Talk:Otis Redding/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by SilkTork in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Initial comments
|
|---|
Tick listeditGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Commentsedit
HoldeditOtis Redding is a high profile subject, attracting over 100,000 readers a month, and is a major topic. It is important that we deal appropriately with such subjects, and that we make them good articles, and when we do list them as Good Articles, that readers can feel confident that the article is well researched and sufficiently broad enough in coverage to give them a reasonable understanding of the topic. There is good information here, and it is organised in sections, and there are sources supporting the statements. The article presents as reasonably tidy and attractive. There is much to like here, and much that is useful. There is still work to be done however. The lead needs a bit more attention so that it does become an authoritative and well rounded overview of the subject. The prose needs a bit of attention to sharpen it up. There needs also to be an appropriate amount of information, and for the information to be presented in a balanced and proportionate manner. I think that the legacy section may be over-detailed. And while there is a section on Redding's singing, there is not a similar one on his song-writing. A significant song such as "Respect" is mentioned in only one sentence, and that makes it appear as though it were written by Sam Cooke. I don't know much about his work as a record producer, though it is mentioned in the first sentence, but not again in the article as far as I can see. The significant album Otis Blue is not discussed, simply mentioned in the Discography. My feeling at this stage is that the article is not quite at the tidying up for GA listing stage, but probably still needs a bit of work to do. That is not to say that the article cannot be made to meet the GA criteria within a reasonable space of time, but that it will require some work. I am willing to help out, though that help will be patchy. I'll put this on hold for 14 days for the following areas to be worked on:
As long as progress is being made I am willing to keep the review open and support work towards improving the article, though I don't anticipate the review being extended beyond October if the progress is slow and difficult. I should hope a decision would be made one way or the other by then. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Refresh
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
editTo make it easier to see what still needs doing, and to see if I can pass the article as it stands now, I'm wiping the blackboard and starting afresh. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pass
- Images. There are two non-free images used in the article. The lead image is sourced to a blog and contains no identifiable information - no date, no copyright holder, no photographer. There are other non-free images of Redding which have adequate information, and which could be used, and this has been pointed out. Even though the information on this image is inadequate and the image could be replaced, it has been checked and does not infringe GA criteria, so that is passed. I would urge that the image is replaced with a better sourced, and more informative image as soon as possible. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Stable. There are no edit wars. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral. Article is soberly written with no evidence of bias. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reference section There is a reference section which meets GA criteria. It uses the less common shortened cites, which is acceptable. I do note, however, that the citation style was changed quite recently by an IP account. This is generally frowned upon per WP:CITEVAR. If there is an acceptable citation style being used it is generally not acceptable to change that style, particularly when changing from the widely used fuller style which is generally seen as the most useful, to the less popular and less useful shortened variety. If main contributors wish to change back to the fuller citation method - which is easier for editors to insert (most editors understand the fuller method, and most citation tools use the fuller sort) and easier for readers to check (it's one click to the full details rather than a double click with publication information separated from page numbers), then they should do so as soon as possible. I would support a move back to fuller citation and would be prepared to do the work if that is the consensus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Original research. There's no evidence of original material in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reliably sourced. Statements check out with reliable sources, and all quotes and opinions appear to be sourced. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Focus. Concerns about focus have been addressed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reading through again, I see there is excessive detail on Monterey unrelated to Redding. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see you did it. There are now references errors, though.--♫GoP♫TCN 22:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fail
- MoS. The relevant aspects of MoS are met, apart from WP:Lead. The lead needs to be an overview of the whole article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be summarised in the lead. And there should be nothing mentioned in the lead that is not mentioned in the article. There are various points about the lead that have been mentioned in this GAN that have not been dealt with. For example, it is mentioned in the lead that he known as a record producer - but this is not mentioned in the article. His work as a song-writer is not fully explored, even though he was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1994, and one of his major songs, Respect, is presented in the article in a way that could suggest it was written by Sam Cooke: "Redding and his backing band The Bar-Kays opened with Cooke's "Shake" and then covered "Respect"." Some of this commentary will also apply to broad coverage, which is also a fail. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I removed "record producer" completely. I explained that it was written by Redding.
