Talk:The Shaggs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Is it just me, or are there too many commas in this article? --RoyBoy 08:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bold textThis stuff is terrible. It makes my ears bleed. This is the worst band IN THE WORLD! Lusanaherandraton 11:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Family dynamics"

I removed Rumor has it that Austin died immediately after hearing the girls do a finally decent version of the title track to POTW. Even if this wasn't just a joke, it's apparently unfounded. Helen says (in an interview from Rollerderby #20) that her father died having sex with one of her sisters. I had meant to include something on the abuse Austin inflicted along with his encouragement, but wasn't sure how to do so "encylcopedically," or whether it even falls within this article's scope. Lusanaherandraton 11:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helen Wiggin has several disparate statements attributed to her about the band and the circumstances surrounding Austin Wiggin's death. The claim that Austin died after hearing the Shaggs play a version of Philosophy of the World that he actually praised is sourced to Helen in several accounts I've read (notably one by Susan Orlean of The New Yorker/Adaptation fame). In my opinion it would be fine to leave in the POTW reference if properly sourced. As for the claim that Austin died while having sex with one of the Wiggin sisters, Helen has apparently claimed in the past that Austin was intimate with her on at least one occasion, but this has been disputed by Betty Wiggin. I've never seen the article mentioned above, but I'd be cautious about sourcing anything that was printed in Rollerderby given Carver's propensity for sensationalism and hyperbole.

I'm planning on doing a bit of work on this article, adding Frank Zappa's popularization of the band (he named it his 3rd all-time favorite album in a 1970 Playboy poll), fleshing out some sections about the band's "touring" schedule, and perhaps some additional information on Austin's efforts to make the Shaggs a band (forcing them to practice, do calisthenics for hours, be home schooled, etc.); all properly sourced of course. Isotope23 17:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Question: Are we really saying death "seemed" to put an end to his ambitions?

In 1975, Austin Wiggin arranged one last recording session for his daughters, but died of a heart attack, which seemed to put an end to his ambitions.

• Comment ha, good point. I don't see any evidence of zombie music managment by Austin. Wording is removed.--Isotope23 18:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Zappa

Frank Zappa is believed to have claimed that The Shaggs were better than the Beatles. This could be just a rumour, but I tend to think that Zappa did say something like that. If he was serious is a different issue - he liked to throw people off track - but it might be an idea to put Zappa's remark in this article.

- FB

Not unless we've got a citation for it. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

He actually claimed The Shaggs were his 3rd favorite band in a 1970 Playboy Poll. I'm not aware of FZ ever saying The Shaggs were better than The Beatles though. Isotope23 17:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, were the Beatles his 1st or 2nd favorite? ;) Brighterorange 14:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

he also said the beatles were only in it for the money, after they cited freak out as a huge inspiration for revolver. in fact, he named a record after that claim, with a spoof of the sgt. peppers cover. but, he also worked with lennon/yoko, years later. i think he just liked to rag them for the fun of it, really, and the whole thing is just a silly joke. the shaggs are really the perfect target for his hippie satire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember... sheesh, it was from a 1970 issue... Still, even if The Beatles were #4 on his list of all-time favorite bands (hypothetically), you still couldn't really infer that he thought The Shaggs were better than The Beatles. There is a difference between "Favorite" and "Best". Isotope23 17:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I know, I'm just teasing. Brighterorange 18:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Heh, what's the wiki tag for sarcasm? Isotope23 16:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see (=check) the "better than The Beatles" citation is from an article by Lester Bangs. That is to say: I found an article by Lester Bangs from The Village Voice (Jan. 28-Feb. 3, 1981) which has the said citation as it's title. Source: http://www.keyofz.com/vvoice.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruing (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Zappa / Dr. Demento reference has "citation needed." I don't know if I could give it a proper citation, but I heard a recording of the Demento show in question. Zappa said the Shaggs sounded like "a cross between Fanny and Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.175.8 (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Predictions

The idea of The Shaggs is older than the girls themselves. When the girls' father, Austin Wiggin, Jr., was young, his mother made three predictions: he would marry a strawberry blonde; he would have two sons she would not live to see; and his daughters would form a famous musical group. After the first two came true, Austin set out to make the third happen.

