Talk:The Bends (album)/GA2

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Article has been kept as a GA. SilkTork (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article is stable. Very minor reverts of inappropriate edits. SilkTork (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Contains an appropriate reference section. SilkTork (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remains focused on the album. No section is excessive. SilkTork (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Article is richly cited to reliable sources; most of the sources are magazines and newspapers, though one in-depth text has been used. For on-going development, particularly if looking toward FA, a greater range of in-depth texts should be consulted. SilkTork (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I assume the "in-depth text" you refer to is the Mac Randall book. FYI, that book is just a synthesis of print and online media. (Not really important here, but just wanted to flag that in-depth print books aren't necessarily better than online sources these days.) Popcornfud (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Good point, well made. Not all books are good, which is why it is useful to use a range of them, and in the case of this band there are plenty of books available. The lack of a range of in-depth texts is not a GA fail, though the article would benefit from more in-depth texts being consulted. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Article is very well written - quite professional. Minor points noted below would not prevent the article from being listed. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• I've not come upon any obvious examples of copyright, and Earwig's Copyvio Detector doesn't turn up anything substantial. SilkTork (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Article is neutral, remaining close to sources, and there is balance in the criticism. SilkTork (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• No original research. There's the possible misreading of a source talking about an ascending guitar scale as "substantial space", but that wasn't deliberate (and could be accurate). The article does admirably stick closely to the sources. SilkTork (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Removed the dubious "substantial space" claim. Popcornfud (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Query

• Minor point. Per MOS:SERIAL, articles should be consistent in using the serial comma (or not). Make a decision as to if the comma should be used or not, and then go through the article to ensure consistency. This by itself is not a deal breaker, but should be sorted. Most articles on Wikipedia do use the serial comma; however, there are editors who prefer not to, and that is allowed. Example in this article of non comma: "extra production by Radiohead, Nigel Godrich and Jim Warren", example of serial comma: "with Yorke generally playing rhythm, Greenwood lead, and Ed O'Brien providing effects". This was only a quick look - not sure of how many examples of each there are, though it looks like non-serial is favoured. SilkTork (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed. Popcornfud (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Minor point. Per WP:NOENG, we prefer English sources. Cite 35 supporting the statement "The Bends was released in Japan on 8 March 1995 by EMI" is to a Japanese source. Is there an English source for this? SilkTork (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Minor point. Article is well written conveying a lot of useful information in a readable and engaging style. I have a couple of quibbles: "The buzz generated by such famous fans" is a little casual compared to the encyclopedic style of the rest of the article. Perhaps: "The interest shown by popular and respected musicians such as". And "After EMI felt Leckie was taking to long to mix the album, most tracks were mixed by Sean Slade and Paul Q. Kolderie" needs clarity that it was EMI who sent the tracks to Slade and Kolderie. Perhaps: "EMI felt Leckie was taking to long to mix the album, so they had Sean Slade and Paul Q. Kolderie complete the mixes"

I'm the editor who wrote most of the prose in the article, but there are some parts I didn't touch and IMO there are a few spaces it isn't as good as it could be. I don't like the stuff around "the album having an overall spacious tone", etc. I'm not invested in GA or FA reviews (I didn't nominate this), but I do see them as useful sources of feedback when they happen. Whatever the outcome of this GAR I will do another sweep at some point soon. Popcornfud (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment Popcornfud. I looked at the source, but it requires payment to view it. I did a search, and have not found "spacious tone" or "spacious" used in connection with the album. That's not to say that nobody else finds the album "spacious", just that I couldn't find such a reference while browsing the main album reviews (AllMusic, Rolling Stone, etc). Given that there are a range of things that could be said about the album, and spacious doesn't appear to be a common one - it appears to be a minority opinion, perhaps the article would be better without it. While looking, I checked the other claim in the sentence that "In "Just", Jonny and Colin Greenwood create substantial space by playing octatonic scales that extend over four octaves..." The source says "In “Just,” from “The Bends,” the Greenwood brothers play octatonic scales that sprawl over four octaves; the effect is of music looming miles above you." The editor who inserted the line presumably took "looming miles above you" to refer to "substantial space", and I can see the reason why they would. However, I've been looking into the octatonic scale and how others view it in the context of the song, such as David Bennett's analyses on YouTube: Analysis of “Just” by Radiohead, and it appears the reference is to the opening of the song, where Greenwood climbs the scale with alternating tone and semitone. The way the scale rises could create an effect of the music appearing to sound quite high, going over the listener's head. So, not so much space, but height, could be what the writer was referring to in "miles above". The problem is, we don't quite know. There are two solutions - either the interpretation is removed, or a quote is used instead. SilkTork (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for digging into that. The writing in that section has long seemed fishy to me but I never got round to interrogating the sources. I'll do some surgery some time in the next few days. Popcornfud (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• The caption for Nigel Godrich is not as succinct as it could be. There are three images for the studios where the album was recorded. It is not immediately clear how relevant these images are to the article, nor the value of having three. If someone could get agreement from Omega Auctions for the images of the sketchpads used for the rehearsals of the album, that would certainly be of encyclopedic interest! (And some mention of the rehearsals in the barn, and the sketchpads should be in the article). SilkTork (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've altered the Godrich caption and added mention of the barn rehearsals. No opinion on the images; I'll leave it to other editors to decide which to remove, if any. Popcornfud (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• On the whole I feel that the MOS criteria have been met. If I note any discrepancies between lead and main body as I finish this review, I'll either sort it myself or mention it here. I have some quibbles, though, about the layout. I am unclear on where Background material stops and Recording material starts. Does "EMI instructed Radiohead to deliver a followup to "Creep"..." belong in Recording or in Background? And I'm unsure on why there is a short subsection Tracks, the first paragraph of which appears to belong more in the main Recording section. The next section Music also contains material on the songs, and it's not clear what differentiates Tracks and Music. And some of the material in Music comes from reviews, so that blurs with the Critical Reception section. Rolling Stone described it as a "mix of sonic guitar anthems and striking ballads", with lyrics evoking a "haunted landscape" of sickness, consumerism, jealousy and longing" reads more like Critical reception of the whole album than a detailed summary of the music. Something to consider, and this would apply not just to Layout but also to Main aspects, would be to have a section in which each song was discussed in order. SilkTork (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Does "EMI instructed Radiohead to deliver a followup to "Creep"..." belong in Recording or in Background?

