Jump to content

Talk:The Piper at the Gates of Dawn/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 17:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My GA reviewing style is thorough but unconventional. I will post my impressions of the article as they come, with probably very little orderliness. Feel free to interject comments and begin to address points as the review progresses. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding Pan, the entity who is named by the album's title, do you think it would be interesting for the reader to have the following image of Pan in the article? It appeared in the book that was Barrett's inspiration. File:Frontispiece to The Wind in the Willows.png
 Done Sounds good, added. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could tell the reader that Pan is the album's titular piper. <grin> Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done My bad, changed. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journalist Rob Young's book, Electric Eden: Unearthing Britain's Visionary Music (not currently used as a reference), says that Barrett believed he had shared, with the Wind in the Willows characters, a "dream-like encounter with the Great God Pan" in "his lazy afternoons in Grantchester Meadows near Cambridge." Young quotes Andrew King (music manager) who says Barrett "thought Pan had given him insight and understanding into the way nature works." Pages 454–455. This tidbit could be included in the article. One more possible little bit is from Professor George Reisch who writes in Pink Floyd and Philosophy: Careful with that Axiom, Eugene! that Barrett "styled himself a 'Piper at the Gates of Dawn' " (page 189.) That means the titular piper is not only Pan but Barrett himself.
 Done I've add just the Young source as I'm unsure how to re-word Reisch's writings. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 00:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Syd Barrett & Pink Floyd: Dark Globe, by Julian Palacios, is a really good source for album recording details. It is not currently used as a reference. Palacios researched deeply into Barrett's world for ten years before publishing the book. Regarding this album, Palacios writes that Pete Bown had more of a producer's role in shaping the album. Bown was senior to Norman Smith—had mentored him—and employed his experienced ear in experimenting with equipment and novel techniques so that the album would sound unique. Palacios writes that Barrett's voice was quiet so they put him in a vocal isolation booth with headphones to lay down his vocals, but that the instruments were recorded together in the main studio, with the musicians facing each other. Microphone choices and placement were mostly Bown's, with little similarity to Smith's previous sessions.
Half  Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 19:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder for self: p.187. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 19:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.212 yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 01:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palacios quotes Beatles biographer Kevin Ryan (Recording the Beatles) in telling the reader that Piper uses artificial double tracking extensively on various instruments, not just vocals, adding to the extreme reverberation/echo style which is characteristic of the album, achieved primarily with Elektro-Mess-Technik (EMT) plate reverbs and the echo chambers of Abbey Roads. The resulting sonic character of the album is not discussed in the article but it would be a good addition to the "Recording" section. The whole eighth chapter of the Palacios book is dedicated to the album.
Half  Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 22:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 22:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Cavanagh's book ought to rise from "recommended reading" into the article as a cited source. He supplies many details.
Will do above lot later on. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no rush. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't cite most of Cavanagh as only the first 25 pages or so are available as a free preview. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first time we encounter Peter Jenner in the article it is only by last name. He should get his full name there and a wikilink.
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cavanagh and Palacios agree that Bown was responsible for the drum sound on the album, that he would go into the studio, stand in front of Nick Mason as he drummed, and then go back into the control room and use various engineering techniques try to reproduce the sound as exactly as possible.
  • Cavanagh and others discuss how this album is considered a dividing line between two camps of Pink Floyd fans. Some say it is the only good Floyd album because Barrett was the essential ingredient, others say it is simply a very fine start to the band's career which did not need Barrett to continue. A bit about this dichotomy ought to be in the article. (Cavanagh, p. 122)
  • LSD: The influence of LSD on Barrett is widely discussed. Shouldn't LSD be mentioned in this article? Nine days before beginning to record the album, the band was said to be making music for acid takers: "The Pink Floyd group specialise in 'psychedelic music', which is designed to illustrate LSD experiences." —"Pop songs and the cult of LSD", from the tabloid News of the World. (Cavanagh, p. 42) Writer Laura S. Jeffrey in Pink Floyd: The Rock Band says that Barrett escalated his LSD intake in the spring of 1967, during the writing and recording of this album, such that by June he was visibly debilitated. Writers Ray Broadus Browne and Pat Browne say in The guide to United States popular culture that Barrett was "the only real drug user in the band" (page 610). The album is hailed not only as a psychedelic masterpiece but LSD is named as a direct influence. (Bruno MacDonald, Pink Floyd: Through the eyes of... the Band, Its Fans, Friends, and Foes, page 11.) Arved Mark Ashby can be quoted from his book The Pleasure of Modernist Music: Listening, Meaning, Intention, Ideology (pages 291–292) in which he says that Barrett's LSD taking, even though it was not the most important musical influence in his life, seems to have had an effect on the "spacey" quality of the long jams.
I'm also unsure under which section to put the LSD info. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe it should be split in two or three. The first mention of LSD could go in "Background". You could tell the reader that Barrett (but not the rest of Pink Floyd) was known for taking LSD. You could say that the band had a tabloid reputation for making music for LSD takers. Later, in the "Recording" section, you could say that Barrett's LSD intake increased. Finally, in the "Release" section, you could say that Barrett looked like hell in June. Alternatively, you might include this last bit in the "Recording" section. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob Chapman in 2010 (page 142 in the paperback) writes that the songs on Piper fall "into two distinct styles; the lengthy improvisations featured in the band's live act... and the shorter songs they Syd had penned..." This division into two song styles could be mentioned.