- Broad coverage. Nothing on his record producing. Not enough on his writing. And while his influence as a cross-over artist is hinted at in the lead, this is not developed. His singing style is dealt with in the Legacy section, and a decision could be made to deal with his song-writing and producing in that section, along with his importance as a cross-over artist. Or these things could be dealt with in distinct sections - Music (Singing, Writing, Producing) and Influence (Soul music, Cross-over artist), with or without a Legacy section. There are a number of ways of doing it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I removed "record producer" completely, as there is nothing much to say. I added a paragraph about his songwriting.
- Prose. Prose has been an issue from the start, and though there have been attempts to copy-edit the article, it still retains basic errors: [2], and unclear phrasing: "Together with guitarist Johnny Jenkins he formed the band "Pinetoppers". Initially unsuccessful, they broke out at the music contest "Teenage Party"; with their help Redding won 15 times in a row and it became his first successful gig." SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Can you say what is wrong with "Together with guitarist Johnny Jenkins he formed the band "Pinetoppers". Initially unsuccessful, they broke out at the music contest "Teenage Party"; with their help Redding won 15 times in a row and it became his first successful gig."? --♫GoP♫TCN 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't help reading the main article, because the information there is slightly different - the main body says he performed with the Upsetters at the Teenage Party, and won the competition with the help of Jenkins. I think it is possible to piece together the gaps. I'll check sources to see if what I think is meant is what sources say, and I will have a go at tidying it up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sweet Soul Music says that Redding says he won a local talent show run by Gladys Williams 15 times in a row until they wouldn't let him play any more. After that he went on to do The Teenage Party where he met his wife and Jenkins, and he was successful at The Teenage Party. Pinetoppers was Jenkin's group that Redding joined. No indication that the Pinetoppers did talent shows. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, it seems like I mixed up the contests, etc. I rewrote the early life. Now it must be correct.--♫GoP♫TCN 10:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sweet Soul Music says that Redding says he won a local talent show run by Gladys Williams 15 times in a row until they wouldn't let him play any more. After that he went on to do The Teenage Party where he met his wife and Jenkins, and he was successful at The Teenage Party. Pinetoppers was Jenkin's group that Redding joined. No indication that the Pinetoppers did talent shows. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't help reading the main article, because the information there is slightly different - the main body says he performed with the Upsetters at the Teenage Party, and won the competition with the help of Jenkins. I think it is possible to piece together the gaps. I'll check sources to see if what I think is meant is what sources say, and I will have a go at tidying it up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Is English your first language? I ask because sometimes the text you add contains basic errors. "On Sunday she hosted talent shows", "winning on a 5$ contest fifteen times in a row", and "but it did not last long until he seperated from the group" might all be typos, but given the amount of them in just a few edits, and the general level of prose in the article, it gives me pause for thought. There are strategies we can explore if English is not your first language, such as using online grammar check services. It's also worth checking when you create a wikilink, that the link is spelt correctly and/or goes to the right article - look at Heebie Jeebies and Roxy Theatre. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reworded. Any more examples?--♫GoP♫TCN 13:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Fail or hold?
