Talk:Led Zeppelin

Grammar

Does anyone have input on the article's grammar? It's flagged as needing copy edit, but I'm not too sure if the errors have been amended, or not (especially with the disclaimer about the British "were" vs. "was," when referring to the plural "Led Zeppelin" in the description paragraph).--SarahNEmerson (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The same user who flagged the article for needing a copy edit also posted a request for a copy edit from the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Led Zeppelin (according to the request page it is underway, but I have not seen any action yet). I am not aware that the article has huge issues with grammar, although it is a good idea to get a copyedit before going to GA review (which is sort of the plan - strung out across several archived threads). I considered removing the flag as it is unnecessary if a copy edit is already on the way and frankly this is by no means the most badly written article on Wikipedia.--SabreBD (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Remove that tag; the copyeditor will put it if he finds it necessary.--♫GoP♫_T^CN 18:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK done.--SabreBD (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

State of play - copyediting

Just to let editors know that I feel I have pretty much done all I can see that needs to be done on the article and I am just waiting for a copy edit from the guild before nominating this for GA status. However, if anyone can see any obvious problems that I have missed, now would be a good time to mention them and if they cannot, I will do my best to put them right.--SabreBD (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Marvelous work, Sabre. I will surely have a look and point out if anything needs to be changed. Scieberking (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I will read through it late tonight as, unfortunately, I am busy with RL stuff for the rest of today. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading the article I found that recent attempts to copyedit (not by Chaosdruid) had created as many problems as they have solved: including overlinking, changing of material that reflects the sources and even some grammatical errors. Since we are waiting for a member of the Guild of Copyeditors to look at this article I have reverted them and will attempt to redo the clear improvements.--SabreBD (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Agree on that. Scieberking (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have redone the clear improvements.--SabreBD (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How about Mlpearc? He is a member of the Guild and also an active contributor here. He can do a much better job. Scieberking (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets wait for Chaosdruid. He just happens to be a bit ill at the moment.--SabreBD (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Get well soon, Chaosdruid :) Scieberking (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid has given it the once over, so I have taken the article to GA review. There is no reason that we cannot keep on improving, it may take a while.--SabreBD (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Great. But I've just noticed that the backlog is large. Gonna take at least a week I imagine. Scieberking (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably longer, but we may get lucky - someone may be interested enough to take it on.--SabreBD (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Voila! Almost prophetic! :-D Scieberking (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Point me in a direction, I'd be glad to help ! Mlpearc powwow 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is ready I will review it over the next couple of days. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Its ready. Thanks for taking this on so quickly.--SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I will do this review in pieces as I have time. Feel free to wait until I finish all my comments or answer them as we go. I see this is a collaborative process so if something comes up that you disagree with I welcome discussion. I will do an initial read through, mainly focusing on the prose, and make suggestions as I go and then look at the other criteria. I generally go beyond the Ga criteria and offer general advice on how I think the article can be improved. Saying that in whether this passes will ultimately depend on the criteria, so disagreeing with a suggestion will almost never result in a fail. It would be appreciated if you answer under each comment, even if it is a " Done", so I can keep track of where we are up to. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That is all extremely good news. Ultimately we would like to get this to FA status, so advice that goes beyond the GA material will be very welcome. I am willing to take a lead and make sure we respond to each point, but, for the benefit of other editors, I am happy for others to chip in or produce responses.--SabreBD (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Page's first choice for the lead singer was Terry Reid, but Terry declined the offer and suggested Robert Plant, a Stourbridge singer for the Band of Joy and Hobbstweedle Would consider either removing the "the" from in front of "Band of Joy" or capitalising and blue link "The Band of Joy". I had a double take when reading this sentence.

 Done: I took the second option. Hopefully that is clearer now.--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Page suggested that they play "Train Kept A-Rollin'", an originally jump blues song popularised in a rockabilly version by Johnny Burnette, that had been given new life by The Yardbirds. Grammar. Switch "an originally" to "originally an" maybe?

