llamas page confirms is that Bennett

History formation

Extended content

1st para - "band called the High Llamas was formed" I think could be shortened to "the High Llamas was formed". The only reason why I mention it is because the phrase is used word for word in the clay the scribe ref but this part is cited by the Washington post ref. Also "band called the High Llamas" doesn't sound neutral. Y Does not mention Visser joining or leaving. I also suggest renaming this section to Early Years or something similar as it talks about their LP album Santa Barbara as well.Y 2nd para - "He became their keyboardist and was initially a quick replacement" maybe reword "quick replacement" as it's directly quoted by O'Hagan in Popshifter without quotations marks here. Y "Influenced by his time with the group" yes, but O'Hagan specifically mentions Tim Gane, and not the entire band, having an influence on him. Y 3rd para - "Gane considered the Beach Boys to be his favourite band". I don't think the Gane sentence is needed as the paragraph talks primarily about O'Hagan joining Stereolab and changing his ideas for the High Llamas. The 1996 billboard ref could also be used more to include O'Hagan's influences at the time of recording Gideon Gaye. On second thought, perhaps another sentence from the New York Magazine ref could be added to show how Pet Sounds influenced O'Hagan to create the High Llamas. Y

Gideon Gaye-Snowbug

• 1st para: "(It was first reissued on the band's Alpaca Parks imprint)..." - Not sure why this is in brackets Y
  • "It was recorded with a £4000 budget in the span of a few months" - Washington post says a few thousand dollars, not specifically £4000, making this original research as the source doesn't backup the claim.Y
  • "anticipating the mid 1990s easy-listening revivalism" - maybe reword this part as the book says "anticipated the easy-listening craze" and the sentence follows the same format. Also a tiny bit OR to me as "revivalism" suggests that easy-listening was revived while the book says it predicted the fad, not revived it.Y
  • "British music journalists praised Gideon Gaye, but critic Richie Unterberger stated" - maybe specify Unterberger wrote this quote for AllMusic as he also wrote for Mojo. The previous statement says Mojo praised it (which the citation confirms) but I think specifying would prevent any confusion that Mojo praised it while AllMusic criticized it.Y
• Does not mention Bennett joining in 1994. Y
• 2nd para: "Gideon Gaye was well-received from within the record industry, O'Hagan said, and "A&R people around the UK started recommending it to each other." - Yes O'Hagan said the cited quote but the sentence flow confuses me a bit. Is A&R Artists and repertoire? Not 100% sure if this would be better in two sentences.Y
  • "a new breed of popsmiths ... going back to such inspirations" - quote doesn't need the ... as it's one continuous quote.Y
  • "When Hawaii caught the attention of longtime Beach Boy Bruce Johnston, plans were made to coordinate a collaboration between O'Hagan and Brian Wilson" - The uncut magazine ref doesn't specifically mention either claim. The uncut article states that Johnston called O'Hagan "the highest of The High Llamas" and O'Hagan's "attempt to co-ordinate a full-scale reunion between the Boys and Brian Wilson". I think a different reference is needed.Y
• 3rd para: "O'Hagan recalled that, eventually..." - I don't think "eventually" is neutral.Y
  • "nomadism, nostalgia, film and musical theatre, and the effects of colonialism" needs to be have quotation marks or reworded as it's directly appears in the signal to noise ref (pg 61.) *Last minute addition* Y
  • "At the time, Wilson tried to organize a comeback album with the Beach Boys and collaborator Andy Paley" I think this sentence is diverting focus on Wilson's comeback as the sentence before and after talk about O'Hagan and Wilson. Also, the only mention of the High Llamas I'm seeing is page 284, while the reference mentions pages 280-291. Maybe only use the page where the High Llamas are specifically named?
  • "O'Hagan attended one meeting with Wilson" CMJ says two meetings with Wilson not one.Y
  • "Some tracks that were later placed... but this never happened". "this never happened" i think does not sound impartial.Y
• 4th para: "The High Llamas' American and British fanbase continued to grow" - when? Also doesn't sound neutral. AllMusic suppoorts it, but a specific point in time the band grew in popularity would be useful I think.
  • combination of "cold" or digital sounds and "bouncy" rhythms - a bit misleading as the April 1998 Spin source says "digital chill and boisterous beats". I think "cold" and "bouncy" should be replaced with "chill" and "boisterous" respectively.Y
  • "Snowbug (1999) featured Stereolab vocalists Lætitia Sadier and Mary Hansen" - Pitchfork source says differently. The reviewer says "That singer sounds like Laetitia Sadier from Stereolab." and doesn't mention Mary Hansen in the review. A different source is needed that mentions both Stereolab singers featuring in the album.Y
  • Does not mention Murcott joining in 1988Y

