Talk:The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I'll give this a go. I tend to make copyedits as I go along, and ask questions when I get stuck. I do remember reading a magazine article about the band 20 years ago with interest (at the time all the band members were alive though Markley was on life support), though I don't think I've actually heard their music. Nothing in the article leaps out as being obviously contradicting that, so I'm happy to give this a full review. More later.

Lead

Aspiring musician and scenester - what does "scenester" mean here?
File:The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band.jpg could do with a better fair-use rationale. Several fields are marked n.a. - these should be fixed. I would mention that getting a contemporary image of the group is impossible because they disbanded decades ago and several members are deceased. If the image comes from a copy of Billboard without any credit on it (as trade ads sometimes didn't), it is now PD in the US and could be marked appropriately.

Ritchie333 I forgot to explain: "scenester" was used in that sentence because Bob was very well known in Los Angeles's 60s scene. He threw edgy parties and was friends with many people of the underground music scene, especially Kim Fowley. Scenester seemed appropriate since Bob was literally right in the middle of what was going on at the time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

What makes venetic.co a reliable source?
In attendance at Markley's bash what specific "bash" was this, or are you referring to parties generally?
What makes chello.nl a reliable source?
The group entered Stereo Masters studio to record three albums, during which time Lloyd first became acquainted with Fowley - Fowley does not appear to be mentioned in the source given
The decision to record as the West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, rather than the Laughing Wind, was made by Markley, who envisioned the band as a west coast counterpart to the Velvet Underground - although sourced, I am suspicious of this claim, because in 1965 the Velvet Underground had only just formed and would only be known to a small handful of New Yorkers.
Ritchie333 members.chello.nl is run by Tim Forster, the band's lead biographer who tracked down most of the info we know today about the WCPAEB. If this source is not reliable, nothing is. As for the claim, it his 100% true and is also stated in CD booklets Volume One and Part One (Lloyd even explains the name in detail). Markley carefully researched what was "in" at the time, had several connections in the music industry, followed Andy Warthol, and wanted to start a major underground presense like the Velvet Underground did. Besides, Volume One was not released until 1966.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "What makes 'x' a reliable source" doesn't necessary imply 'x' isn't; rather I can't tell What you need to do here is format the source so it is clear it is actually a magazine piece (from Ptolemaic Terrascope) published in 1999, not some random web page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

highlighted by their ambitious psychedelic light show, which was championed by Buddy Walters - what does "championed" mean in this instance; did Walters operate their light show or was he simply a fan of it?
where it was given a much more suddued atmosphere and a heartbeat rhythm - what does this mean?
would go unheard on a WCPAEB release - does this mean "would not have a lead vocal" or not sing anything at all?
the album included the politically-satirical "In the Arena", presumably inspired by the Watts riots - "presumably" according to whom? This needs a source specifically claiming this.
The narrative is a bit disjointed around Shaun Harris' temporary departure and the group's third album. I've made a stab at putting this in the right / order context, but you probably want to look at it as well.
Why was close miking unsuited to the band's style exactly?
The article (and related sources) gives me the impression the band generally didn't use a drummer - is that right? I see references to session drummers, but that's not reflected in the album articles themselves, aside from one.

Comment - Ritchie333 I made some adjustments to address the issues you raised. As for a drummer, the band had John Ware, but then depended on session drummers for Vol. 2 onward. I never placed much emphasis on it because no source seemed to put any emphasis on it either. Drums were used sparingly in the band's recordings which explains why not many references mention the instrument.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

in 1972 Markley had evaded law enforcement - does this mean he avoided going to prison, arrest, or something else?
The quotation from Kim Fowley would be better expressed as prose

Musical style

Many band biographies include a section title "musical style" and "legacy and influence". For example, I have a dim memory that the magazine article I read said the Harris brothers had mixed feelings about the band and pointed the blame pretty much squarely on Markley, which seemed justified. Were any bands influenced by the WCPAEB?

Ritchie333 I usually explain the band's musical style when I summarized their album releases throughout the article. I would just be reiterating the fact if I made a "musical style" section. As for "legacy", I could talk about their albums being reissued, but no artist was talked about as being influenced by them, aside from covers of WCPAEB songs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Band members

Some biographies included a summary of when the members were born (and, if appropriate, died), and roughly what years they were in the band, that would be useful to summarise here. Editors like to use timelines, but I'm not fussed about those and it's not part of the GA criteria really.

Done.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Sorry about the wait; I've gone all the way through the article now, and can put the review on hold pending resolution of the final issues. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: How are we doing with this? I notice a number of points I made upthread haven't been addressed yet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 aren't the only two things left the heartbeat rhythm and Fowley's quote in the aftermath section? The "heartbeat rhythm" is literally the sound of a heartbeat. Should I emphasize that it should be taken straightforward?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a final check through and can't see anything else, so I'll pass this now. Well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]