The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Led Zeppelin[edit]

Led Zeppelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominators: SabreBD (talk) and Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was a latecomer to this article, despite my history of contributions to similar band and musician biographies, while Sabrebd has been contributing for nearly three years now. Over the past month, I've given the article a thorough copy edit, adjusted some awkward prose, and we are both now confident that it meets the Featured Article criteria. Last time around this article received a regrettably small amount of input, and I hope we can remedy that this time. I'd like to thank everyone in advance for your reviews and comments! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc[edit]

Lead[edit]

• The lead currently makes no mention of who wrote the band's lyrics. Perhaps a brief mention of the Page-Plant songwriting team is in order.

I've added a sentence on the Page-Plant collaboration, as well as a mention of Jones' later role, to the second paragraph. I've had to switch around some of the surrounding prose, so let me know if you think I've negatively affected any of it. Thanks for your comments, Gabe! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistency. - The lead says: "The group's heavy, guitar-driven sound, rooted in blues rock on their early albums ...", but the section "Musical style" says: "Led Zeppelin's music was rooted in the blues.[13]" Which is it? Blues or blues rock? I realise that the two genres are quite similar, but they are not synonymous.

Great point. I've changed both instances to "blues." They were playing blues rock, but were decidedly rooted in the blues. They were influenced by Albert King and Muddy Waters more than Canned Heat or Cream. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarity. - "They viewed their albums as indivisible and complete listening experiences and disliked releasing their songs as singles." Perhaps true, but they did release 16 singles in 10 years, so they were obviously either willing or legally obligated to do so (the article says they had the "final say"). This seems like it could use a re-work, or perhaps this particular point isn't needed in the lead.

I agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. I'll give this whole situation another look and see if I can clarify it in-article. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Verbose. - "After changing their name from the New Yardbirds, Led Zeppelin signed a deal with Atlantic Records at the beginning of their career that afforded them considerable artistic freedom." Consider trimming "at the beginning of their career".

Done. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Excess modifier. - "the group disbanded following Bonham's sudden death in 1980." Consider omitting the word, "sudden" and maybe expanding briefly on his cause of death. i.e.: "the group disbanded in 1980 following Bonham's death from alcohol related asphyxia."

Done. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistency. - Why does the lead call their fourth album untitled, but the Wikipedia article page for the album is called Led Zeppelin IV?

The short version is: The album was catalogued with no title. The article is titled Led Zeppelin IV since that is the common name. Since that policy only applies to article titling, though, I think we should use the official title (or lack thereof) here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formation[edit]

• Prose. - "with Plant on harmonica, was the first studio track to feature all four members of the future Led Zeppelin". Consider reworking as: "with Plant on harmonica, was the first studio track to feature all four members of the still unformed Led Zeppelin", or similar. Calling them "the future Led Zeppelin" sounds awkward IMO.

Point taken. I've changed it to your suggested version for now, but I wonder if "all four future members of Led Zeppelin" might be clearer? Not a big deal, and I think it's okay now, but let me know what you think. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think "all four future members of Led Zeppelin" is fine and a significant improvement over "the future Led Zeppelin". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose. - "The word 'balloon' was transformed into 'zeppelin', perhaps an exaggeration of the humour, and to Page the name conjured the perfect combination of heavy and light, combustibility and grace". 1) "The word 'balloon' was transformed into 'zeppelin'" needs work. The word didn't transform, they swapped words. 2) "perhaps an exaggeration of the humour" sounds like either WP:OR, or close paraphrasing. 3) "and to Page the name conjured the perfect combination of heavy and light, combustibility and grace." This strikes me as again, either unencyclopedic prose or close-paraphrasing.

First issue addressed. I'll check the sources and see what I can do about 2 or 3. I agree it could definitely be better. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! It was indeed a close paraphrase; replaced it with a direct quote of Shadwick and removed the "exaggeration" bit. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Grant secured an advance deal of $200,000 from Atlantic Records in November 1968, which was then one of biggest deals of its kind for a new band.[24]" I suggest a slight reword so as to avoid using the word "deal" twice in the sentence.

Changed to "Grant secured a $200,000 advance contract...". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing article. - "Under the terms of their contract, the band had autonomy in deciding when they would release albums and tour, and had the final say over the contents and design of each album."

I'm not sure about this one, actually. In my experience it's much more common to hear the phrase used without the article. I could very well be wrong, though. I've asked at RDL. Looks like you were right. Fixed! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarity. - "When Dreja dropped out of the project to become a photographer[14] (he would later take the photograph that appeared on the back of Led Zeppelin's debut album),[15] Jones contacted Page about the vacant position at the suggestion of his wife". At the suggestion of whose wife?

Jones' wife. Clarified, I think. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarity. - "Having known Jones from his session days, Page agreed to let him join as the final member.[16]" Whose session days? It sounds like Page was a session musician not Jones, as "his" seems to refer to Page.