 Done: I think this reads better now with "originally a".--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shortly afterwards, the group played together on the final day of sessions for the P.J. Proby album, Three Week Hero This is a little awkward, e.g. "final day of sessions". Feel like it also needs some more context, something to tie it in better with the paragraph. Could shortly afterwards be clarified (days, weeks, months). Nitpicky - but "the group played together" is repeated in close succession in this paragraph.

 Done (I think): I couldn't find a date for the session so I tried to make this clearer and used what the source says, that it was shortly before the departure for Scandinavia, but please check that I have managed to resolve this one.--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: That would be August 25, 1968.

- August 12, 1968 = First Rehearsal

- August 25, 1968 = Studio session for PJ Proby album

Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those Scieberking. We will also need a citation if we put them in, but lets see if AIRcorn thinks the issue is resolved.--AIRcorn (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The weather this weekend was too good to sit inside the house all day on the computer, plus I just got the last series of The Wire. What you have  Done looks good. I would not worry too much about the exact date unless it can be reliably sourced. AIRcorn (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all, sir. Season 5, huh? I guess it's pretty cool. The reference from the official site is here. Thanks a bunch. Scieberking (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• 'On 14 October 1968, the band announced the new name and played their first show at the University of Surrey in Guildford on 25 October, followed by a short British tour.' Another nitpick, but this sentence would read better with a semi colon separating the last clause. "...October; this was followed by a short British tour."

 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Richard Cole organised their first North American tour at the end of the year, and would become a major figure for the group. In what way would he become a major figure?

 Done. Its hard to say exactly what Cole did without straying into a detailed biography (and possible lawsuit), so I summed this up as "touring life".--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The first show was in Denver on 26 December 1968, before playing several dates in western cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. "before playing" or "followed by"? Western cities is possibly a bit too ambiguous. Salt Lake City and Las Vegas are western when compared to Denver, so is Honolulu. maybe cities along the west coast or just plain California. Unless of course they did play Vegas.

 Done. When I looked up the details it turned out to be just the two cities on the West Coast. There is an important point about them playing California, which became an area of major support for the band, but I am not sure if we need to say this at this point or not - so opinions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• 'The use of guitar riffs, lumbering rhythms, psychedelic blues, groovy, bluesy shuffles and hints of English folk, made it a pivotal record in the creation of hard rock and heavy metal' Feel this needs either a better citation or to be attributed to Stephen Erlewine.

On this and other Erlewine related points below, I am not quite sure what is being asked. The wording is close to what Erlewine writes and the references follow immediately, so I assumed attribution was clear. Was this a suggestion that we should just quote him?--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Now  Done. I have tried to make clear who is saying what (partly through quotation) and found a more general reference for the influence.--SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Plant received no credit for his songwriting contributions, because of his previous association with CBS Records. What association?

 Done. To be honest I thought I had already changed this one. The reason later given was that he was under contract. Wall (I think) suggests its just that Plant didn't contribute very much to the first album and his position was insecure. He is probably right that the reason wasn't legal, but I don't think that we need to get into this level of detail, so I just changed this to reflect the reason given.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The band further developed ideas established on their debut album, creating a work which became very widely acclaimed and highly influential Similar probelm to the other Stephen Erlewine reference. Widely is generally considered a weasel word. Same could probably be said about highly influential.

See my comments on Erlewine above. On the weasel words: I guess we can cut them out, but what do we do when an album was widely praised and highly influential and the source says so? I notice that the Beatles article described Sgt Pepper as "widely regarded as a masterpiece", is that sort of wording significantly different in some way?--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I think I have managed to avoid more of the weasely wording and some clearer attribution.--SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• It has been suggested that Led Zeppelin II largely wrote the blueprint for heavy metal bands that followed it By who?

Erlewine. Do we need the name in there?--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I found a citation that was dealing more generally with music.--SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Without the band's consent or under their protest, however, some songs were released as singles, particularly in the US. Is this referenced in When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin. I feel a citation needs to be put next to this sentence. I ordered a copy of the book from the local library, although it won't be free for a while, to check this statement and others. Not sure about the use of however without checking the source.

