Talk:The Bends (album)

Review scores

@Isento: How exactly are the Village Voice and Albums of the '90s the "same review"? Contemporary and retrospective reviews may happen to have identical scores and/or be written by the same reviewer; that does not make them the same. Also, per WP:ALBUMSTYLE, Christgau's review does give neutrality to the later reviews, which are of perfect or near perfect scores. Ellokk (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the reviews? isento (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

From the Voice column: Admired by Britcrits, who can't tell whether they're "pop" or "rock," and their record company, which pushed (and shoved) this 1995 follow-up until it went gold last spring, they try to prove "Creep" wasn't an immortal one-shot by pretending that it wasn't a joke. Not that there's anything deeply phony about Thom Yorke's angst--it's just a social given, a mindset that comes as naturally to a '90s guy as the skilled guitar noises that frame it. Thus the words achieve precisely the same pitch of aesthetic necessity as the music, which is none at all.

From the CG 90s book: Admired by Britcrits, who can't tell whether they're "pop" or "rock," and their record company, which pushed (and shoved) this follow-up until it went gold Stateside, they try to prove "Creep" wasn't a one-shot by pretending that it wasn't a joke. Not that there's anything deeply phony about Thom Yorke's angst--it's just a social given, a mindset that comes as naturally to a '90s guy as the skilled guitar noises that frame it. Thus the words achieve precisely the same pitch of aesthetic necessity as the music, which is none at all.

Apart from the words "last spring" and "immortal" (minor semantical changes), the reviews are exactly the same. Also, the presence of a negative score in the ratings box does not give "neutrality". Being neutral in this context means we give due weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the available literature on a topic (WP:WEIGHT). There appear to be no discernable amount of dissenting or negative viewpoints on the album in the years following its release and reception, which means the sole negative score that is ostensibly a retrospective source (the Consumer Guide book) should probably not replace a positive score from a source that is actually a retrospective appraisal (Uncut). isento (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Release date

It is true that The Bends was released in the UK on 13 March 1995, but there are some sayings that it was first released in Japan on 8 March. It is difficult to find a source to confirm this, but in Radiohead's Apple Music they confirmed that the album was actually released on 8 March. Is there anyone can testify or leave a source to prove it? Tamer Gunner (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, this would definitely be good to add if you can find a source for it. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to - in my experience a lot of these fiddly bits of data are difficult to source, even when it's for something as fundamental and factual as a release date. Popcornfud (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I kept searching since yesterday and just found this, a Radiohead fanzine, but I don't know if this kind of fanzine-thing is a reliable source or not because it is considered a non-official publication; I need your confirmation about this. I've read it and it's still great and useful for the article. Also see this, reliable but there is some difference. Tamer Gunner (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, unfortunately fanzines, fan websites, fan podcasts etc can't be used as sources. Popcornfud (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That's bad, I'll keep looking though. Tamer Gunner (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, well, how about this? It is true that it is not reliable enough, but we can use it at least temporarily until a more reliable source appears in the future. Tamer Gunner (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, per WP:ALBUMAVOID, online trailers like Apple, Amazon etc are to be avoided for sources. I think we should probably keep this out of the article until we can find a good source. Popcornfud (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, well, Amazon is really unreliable in terms of reviews, we won't take reviews basically, reviews are not our topic in the first place, all we need is the real release date. And as i understood from this Amazon Summary, they excluded the release date as a reliable source; then said "unnecessary" or "may be unreliable". They didn't said it's "totally rejected." so what do you think?, for me I don't feel it will do any harm. Tamer Gunner (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, OK, but that's Amazon. Not sure about Apple. I think it will do harm if we are simply repeating misinformation (retailers sometimes get things wrong). Popcornfud (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, put Apple aside, it was just an example for confirmation, same with the fanzine and we won't use them for sure. For Amazon, you said yourself "sometimes" not always, It is impossible for all of these examples to be wrong. At least after making sure of everything and reassurance, we may take the most usable thing, which is Amazon's source. I've said everything I've got and I'll let you think, and by the way, as we speak, I remembered your problem with Amnesiac release date, and I'll solve it right now. Tamer Gunner (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, I'm a bit confused, but never mind. I don't feel too strongly about this issue. I think if you posted at WP:ALBUMS and see what the consensus is there I'd be fine with whatever people thought about the reliability of these sources in this case. Popcornfud (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