Yes, Page was very much a session musician. Jones was as well, but this refers to Page specifically. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but since Jones was also a session musician, and since neither man's session work is explained in the article, this seems to lack clarity, IMO. Maybe its just me, but this seems like it might confuse the casual reader. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been clarified, I think. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarity. - "Atlantic were a label with a catalogue of mainly blues, soul and jazz artists, but in the late 1960s they began to take an interest in British progressive rock acts.^{[example needed]} Record executives signed Led Zeppelin without having ever seen them, largely on the recommendation of singer Dusty Springfield.[25][26]" This would seem to imply that Atlantic viewed Zep as a progressive rock act, but that genre is not currently listed in the infobox genre field. Also, in Musical style it states: "Towards the end of their recording career, they moved to a more mellow and progressive sound, dominated by Jones' keyboard motifs.[150]" So, were they progressive at the start when Atlantic signed them or was this a later development as the article seems to imply.

• Incorrect article. - "One account of how the new band's name was chosen held that Moon and Entwistle had suggested that the supergroup with Page and Beck would go down like a "lead balloon", an idiom for disastrous results.[22]" 1) Since Moon and Entwistle were speaking in generalities, I think you want to use an indefinite article here not a definite one i.e., Beck never joined Zep. 2) The inline explanation of what the phrase "lead balloon" means seems excessive and/or awkward, IMO.

Fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Accuracy. - "Grant secured a $200,000 advance contract from Atlantic Records in November 1968, which was then one of biggest deals of its kind for a new band.[24]" 1) According to Wall, the advance was $143,000 the first year of the 5-year deal with four one-year options worth a total of $220,000 over five years, not $200,000 upfront. 2) "then one of biggest deals of its kind for a new band" might be an understatement. Wall wrote: "[the contract] came with the largest single advance ever offered to an unsigned artist."(Wall, 2008, p.81) Which was $143,000, not $200,000.

Both fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Accuracy. - "Record executives signed Led Zeppelin without having ever seen them, largely on the recommendation of singer Dusty Springfield.[25]" According to Wall (page 82), Springfield praised Jones' arranging abilities, not Led Zeppelin per se. Also, Wexler was already trying to sign the band before Dusty's recommendation.

Yes, finding a proper reference for the Springfield bit has been problematic, and I've yet to find a source that explicitly says Atlantic signed them on her recommendation. I'm going to trim it for now; probably trivial anyway. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early years 1968–70[edit]

• Accuracy. - The article currently states: "Due to his contract with CBS Records, Plant received no credit for his songwriting contributions [on their first album].[32]" However, in The Rough Guide to Led Zeppelin, Page is quoted stating that he wrote all the lyrics on their first album and that Plant's first attempt at writing lyrics became "Thank You" (written for Plant's then wife), from the second album.(Williamson, 2007, p.65)

Yeah, Lewis would appear to be mistaken on this point. Removed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Glaring omission. - The article fails to mention that after their US tours and before the release of their first album Plant's position in the band was tenuous at best following a strong critical backlash against the singer. (Williamson, 2007, p.55)
• Contradiction? - The article currently states: "Without the band's consent ... some songs were released as singles, particularly in the US.[36]" However, in Formation, it says: "the band ... had the final say over the contents and design of each album. They would also decide how to promote each release and which tracks to release as singles." Were these singles released illegally? If so, what was the outcome? This point is left hanging without clarification, IMO.
• Clarity. - "The first show was in Denver on 26 December 1968, followed by other West Coast dates before the band travelled to California to play Los Angeles and San Francisco.[29]" 1) This sounds like Denver is on the West Coast and 2) You should maybe mention that the first West Coast dates were in Seattle.(Wall, 2008, p.103)
• Expand detail. - "The first show was in Denver on 26 December 1968". Maybe we should mention that 1) Zep were booked as the opening act for Vanilla Fudge,(Wall, 2008, p.92) and 2) during the first US tour they accepted substantially less pay per show then the Yardbirds had earned: $2,500 versus $200 for some, resulting in a net financial loss for the tour.(Wall, 2008, p.89, 145)
• Expand/missing detail. - The article does not mention that after the second show at the Fillmore East on 31 May 1969 (the end of their second US tour), Atlantic held a party for Zep and awarded them a gold record for their first album.(Wall, 2008, p.144)
• Omission. - Their second US tour earned them $5,000 to $15,000 per night, with their end take being $150,000 to split between the four of them; a considerable turnaround from the financial loss of the first tour.(Wall, 2008, p.145)
• Lacking detail. - Regarding the above point, I see no mention of the low-budget nature of their first US tour. They flew coach, used frequent-flyer discounts, travelled through the night to avoid hotel costs in one car and transported all their equipment in one medium sized U-Haul truck.(Wall, 2008, pp.104–105)
• Omission. - I see no mention that Randy California introduced Page to the Theremin during Zep's first US tour. Page bought one soon after and used it extensively during live performances.(Wall, 2008, p.99–100)
• Omission. - I see no mention of Page's innovative use of a violin bow during live performances. This highlight was a theatrical device that had become a center-piece of their shows by the second US tour.(Wall, 2008, p.102)

2000s and beyond[edit]

• Redundancy. - This section mentions their Polar Music Prize, their Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award and their induction into the UK Music Hall of Fame, however; the section "Awards and accolades" repeats this info.

Fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musical style[edit]

• Prose. - "The influence of the abrupt, non-fluid American blues of Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters and Skip James was particularly apparent, especially on Led Zeppelin and Led Zeppelin II.[128]" 1) What does "abrupt, non-fluid" mean? 2) "particularly apparent, especially". Two modifiers this close seems clumsy to me.

Both fixed. It was specifically the country blues style of Wolf that Gulla was referring to, speaking of Waters and James only in generalities. I hope that's clear enough now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification, expand detail. - The article currently states: " ...would lead to later accusations of plagiarism and some legal disputes over copyright.[127]" I think this needs some clarification, since in The Rough Guide to Led Zeppelin, Williamson writes that Willie Dixon received an out-of-court settlement, which is a bit more then "accusations of plagiarism" would suggest.(Williamson, 2007, p.65)
• Accuracy, clarity. - Jones claimed that he and Bonham were not blues fans: "Bonzo and I weren't into the blues at all. I'd never heard of Robert Johnson or Willie Dixon before I joined".(Wall, 2008 <2010 edition>, p.101)

References[edit]

• Consistency. - I noticed that some of the refs include both a work and a publisher, but others do not. E.g. Williamson, Nigel (May 2005). "Forget the myths". Uncut. This entry should also include the publisher IPC Media since the article includes both Allmusic and Rovi Corporation. Bosso, Joe (7 January 2009). "'Led Zeppelin are over!', says Jimmy Page's manager". MusicRadar, should include Future plc as the publisher and "50 Best Live Acts of All Time". Classic Rock (118). May 2008, should include TeamRock, etcetera. There are several others, including cites to CNN, whose parent corporation is Time Warner, and to the Observer and the Guardian, published by Guardian Media Group and the Independent, published by Independent Print Limited.

Yeah, looks like ref consistency is indeed an issue. :) Since I've never really been told that both publisher and work need to be specified, I've gone ahead and removed the mention of Rovi. I think just one of those fields can be used and the refs not be considered incomplete, but let me know if you think I need to specify work and publisher on all points (the MoS might cover this somewhere, but I haven't come across it, if so). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is most important here is consistency, and I tend to avoid using both the "work" and "publisher" fields in my sourcing. Others may disagree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed one that you might have missed: "Led Zeppelin at Bron-Yr-Aur". BBC Wales Music. BBC. 2011.
• Also, why the italics in "Led Zeppelin make UK Hall of Fame". BBC Home. 12 September 2006b?

Both of these fixed. Will address your "Formation" comments later today. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistency. - I noticed that the reference mark-up is quite inconsistent. In particular, some entries list the author's first name first (incorrect) while others list the author's last name first (correct). Please make this consistent.
• Error. - Wall's When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin, was copyrighted in 2008, not 2009.

Fixed. Will address the consistency point above later today. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonham's death and break-up[edit]

• Word choice. - "exhibited sonic experimentation", consider "featured sonic experimentation", or similar.

I agree that reads better. Done. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusing/fact check. - "An autopsy found no other drugs in Bonham's body, and a verdict of accidental death was returned at an inquest held on 27 October. Bonham was cremated on 10 October 1980". Was he really cremated before the inquest? If so, perhaps consider a rework so as to improve the chronology.

Yes, I can see how that was confusing. He was cremated before the inquest, and I hope the edit I just made cleared up the chronology. Let me know if you think it could use further work. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and accolades[edit]

• Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any mention that Rolling Stone ranked Page the 3rd greatest guitarist of all-time, Plant the 15th greatest singer and Led Zeppelin the 14th greatest artist.

I cannot find it but too much Rolling Stone accolades have been an issue of debate in the past. I seem to recall that there was a decision to stick with those for the band not the individuals. Is this essential?--SabreBD (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think its essential, but some might view it as a glaring omission. I take your point about keeping it relevant to the band, versus individual members, but that doesn't explain why the article doesn't mention that RS ranked the band the 14th greatest artist of all-time. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I will go and look that one up for a citation.--SabreBD (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I'm not seeing any mention that RS ranked 5 of their albums in the top 500 of all-time (four in the top 100).

