Bobby Tench 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 Date Process Result April 22, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed January 2, 2026 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Rock music High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Guitarists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists 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.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bobby Tench/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lookinin (talk · contribs) 17:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Magnesium Cube (talk · contribs) 17:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.

Please note that under the article drop down of this account (next to talk) it states that I have instigated names to edit under over the years. Hopefuly this addresses the length of editng input issue. In fact I created the article as Tunebroker way back.

Secondly I have havd a look thropugh the article and done some restructuring and removed what I feel may be misconstrued as Puffery.

I welcome any further input by yourself and look forward to a positive evental GA vote. Lookinin (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! I apologize for my ignorance. I'd be more than happy to reassess the article— just renominate it and I'll recomplete the review within a day or two. MagnesiumCube (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be doing the GA review of Bobby Tench. Since the nominator possesses only 3.8% of authorship, this will be a drive-by review as per WP:GANI and WP:WIAGA that will most likely result in a quick fail unless the nominator responds to this review with a willingness to resolve any prevalent issues within the article. MagnesiumCube (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a thorough drive-by review of this article. Thank you for nominating this article for GA status. Unfortunately, I am failing the nomination at this time because it meets the speedy fail criteria, mainly because the nominator is not a major contributor.

Other specific problems include:

• A bit of a structural challenge because information is minorly cluttered and spread along long paragraphs. (See WP:HOARD).
• Puffery is evident in select areas. (See WP:WTW).

I encourage you to address these issues and renominate the article once it is improved. I also advise you to contribute more to the article so that your authorship status is >10%, allowing reviewers to properly engage with the article. Once again, thank you for nominating this article and I wish you better in the future! MagnesiumCube (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:

   No visible prose errors.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Follows MoS guidelines.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Possesses ref section and follows layout guidelines

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Multiple reliable sources all cited inline - good. Passes a spot-check.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No evidence of original research.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   98.1% on Earwig's Copyvio detector, but it seems as if https://sentirelblues.blogspot.com/2021/02/bobby-tench.html actually copied the Wikipedia article without listing it as a source. So you're fine on this.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Addresses main topic.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Overall good while focused on select parts of his life.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Seems to be neutral after corrections by nominator.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No evident edit warring or disputes within edit history.

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:

   Copyright statuses fine - good images.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are relevant with captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passes Congrats!

Overall, this is a nice article. However, a lot more work needs to be done. (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC) - The[reply]

lead to me is a little too short. It should probably be expanded enough to have around two or three more paragraphs added to it.: Done --Tunebroker (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of his career, actually, could be trimmed and then placed into the lead, but only after a heavy trimming.: Done --Tunebroker (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There is nothing about Tench's personal life. Where was he born? Where did he grow up? What got him interested in music, and the guitar?

- The article could use a copyedit, or even a peer review. There are some confusing spots in the article, and some of the prose is still a little confusing. : Done --Tunebroker (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you've done an incredible amount of work on this article, but I feel that a lot more still needs to be done. Especially info about his personal life, and his early life. The article just jumps right away into his music career, and gets a little too detailed at some points. Like I said, a little more research into his personal life, as well as a copyedit and a peer review, and this article could certainly pass as a GA in its next review. But for now, the article still needs some work. Keep it up! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've worked fantastically well on the Tench article and nodoubtedly deserved a better outcome. In my opinion the article is at a really good standard now. Of course, as you mentioned, it would be nearly impossible to get a good section together about his personal life at the time being. Hopefully when his solo project (whatever it is) is more publicised, some more info. could surface, but until then I'll scrape together anything I can find. Great work and thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring this up after you already suffered enough persevering though GA process :). (I was planning to pick up your nomination and help with polishing the article). The main issue I have is an abundant use of AllMusic and Discogs. There are several refs that don't seem to mention bobby (e.g., [1], [2], [3]); all discogs articles and some AllMusic articles that aren't reviews lack prose coverage, which is encouraged due WP:NOTADATABASE (e.g., [4] and [5]); sources that aren't commonly used on wiki and need to be discussed during GAN (e.g., [6], [7], [8]). I'm happy to work with you directly (search for sources and edit format)! Have a nice day! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking in. Please search for sources and edit format as that would be helpful. I have made an attempt to address the points which you highlighted and hope that you agree that these are improved. I agree about allmusic references but it is the most accurate publicly accessible source. Sometimes in Allmusic when there is for example an artist credited under another name the landing links need to be clicked through. The most offical records for recordimng creits are kept by PRS but these are only available to members who have recording rights. Regarding lyrics is there a website which can be quoted on Wikipedia. All the best for 2026. Lookinin (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a good job with editing on this page. Thanks forlending your expertise. I don't think that the GA status will change and hope that you agree. I am not sure what should be done with the Albums section header citations. The Discogs reference is a non runner and maybe there needs to be no citation for this type of sentence. Best wishes Lookinin (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Persevering once more :)! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• During 1968 they were supporting bands such as Led Zeppelin who were billed as The Yardbirds for their first UK appearance on 25 October that year at Surrey University. The inline source doesn't say 'The Yardbirds = The Gass', and The Yardbirds didn't play with Bobby Tench
• this source doesn't mention Tench. I found a source to confirm Gass' involvement with two of the compositions from the musical, "Wedding Chant" and "Goats and Monkeys", cited to this source: Dietz, Dan (2014). The Complete Book of 1960s Broadway Musicals. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 463.
  • "The Tapestry of Delights – The Comprehensive Guide to British Music of the Beat, R&B, Psychedelic and Progressive Eras" doesn't confirm his involvement with the musical
  • Found more in Larkin's encyclopedia and made the necessary edits myself (feel free to revert and discuss)

Thanks for your comments as above. What you say makes sense.

• In Gass section "Tench moved on with drummer Godfrey McLean to form a new lineup and were signed by Polydor Records in 1969".^{[citation needed]}. As the date is not confirmed and is probably vague can we remove it (the date) and reinstate the original citation?
  • I think your current version is nice! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Aren't most if not all the the "external links" sources as citations are made referemcing them? If so should more or all of them be moved to your new sources section.
  • Currently there are four sources in the "external links" and all of them except AllMusic are only meant for "external links" and discouraged anywhere else. AllMusic can be removed as it's already used in the article; imdb can be removed as article doesn't give any commentary of him as an actor —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I am wondering if he sources section you have made should be be a new main heading ie:denoted in HTML as ==Souces==
  • Both cases are fine, it's up to you. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we did the most urgent improvements, but the article certainly can be polished further. If you wanna risk it and get more feedback, you can submit it for peer review. Good luck! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help. Can the GAR template be removed now? Lookinin (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]