  I think this made sense when it led directly into how the desperate effort to find the next hit single disrupted the recording process. But I also think it fits in the background section, so I've moved it. No strong feelings either way.

  And I'm unsure on why there is a short subsection Tracks, the first paragraph of which appears to belong more in the main Recording section.

  This was added by me, but I was never completely happy with it — it was a bit of a short-term hack solution to stop the feeling of the recording section jumping back and forth chronologically without it. I've merged the two sections now. Hopefully it's not too awkward. Popcornfud (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Fail

• Main aspects. While reading around I have come upon information regarding the barn rehersersal and the sketchbooks which were later auctioned, information on the equipment used - such as Greenwood's two Fenders, information on the musical influences on the band, etc, which are not present in the article. I think this is the most difficult aspect of writing a Good Article to get right, and is the most difficult aspect to assess when reviewing. As such it is commonly over-looked. The bigger the topic that the article is about, the more difficult it is to get this aspect right. In general I tend to think that it is easier to get an article on a single to GA than an article on an album, and easier to get an article on an album to GA than an article on a band, as each stage up requires more research and more judgements to be made. And then, added to that, is the importance of the single, the album, the band, etc. This happens to be one of the most significant albums released in the later part of the 20th century by one of the most significant bands of that period. There is plenty of material on this album. And that, in a quick look on the few days that I have looked into this article, I am finding gaps in the coverage leads me to think that more detailed research will turn up more gaps. Added to which is that only one in-depth text has been used, and the main contributor to the article (who did not nominate the article for GA) feels that that text "is just a synthesis of print and online media". Some books on the band: "Radiohead: The Stories Behind Every Song", James Doheny; "Radiohead: Every Album, Every Song", William Allen; "Everything in Its Right Place: Analyzing Radiohead", Brad Osborn; "Radiohead: Music for a Global Future", Phil Rose; "Radiohead: Life in a Glasshouse", John Aizlewood; "The Radiohead Handbook - Everything You Need to Know", Emily Smith; "Radiohead: The Complete Guide to Their Music", Mark Paytress; "The Music and Art of Radiohead", Joseph Tate; etc. I feel this is a well written article which has gathered together some material, but that a detailed survey of the available material on the album has not yet been undertaken to do the topic justice. I am, of course, open to discussion that I may be wrong. SilkTork (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Added mention of the barn session. Popcornfud (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Can you share the sources that cover the equipment used for the album? Popcornfud (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• The images have appropriate copyright or non-free information. There is however a discrepancy with the music sample for "Just". On the sample page File:Just (Radiohead song - sample).ogg the rationale says "This sample illustrates the intricate chord progressions and Thom Yorke's new style of social commentary in his lyrics." which does not match the use in the article which doesn't mention the lyrics. And File:Fake Plastic Trees.ogg does not have a rationale for this article. SilkTork (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

General comments

Sorry for long delay in getting back to this. I'm hoping to have some time either tomorrow or Friday. SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

On hold

Review is on hold while the above issues and quibbles are discussed and dealt with. The initial hold is seven days, though I'm quite open about holding for longer provided some progress is being made or there is at least a weekly update. Most of the stuff can be handled quite quickly. The main issue is the main aspects, though a week or two on working on finding material for each song on the album, and including stuff on the rehearsal in the Oxfordshire barn, should see that settled. I am open for discussion on any of the issues. SilkTork (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this very thorough assessment. I'll address your points over the next week or so. Popcornfud (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool. I do anticipate the article retaining the green badge. SilkTork (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I've addressed your points as best I can. There are some elements (mainly to do with files and images) in which I have - to be blunt - little interest or expertise in, so I've left them as is. Happy for other editors to adjust as they see fit. As I say, FA/GA status isn't personally of great importance to me, so no problem with me if you need to fail the article for the outstanding issues - but in either case the feedback you offered here was useful and impressively rigorous. Thanks a bunch. Popcornfud (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Popcornfud. Sorry, I missed the ping. I'll take a look at the article over the next few days to see how things stand. Thanks for everything you have done so far. SilkTork (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the problematic images and media files. Thanks for adding in extra information. I still feel the article is a little light on information for a GA level article on a significant topic which has been well covered in reliable sources; as such this is fairly borderline, but as it is borderline, I am defaulting to its current status, which is a listing as a GA article. SilkTork (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.