Talk:Led Zeppelin IV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLed Zeppelin IV 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 20, 2018Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 8, 2011, November 8, 2018, November 8, 2021, and November 8, 2023.
Current status: Good article


Led Zeppelin's signature song.[edit]

The article states that the album contains a number of songs "...and the band's signature song, "Stairway to Heaven"." There is no reference for the claim that Stairway to Heaven is their signature song. There is no basis for the statement so I will remove it in several days if a reference isn't added. FillsHerTease (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point.--SabreBD (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Google books for the two terms "signature song" and "Led Zeppelin", without specifying which song. Here are the results:
So it looks like most people say Stairway but there are two other contenders. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit hard to know how to phrase that. "One of the band's signature songs" perhaps? It doesn't sound very decisive.--SabreBD (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Hmmm ... probably if you asked the person in the street they would say 'Stairway To Heaven'? The only reason I flagged it was that as a fan I thought 'Whole Lotta Love' might be up there too. Then there are songs like 'Dazed And Confused which was played at pretty much every show they ever did throughout their entire career. In fact that song may have actually been played at every single concert. Anyway ... I know that what the person in the street and I think are irrelevant - I'm just saying that perhaps, given that there are a number of references, none of the references don't mention it ('Rock and Roll' is mentioned as A signature, not THE signature), most people would say 'Stairway To Heaven', and your point about "one of..." sounding indecisive is correct, perhaps we should just add the references you have found and leave it at that? P.S. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! ;-) FillsHerTease (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Support - I to would Like 'Dazed and Confused' to be included as one their signature songs, because I'm also quite certain they played that at every single concert they ever played, as it was one of the first tracks they composed as a band. Nuro msg me 00:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could say "one of the band's best-known songs" or "perhaps the band's best-known song"? 86.185.70.240 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US sales ranking[edit]

@Pianoman320:, I am confused about this edit. As far as I can see, the linked article, List of best-selling albums in the United States, quite clearly shows this album ranked second, not fourth. I don't see how I can be misunderstanding it. Do you see something that I don't? 86.185.70.240 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.185.70.240: I see the confusion. I thought you were talking about the cited reference [1], which lists it fourth. It is indeed listed second on the List of best-selling albums in the United States, but this is due to a difference in ranking methodology. That list ranks albums by their "shipments" whereas this article uses the RIAA certification, which is what is cited as the reference for that sentence. I don't think it's contradictory to say it's the fourth best-selling album because that's what the citation says, and other articles on best-selling albums also use the same RIAA ranking. I feel like the contradiction is more in the List of best-selling albums in the United States article because it uses two different ranking methodologies without specifying which one is more accurate.
@86.185.70.240: BTW I left a message on your talk page when reverting your edit but you may not have gotten it since it was a different IP.
@Pianoman320: OK, thanks. 86.185.70.240 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Evermore, inclusion as "one of the band's best-known songs" ?[edit]

I'm not sure about charting but, I would tend to believe that it qualifies for the list. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the list is quite long already, do we need to list the entire track list ? Mlpearc (open channel) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every song except "Four Sticks" is quite well-known, but I agree that it's a little excessive to have six or seven of eight songs mentioned. --BenStein69 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a song in the list that didn't chart as well as Evermore but is more popular ? If so they can be swapped. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What list? Piriczki (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original photographer[edit]

Does anybody know the *original* source of the photos used with the album?

"Unseen photos of East End London in glorious colour" (by the late David Granick) from the BBC [2] looks about right, the original album has a credit for the internal illustration but not for the photos. MarkMLl (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Led Zeppelin IV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 14:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This doesn't need much work – I'll try to get to it in the next few days. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the edits in the sandbox:

  • I don't see an issue with putting citations in the infobox - every now and again a random new editor changes infobox fields, and putting the source there is an easy way of stopping arguments
  • I think "Johns had just worked on engineering" is slightly more correct, as it clarifies the timeframe
  • OK (many of these wording suggestions may be personal preference, so please treat as such). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you got a page number for the Mick Wall source?
  • Wall often has material that isn't found in any other bios (LZ or Hendrix), which makes me suspicious. Since it's not an important point, Fleetwood Mac may be left out. I try not to use Wall as a ref, but: p. 186 (First St. Martin's Griffin Edition: November 2010). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've left that out (and taken out the Fleetwood Mac reference) for the time being. I haven't really investigated Wall as a source but I know it's come in for a bit of criticism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the markup helpful or should I add the comments here? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The markup was useful to easily find things to fix, the problem you might have is changing everything not discussed above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about if i feel that something important has not been changed, I add it here? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might be easier. These days when I'm reviewing GAs, I tend to copyedit fairly obvious things and bring up things that aren't during the review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more things:

Re: Going to California - It's important to state that the musical style was influenced by Joni Mitchell, as opposed to the song being about her specifically.