Amazing, but where is the source?

It's in Irwin Chusid's book.

NPOV issues

The following line has NPOV issues in my opinion..

"In fact, listening to the record, the band seems to have no sense of melody, harmony, or rhythm. It is as though the drums were recorded in a separate room from the guitars and neither could hear what the other was doing."

While it may be safe to say that some people probably would agree with the above statement, it certainly doesn't belong in there. Danger bird

(Response to unsigned comment above) Maybe this could be rephrased. What make these recordings unique (and indeed, beloved by some) is that they seem to have been recorded by feral children who had never even HEARD music before. None of the tracks synchs up with any of the others, and indeed, almost every single element associated with pop music is absent. Perhaps "no sense of" has a derrogatory connotation. However, the recordings really DO utterly lack melody, harmony and rhythm. Regarding the second sentence, find a musician and challenge them to play completely out of synch with a recording - it's hard! The two sentences you've highlighted could perhaps be rephrased, but to excise them would be to completely omit the entire essence of the Shaggs' "music" (if it may be so called): it it music created by outsiders which reflects perfectly that they lacked even the most basic knowledge of musical theory and how popular music is "supposed" to sound. Wencer 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it should be rephrased. The ironic appeal of the Shaggs' music comes at least in part from what others might call incompetence. The first time you hear it, you may well be moved to little other than contempt. If you are willing to listen a second time, and have some measure of musical sophistication, you will start to hear polyrhythms and highly unusual song structures. This is IMO how the Shaggs managed to get compliments from Frank Zappa, Jonathan Richman, and other professional musicians as mentioned in the article itself. Smerdis of Tlön 13:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to rewrite the description of the music to make it slightly more NPOV, but perhaps at the expense of adding original research. I've tried to describe what I hear in the music. Smerdis of Tlön 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So, only people with musical sophistication will appreciate this "band," and everyone who (rightly) sees them as talentless folk with an over-indulgent, tone-deaf father are inarticulate cavemen, right? Hardly NPOV...sounds more like the typical verbal diarrhea spewing from the mouth of a pretentious hipster. Oh wait--it's Wikipedia; never mind. 68.37.100.104 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

all a joke

I haven't pored over enough Wikipedia stuff yet to know what the official policy is on jokes within write-ups but the Shaggs page and these discussions tells me that there is no uniformity on joking by users. Ok, fine. This reminds me a bit of a discussion on IMDB about the meaning of a Devo song, with some of the kids there insisting that it did not concern masturbation because one of the Devos was quoted as saying so. (I don't mean to suggest that Wikipedia is like IMDB however, as I have not found any of the sniping here that is so overpresent there, let alone the fawning praise of slop.) The Shaggs were a joke in general but, more importantly, much of what was said about them were jokes. Therefore what on earth is the difference whether citations are provided or not? I agree that citations are relevant to whether a quotation is correct or not but the quotation does not prove that what was said was true, people.

No, I do not have an answer to how to treat the Shaggs. I am quite happy with their article consisting mostly of fiction. And, if all users are intending their comments to be humor, super. I simply hope that it is realized that most of what has been said about the Shaggs were jokes and therefore discussing those quotes seriously is at best itself a joke, no? (Is there some Wikipedia piece on this topic which I haven't looked hard enough to find?) IanHistor 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. Lying is not joking. Discussing those quotes seriously is our duty to this resource. Truth is truth. --62.255.232.11 22:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, read WP:V and notice the statement verifiability, not truth. Citations must be provided for statements/quotes. Whether the statements are "true" or not is irrelevant, just that they can be sourced to the person they are attributed to.--Isotope23 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Shaggs are my favorite band

I love this band's music. I don't understand why the article is so contentious. I could listen to this band for a year and not get bored. What's the deal?