 Done I added the reference again immediately after the sentence. It is hard to sum up with very complex issue. There were two British singles (one very rare one in the time of the band) and how much opposition each band got when released in the US is debatable. It may be hard to come up with a more accurate summary in appropriate space.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Some early Led Zeppelin concerts lasted more than four hours, with expanded, improvised live versions of their song repertoire. Would remove the second comma and replace it with "and" or "or" depending on what you are trying to say.

 Done? I changed it to "and". They were expanded by improvisation - is that meaning conveyed now?--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• One alleged example of such extravagance was the shark episode, or red snapper incident, which is said to have taken place at the Edgewater Inn in Seattle, Washington, on 28 July 1969 Can more information be given, succinct and tasteful if possible. If not the link will suffice.

I am not sure this can be expanded in a tasteful way. The best I can think of that it was an "alleged sexual act". I think the feeling of editors that they didn't see the need to dwell on what is a disputed, which probably did not involve the band and may not have happened at all. My feeling is that the link is sufficient and that only the fact that it became part of the legend of the band is notable, not the incident itself. Other editors may disagree and I am happy to consider such views.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sacre. The shark episode is not only a legend, but also a conspiracy theory imho. I don't think contheos are neutral, so... linking to this myth is sufficient.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SabreBD and GOP. Wikilink alone is sufficient. Scieberking (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry if this sounds cryptic, but the way it is at the moment I feel it is either saying too much or not enough. The amount of detail given in that sentence is just crying out for more information. If no more information is to be presented it could be shortened. This would give it more appropriate due weight while still retaining the wikilink. An idea could be to link it to the previous section "...developed a reputation for off-stage excess, including an alleged incident involving a shark." With a wikilink to the incident. Up to you guys, it won't be failed on this point. AIRcorn (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Over time, its reputation improved, and Led Zeppelin III is now generally praised. Can't check against the source, but have some similar concerns as with the Erlewine references. A bit ambiguous by using generally and whom was it praised by.

Pending. The source doesn't seem to support this. I think I need to go check for something clear about the album's reception and reputation.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe WP:OR but the statement is 100% true. Q and Allmusic both gave favorable reviews. So did BBC Music, NME and others. Scieberking (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Frustratingly, I cannot find a source that sums up modern reviews or a changing attitude among reviewers, so it may be one of those cases of true but not verified. I have taken that out and put in a bit more explanation of the albums significance. If I do find a way of sourcing this in my reading I will come back and put something in to this effect.--SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Erlewine reviews. The trouble with presenting a review in Wikipedias voice is that it is just that reviewers opinion. I would prefer attribution, but there is some precedence (Wayne Gretzky springs to mind plus your beetles example) for statements that are borderline original research if there is general agreement that they are true. Not sure how they would go through FA now though, but Zeppelins influence is enough that this probably falls into that category. I do think it needs better evidence to be presented than we currently have. I don't mean a heap of citations following the sentence, but a reference to a book (ideally one not specifically concentrating on Led Zeppelin) or a reputable magazine would ease my mind. Also there is some concern that so many of the reviews come from one person. It would be good to mix it up with some non-Erlwine, non-Allmusic writers commenting on the albums. AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

OK I will work on some alternative sources, which will hopefully allow us to resolve these issues.--SabreBD (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have mixed it up again and where Erlewine has been used I have made it clear by using his name and (sometimes) directly quoting him.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

break

• The band's early popularity was dwarfed by their mid-70s successes and the latter period continues to define them. Not sure exactly what is meant here. Is it saying that the early seventies contained the most defining moments in their career?

 Done: I see what is intended here, but on reflection I think this is unnecessary, so I made it verifiable and combined it with the next sentence. I think this works but please check.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The album remained officially untitled and is most commonly referred to as Led Zeppelin IV, though it is variously referred to by the four symbols appearing on the record label, as Four Symbols and Untitled, Zoso, Runes, or IV This is a little confusing. Is the name "Four Symbols and Untitled" one name or two? "IV" doesn't match with the "variously referred to by the four symbols appearing on the record label" part.