That seems to be the common view. Popoff adds "partially inspired by the Joni Mitchell song 'California'."[3] But Shadwick sees it differently. Up to you. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just go with the common view, I reckon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and became the highest selling album in the US not to top the Billboard album chart, peaking at #2 behind There's a Riot Goin' On by Sly and the Family Stone and Music by Carole King." - the two Billboard 200 citations show the two chart topping albums, with LZ IV stuck behind them on number two. That should be enough to verify it. The trouble is, the book citations (and quite a few other places) which would normally be better sources all say it was stuck behind Tapestry - they're wrong!

The refs show that is was indeed No. 2, but not that it was the biggest selling album not to reach No. 1. This notion came from somewhere or else it's OR. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This source confirms only three albums have sold more in the US than this one, and via the various Billboard citations (which should show they all topped the chart), you can avoid any synthesis - but then you need six citations for one fact, which suggests it's really not that important enough (otherwise a single source would have mentioned it!), so thus trimmed! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reissues - the remastering happened in 1990, it just took a while for everything to get released

Note to self here to get a more up to date ref for the 37 million sold, and to sync List of best-selling albums up with it (now done)

Everything else has been covered, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. I'll wrap it up soon after checking the citations. I did notice: United Kingdom and United States spelled out in full several times in the table in "Awards and recognition" (is the publication country even necessary?); in "Personnel", common instruments should not be linked; in "Charts", those without citations should be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Charts and certifications stuff in albums generally make my head hurt, use lots of strange templates, and generally don't seem to need improvement on first glance (that doesn't mean they shouldn't be checked over, of course). Links in personnel credits seem to be inconsistent between GAs; for example, Tommy (album) and Who's Next have them, while Quadrophenia doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Charts tables are sometimes subject to subtle vandalism and for a GA should have inline citations. What is "Record World Album Charts"? (Chartstats should be replaced with OCC) MOS:OVERLINK advises against linking common terms. Readers of music articles should understand drums, bass guitar, vocal, etc., and the instrument articles don't have any discussion of LZ IV that would be informative (EMS VCS 3 is not mentioned in the article). —Ojorojo (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about inline citations, for the same reason having them in the infobox can be useful - I'd be interested to see how many times my edit summary matches "Undid revision by (x) aww jeez not this again" after somebody changes the "genre" field on an infobox without a source. I've replaced chartstats with one of the Lewis book sources, which is just as good. I'm ambivalent about links in personnel, you could say "do it else I'll fail the review" ;-) .... as for the VCS3, where is it? Lewis says the synth on "Four Sticks" is a Moog. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problem with personnel on Zep albums is that aside from the first album and (for some reason), Houses of the Holy, there are no credits as to who played what, so it has to be worked out second-hand from other sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I spot checked a few citations in the Charts and Certifications sections and some are dead or don't have the info. Maybe remove these or update the links. Also, 26, 35, 49 don't work for me. I think we're about done. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the certifications / charts stuff down - with the best will in the world I don't think anything outside the UK / US and maybe a few other English speaking countries is particularly significant; if the information passed verification, well that would be nice, but it doesn't. The two Times citations are subscription-only, while the Mojo source works okay for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I hear riots are already breaking out in Buenos Aires ... I see the problem with the Mojo link and fixed it, along with a couple of other things. Not sure why most of the Certifications table is italicized. (now it's not). —Ojorojo (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Most of my comments are in my sandbox[4] or above.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Good work Ritchie. More Zeppelin articles need this. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to get them all to GA as soon as - I've just held off for the minute while I get a backlog of reviews done. Thanks for a really good review, too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stewart[edit]