2000s-present

• 1st para: "The High Llamas started recording for the Duophonic and Drag City record label." - when?Y
  • "started to record for Duophonic and Drag City" - closely paraphrase Domino source.Y
    • "started recording for the Duophonic and Drag City record labels with Buzzle Bee" is still closely paraphrasing as it appears in the same word order: started recording, duophonic, drag city, buzzle bee. Unless there's a limited amount of ways to say it per WP:LIMITED.
  • Does not mention Bennett leaving in 2000 or Aves joining in 2002
• 2nd para: "This was also why the band began to pursue a minimal approach" - This doesn't sound neutral to me. Y
  • "Talahomi Way (2011), described by O'Hagan as a "spring album". In a podcast from the same year,..." While the 2011 pitchfork ref for Talahomi Way does mention the podcast, the article only confirms O'Hagan said it was a "spring album". The podcast itself is broken, and I can't play it on the archived link. The review does not support the low finances and commissions claim. If the podcast is unplayable, then I think the first paragraph where it briefly talks about what O'Hagan said in the podcast can be the best option.Y
  • While most of the quotes are attributed, there is only one issue. "could no longer afford to use commercial studios and recorded in makeshift spaces" is a direct quote from clay the scribe and does not have quotation marks. The rest of the quote "as much as possible...tired of density" is quoted so I presume the prior quotation marks were missed.Y
    • Perhaps reword "commercial studios" as it's word for word (unless there's a limited amount of ways to say it)
  • "In 2013, the group contributed a song, "Living on a Farm"...Yo! Gabba Gabba." The Huffington post article does mention the High Llamas featuring on the show, but not specifically playing a song called "Living on a Farm". Also the video is broken so I can't confirm it with this specific source.

The video displayed this before the embed broke. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

In that case I'd suggest removing the name of the song because the Huffington Post does not name the song. To confirm the name of the song would be OR because you'd have to visit the vimeo page to see the song name. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Y

• 3rd para: "In 2014, the High Llamas premiered a theatrical play, Here Come the Rattling Trees," little misleading as it is also a studio album. Nevermind, I see that the studio album adaption was later mentioned in the para.[{tikc}}

References

Most of the references are reliable, but a few I am uncertain on. Mean Street's author Eric Broome has a list of magazines he's contributed to, but I don't recognize the main contributions. Clay the Scribe is a blog by Clayton Woullard but I do not know if that's the same person as the Denver Post columnist (the twitter accounts dont match).

On the topic of specific reliable references: Buried Treasure Volume 2 i can't confirm the page number as GBooks does not have page numbers for it. #24 Signal to noise citation needs to be more specific as the GBooks link points to a four issue book. Also, I think the Catch a Wave Beach Boy reference is not needed should be adjusted due to the divert of focus I mentioned in Gideon 3rd para. (I don't have access to the full page range on GBooks, so a physical copy checking I will need to do.) I checked a physical copy and only page 284 mentions the High Llamas. Page 284 is available on GBooks.

Overall

Some of the issues above can be fixed quickly to pass the criteria:

• 1b words to watch and 4 neutral: "eventually" and "this never happened" doesn't sound impartial per WP:EDITORIALIZING. Similarity "This was also why the band began to pursue a minimal approach" doesn't sound neutral.
• 2d plagiarism: add quotation marks to the clay the scribe quote and the signal to noise ref.
• 3b focus: adjust the Catch a wave sentence and ref to focus on the Llamas and not the entire Wilson comeback album. (I'll check a physical copy of the ref) Also, the reference where Gane mentions the Beach Boys as his favourite band is a bit out of focus to me. See above.
• The main issue I think is 2c original research. Some examples include the £4000 budget and "Living on a Farm" which the respective sources do not mention. Other sources have information that are not specifically included in their sources, but could be easily replaced with sources that do confirm it.