 Done: the sentence didn't quite make sense. I separated the names based on the runes form the others. Hopefully clearer now.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Led Zeppelin IV is one of the best-selling albums in history and its massive popularity cemented Led Zeppelin's superstardom in the 1970s. This will need a good reference. Is it this one: "Davis, Erik (2005). Led Zeppelin IV. New York, NY: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1658-6."

 Done I am not quiet sure about Davis. We could cite one of the many books about the album, but on the basis that it is better to find this in a book about something else I have given citations for works on heavy rock and US culture that cover the ground I think.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The track "Stairway to Heaven", although never released as a single, is sometimes quoted as being the most requested,[55] and the most played[56] album-oriented rock FM radio song. Sometimes is a bit vague. Would be better to say is the most requested song played by the BBC or similar more specific.

"Album-orientated rock FM radio song" refers to a format in US radio, so its more than a single station would give. Not quite sure how to express that better, so I may have to come back to this one.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The predominately orange album cover of Houses of the Holy depicts images of nude children climbing the Giant's Causeway (in County Antrim, Northern Ireland). Probably don't need to say in County Antrim, Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland without the brackets would work.

 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• and the band embarked on another North American tour, again playing to record-breaking crowds Reference for the record breaking.

 Done I cannot find out what records they broke, the major biographies stress the equipment rather than the numbers, so I have adjusted the sentence to reflect that. If anyone does now then we can always change it back.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• On 19 April, over 70 people were arrested as about 1,000 fans tried to gatecrash Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum for two sold-out festival seating concerts, while others tried to gain entry by throwing rocks and bottles through glass doors. is "festival seating concerts" grammatically correct.

 Done I am not sure if we need "festival seating" (and I don't know what that means). So I am going to try just taking those two words.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The resulting album, In Through the Out Door, exhibited sonic experimentation that again drew mixed reactions from critics. Is this covered by the citation at the end of the paragraph? I will assume that is the case with the other cites in this section.

 Done I don't know either, as I don't have a copy of Lewis 2003. I put a reference in for that sentence from Wall that covers the reaction.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, the band still commanded legions of loyal fans, and the album easily reached number one in the UK and the US... "commanded legions of loyal fans" and "easily reached number one" may be little bit much.

 Done. I just took this out. Reaching no 1 in 2 weeks makes the point on its own.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• With this album's release, Led Zeppelin's entire catalogue again returned to the Billboard Top 200 in the weeks of 27 October and 3 November 1979. "again" is redundant

 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• A 4 December 1980 press statement confirmed the decision This appears out of place. Could it be combined with the next sentence?

 Done. I combined them - didn't need statement twice.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Afterwards, they played a brief set with Tyler and Perry, with Jason Bonham on drums, then with Neil Young, while Michael Lee replaced Bonham on drums. First read through this made no sense. Looking at it after I posted it here I understand what it means, but it could probably be made clearer. The problem I think is too many commas made it difficult to work out what statements went with each other. Maybe it can be split into two sentences?

 Done. I think this is simpler and clearer now.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• In 1997, Atlantic released a single edit of "Whole Lotta Love" in the US and the UK, making it the only Led Zeppelin UK CD single. only Led Zeppelin single released in the UK?

Nope there was another very rare one on vinyl, so its the only one on CD, but not the only one.--SabreBD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Particularly from Houses of the Holy, the band also drew on a wide variety of genres, including world music,[14] and elements of early rock 'n' roll, jazz, country, funk, soul and reggae. I think this would be better without the Houses of the Holy part. Or as a second sentence "This was particularly evident in Houses of the Holy.

 Done. I think. The point I was trying to make here is that these influences are more apparent from (not on) Houses onwards. Hope that is clearer now.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the later stages of the band's career, Page took something of a back seat in composition and Jones became increasingly important in producing music, often on the keyboard, to which Plant often added lyrics before Page and Bonham developed their parts. This sentence could possibly be split.