As much as I love Ian Stewart he did NOT appear on piano for the song Rock And Roll. He didn't. I have the original album and the only person who is credited to have been a guest on Led Zeppelin IV was Sandy Denny. Allmusic.com does not have him listed on there either. Please stop adding him! He appeared on Physical Graffiti but not IV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.108.234 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is not credited, but Dave Lewis, a Led Zeppelin expert who has been endorsed by the band, confirms his appearance. The jam from the same recording session, "Boogie With Stu" (named after him) appears on Physical Graffiti. Because the Rolling Stones were signed to a different label than Led Zeppelin, it may not have been possible to credit him for legal reasons. As you can see from a brief summary at WP:WikiProject Led Zeppelin, Lewis is one of the very few authors on this subject who the band themselves consider a reliable source, and in my opinion it's the best you can get. Some background reading : [5], [6], [7] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genres, yet again[edit]

It seems every now and again, an argument flares up over what the "genre" field in the infobox should be, and it looks like it's this article's turn this week. I have reverted back to the version that passed the GA review as a starting point. If anyone feels hard done by, say so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What an arbitrary point of revision to revert back to; will doing this magically deter something like this from happening again? Why not just revert and report the anonymous, genre-warring IP vandal, whose edits and argument carry no weight here? As opposed to pretending like the several sources cited in the article, mentioning metal, don't exist. Dan56 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All I see is an editor who disagrees with you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal[edit]

"Heavy metal" is unfit for purpose as a genre describing this album. Within the article indeed, sourced content states that this album is one pertaining to the genre in question, and indeed there are copious inferences as to its influence on the metal genre. However, this genre is unsuitable for inclusion in the infobox; if an article were to include any genre in its infobox, be it "heavy metal" or otherwise, one would expect a corpus of songs of this type on the album. To the contrary, all of the songs within have articles with info-boxes and of these none describe the relevant song as "heavy metal".

I thus propose the removal of this genre, as it is inapposite in describing this album's songs. I am willing to discuss this point at length, and will not make any changes without prior approval. JoeyofScotia (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headley Grange[edit]

The picture in the article identified as Headley Grange is NOT Headley Grange. 50.34.131.75 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Jon Allen[reply]

Hard Rock Cafe guitar authenticity questioned[edit]

Hi, would anyone here be able to confirm or deny this claim, that stop bars were further from the bridges on Page's guitar, and thus this is merely a similar guitar? There may not be a reliable source, but if that seems true, I'd say there's enough reasonable doubt to remove the photo from the article.

Paging Ritchie333, as based on the GAN, I believe you're the subject expert. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a free version of the ZoSo symbol[edit]

Hello, I found and uploaded to the Commons a free version of the Saturn sigil used by Page for his symbol. See File:Zoso from p 31 of Le triple vocabulaire infernal from 1847.jpg. It is a sigil for the planet Saturn[1] from p. 31 of Le Triple vocabulaire infernal, manuel du démonomane, ou Les ruses de l'Enfer dévoilées, published in Paris, France, Printed by Typ. de Blocquel-Castiaux, in 1847[2]; from a public domain book at Internet Archive, see: https://archive.org/details/BIUSante_73618/page/n35/mode/2up and https://ia903105.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/19/items/BIUSante_73618/BIUSante_73618_jp2.zip&file=BIUSante_73618_jp2/BIUSante_73618_0036.jp2&id=BIUSante_73618&scale=2&rotate=0; a similar symbol was used by Jimmy Page as his personal symbol/logo for the untitled Led Zeppelin album commonly called Led Zeppelin IV.

References

  1. ^ Gettings, Fred (1981). The Dictionary of Occult, Hermetic, and Alchemical Sigils and Symbols. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. p. 201. ISBN 0-7100-0095-2. Archived from the original on 16 June 2013. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
  2. ^ Le Triple vocabulaire infernal, manuel du démonomane, ou Les ruses de l'Enfer dévoilées. Paris: Typ. de Blocquel-Castiaux. 1847. p. 31. Retrieved 18 August 2022.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

See also:

I have put this free-use, public domain image into the article. If you think it should be put somewhere else, that's acceptable. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Inkscape to make a vectorized version of the symbol based on this illustration. I'm unfamiliar with the procedures of editing pages, so it may be some time before I can post it. 128.92.153.146 (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Led_Zeppelin_IV&oldid=1213611734"