# Talk:Kraftwerk (album)

I removed an entire paragraph, as it was complete POV speculation on your part! Moreover, publishing rights for compositions is not the same as the copyright in the sound recordings. I checked the MCPS' database this morning for the rights on those compositions, they are owned 50% by R&F, and 50% by "CAPRICCIO MUSIKVERLAG GMBH". This has zero impact on whether or not the album can be reissued, just on the amount of mechanical royalties R&F would receive.
Please also note you have used the wrong colour bars in the album info box (please see the wiki albums style guide).
Are you sure your stuff about pop-art is verifyable? or is it merely your own speculation?
You have reporoduced the inner sleeve - is this not a copyright violation? And are you sure the traffic cone square is meant to be in colour?--feline1 10:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

A new image added to the release on Discogs.com of the original German copyright application indicates that the release date was actually 1 December 1970.
https://img.discogs.com/v0rlstn4n0tFkc87XdoSEEYXDdk=/fit-in/503x720/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-125204-1521584350-8891.jpeg.jpg Radec (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kraftwerk (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 11:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: 87Fan (talk · contribs) 20:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @LastJabberwocky I'm going to take a stab at this GA review. It's my first GA review, but I saw that you've been a part of a lot of GA reviews yourself, so I figured I could learn from you a bit! Here's my feedback on what I see for this article so far:

Thank you for choosing my nomination :)! I feel bad for reviewing dozens of articles, but promoting just two (one didn't register). Nice to be one the other side of GA process. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
@87Fan: I adressed your suggestions to the best of my ability and relative to the quality of sources. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)


### Quickfail criteria
✅ Article looks like it has strong potential 
✅ Earwig shows a 16% similarity, which is violation unlikely
✅ No cleanup banners
✅ Article is stable
✅ No previous GA reviews, so no previous issues which need to be resolved


### GA review criteria
#### 1. Well-written / properly structured
I think there are a few ways this article needs some improvement: 

First, the lead should summarize all major aspects of the article - the background, recording, release, reception and legacy. Right now, it feels a little disjointed and is a little short. Consider a first paragraph that outlines who made it, who published it, and when and where it was released. A second paragraph could outline reasons for its notability (as currently summarized in the 'legacy' section). A third paragraph to discuss its reception in the press and by fans, and note things like the fact that it's never been re-released. Right now, the lead namechecks Hohmann, who himself is not notable so it is not appropriate to include his name there (he can be listed in the article's body below). Rather than say "Since their Autobahn tour of 1975, consider something more like "Since their tour in support of their 1975 album Autobahn..." to sound more encyclopedic.
I streamlined the lead, and added critical reception (critics' highlights) and legacy. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the 'Background and recording' section has no citations until the two at the very end. This leads to confusion about which source is responsible for what. Please consider inline citations per statement. Ideally, each distinct claim—especially those about location, equipment, and personnel—should be cited. In addition, the first sentence of that section feels awkward and run-on: Consider splitting out the bit about joining the Philips label as the 3rd band into a separate section, and tie in the formation of / naming of the project into that sentence as well, so readers don't have to wait until the end of the paragraph to figure out where the band (and name) Kraftwerk fits in to all of it. Also, were the first two bands who joined Philips notable? If so they should be mentioned. If not, drop the 'third band' and instead just say "one of the first few" because by giving an explicit number, it invites the question "who were the others?" and if we cannot answer it, we shouldn't pose the question.
 Done Moved up formation of Kraftwerk, spread out refs, and added the early Philips bands. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Some of the information in the 'composition' section relating to how songs were recorded (who played what, etc.) belongs in the 'recording' section above it.
I moved two sentences from Composition to Recording; let me know if there are other sentences that need to be moved. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The 'release' section is missing key details, such as the publishers and regions it was released in. There were no singles, do any sources speak to as why? Was there a tour? If not, why not? Some of the information in the section, such as how members of the band drifted into other bands and back, more naturally belongs in a 'subsequent events' section since they are not directly related to the album's release itself.
 Done Added labels and UK 1975 reissue. As far as I could find any singles prior to their first single "Autobahn". —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I formatted Release chronologically, placing brief member departures in-between Red Cone release and promotional live shows with peculiar lineups (without Hütter). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The reviews section currently mixes contemporary and retrospective reviews together, please separate these into two subsections so it is clear to readers what was thought of the album at the time versus in later years.
I double-checked Newspaper.com and ProQuest, all reviews are post-90s, so not exactly contemporary. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Given the impressive impact the band had on other notable bands (Bowie, U2, Depeche Mode, many others) (this and splinter band Neu!), the 'legacy' section feels like it's missing content, and should probably be a section of its own, instead of a sub-section. A few things that should be in the legacy section (besides what is already there): the album's influence on krautrock and experimental electronic music, any retrospective commentary from notable musicians, and the absence of live performances and reissues.
Kraftwerk is influential, but their debut sadly not really that important influence-wise. I found a David Bowie quote saying that he liked their earlier stuff, but otherwise early on they more received inspiration from other krautrock bands than gave it. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
They are influential as a distinctly German band (use German for the song titles and lyrics; "It's ironic that Kraftwerk have a reputation for being so distinctly German - in dress, observation of formalities, eating cakes in cafés —- when you obviously don’t like some aspects of modern Germany." [from uncut article]), which I briefly mention in the 'Background'. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr)
"Krafwerk's roots lie in the bombed-out ruins of post-war Europe." This one is probably more relevant for their early albums than later albums, BUT couldn't locate sources saying that their debut has post-war vibrations. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The infobox should include the 'studio' parameter, and maybe the 'language' parameter, since it appears that all the songs with lyrics were sung in German.
 Done
I don't see all of the genres that are listed in the infobox in the article body. Is there a source for the 'electronic' genre? It needs to be sourced or removed.
 Removed The three other genres present in the infobox are based on electronic music, but I couldn't spot a source calling the album "electronic". —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Plank seems an important figure in Kraftwerk's history, and other notable bands and artists as well (Eno! The Eurythmics!), and as such I think the article should mention at least a little bit more about his influence and involvement. For instance, note that he work on their subsequent 3 albums.
Couldn't find anything specific about Plank's work on Kraftwerk. I considered adding his most prominent accomplishments in brackets or as a note, but the result had promotional undertones and felt out of place. I think we are less pressed to introduce him, because he has a wiki page that does this work? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
there is an article for Hilla Becher, is that the same Hilla Becher who is cited in the 'Personnel' section?
 Done
The comment about the inner sleeve picture should be moved to the caption for the picture.
 Done


#### 2. Factually accurate and verifiable
I spot-checked a few of the available sources and found no issues. However, the article appears to reference 15 different books, and only two are in the bibliography section. It feels like all books (except those only cited for the 'reviews' table) should be there, and consider using the SFN template for citations to them.
 Done
Were any tracks from this album covered by other artists? If so they should be noted.


#### 3. Broad in its coverage
No issues


#### 4. Neutral point of view
No issues


#### 5. Stable
No issues


#### 6. Illustrated
I do not think it is illustrated enough. For instance, there's a nice picture of Kling Klang studios on that article page, perhaps pull that in. The picture from Plank's page would be appropriate, too.
 Done Added an image of King Klang studio used on German wiki —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)


#### 7. Overall
On hold pending feedback. Feel free to tag me in comments here. If you feel that any of my feedback is inappropriate or incorrect, please let me know. Thank you for your work!
@LastJabberwocky thank you for your prompt updates. I have done a quick pass to update a few minor things, but overall I think this is a great example of GA article. I have marked it for promotion. Thank you and good luck! 87Fan (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)