ref idea

http://www.greenplastic.com/coldstorage/articles/billboard22595.html

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Bends (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MoonJet (talk · contribs) 04:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article for you soon. MoonJet (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tunakanski: Let's start with the lead and infobox.

"Most tracks were produced by John Leckie, with extra production by Radiohead, Nigel Godrich and Jim Warren."

This sentence comes off as a little redundant. I would suggest replacing "extra production by" with "the help of."

 Not done: I'm not sure that this is a necessary change, nor does it sound redundant.

"distinctive music videos were released."

What does "distinctive" mean here? How about replacing that bit with "music videos for some of the singles were released."

 Done: replaced it with "along with the release of music videos for several of the singles."

Now, for the infobox, the genre and producer field should have no wrapping. Use the {{Nowrap}} template on "indie rock" and "Nigel Godrich." You would enter it like this: "{{Nowrap|indie rock}}" and "{{Nowrap|Nigel Godrich}}" MoonJet (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done

It looks like you unlinked "indie rock" and "Nigel Godrich" when you did that. Please link them again. MoonJet (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Now time for the background and recording sections.

"Guitarist Ed O'Brien said later:"

Swap the words "said" and "later."

 Done

"Recording was postponed so Leckie could work on the album Carnival of Light, by another Oxford band, Ride."

Remove the commas in that sentence. Those don't come across as necessary.

 Done: Removed the first one, but the second one is necessary.

"Yorke said:"

I suggest replacing "said" with "stated," since the word "said" is in already in that same paragraph.

 Not done: "Said" fits better here in my opinion, and I don't think it matters that a word was already used a couple sentences ago.

"EMI gave Radiohead nine weeks to record, planning to release the album in October 1994".

Change this to "EMI gave Radiohead nine weeks to record the album, planning to release it in October 1994."

 Done

""The Bends", "Nice Dream" and "Just" were identified as potential singles and became the focus of the early sessions, which created tension"

"The Bends" is linked here. I would suggest linking "Just" too, since it's the first use of it past the lead.

 Not done: "The Bends" is also already linked in the lede, should I remove that as well? I think that the songs should only be linked where they first appear, so I'd argue that the correct change here would be to unlink "The Bends" in this part of the article.

"In September, EMI released the My Iron Lung EP, comprising "My Iron Lung" plus Bends outtakes."

This is a bit redundant. I suggest replacing the second use of "My Iron Lung" with "of the track" (since we're still talking about the song "My Iron Lung").

 Done

"EMI grew concerned that he was taking too long;"

Replace "taking" with "spending."

 Not done: "Taking" fits better here since the phrase ends here with the semicolon, and "spending" would fit much better if the sentence continued.

"Much of "Just" was written by Greenwood,"

Unlink "Just" here, assuming you followed my instructions to link it above. MoonJet (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above

Now let's do the rest of the article.

"Colin said that they wished to distinguish themselves from Pablo Honey, viewing The Bends as more representative of their style."

Generally, we use the surname of people past the first mention in the article. Though, I know he's not the only Greenwood in the band. Maybe say "C. Greenwood" instead? I've seen other articles using this same practice.

 Done: Just going to add "Greenwood" after each mention of them, as that is what other Radiohead articles do.

"He likened "The Bends" to the late music of the Beatles, described "My Iron Lung" as hard rock, and noted more subdued sounds on "Bullet Proof" and "High and Dry", showcasing Radiohead's "more plaintive and meditative side.""

I would suggest using the full name of "Bullet Proof," since its the first mention of the song in the article.