I think after the neutrality, focus and missed quotation marks are adjusted, the article will almost be ready. The main concern I have is with some of the sources not backing up the respective claims. If I made any errors especially in the references part, please let me know. As I was working through the review, I changed my mind/corrected myself a few times as seen in the strikethroughs. I'll put this review on hold so you can work through the issues raised :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated the Catch a Wave comments in the review, and ticked off the ones that were addressed by nominator. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Added more to the review as I noticed various parts of the lead are not mentioned in the article. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Hi there. I was wondering what was your status for the remainder of the review. I saw your last edits were on the 8th for the High Llamas. Please let me know so I can gauge where this review stands. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I keep forgetting about this GAN and haven't had much time to address every issue.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Since you mention you hadn't had time, what would you like to do with this review? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think some of the remaining issues are unusually nitpicky for a GA, sorta feels like it's trying to meet FA criteria. There are very limited sources for this band and I couldn't find anything better than what's already in the article. If you can find better sources containing the same information then by all means integrate them --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: If you are referring to the band members years and instruments, the reason why I included them in this review last minute is that there is currently no reference that supports the band members tenures and insturments. The About Us page does not support all of these mentions in the lead. If you would rather not have the information repeated again in the specific sections of the article, I would instead suggest having a reference for the members section as it's mentioned in the lead but not cited. Please let me know what you prefer. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018 update

@Ilovetopaint: Hello. It has been awhile since the last discussion for this article's review. I was wondering if you would like to continue with the review and what are your thoughts as well. Please see my last message of September 2018 above if you have not had a chance to read it. Thank you. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I already addressed it --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Okay. Let me summary the primary leftover issues:

• 1) The band members section is unreferenced. As the lead mentions the band members, years and instruments, I believe it's important that the band members section is cited to support the lead.
• 2) Pages 280-291 of Catch a Wave (ref #25) primarily talks about the Beach Boys, and only page 284 mentions that Brian Wilson turned down the idea of collaborating with O'Hagan. Also, I believe the sentence about Wilson's plan to create a comeback album with Paley diverts the attention from the High Llamas to the Beach Boys.
• 3) The Huffington Post ref only mentions the high llamas performed on yo gabba gabba and not the song name. If you want to include the vimeo ref beside the huffington post reference, it'd fully support the statement.

The remaining parts of the previous review I'm relooking it over and determining whether or not adjusted are needed. Otherwise, the above three I believe are most needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Done trimmed BBs, hid timeline, added ref for Gabba --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ilovetopaint: Overall, Yo Gabba Gabba Y, band members almost done, catch a wave not completed. I've also gone through the above ones from September as well. I'll go in depth for the two main leftover issues: --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Band Members:

• 1a) I see you've removed the years of the band member's tenures and added the comings and goings of the band members. Thank you for doing that. Y
• 1b) In regards to the comings/goings, Bennett's joining the band is noted in the formation parapraph, but his departure is only mentioned in the infobox and members sections. The About Us page doesn't give a rough estimate when he left either, so I believe a citation that says Bennett is a former band member would be sufficient enough.
• 2) Some of the instruments/roles in the band members section are not supported by the About us page. I see you've incorporated the band member's instruments for Holdaway, Murcott, and Bennett using the About Us page. Therefore, they check out in the respective band members paragraph. However, the About Us page does not support the instruments for O'Hagan (including lead vocals), Fell, Allum, Holdaway and Visser. If you wish to include the remaining 5 band members and their instruments into the formation paragraph with accompanying citations, then that would work. Otherwise, if you would prefer to have citations in the members section for O'Hagan, Fell, Allum, Holdaway and Visser that says what insturments/vocals they perform with the High Llamas, then that would work as well.

This is quite an anal requirement. The Beatles is FA and does not include citations for John Lennon playing harmonica or Paul McCartney playing keyboards. Citations are only needed for material that is "controversial or challenged" (WP:VERIFY). It's highly unreasonable to challenge the members' instrumental roles when there's already photographs in the article showing them playing those instruments(!). Likewise, whether Sean O'Hagan is the band's lead vocalist is not exactly a debatable issue. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Beach Boys Catch a Wave pages 280-291 citation:

In the 3rd paragraph of the Gideon Gaye-Snowburg section, there are two sentences about the Beach Boys that I believe have issues.