• Why is it so contentious? To quote the Shaggs:

Oh, the rich people want what the poor people's got

And the poor people want what the rich people's got

And the skinny people want what the fat people's got

And the fat people want what the skinny people's got

You can never please anybody in this world...

That answer your question?--Isotope23 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

External link suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this article about The Shaggs' Philosophy of the World. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the piece and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! [1]
Mike harkin (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Shaggs' Own Thing

I have expanded the album article for Shaggs' Own Thing with an infobox and cover images. There are two covers, one for the original album and one for the CD reissue in the 1990s. I don't know a heckuva lot about the Shaggs (I'm an interested bystander) so I'm not sure if I have the info on years and record companies correct over there. Also, I'm mentioning this here at the band page because this is the more likely place to get a response. So Shaggs experts, please go take a look at that album article and see if my recent updates are correct. That article could use some more general background info too. Sincerely, DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Article needs audio clip of "Who Are Parents?"

I have this song and it's just...has to be heard to be believed. To get the true effect of the cacophony of this music, an audio clip is warranted. I have the clip, but it's an mpeg and should be an ogg for Wikipedia. I can't convert (tried for other clips in other articles and failed rather spectacularly). If someone can convert it, I'll be glad to send it to you and help with the fair use rationale for non-free media. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Movie on The Shaggs

So I just saw somewhere that there's a movie being made about the band. If i find out more I'll put it here. --Matt723star (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Timeline graph

Although these graphics are useful on some band articles, I don't think it's useful for this article. This is for two reasons:

1) The Shaggs didn't have a complicated membership history or lots of releases, so there isn't a lot of value in displaying the membership visually. Just a simple list of members with dates is fine.

2) The exact dates around the band's formation and when Rachel joined the band are fuzzy. Some sources say the band formed in 1965, another says "around 1967", and sources just seem to say Rachel joined "later" (I suspect there was no formal joining or leaving date). This makes the timeline even less useful, because we can't even be confident of the dates it's reporting. Popcornfud (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely that the article will be expanded enough to cross the 5x limit. Nominated for GA and can be renominated then.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the music of the 1960s band the Shaggs is considered among the worst ever recorded? Source: "Yet many people hearing the Shaggs’ legendary Philosophy album for the first time have a common, understandable reaction: this could be the 'worst album ever recorded'."Book by Irwin Chusid; "A Band Considered By Many to be the Worst of All Time" Vice article; "Even if their album was the all-time worst, the Shaggs still have plenty of fans" Boston Globe; "Some people say Philosophy of the World is the 'worst album ever made'." Vice article
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Popcornfud (talk). Self-nominated at 13:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC).