Both Rolling Stone points now added. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In progress ... more to come. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Review suspended; noms havn't addressed any of my comments in more than seven days. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gabe. Thanks for your comments so far. I've been out of town at a rural location with limited to no internet access. I didn't want to make a public announcement of it, but I had meant to notify you. In any case, I'll take another look here and get some edits done tomorrow night. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and image review by FunkMonk[edit]

I'll read though the article soon, I'm a big fan myself, so I'm sad the article didn't get much attention during previous nominations. I've checked all the images, and the licenses look good, apart from this[2] one. But I've brought it up at Commons, so it may stay or go, depending on the discussion there. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Page was the dominant musical force" sounds a bit loaded. He was the main composer, yes.

A bit more than just the songwriter, but I cannot see how to express that.--SabreBD (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He had creative control? FunkMonk (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Link for Yardbirds in lead?

Yardbirds are not mentioned in the lead. Did you mean New Yardbirds?--SabreBD (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Yardbirds" could be linked within "New Yardbirds". FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying - it is linked now.--SabreBD (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Having known Jones from his session days" This would be unclear to people who don't know what it refers to. Most accounts mention that Page and Jones were session/studio musicians who knew each other from that venue, so why not mention it earlier? Jimmy Page is first mentioned out of the blue, but it could begin stating he was a session musician before joining Yardbirds. Also, it seems to have been brought up during the last review too, with the following suggestion: "In 1966, London-based studio session guitarist Jimmy Page joined...".

Implemented as "In 1966, London-based session guitarist Jimmy Page joined..." — "studio session" seemed somewhat redundant. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The above makes me wonder whether all issues brought up during previous reviews have been taken care of?

I think it was changed and has be subsequently edited out.--SabreBD (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Robert Plant, a Stourbridge singer for" why is his home town mentioned, when it isn't for the other members?

Agree. Removed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I recall that the band was sued early on by a member of the Zeppelin family for using the name, seems like an oversight that it isn't mentioned.
• "creating a work with a direct sound that was "heavy and hard, brutal and direct" Too many "direct".

Good catch. Trimmed first "direct." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some early Led Zeppelin concerts" Seems a bit odd that the article is linked that far down. Could be linked already when the first tour is mentioned.
• The cover art is described in depth for some albums, and not at all for others. Any reason for this? Seems a bit arbitrary.
• The lead mentions that they received bad reviews in the early days, but this is not elaborated on at all in the article, and there isn't much description of a transition from bad to good, more like the opposite.
• There is mention of contemporary critical reactions for some albums, none for others.
• "Three sold-out shows at Madison Square Garden in New York City were filmed for a motion picture, but the theatrical release of this project (The Song Remains the Same) was delayed until 1976." and "The recording had taken place during three evening concerts at Madison Square Garden in July 1973, during the band's concert tour of North America." Explanation seems redundant the second time around.

Fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, there is little info about each album, which I would expect for a featured band article. See Pink Floyd and Pixies, for example. This article seems more focused on tours, which is alright, but there could be a better balance between the two.
• "the two box sets together containing all known studio recordings" Except Swan Song: http://ultimateclassicrock.com/led-zeppelin-swan-song/ But perhaps that doesn't count...
• "Deep Purple,[154] Black Sabbath,[155] Rush,[156] Queen,[157] and Megadeth[158] as well as progressive metal bands like Tool[159] and Dream Theater." The three last ones seem arbitrarily chosen. I'm pretty sure you could list any rock bands from the late 70s through to the 90s and today.
• "Led Zeppelin have also been described as "the quintessential purveyors"[182] of masculine and aggressive "cock rock", although this assertion has been challenged." By who and why?
• Could be mentioned that the band has refrained from letting their songs be used for commercials and films, though I think Almost Famous was an exception. Could also be mentioned that very little footage of the band exists, and that most of this is from back projections from concerts.
• "but would lead to later accusations of plagiarism and some legal disputes over copyright." Could be elaborated, since this is a very notable issue.

FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - not much is mentioned about Peter Grant's managing the band and the control he exercised. His influence was instrumental in the band's success in the 1970s, I think there should be a bit more about him in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: First, I appreciate everyone's input here very much, and I will be addressing their comments regardless of whether or when this FAC is archived. Unfortunately, I've wound up being out of town longer than I'd expected, so I don't have in front of me the books I would need to address many or most of the above comments. I'm not sure how much free time my co-nom, Sabrebd, might have, but I realize things are getting down to the wire with regard to the typical scheduling of these things. I want to be respectful of everyone else's time, so I won't give an ETA that may wind up coming and going with no response from me. I've not abandoned this FAC, but at the moment I don't actually have direct access to the materials I need in order to properly complete it. Just thought you should know. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update 2 I was trying to work through the comments, but as luck would have it I have been ill and unable to spend as much time at the computer as I would like. However, I am mostly better and have some time this weekend. I also own the three key biographies of the band, so hope we might be able to resolve the main issues.--SabreBD (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.