Talk:Live at Leeds

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Live at Leeds article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Live at Leeds has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 10, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Live at Leeds is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Length

I don't like the length being 36:24. The 1995 CD-reissue in particular, which was more than double the original vinyl length, hit the charts, a pretty rare event for just a "CD with bonus tracks". I think it should be included as being significantly different. Unfortunately I can't find my relevant copy of "British Hit Albums" to add a cite at the mo. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that that exists! :-) If only one length were possible, I would think that the album itself would determine that. But specifying the lengths for both would be even better. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Live at Leeds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100906115901/http://store.universal-music.co.uk:80/restofworld/Special-Editions/The-Who-Live-At-Leeds-40th-Anniversary-Super-Deluxe-Collectors-Edition/invt/0602527500720 to http://store.universal-music.co.uk/restofworld/Special-Editions/The-Who-Live-At-Leeds-40th-Anniversary-Super-Deluxe-Collectors-Edition/invt/0602527500720

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For some reason in the certifications it still says 3x platinum instead of 2x platinum. I think there is an error

?tidy (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear your browser's cache; it's fixed on my screen. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious information should be clarified

In the opening paragraph, "according to Charlesworth, instructed sound engineer Bob Pridden to burn the tapes.[4] Townshend later confirmed the tapes were indeed burnt in his back garden[7]" is belied by the 2013 re-release of Tommy (the Wikipedia article states "the package includes additional demos, and a live performance mostly taken from the Who's show at the Capital Theatre, Ottawa, Canada on 15 October 1969. The live disc was significant, as it debunked a long-standing myth that the tapes for the tour were burned in preference for the Leeds University show in February 1970 that made up Live at Leeds.[71]").

Appending something like "; however, at least one of the tapes was preserved because the 1969-10-15 show was released on a 2013 re-release of Tommy_(album)." would resolve the inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Old Wrens (talk • contribs) 02:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried for about 5 minutes to see if this was referenced at the other article and couldn't. The link (to a page in their web site) provided was a dead link and I couldn't even find the described 2013 re-release on their website. Maybe I just needed to look more. North8000 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so run the link through an archiver. Kellymoat (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we have a volunteer! :-) North8000 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think i may have squared the circle -- at Discogs, the live material is referenced in at least two listings as The Live Bootleg Album (https://www.discogs.com/Who-Tommy/release/5353702 and https://www.discogs.com/The-Who-Tommy/release/6914632). So the edit that is actually neded is to remove the sentence regarding debunking from the Tommy text, since Bootleg seems to indicate the source is not the officially-recorded tapes that Townshend confirms burning, and replace it with explanatory text regarding the bootleg source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Old Wrens (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you are sourcing the sources they use. Discogs is a Wiki and can't be used as a source.Kellymoat (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 14:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 review is transcluded from Talk:Live at Leeds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DreamRimmer (talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

Lead

The album was released in 11 May 1970 by Decca and MCA in the United States, and by Track and Polydor in the United Kingdom. Replace "in" with "on" between "released" and "11 May" to correctly indicate the release date as "May 11, 1970.

Done the first, but not the second as that is American, not British English - see MOS:ENGVAR Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

According to biographer Chris Charlesworth, "a sixth sense seemed to take over", leading them to "a kind of rock nirvana that most bands can only dream about". This sentence is a bit fragmented. You can rephrase it like According to biographer Chris Charlesworth, "a sixth sense seemed to take over," leading them to achieve "a kind of rock nirvana that most bands can only dream about."

That doesn't seem to scan better to me.

The band were rehearsing and touring regularly, and Townshend had settled on using the Gibson SG Special as his main stage instrument; it allowed him to play faster than other guitars. Replace "were" with "was". Replace semicolon with "because". ...his main stage instrument because it allowed him to play...

No, that's American English, this article uses British English as it is about a British band see MOS:ENGVAR.

The group were concerned that Tommy had been promoted as 'high art' by manager Kit Lambert... "group" is a collective noun, and it should be treated as singular, so "was" should be used instead of "were."

See MOS:ENGVAR again.

The Leeds concert was booked and arranged by Simon Brogan, who later became an assistant manager on tour with Jethro Tull. Please ensures that both actions (booking and becoming an assistant manager) are presented in a parallel structure. Rephrase it something like Simon Brogan booked and arranged the Leeds concert, and he later became an assistant manager on tour with Jethro Tull.

I don't know why this is an issue, the former scans better for me

...but ultimately chose to release just a single LP with six tracks. Replace "just" with "only" for better readability. Also you can add more clarity by specifying what "LP" stands for.

Changed to something different.

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Meets WP:NPOV.

Stable

It is stable.

Coverage

This article effectively covers all the essential aspects of the topic.

Images

All of the files have proper licensing and are relevant to the topic.

Copyright

According to Earwig, the article's text closely matches content from these sources:

jazz-rock-fusion-guitar.blogspot.com (91.0% similarity)
circlekj.wordpress.com (90.6% similarity)
justfortherecord.co.nz (77.0% similarity)
reddit.com (76.4% similarity)

It's clear that these portions have been copied from Wikipedia. Therefore, I recommend adding the {{Backwards copy}} template to the article's talk page.

References

Please fix following cite parameters.

|publisher=AllMusic, Replace "publisher" with "work"
|publisher=BBC Leeds, Replace "publisher" with "work"
|website=iTunes, Replace "website" with "publisher" and add "Store" after "iTunes (eg. |publisher=iTunes Store)

I don't like doing these, some random editor comes along and changes them later. Fortunately, they're not part of the GA criteria :-) The corollary to that is that I won't mind if you make these changes yourself if you think they're closer to what WP:ALBUMS suggests. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks -

random refs spot checking...

Ref 2, good Ref 3, good Ref 7, good , Ref 15, good, ref 25, 26,27 good, ref 39, 40 ,58, 60,61 good (done)

I agree with you, and since some of these were optional suggestions, the decision was ultimately up to you. Now, I don't see any other issues. I'm passing it. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 14:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.