 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Led Zeppelin were pivotal in the transition of the late-sixties rock movement from the central form of mass youth music to its macho, sexual "cock rock" form, as a male form of expression. This may need attribution.

 Done. I switched this to a quote and some very concise summary of the sociological debate. Not really the place to get into such claims, but worth noting.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Really good. Mainly nitpicks, but nothing that will stop it becoming a good article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some concerns about some borderline original research. I think this can be managed, but maybe with some better sources or attribution.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Happy with this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Obviously quite positive, but that is to be expected

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Fine

6. 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):

   Not an expert on images, but the fair use rational for using the t shirt in this article seems a little weak. Led Zeppelin merchandise is not really mentioned in the text, yet that is given as the rational for fair use.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is so close to passing.

Well that is very encouraging. I think it is going to be easiest to remove the T-shirt pic. This is the only illustration in the article that has copyright claimed for it and it is not the most important. I can find an alternative pic, but anything that depicts merchandise will, by definition, be likely to be copyright. I am open to suggestions and will mull this over while I sort out the "nitpicks" and source issues.--SabreBD (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I may have missed something or made an error, and there are a few issues that I have replied to rather than making adjustments, but, I think I have addressed all the issues raised. Let me know if there is anything else or something that is not yet done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a script, and I see "Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation." in

• Batchelor American Popular Culture Through History: the 1980s
• Erlewine All Music Guide Required Listening: Classic Rock, Led Zeppelin III review and BBC Session review

And this errors in Footnotes section:

• Ref 103: "Harv error: link to #CITEREFLewis2004 doesn't point to any citation."
• Ref 106: "Harv error: link to #CITEREFEarlwine2011 doesn't point to any citation."
• Ref 129: "Harv error: link to #CITEREFWall1993 doesn't point to any citation." and
• Ref 191: "Harv error: link to #CITEREFBBC_Home2006 doesn't point to any citation." - I fixed some refs, but I can't fix those, as I don't possess the books, etc. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 20:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed those, except Batchelor. I cannot see Batchelor on its own, there is Batchelor & Stoddart 2007, which does link to a note.--SabreBD (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is well and truly at good article standard so I am more than happy to give it the big green spot. Only things I can think of for further improvement are maybe trimming the "post break-up" section. I am not sure whether it is a case of recentism or that more sources exist for this section, but it seemed a bit long compared to the sections on the years that they were actually together. There might be some issues with the image licensing if you push for FAC. You might want to get an expert in the field to look at it, but I noticed one was sourced to the Italian Wikipedia, which might be problematic. All in all a nice article and I hope you try an get it on the front page. AIRcorn (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

LED ZEPPELIN - Now GA!

Wow that is brilliant! It is finally a GA! Thanks to all who helped! Now all we need is to bring the star back. What do you think, is it ready for the ultimate challenge =P?--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)}

Congratulations to you, too, GreatOrangePumpkin (and SabreBD). You're a major contributor here and one of my favorite editors on Wikipedia :) Also, thanks to AirCorn who did such an awesome, careful and detailed review. Now, getting the FA status is really a great challenge and needs some more work. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone involved, especially the long term editors and those that were able help with implementing the review (and catching my typos) and thanks to AIRcorn for a quality review, that usefully points out possible issues for a FA review as well. I would like to have a little break and then revisit those issues with a view to going for the star if that is the consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work everyone! Now if you could do the same for Yes, I would be a very happy fellow! :P But really, superb job. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Working towards FA status

I thought I would get things rolling towards this by stating the issues from improvement that came out of the GA review. If editors think of anything else perhaps they could add it to this list:--SabreBD (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Trimming the "post break-up" section.
• Checking the copyright status of pictures