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor James E. Perone writes in Music of The Counterculture Era (page 24) that Piper became known years later as a concept album. (Perone repeats this idea in his Mods, Rockers, and the Music of the British Invasion, page 116.) Beatles biographer Philip Norman agrees that Piper is a concept album (John Lennon: The Life, page 498.) Other authors wait to name as concept albums the Floyd works Dark Side and The Wall. For instance, Professor George Reisch writes in Pink Floyd and Philosophy: Careful with that Axiom, Eugene! that Pink Floyd are the "undisputed" kings of the concept album, starting from 1973's Dark Side of the Moon, which means he does not consider Piper to be a concept album. What do you think we should say about the album possibly falling under the label of "concept album"?
Will do above lot later on. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure under which section to put the concept album info. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. If there was a "Legacy" section it would go there. Perhaps you could add it at the bottom of the "Reception" after you discuss how the album ranks among modern critics. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 01:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob Carruthers, in the book Pink Floyd – Uncensored on the Record, quotes Roger Waters saying that even though Radio London refused to play "Arnold Layne", the BBC "and everybody else" aired it. Since the single is not part of the album I'll let you judge how important this tidbit is.
I think it would be more appropriate on the single page. If it was "See Emily Play", on the other hand, it be worth including. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right! Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carruthers adds that the Vic Singh cover art was supposed to look like an LSD trip which was "favoured on so many sleeves at the time." Carruthers credits LSD for the trippy lyrics to "Flaming".
Will do later on. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 01:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Alan Di Perna article from Guitar World got somewhat lost in the references. The first Di Perna reference should contain the full cite.
  • The footnote wording "between 11–12 January" ought to be "during 11–12 January" or "between 11 and 12 January".
  • The footnote which starts "Although, this wasn't the first time" probably should say "This was not the first time..." without "Although" and without a contraction.
 Done above few. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With so many footnotes being record label numbers, the footnote section might be improved by dividing it into columns.
How do I divide it into columns? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You put the parameter |colwidth=30em in the footnote template, just like the citations section. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 22:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problems with hyphens, en dashes and em dashes.
    • Unspaced em dashes are used in some places for breaks in text, while spaced en dashes are used in others. One style should be selected.
    • The following sentence has three dashes when the maximum is two for good reading flow: "Barrett came up with the album title–The Piper at the Gates of Dawn–at the last moment – the album was originally titled Projection, up to as late as July '67."
    • The "Personnel" section has mostly correct en dashes but there is one wrong hyphen.
    • The infobox contains a date range with an unspaced en dash. That en dash should be spaced.
 Done above few. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should change the title of the Discogs references to reflect what they really have as their titles. That is, change "Pink Floyd - The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn (Vinyl, LP, Album) at Discogs" to "Pink Floyd ‎– The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn", which happens to have the correct en dash in it rather than the wrong hyphen.
  • All the different but identical-looking discogs references should be separated into UK mono, UK stereo, USA and Canada releases, perhaps by following the cite template with a text note such as "Initial UK mono release" or similar differentiation.
  • The musicline.de reference title is simply "Pink Floyd", or possibly "Pink Floyd – Longplay-Chartverfolgungnot", not the wordy, promotional sentence now in place. Also, the cite should say that the language is German.
 Done above three. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section complies poorly with the guideline at WP:LEAD. For instance, the lead section introduces the idea that the album lyrics deal with "space, scarecrows, gnomes, bicycles and fairy tales", but there is no subsequent discussion of lyrics in the article body. The lead section poorly summarizes the "Recording" section, the "Release" section, the "Packaging" section, the "Reception" section, and it does nothing to summarize the "Live performances" section.
Will do above lot later on. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of the "chapter" parameter of the book cite template is that it is to be used if the author of the chapter is different than the author or editor of the book. Thus it is appropriate for the Nick Mason chapter inside the book edited by Philip Dodd, but it is not appropriate for a chapter inside Mark Blake's book, with all the chapters written by Mark Blake. Same with the books by Nicholas Schaffner, Glenn Povey and Rob Chapman.
 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a reference is to a new page number or page range in a book which has already been cited, the reference can be made much smaller. For instance, see the article on the album Mother's Milk which has multiple references to two books, placing the full book cites in a different section. Closer to home, take a look at Wish You Were Here article which provides four footnotes sections: "Notes", "Footnotes", "Bibliography" and "Further reading". (I would argue that "further reading" is not part of the references.) The article about A Momentary Lapse of Reason is much like I would aim for: three references sections and a very minimal citation for each new page number or page range.
Isn't this down to one's preference? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. At any rate, it is not a problem at GA level. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing this review on hold to see if improvements are workable. The suggestions for added coverage are, let's say, extra credit; the kind of things that would be required for Featured Article status. The manual of style and WP:LEAD notes are required for GA status. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a somewhat late start to working on the article, I've done the easier issues. Can I request an extra few days, if I don't finish within the 7 day period? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take as much time as you need. When I do a GA review with a motivated editor making improvements I dismiss the time limit. I'm not here to fail the article, I'm here to see it go to GA.
Happy holidays! Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Happy holidays to you too. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 22:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to go back and undo anything but if you could let me strike through my own comments moving forward it will help me keep track of what I've checked off. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I striked one more before I saw your comment, my bad. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new additions introduced a bit of faulty or clunky grammar. I'm going to blow through the article and work on grammar. Getting very close to GA! Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went overboard and made a lot of changes to the article. At this point, I would like to get Yeepsi's impression of the changes, to see if they fit the general vision of this article. Plant's Strider is welcome to comment as well. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with the changes. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 02:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Then we're done here. GA status! Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Piper_at_the_Gates_of_Dawn/GA1&oldid=529941553"