• 1) "When Hawaii caught the attention of longtime Beach Boy Bruce Johnston..." - Catch a Wave does not mention Hawaii nor Bruce Johnston between the pages of 280 to 291. Therefore, an extra citation would be needed for this half of the sentence.
• 2a) "...plans were made to coordinate a collaboration between O'Hagan and Brian Wilson. At the time, Wilson tried to organize a comeback album with the Beach Boys and collaborator Andy Paley." The Paley sessions are mentioned between 281-284 and a brief mention of O'Hagan is mention on 284. Therefore all of the pages between 280-291 do not support this statement.

Overall, I believe these two sentences should be rewritten. Please see the next section for a further explanation.

Flow issues of the Beach boys sentences:

From reading these two Beach Boys sentences, the flow I'm understanding is as follows: Johnston heard about Hawaii -> Johnston decided to make plans to have O'Hagan and Wilson meet -> sidenote about what Wilson was doing at the time.From this reading I see a few problems.

• A) - Johnston hearing about Hawaii is not mentioned in Catch a Wave. This part is dependent on the next sentence half as the article says Hawaii led to the collab plans between O'Hagan and Wilson. However, from my reading of pages 280-284, the O'Hagan collab was a back-up plan (quoted in the book as a "counter-proposal") when the Paley sessions didn't go through as planned.
• B) - The collaboration between O'Hagan and Wilson sounds like a side-project with only O'Hagan, not the High Llamas. On page 284, the book says "proposed teaming Brian with Sean O'Hagan". My understanding of this being a side-project is also because of the cited CMJ article that calls it "O'Hagan's sidelines". CMJ also does say Bruce Johnston heard the Llamas and then tried to get the collab together, but does not mention Hawaii.
• C) - The comeback album sentence sounds like the focus is being diverted between O'Hagan and Wilson to the Beach Boys and Paley. As this article is about the High Llamas, I think it would need to be reworded to make sure the focus is on the High Llamas, and not the Beach Boys.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I see all of Catch a Wave was removed. In my opinion, you didn't need to remove that section. In any case, Y as the issue was resolved. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

2nd Opinion

@Ilovetopaint: I've thought it over and I believe this GA review requires a 2nd opinion. In particular: the point that I would like someone to go over is the following:

• Should the band members have a citation for every instrument that they play in either the prose sections or the band members section? In my opinion it should have citations because without citations the information is not supported and fails point 2 verifiable (either 2b or 2c not sure which). As we are both seeing different viewpoints on this particular item, I believe a 2nd opinion would be the best choice of action to help determine this point. I do not mind if I am wrong on this point. If I am indeed wrong, the 2nd opinion can help give me a new perspective on this matter. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 and Ilovetopaint: I believe that there should be citations present in the members section citing that each person listed is/was a member. However, when it comes to citing instruments, I would recommend dropping any which are not primary to the individual and/or cannot be reliably sourced. I hope my 2c helps some. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Thank you for your 2nd opinion. I believe this can be easily addressed so I'll switch the status back to on hold. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: You're welcome! I just wish I had thought to come by sooner as this has been open ~11 months. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:52, 18 December 2018

(UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: It's okay. I only just asked for a second opinion now and only started the review in August. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Hello. I was wondering if you had a chance to look over these 2nd opinions. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've dropped secondary instruments.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Alrighty. I think everything is now done. I'll mark it as a GA. Well done. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Drive-by response to the 2nd opinion suggestion

@MrLinkinPark333 and Ilovetopaint: I hope nobody minds me bugging into the discussion, but the band's biography on their website (http://highllamas.com/about/) lists all the members current and previous. No instruments mentioned but it's a pretty official and basic enough reference. Would that work?100cellsman (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@100cellsman: The About Us page has already been incorporated into the article (ref #5). It can work for the members names, and the only thing left would be @TheSandDoctor:'s suggestion of dropping the instruments that are not supported by sources. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)