I will get on with taking a look at the post break-up section and see if there if we can make it a bit more concise.--SabreBD (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, and I will check on file statuses. Mlpearc powwow 17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Progress can be viewed here. Mlpearc powwow 20:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How are we doing? I see we have made some progress, is there any action we need to take so far?--SabreBD (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the Post-1980s section to make it more concise. Most of these were around the post 02 reunion rumours, which, with hindsight I think needs a lot less blow by blow detail. I can always edit more out of here, but I think we will start losing significant details if it goes much further. Editors can let me know if they think this is enough.--SabreBD (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Again great work Sabrebd! I think the section is concise, balanced and sufficiently detailed at the same time. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. The remaining pictures are all correctly formated, etc. How about FAC? ♫GoP♫_T^CN 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

On a second look, I think "Awards and accolades" should be merged to "Legacy" section; the smiling Page, too. What do you think?--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)}

I think two of the most popular featured music biographies, namely The Beatles and David Bowie, have separate "Legacy" and "Awards" sections just like we have in this article. Michael Jackson is one more important example. Just my two cents. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But our awards section is much smaller, and legacy much bigger; so it does not look good anymore. I would suggest we add more content; eg how many certifications they have been awarded, like in The Beatles and David Bowie.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 20:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)}

Alright, sure. That's a good idea. Scieberking (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I would rather keep the two sections separate, but I think the idea of adding more to the award section a good one. I have often thought it is a bit understrength. I would also suggest that the OBE and CBE should go in here, they are personal, but clearly Page and Plant received them for the Led Zep work primarily. I will do this is no-one else wants to, but I am happy if someone takes a lead.--SabreBD (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I will present a rough draft here soon. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Added pics before FA review

I have been patrolling the archives for pics in an attempt to fill out the last section of the article (which has expanded a bit recently). I have added the only remaining copyright pics of Jones and Bonham from the band era that I can find. I would appreciate it if regular editors could just take a look at them and see if they think they are of sufficient quality. The Jones pic has been described to me as "an eyesore" previously, but it is not like there is a lot of choice. I could create a black and white version (as we have permission to adjust it) if that was felt to be better. Comments welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is even better! Amazing like usual :). I reverted Y2kcrazyjoker4's edit, when he removed the landscape parameter in the infobox. I found the picture very large, of course this is just my opinion. So I would like to know which version you prefer: This or the current? Regards.♫GoP♫_T^CN 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks better with landscape parameter. Scieberking (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to go with the landscape version as well.--SabreBD (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the new pictures. The Jones picture with the bloody-red lightning looks imho even better than one in black and white. The Bonhom b&w pic is also ok. Do you think it's about time to take this to FAC? I am not sure what else could be improved. We could check it for close paraphrasing. But, as usual, it will receive polishing at FAC :). Regards.--21:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)♫GoP♫_T^CN