• Starting review now -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Before I really dive into this, it looks like this doesn't meet the 5x in 10 days requirement. From what I can see, the expansion started from Special:Permalink/1102438699 at 5416 characters of readable prose (as reported by DYK check). Beginning on 2022-08-13 and running to 2022-08-21, it was expanded to 21846 characters of readable prose (again, as reported by DYK check). That's 4.03x. A worthy effort, but not 5x. Am I missing something? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith, oh, this is my own stupid fault. When I was reading the rules before nominating, I misread The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count - I didn't see it says "prose character count" and not simply "character count". I think we can close this review as a failed experiment. Thanks for checking it over! Popcornfud (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: Will you not be able to expand the article further? The hook is pretty eye-catching and it would be a shame if the nomination had to be failed despite it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I imagine it'll get a little bigger in the next few days because I've discovered a couple more sources I can integrate info from. However, I can't guarantee it'll be enough content to push it into the 5x limit and I'm not going to add anything that I don't think should be there anyway, if you see what I mean. If it does end up reaching the 5x mark I can nominate again, though. Popcornfud (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I asked about this on WT:DYK. I'm going to go ahead and complete the review and leave this on hold. If you end up meeting the 5x requirement, that's great. If not, we can deal with it at that time. But I'm pretty sure if I closed this nomination, your window to submit will close with it, so doing it this way leaves your options open. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Thank you! Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Readable prose size doesn't quite meet the 5x requirement; final decision pending because of that.
• Does not appear to have ever been in DKY or ITN before.
• Article is long enough (modulo the 5x question)
• The main body of the article is properly cited to WP:RS.
• The hook is cited to Vice (magazine), of which WP:RSNP says, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." My opinion is it's probably OK in this context.
  • Wasn't aware of the issue with Vice, thanks. I hope this won't be a problem, as the claim is cited to multiple sources in the article, including Rolling Stone and the music journalist Irwin Chusid. Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• The big issue looks like a large number of possible copyvios flagged by earwig. Many of them look like proper noun phrases which can't reasonably be phrased any other way, but I also see a lot of direct quotes, which need more precise attribution. On the other hand, looking at this closer, it looks like the earwig report just elides the citations in it's display and the few I've spot-checked are actually cited properly in the article itself. I'll need to take a closer look at that, but I need to head out, so I'll pick this up this evening.
  • Earwig looks like it's down at the moment, so I'll need to get back to that when it's back up.
    • Earwig is back up. I've confirmed that almost everything earwig tagged is indeed properly cited in the article. The one exception is that In 2012, the musician Jesse Krakow organized a Shaggs tribute show in Brooklyn is a copy-paste from The New Yorker. That should be rephrased in some non-infringing way.
      • Done. Popcornfud (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Why is the Chusid reference broken out as a separate "References" section distinct from the in-line cited "Notes" section? They should be combined. The references to it really should include page numbers to make it possible for a reader to find the specific passage which supports the cited statements.
  • Although I'm very hot on citing, I don't add page numbers because adding page numbers is a pain in the ass using the visual editor (and it's probably no easier in markup either). Let me know if this is a DYK dealbreaker. (It's all taken from one chapter in a book; could I just cite the chapter instead?) Popcornfud (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If it's all from one chapter, then sure, just cite the chapter. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Overall, I'm not seeing any problems with WP:NPOV. There are a number of statements which aren't complementary to the living subjects, but they all appear to be supported by appropriately WP:RS, so I don't see any WP:BLP issues.
• The image of the band is copyrighted, but I think the fair use rationale is acceptable.
• Overall, other than the 5x issue which still needs to be resolved (and pending any possible copyvios that show up when earwig gets back on line), I would call this a pass. In fact, I suspect it would pass WP:GAN without much trouble, so if this ends up not getting on DYK due to the 5x issue, I encourage you to submit it to GA. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the proposed hook, although I could see how some might object to "is considered" as speaking too much in Wikipedia voice, so perhaps something like:

ALT1 ... that the music of the 1960s band the Shaggs has been called among the worst ever recorded?

might be better. Or

ALT2: ... that the music of the Shaggs has been called among the worst ever recorded?

would be a little more mysterious and thus hookier. I'm fine with any of those.

Personally, I don't see much difference there. Wikipedia is either saying people consider it the worst, or people have called it the worst — ie, Wikipedia has no opinion, the people do. But I'm completely fine with either of the alternatives you propose. Popcornfud (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Review is done. If the 5x issue can be cleared, this is good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I took another look at the character count and I think it's unlikely that I'm going to expand the article enough to cross the 5x limit. It seemed a shame for your review effort to go to waste, so I've nominated the article for GA. We'll see how that goes. Popcornfud (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    • OK, closing this with some regret as failed. I think you make the right decision; if there's not really enough material, then padding this out just for the purpose of qualifying for DYK would be silly (or worse). I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing this listed on GA (and then of course, you can come back here). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Shaggs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vladimir.copic (talk · contribs) 04:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey - I've had a preliminary read through and will do a full review. It's my first GA review so bear with me. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• An initial item that needs fixing: The paragraph starting That year, The New Yorker ran a profile of the... needs some work. This is cited to that same New Yorker profile. We either need another source talking about the publication of the New Yorker piece or it needs to be reframed. In the current context, the New Yorker article is a primary source about the publication of the New Yorker article (hope this makes sense). Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed. The article is mentioned by another article. Popcornfud (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. As I said before, this is my first review so sorry for any missteps. Some of my points may have a reasonable explanation as to why things are the way they are which I will be happy to accept.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a really great and well research article. There are, however, a couple of things that need to be addressed before meeting GA criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See below.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See below.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1