 Done

"In "Just", Jonny and Colin create substantial space by playing octatonic scales that extend over four octaves—the album having an overall spacious tone"

Same as above. You might want to use "J. Greenwood" and "C. Greenwood." Alternatively, you can state "the Greenwood brothers." The same thing goes for all future mentions of them in the article.

 Done

"Journalist Rob Sheffield dubbed "Street Spirit (Fade Out)"—as well as "Planet Telex" and "High and Dry"—a "big-band dystopian epic".[31] The angular guitar riff on "Just" was influenced by John McGeoch's playing on the 1978 Magazine song "Shot By Both Sides": Jonny Greenwood said that it was "pretty much the same kind of idea."

This is the second mention of "Street Spirit" in the paragraph, so you might want to omit the "fade out" part.

 Done

"For The Bends, Yorke and Donwood hired a cassette camera and filmed objects including road signs, packaging and street lights."

What does "hired" mean here? Maybe replace that word with "acquired," since they didn't hire anyone, and is more clear.

• In British English, "hired" is often used as a synonym for "rented". Also, it's the word the source uses.

"The buzz generated by such famous fans as R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe, combined with the distinctive music videos, helped sustain Radiohead's popularity outside the UK."

Replace "singer" with "vocalist." The latter is the preferred term on Wikipedia.

 Done

"Best-of lists"

I suggest renaming this sub-section to "accolades." Also, what's the stray "I" doing at the end of the paragraph?

 Done

Well, I think that's pretty much everything. MoonJet (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Congrats. I have now passed this. MoonJet (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MoonJet and Tunakanski. Thank you both for getting involved in the Good Article process. I am, however, a little concerned at the GA Review because it doesn't show where the article has been checked against the GA criteria. What shows here is that MoonJet did a copy edit; however, it is not clear if other aspects have been assessed.

It helps to use a GA checklist, both to focus the review on the GA criteria, reminding the reviewer what needs to be done, and also to reassure other readers that the article has gone through an appropriate review. It is not mandatory, but it is helpful. Some templates are listed here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates. I've not read the article in depth, but a casual glance shows that there is unlikely to be concern about the prose, nor about citing - the article is richly cited. Nor is there likely to be concern about unnecessary depth as no section is particularly long, except the one on Recording. However, given that even though being richly cited, the article relies on only one in depth text (Mac Randall's Exit Music: The Radiohead Story) despite there being several major texts on the band, the Broad coverage aspect of the criteria would need to be examined (usually best done by a little research of the available material). The media used in the article would need to checked against the criteria. Do we need three images of recording studios - are they pertinent? Is there a valid non-free use rationale for the use of the two sound clips? Are all image captions succinct? These are concerns I have just from glancing at the article, without having read it, because I don't see these matters raised and discussed in the GA review.

MoonJet and Tunakanski would you mind re-running the GA Review, and ensuring that where there may be reasonable concerns that the article does not meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, that these matters are discussed, or at least mentioned that they have been examined and passed. My suggestion is that a tick list is used, and each item on the tick list is looked at and explicitly given a pass. It may be tedious, but that way there are no concerns that the article hasn't been given an appropriate review.

I would be willing to help out on this if requested. SilkTork (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I am definitely willing to continue this review if it is needed. It doesn't seem like MoonJet has responded yet, so it might be necessary for you to help out. ― TUNA × 03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't found any other problems in my review. Everything seems to be well-cited, and everything that should be cited are. That said, if the article should be cited to more in-depth sources, I'm sure that can easily be done. Here's a recently-published source that goes in-depth on all the album's songs, for example. That source would also be helpful for the song articles from this album.

As for the images and sound clips, everything seems to be fine here too. Maybe the second image caption could be altered a bit. MoonJet (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll initiate a GAR. The article looks sound, so I feel it would be extremely unlikely that it will end up being delisted, though perhaps a few items will be cleared up, and certainly there will be a reassurance that a full review has been done. SilkTork (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Bends (album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• 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.