Led Zeppelin

I think it's a great article. Soundoflolllermania 09:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article--it's information dense and covers all of the bases. 71.76.219.92 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's generally very good, maybe some tidying up to do, but I believe it is a fine article. --FrasierC 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: A few long lists that could be shortened and also the "Trivia" section needs to go, as it's unencyclopedic --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be honest, your criticism of the article's trivia section is somewhat misplaced. Not all trivia is unencyclopedia although some of it is. None of the trivia in the article of this frivious sort; it is all quite interesting as well as somewhat important. (The trivia section had no items saying, for example, 'this band's favorite color is puce'.) In fact, the section contains mostly important facts that do not really fit anywhere else in the article. The section name might we be changed to 'Miscellaneous Facts' or something like that. Nigelquinine 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the album images should be spread throughout the article - the whole History section is a long block of text. Led Zeppelin inspired quite a lot of artists - there could be a section on their effect on music. Also, The Beatles might provide some inspiration to potential editors. CloudNine 10:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: I'm not comfortable with such patchy and sporadic inline citations (they are too few and far between for the volume of text in this article), which also seem to be mingling with external links. I'd suggest sticking to one particular format for sourcing to maintain consistency. I see some unencyclopedic prose as well. As some examples, the following claim requires massive citing:

• "Presence was a platinum seller, but the album received mixed responses from critics and fans; while some appreciated the looser style, others dismissed it as sloppy, and some critics speculated that the band member's legendary excesses might have caught up with them at last. The time "Presence" was recorded marked the beginning of Page's injecting heroin, which may have interfered with Led Zeppelin's later live shows and studio recordings, although Page has denied this"
• The following terms border on illegitimate for use in an enyclopedia, unless you're paraphrasing multipe critics, or directly quoting a single individual: "driving bass line, thundering drums, melodic guitar riffs and a memorable guitar solo"
• "Rumor has it that a member of the staff had slapped Peter Grant's son when he was taking down a dressing room sign." Use of the word "Rumor" doesn't sit well with me, as it appears to be in violation of what wikipedia is not and is overtly unsourced. Wisdom89 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object although I can see the future FA coming out of this one. Intro could actually be longer or at least summarize the article better; as it is it reads like the original stub that someone just built on. And can we color-correct the infobox image? It looks like someone left it sitting out in the sun for a month. Also, I realize it's difficult to get good free-use images of bands that old but despite that, the text on the image page and the licensing info are sort of contradictory (right below text saying there aren't any copyright problems there's a fair-use notice). This should be resolved.
Also, I second the comments about the referencing. At the very least make all the external refs into footnotes. Daniel Case 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—2a.
  • "Led Zeppelin were an English rock band, described by the BBC as "one of the most influential bands of the rock era."[1]." I suppose I can cope with the forced plural, but why not use normal grammar? Can you possibly make this statement without attribution? It would be much stronger, and it's such a broad, common-knowledge statement that you can get away with it in the lead.
  • "Led Zeppelin consisted of four members; "—Shouldn't this be a colon to introduce a list?
  • "While the band are perhaps best known as pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal, their music also included disparate elements from an eclectic spectrum, including blues, rockabilly, soul, funk, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, and Latin music." Don't say "perhaps", especially in the lead; we expect precise, certain information. If you're not sure, don't say it at all. "Also included"—get RID of "also". Why is there "included" and "including" in the one sentence? Do you really need "disparate" and "eclectic"? When you list "Indian" and "Arabic" music, do you mean the traditional, classical versions? Bit vague.
    • "The group disbanded in 1980, following the death of"—Remove the comma.
    • "More than 300 million Led Zeppelin albums have been sold worldwide,[2] including 109.5 million sales in the United States alone."

Now, that's not a good start for just six sentences to bring up so many problems. This article needs thorough copy-editing before it's going anywhere. Please network on WP for other interested editors to do it; fresh eyes are needed. Tony 11:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Object - you think its a good article. you cant even say why its a good article.. i think its trash.. per above --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - Still needs a lot of work to reach featured status. The article has a bit too much "fancruft" (for lack of a better word), and could use a lot more pictures considering the heavy amount of text. Album descriptions also need to be made more concise. Some song samples would also be nice (as can be found on The Beatles and Pink Floyd, both of which are featured articles).

Can someone tell me how to add pictures within the text...like the exact html way?

• Comment—1c: Using Encyclopaedia Britannica; dead links; Shadwick (undated) Led Zeppelin 1968–1980: The Story Of A Band And Their Music not referred to original no publication information. 2c: Inconsistent terminal full stops in citations. Inconsistency in absence of retrieval dates for electronic resources. Inconsistency (failure) to appropriately cite books (The Rough Guide to Rock). Page not given in Trouser Press citation. Inconsistency Dollar (2005); Shadwick (2005) (fn30); Waksman (undated) lacks publication information. 52 of 250ish footnotes checked, not going to check the rest with this level of errors. Subedit your citations for correctness and consistency, in particular, ensure adequate publication information is provided to allow others to locate the works, works cited multiple times can be placed into a bibliography to centralise their publication information. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]