Wikipedia:Peer review/King Crimson/archive1
This article has been maturing gradually for quite some time now. It is approaching what I would consider featured-article status, but is probably in need of some fine-tuning before it should be nominated. Is anything still lacking? Would a non-Crimson fan find it interesting and worth reading? Is the history of band membership rotation boring? -- Wapcaplet 02:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Band membership is not boring. I had no idea so many notable musicians are part of King Crimson's history. I'm a fan of progressive rock, but never made the effort to learn about King Crimson. Maybe that was a mistake. BTW, Tony Levin has also recorded with Pink Floyd. --Trweiss 05:26, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Boy, it'd probably be shorter to list the musicians that Tony Levin has not worked with :-) Man gets around. I agree that the band membership history is interesting, but I want to make sure it has a good narrative flow, and incorporates other important things, such as the style of music produced with various members, other activities such as recording and touring, etc. I'm worried it still comes off sounding like "And then, all these musicians joined unto King Crimson with their respective instruments, and yea, did vamoose a year later, replaced by so-and-so, who did depart after recording YACK: Yet Another King Crimson. And thenceforth came an unusually long period of three years, during which the band contained the same members, and did not change", etc. Steps have definitely been made in the right direction, but I suspect it needs the touch of a fan more familiar with the band's past. I'm a young'un, and only started getting into them with Thrak. -- Wapcaplet 17:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. - I guess part of the problem is that so many of the albums have their own nicely-written articles, where the musical style and direction is covered in detail, leaving little about that topic to the main article. Perhaps a few bits of information could be extracted from each album's article, for inclusion here, just to flesh out the story a little. Hardly anything is said here about In the Court of the Crimson King, arguably their most influential album. I picture this article as a more scholarly version of a Behind the Music documentary (which, by the way, have they ever done for KC? It'd have to be three hours long!). -- Wapcaplet 17:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a King Crimson fan (although I recently watched and enjoyed the Eyes Wide Open DVD). I found this article to be well-written, interesting, and happily avoids any tendency for overly-sympathetic hagiography (something that often marrs this type of article). Well done to those responsible. To be featured, it would definitely need some photography as illustration. The band rotation is essential information, even though it's never going to be that fascinating for a reader with only casual interest. The article deals with King Crimson's influences, but it might also be worth addressing who they have influenced themselves, if such information can be added without speculation. — Matt Crypto 21:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)