• The use of the quote "accidental genius" in the lede and body of the article should have in-text attribution and be cited for the lede per MOS:QUOTE. ?
• The journalist Irwin Chusid argued that it was unlikely Dreyer had stolen the records, as they were valueless at the time; many copies may have simply been disposed of. Is quite a confusing sentence. Who had disposed of the records? Y

It's given in passive voice because we don't know. It just means "whoever ended up with copies of the album might have just thrown them out". It's not critical so can be trimmed from the sentence if you think that's better. Popcornfud (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• In 2018, The Hollywood Reporter reported that the film, a musical, would be directed by Ken Kwapis and that Elsie Fisher had been cast. This should be moved further down the article to the right place chronologically. Y

Done. Popcornfud (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Reporter reported is kind of awkward - could this be changed? Y
  • Trimmed. Popcornfud (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• The tenses in the "Style" section need to be made uniform as it switches from past to present a lot eg Each word uses a different pitch. The Shaggs matched their vocal melodies note for note on guitar. (This sentence could probably be condensed into one.) Y

I think those tenses are correct. The sisters, when recording, in the past, matched their melodies. The music, as it continues to exist, has different pitches for each word. The recording events and the music as it continues to exist are different points in time. But this might end up moot after I come to rewrite that section. Popcornfud (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• I also find the "Style" section to be a slightly disjointed collection of opinions but this may just be a personal opinion. Y

I agree with you. If I were reviewing this article, it would be the big flag I raised. Even after much iteration I couldn't find a great way to organise the information. I'll give it another shot later. Popcornfud (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

2

• Some of the mid-sentence citations seem unnecessary as they are often not for controversial statements and disrupt readability, for example It developed a cult following,[10] with fans including Frank Zappa, Bonnie Raitt, Jonathan Richman and Carla Bley.[4]

The citations are attached to the given information. Per WP:VERIFY, I'm not going to tell the reader the album developed a cult following without giving them a source that specifically says the album developed a cult following. I don't think that's a WP:BLUESKY situation. If you can find cases where information can be covered in a single citation instead of two then I'm happy to trim those. Popcornfud (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

My proposal would be to move all supporting citations to the end of the sentence (so in this case citation 10 would move to the end of the sentence with citation 4) rather than next to the specific clause within the sentence. To me this aids readability and I thought it had a basis in guidelines but I've had a reread through WP:CITE. It looks like this is just my personal preference so I'll strike this one. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• The article relies very heavily on direct and lengthy quotations that I believe go against MOS:QUOTE. Many of these can probably either be shortened or summarised in our own words. There is a slightly better justification for lengthy quotations in the "Legacy" and "Style" section but not so much for the "History" section. For example One producer, Bobby Herne...", Dot recalled: "He took...", He described it years later: "It was unbelievable..., the engineer wrote: "As the day.... Y
  • Yes, good call. I've paraphrased these. Popcornfud (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Certain phrases such as inappropriately intimate and parental abuse are directly taken from the source. These either should probably be altered or given in quotation marks. Y
  • I was conscious of these when I was working on the article. I don't want to put quotation marks around "parental abuse" as this may come across as euphemistic scare quotes, when in fact I think it's a pretty plain and direct term. I've put quotes around "inappropriately intimate", though is trickier, as this is the journalist Susan Orlean's wording, not Helen's. Popcornfud (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