I think it's time to take it to FAC, but don't you think the lead needs to be expanded a little? A concise summary of the band's early and later history could be mentioned. Just a thought. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the lead issue, and was thinking that just before reading this post, its would probably not be considered long or comprehensive enough. I will try to pull something together. At the risk of opening a can of worms, the other issues that might come up under coverage are the vexed ones of Page's interest in the occult and the plagiarism debate. Regular editors will appreciate that I don't want long and rambling sections about this, but perhaps we need something that deals with these issues head on, if very briefly.--SabreBD (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, let me know if I could help with lead expansion. Regarding the plagiarism thing, I think we can make a brief mention on the musical style section. As far as Page's interest in occult is concerned, it should be something which has to do with his own entry, since we've already mentioned the lyrics inspired by such influences (elements of mythology and mysticism). Thanks again. Scieberking (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a draft of the slightly expanded intro. I tried to keep it concise (there didn't seem a lot of point in naming albums that were in any case numbered), but no doubt editors will let me know if there is anything critical left out.--SabreBD (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks great IMO. Only this [securing the status of the band as "superstars"] sentence looks odd somehow, because the band had earned superstardom right after the release of Led Zeppelin II, as many publications assert the fact. Also, the term "untitled album" would be italicized? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The "secured their status as superstars" was based on "cemented their status..." in the article, which doesn't mean it made them superstars, but confirmed that status. Perhaps confirmed or cemented would be clearer? I didn't italicise the untitled because that is not the title, which I think is correct.--SabreBD (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "cemented" sounds better. Also, don't you think The New Yardbirds (in bold) in the first sentence is putting too much emphasis on the contract obligation saga? (a cease-and-desist slapped by Dreja and all) The band adapted the name mainly to complete the remaining tour commitments of the Yardbirds. The Beatles started out as The Quarrymen and The Who as The Detours, but I don't find such a mention in their leads. Any thoughts? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I will go for cemented then. The Quarrymen don't appear in the opening sentence of the Beatles as it was decided (after much heated debate) that they were, in effect a different band, which I don't think applies here. I just put them in as part of the narrative in the article and once in the MOS indicates an alternative should be in bold, which I think this definitely was.--SabreBD (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I do understand your point, but I still think "The New Yardbirds" story is prone to controversy (mainly due to the tempestuous October 1968 cease-and-desist order by Dreja and Page's contradictory insistence that the name was only used to fill contractual obligations). Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to take a look at your suggestions over mentions of the "controversies" and see how that looks. Over the New Yardbirds thing, I think we have the issues soured in the article, so I don't really see a problem. For once we have hit a bit of an impasse, although I doubt either of us feel it is vitally important. Does anyone else have a view that might help us get this posted?--SabreBD (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I'm not saying that "controversies" should be mentioned :) I'm just trying to mention that in future some controversies could possibly develop. That's that. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood this, but in any case I think the couple of phrases added will be useful in ensuring that we have the coverage needed for a FA. I would like to get the new intro posted and move on with this, so to that end, is the problem with the New Yardbirds that it is there or that it is in bold?--SabreBD (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we could post the new lead that was awesomely done by you. If WP:MOS says "The New Yardbirds" should be in bold, let's keep it that way. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That is what I take MOS:BOLDSYN to mean. I will take one more look at it and then post.--SabreBD (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK its posted. I am ready as I will ever be for FA. I will put it forward over the next few days unless anyone sees serious issues we have missed.--SabreBD (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Great work. It looks good. Scieberking (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Discography table

Do we want the new table discography or to go back to the old simple list? On the one hand it provides some useful additional information. On the other it seems oddly formatted, places what might be seen as undue weight on sales in the US alone and if readers want this information they can turn link to the Featured list at Led Zeppelin discography.--SabreBD (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I made the table, and the format has been recycled from various other Wikipedia articles which display the discography in the same way (notably Aerosmith). The reason the table is helpful is that it shows a good amount of information for each album in an organized and easy to understand display. Compared to the entire discography page, it shows only the essential details that are highlighted in the main article. That's just my opinion though, and sometimes it serves the articles well like it does with AC/DC and Pink Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.213.7 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the old simple list (similar to this) should be used. Let's see what GreatOrangePumpkin has to say about this... Scieberking (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

old, simple list

That was me above, I forgot to sign. There is one footnote which doesn't point to any reference, 135. If you install this script you will see such errors. Only one thing: Why is John Fahey not mentioned anywhere? I think I heard something that he was influenced by him (his guitar playing is very similar to Page); or looking at this, is this correct? Of course we can't put any influence for Led Zeppelin, but I think he was quite influential for Page and maybe even for the band. Regards. ♫GoP♫_T^CN 11:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi GoP. I think Sabre will fix the reference issue. Regarding Fahey, Page had jammed with him in London. That was around August-September of 1969 I guess. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GoP. It looks we are going back to the old table. If other editors disagree we can always repost it - but for me I would be reluctant with just US figures. I will go and fix the errant footnote. On Fahey, I will look into it and see if it looks like something notable enough for the article.--SabreBD (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"many" vs. "plethora"

"Throughout their career, Led Zeppelin have collected many honours and awards." I suggest changing "many" with "plethora", as it better describes the situation. 107.21.144.115 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)