h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Deep Purple Live - A Guide for the Purplexed - A66587782
Author: Giford - U187177

An Entry that might actually be useful to someone (albeit not very many people) - I decided to write this after nearly forking out £50 on eBay for 'ultra-rare, fan-club only' album Perks & Tit, only to realise in the nick of time that it is exactly the same recording as widely-available-for-a-tenner Live at San Diego.

Don't know whether it's of interest to anyone else though...

Gif

You say it may not be of interest to anyone, and while it may not be particularly relevant to us few PR types - either too or too young - but it will be really helpful to the wider readership that h2g2 is getting since we figure so well in the Google search engine results.

This looks a comprehensive Entry - you may well get comments on the content from others, but I've just noticed a few typos etc

collector to know whether an album [they're] just spotted

-----> they've

The band's early years are [poorly represented in the record].

not exactly sure what you mean here - you say their concerts were not officially recorded in their early years, I'm wondering if you could make this first sentence less ambiguous.


both are avaialable in Anniversary -----> available

The complete concerts are now avaiable -----> available

[the author has no idea] who would buy a reduced-length version of a Deep Purple album.
Can I suggest -----> although it is unclear who would buy...


I like the title by the way! And the term 'completionist'.

Good luck with this!

Thanks for the encouragement Lanzababy - changes made!

Gif

S'okay - I found myself watching some old vids on youtube in the end, just to catch the atmosphere of the band.

I love any article that fills a niche, especially a random niche. I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to review the article but I thought I'd throw my weight behind the idea, at any rate.

I know nothing about the group or it's music so will leave others to comment on content.
32 footnotes is way over the top, there's probably enough info for 2 articles if the footnotes were incorprated rather than have that many footnotes imo.

Well - I tend to disagree, admittedly there are a lot of footnotes, but they are mainly the dates of the concerts, which would make the text quite stilted to read, if they were incorporated into the body of the article.

Apart from footnote 2, which could be written into the entry itself, I think they have to remain in this type of Entry. Perhaps a sub editor would clarify this for us?

I've incorporated the first two footnotes into the text. Aside from concert dates, there are only two other footnotes left. I could probably work them in if it makes a significant difference.

However, I am reluctant to put the concert dates into the main text, as it would seriously reduce its legibility. And I don't want to leave them out, as they're kind of the point of the Entry, being the only definitive way of working out whether two recordings are of the same concert.

The only other option I can see is a table, but I think those are frowned on in Edited Entries also. I'm open to ideas.

Gif

Tables are not frowned on in Edited Entries. But we don't want entries that are nothing but a table.

I might see if I can work the footnotes into a table then - watch this space!

Gif

OK, all footnotes (mostly) incorporated into a whopping table at the end... let me know what you think.

(I have saved the old version offline if you hate this!)

Gif

Hi again Giford, I think it looks and reads better personally. As to whether it's too big or within the house-style etc, I guess a sub-ed will be better placed to answer that.
Over to you sub-eds.

At 5,336 words, it is slightly on the long side - at the upper limits of acceptability, I'd say. But it is clearly all one topic, so there's no point in splitting it up into smaller entries. I'd say it is acceptable as it is.

You'll need to change all those dates into standard h2g2 format:

19 April, 2010

Note there is no "th" after 19 and there is a comma after the month.

Will do. I can never remember the proper date format.

As a thought, the band's career splits neatly into pre-breakup (Mks I - IV, 1968-1978) and post-reformation (Mk II reformed - Mk IX, 1984 - present). Although some of the live albums were released during this period, for obvious reasons none were recorded. If I need to split this Entry into a 'Part 1' and 'Part 2', it could be done there - but I would prefer to keep it as one Entry.

Gif

Dates updated - does anyone have any comments on the table vs footnotes formats?

Gif

My personal feeling was that the footnotes were okay - but then my preferences might be skewed as I do have a slight difficulty in reading tables ( I have MS which affects my ability to scan- )

As the Entry has now been changed, maybe other opinions could be sought, for instance if you made an ordinary Entry with the previous version that you saved, then paste the A number here for comparison?

However, I am happy with the table if that is the consensus!

Lanzababy

'Footnote version' (sans title and latest edits) here for comparison:
A66942336

Gif

Thanks Gif!

Oooh, definitely table form for me.

What's 'Rainbow?' It crops up a couple of times but is it a band, an album, or a track?

In 'Deep Purple Mark II'
"This is captured on Live at Montreux 69 (aka Kneel & Pray), which also features very early version of Child in Time and Speed King1."
--> versions[s]

I never realised that Deep Purple had such a huge discography! I need to look them up.

All in all, you have covered a vast amount of information quickly and succinctly. Looks good to me.

It's a good Entry, Gif, and is improved by the presence of the table.

Here are a few nitpicks:

improvides --> improvised

very early version of Child in Time and Speed King -->
very early versions of Child in Time and Speed King

The paragraph starting "The subsequent Fireball tour..." should be rewritten slightly. You've got one long sentence, with a number of sentences stuck into a parenthesis (the bit surrounded by brackets) in the middle of it. Split this paragraph up into a number of separate sentences.

one of the great live albums of all time -- should that be "one of the greatest"? I don't think you can use "of all time" unless it is the greatest.

the 30 minute set-closer --> the 30-minute set-closer

3rd April in Graz --> 3 April in Graz

this comprised of recordings -->
this comprised recordings

there is no musical difference between buying the boxed set or obtaining the two concerts separately -->
there is no musical difference between buying the boxed set and obtaining the two concerts separately

believe this to be an unoffical bootleg -- spelling of "unofficial"

'rarities' performances --> 'rarity' performances