3

• This may be a personal opinion, but the Style section seems a bit overlong. The paragraph starting The musician Cub Koda... could probably be greatly reduced or summarised. Y

I think the rewriting of this section has addressed this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

4

• He said the girls "smelled like cows. Right off the farm. Not a dirty smell — just smelled like cows." is UNDUE especially for a BLP and probably contravenes WP:BLPBALANCE. Y

Breaks my heart to cut that one, as I personally found it the most affecting detail in the entire story of the Shaggs when I was researching it. It could be interpreted as simply a mean-spirited comment the guy threw into an interview, and it could certainly have been, but whatever the speaker's intent I think it says volumes about the state of this cult-like family run by their abusive, deluded father, and so I assign it quite a lot of weight.

...Having said all that, I concede that what I just said amounts to a highly subjective personal interpretation, and it isn't critical detail from an encylopedic perspective. So I'll let it go. Bummer, though. Popcornfud (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to to do this. I just couldn't see a justification with it falling into BLP territory. I do think the article does makes clear in many other ways the father's abuses and family's general sad strangeness. I similarly did question the use of freak show in the sentence Palmer decided he was in danger of exploiting the Shaggs as a freak show and did not pursue them. Is this term a bit much or unencyclopedic in this context outside of a direct quotation? I can't remember how this comes through in the source. Ultimately I decided it was fine but what do you think? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm persuaded regarding the "cows" thing. Trimmed. Popcornfud (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As freak show is a specific concept with its own Wikipedia article I didn't see the need for scare quotes. "Freak show" is the actual term Palmer used, and it's the right term for that concept. Popcornfud (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

5

• File:The Shaggs.JPG - Any image of The Shaggs (at low enough quality) would probably be justifiable under fair use. However this image is tagged as a promotional image and is sourced from a random Flickr account. I'm not able to find a definite source for this image. It looks like a crudely colourised version of this image which is a promotional picture provided by Light in the Attic records. It seems to me we should use a low quality version of the black and white image with Light in the Attic records as the source rather than the colourised version of unknown origins. Y
• File:The Shaggs - Who Are Parents.ogg - this audio sample is 29 seconds of a 2.58 minute song. This contravenes WP:SAMPLE which states that samples should generally be 10% of the length of the original song up to a maximum of 30 second. This sample needs to be shortened to 17 seconds or less. Y
  • Well spotted. Updated both files. Popcornfud (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Other

• Scottish music executive Alan McGee wrote that they were "ground zero in the spurious world of outsider music" and "created possibilities" for unheard acts including Tiny Tim... Although it comes from the source, this does not make sense to me. Tiny Tim had released 3 albums on a major label, received a Grammy nomination and had a top 20 single by the time Philosophy of the World was released in '69 (on a tiny label with a tiny quantity pressed). Y

Thanks - I don't know anything about Tiny Tim and didn't check that. Appears that it's a bit of a confusing claim without further clarity so I'll either trim or see if there's any extra context given in the source to make sense of this. Popcornfud (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed the Tiny Tim mention. Popcornfud (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is my first review. I'm tagging some GA mentors here if they would like to offer a second opinion Ritchie333 MarioSoulTruthFan Hahc21. Again, this is a really fantastic article and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this — will respond properly in the next few days. Popcornfud (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you check to see if the sources are reliable? SPIN Media LLC as an author? Unlikely, plus Spin should be the work, not the redirect link for the article. On every source either work or publisher or both, needs to be consistent not some with work and others with work and publisher. AllMusic is always publisher. Some dates and accessdates are missing. Source 28 missing at least work/publisher, not sure about source 29 and 30 website? Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't looked through the refs as thoroughly as I should - I only looked in depth at the ones with many cites. @Popcornfud the following refs needs to be fixed too:

