Wikipedia:Peer review/Jo Stafford/archive2

Jo Stafford edit

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

An article about a prolific singer, popular in the 1940s and 50s. Although she is largely forgotten today, Jo Stafford provided a large part of the soundtrack to the generations of World War 2, Korea and the pre-Rock and Roll era, before largely retiring from the music business in the mid-1960s. I've listed this for peer review because I'd like to get it to FA status, and am interested to know what it may need to reach that level. Both myself and We hope have worked extensively on this in recent months, and I successfully took it through GA in February. Before that process it underwent a previous peer review by Runfellow, and a copy edit courtesy of Lfstevens. The article itself is quite broad in its coverage, and comparable with similar articles already at FA. Peer Review 1 and the GA were fairly in-depth, but I want to know what improvements could be made ready for FAC. I know the page numbers are missing from the Billboard Magazine references, but am unable to enlarge the text enough to read them myself, and their format means it won't run through text-to-speech, so if anyone can help there that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 13:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EddieHugh

  • Billboard pages (these are from Google Books, which are the links supplied in the article; I can see them clearly enough...)
Ref 26: p. 30
Ref 50: p. 12
Ref 51: p. 6
Ref 52: p. 31 is the linked page, but it has a different title, and I don't see the info for Ref 52b
Ref 53: p. 9
Ref 54: p. 14
Ref 66: link redirects to homepage
Ref 67: p. 19
That's great, thanks for getting those for me. I'll add them to the sources, and revisit the ones that don't appear to support what is being said. To me 52 appears to say "Most Played Juke Box Records", but please correct me if there is another main title. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, fixed page numbers, will look more closely at 52 and 66 tomorrow. Cheers again Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
52b and 66 now removed as other refs back up statements. 52 also renamed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]