editThis GAN has gone on for over a month, and it is the same things that have been mentioned right from the start that are preventing this article from being listed. The prose, the lead and the coverage. I don't think, however, that we are far from that listing, and though I know that GreatOrangePumpkin is keen for this GAN to be decided one way or the other, I think it might be worth holding out for one more week to see if the work can be done. I can't promise I'll find the time to help out as it seems that whenever I get onto Wikipedia there is somebody who wants me to do something and I am way behind on schedule for various things, but I think it's worth seeing if it's possible to do the work in seven days, and if not then close it down. A GAN that is so close is a decent motivator, while a failed GAN can be a bit of a downer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm off to France now for the Nice-Cannes Marathon. I'll have limited internet access. I'll take a look at this once more when I get back at the end of the month. I note at the moment that the prose, the lead and the coverage are still not meeting GA criteria. If that is still the case at the end of the month I will close this as not-listed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is brilliant; maybe, when you return, you will make edits here and then, then comment a little bit and say you will run from Casablanca to Cape of Good Hope. Excellent.--♫GoP♫TCN 19:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Snarky and uncalled for. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is brilliant; maybe, when you return, you will make edits here and then, then comment a little bit and say you will run from Casablanca to Cape of Good Hope. Excellent.--♫GoP♫TCN 19:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but these things happen, no worries. I'd like to see this article listed, but each time I look I see more problems, and while some areas get improved, others seem to get worse. Sometimes, even with the best of intentions, an article doesn't get improved as much as people would like. This one needs a decent copy-edit. I think people have picked at it, same as I've picked at it, but nobody has really sat down with it for the several hours I think it actually needs. And on top of the copy-edit, I think it needs someone to do a decent bit of background research to ensure the article is appropriately detailed and gives the right coverage to Redding's life and career. I have held this out longer than I should, given the inadequate progress, but I keep hoping that either the work will be done, or that I will find the time to do it myself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's your opinion. I fully disagree with your position. --♫GoP♫TCN 11:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- There are some mistakes I was able to find quickly which means that there may be further mistakes:
- Incorrect quote of Bill Graham saying "biggest gig" (wrong) rather than "best gig".
- Nothing serious; done
- There's a glaring mistake about the supposed wrong ending that Redding's band made on his final song at Monterey Pop. The source, Ian Inglis, says, "The false ending... was a dramatic device". Look up false ending. It does not mean wrong.
- Removed
- Why is there no mention of San Francisco (the city), San Francisco Bay or Sausalito?
- Unfortunately I don't own the book anymore. I added that it was written in a houseboat while resting there, though I think it is not important as we are talking about Redding's biography, aren't we?
- Why is there no mention of how Redding influenced Janis Joplin?
- There was, but I removed it. Are we talking about Joplin or Redding?
- Why no reference to Geoff Brown's book Otis Redding: Try a Little Tenderness, or to Zelda Redding's The Definitive Otis Redding?
- Because I don't have the books and don't want to borrow or but them, as mentioned above.
- Incorrect quote of Bill Graham saying "biggest gig" (wrong) rather than "best gig".
- I think this GAN should be failed and the article submitted to Peer review. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're right, but I have said I will hold it open until the end of the month, and that's what I will do, unless GreatOrangePumpkin requests I close it in the next couple of hours. If GreatOrangePumpkin requests a close, and I don't respond, then someone else can close it as not listed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. It was already peer reviewed, why should I do it the second time?
- Details about "Dock of the Bay": This section is clumsily written and it does not have the right details. Cropper said that he and Redding were playing six nights at Basin Street West in the North Beach district of San Francisco in August 1967 when some women found out where their hotel room was. They moved to more remote housing, renting a houseboat in Sausalito where Redding played Sgt. Pepper by the Beatles. On the houseboat the two men worked out the beginnings of "Dock". It was after all this that he had surgery for polyps. Source: Page 146 of San Francisco, the musical history tour by Joel Selvin. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- It does have the right details. "The two men" - If you mean Cropper and Redding, Cropper wasn't in this houseboat. It was one of his friends, I believe his name was Sloane, but this is not important. I could include the whole recording, documented by a journalist, but it is copyrighted.
- Aha! The guy was Earl "Speedo" Sims, not Cropper, according to Joel Selvin in the linked book. Thanks for questioning that! My mistake... Binksternet (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- It does have the right details. "The two men" - If you mean Cropper and Redding, Cropper wasn't in this houseboat. It was one of his friends, I believe his name was Sloane, but this is not important. I could include the whole recording, documented by a journalist, but it is copyrighted.
- Bill Graham presents: my life inside rock and out, beginning on page 173, casts Redding's stage performances as a sexual experience for white audiences in San Francisco. Nothing in the article suggests that Redding was an electrifying performer who broke through color lines. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. At least well-conceived (very nitpicky, though).--♫GoP♫TCN 11:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Close
editClose on request as not-listed. Article can be nominated again after a peer review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)