• The SPIN source is cited as a book. This should be cited as an article in Spin with the title of the article and author. Y

That was in the article before I started working on it (as is the case for a few of the more dubious sources mentioned below, which I neglected to examine). I've just trimmed it since I don't think it's important to say the band was "proto-punk" in the infobox or whatever, we're only interested in primary genres. Popcornfud (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• You can add a link to the Jon Ronson radio show. A date on this source would be good too. Y

Added the link, but could never find a date for this episode. The BBC has it uploaded in at least two different forms and I don't know when it was first broadcast. Popcornfud (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• The VICE source is an interview with Dot and therefore some of the claims need to be treated carefully. The following needs to be changed to reflect that Dot said this rather than having it appear in wikivoice (or find a different source): He occasionally had the family hold seances in an attempt to communicate with his mother. ?

Added attribution. Popcornfud (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• As above the Rolling Stone source, is an interview:

• The assertion that Rachel, who attended high school, was bullied comes from Dot in an interview, so needs attribution, and I'm not sure is fully supported anyway by the text. ?

Added attribution. Popcornfud (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• [Helen] rejoined the band later comes from Dot in the interview. Is there a better source for this? Y

Can't find one, but we know it's true because she was on the later recordings. Popcornfud (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Rolling Stones 1980 Rock & Roll Awards" - formatting (bolding) issues with this ref Y

Appears to be a bug related to Visual Editor. Fixed. Popcornfud (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Source 28 27 - unclear what this is? Is this reliable? Y
• Source 29 28 - is for a funeral home? This does not look like an RS. Better just to remove the reference to the mother's death if no better source can be found. Y

Source 28 and 29 were there before I started work on the article, and all look like crappy sources to me. All of this info about the family deaths will likely have to be removed as I don't think they were mentioned in the RSs I found on the band, but I'll double check. Popcornfud (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Source 30 29 is better but is there anything else that can be used? Y

Source 30? The Pitchfork article? What's wrong with that? Popcornfud (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Got confused with source numbers. I've corrected this above and given links to be more specific. Apologies! I think you are right that the obits and the info they support can probably just be stripped from the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Found a mention of Helen's death in Rolling Stone, so that's handy. Popcornfud (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a note to say I'm travelling at the moment and may not be able to give this my full attention for a few days or possibly a week or two. I will absolutely get to it, though. Popcornfud (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Another note to say I've responded to a few more things and made some adjustments, but I'm not done yet — I'm still travelling so will get to it when I can. Popcornfud (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vladimir.copic: Sorry for the delay. I gave the Style section a major trim to remove some elements that were making the whole thing harder to string together cohesively. I've also responded to your other comments as best I can, unless I missed something. Give it a look and see what you think. No rush on this. Popcornfud (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we are nearly there. I've ticked off what's been done and have put question marks against the three thing that do not appear to have been addressed. I just have questions about the use of quotation marks in the following two instances:

Following a performance at a local nursing home, where they received a "polite" response

Austin also had the girls do daily physical exercises to help them "stay in shape" for public appearances.

Are these scare quotes or direct quotations? If it's the former, do we really need them? If the latter, it should have in-text attribution most likely.

Don't worry about the delay. GA noms sit there for months. You can't expect people to put their lives on hold waiting for someone to pick it up. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Both are direct quotations. Removed the first line as it seems inessential. The second I've kept as a quote because it's WP:IDIOMatic language and I can't find a non-idiomatic way of expressing the same "in shape" idea. Accessing that source is kind of a pain, so I've just shortened it and inserted it earlier in the prose, cited to a different source.

I think I've addressed everything now — let me know if I missed stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Awesome - it's all good to go now. I made a little change by removing the "accidental genius" direct quote. Per MOS:QUOTE quoted opinions should have in-text attribution but giving that would have messed up an otherwise good sentence. Well done! It's a great article! Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you for your rigorous and patient review. Popcornfud (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)