Talk:Honky Tonk Heroes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Honky Tonk Heroes 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.
June 14, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Albums (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Country Music (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am a slow reviewer, so if there is a desire to have the review done soon, then let me know and I'll withdraw now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements rather than make long lists, though sometimes I will make a general comment, especially if there is a lot of work needed. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


  • "Billy Joe Shaver, who helped move Jennings' music towards the outlaw country sub-genre" is in the lead, but not so clearly in the main body. Can this be tightened? The Background section is perhaps too detailed for an encyclopedia entry - it comes across as anecdotal, with rather too much reported speech. Is it possible to summarise the incident in a less dramatic fashion? "Jennings, surprised by Shaver's courage..." is an opinion which is not repeated in the main body, and the sources cited there for the biker incident do not support such an interpretation of Jennings feelings about the incident. Can the statement be sourced or removed? "executives of RCA records, and Atkins, tried to avoid releasing the album" - the source says: "The label execs fought about the record for several months". The source is not clear what the execs were fighting about - is it said somewhere else that they wanted to avoid releasing the album? This source has some interesting material on the importance of the album to the outlaw country sub-genre - could more use be made of that? And are there other sources to support the claims that Shaver makes? SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The reception section mainly consists of three long quotes. While this is discouraged per WP:QUOTEFARM, it is debatable how much it impacts on the GA criteria. I confess that when reading an album article that doesn't have an appropriate reception section, I will sometimes create one by simply copying out sentences from reviews - it's a quick and easy way of doing it. But I would hope that someone would improve upon the section at some point, and properly summarise what the review says. Could we have a summary of the main points from the reviews - quoting only where necessary? SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Shaver says the album's "now gone platinum five times over". This is not in the article - nor do we have an overall indication of the album's sales other than the initial chart positions, which was not high. Can this be tightened up? SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Prose could do with a copyedit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Broad coverage. Too detailed in the Background section. And not enough coverage of the possible importance of the album to outlaw country. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Needs firmer citation as indicated above. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


There's some useful information on the album, and this article could be worked to meet the GA criteria. Putting on hold for an initial seven days to address the concerns raised above. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Lead:

  • I will round up the lead when we finish working on the rest of the article, the content might change it a bit.--GDuwenTell me! 19:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Background:

  • I tried to shorten the section a little bit by removing the quote and did some minor tweaks. Is the incident now properly summarized? It was a critical point in the process of making the album. After reading some other sources, that Jennings was "impressed" was my own misinterpretation of the material. Apparently he just "gave in"[1]--GDuwenTell me! 17:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "executives of RCA records, and Atkins, tried to avoid releasing the album". I added another citation to page 34 of the book: "Sure enough, Chet Atkins and the execs at RCA tried to convince Waylon that the songs were too raw and they would never sell. Lucky for me, Waylon was a stubborn motherfucker. The harder they pushed him, the harder he pushed back"--GDuwenTell me! 19:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I also added a line about the importance of the album for the sub genre. From one of the sources: "His 1973 release Honky Tonk Heroes, with all but one song penned by Shaver, defined the movement and the era."--GDuwenTell me! 19:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Reception:

  • About the album being certified platinum, I can't find anything about it in the RIAA database, the only two sources that state that the album was certified platinum are Shaver's book and this Billboard issue. The RIAA database is pretty accurate, and I don't seem to find other books that confirm it.--GDuwenTell me! 20:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I tried to summarize the reviews. I hope it's ok now.--GDuwenTell me! 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I will try to find something about album sales, I haven't been successful so far.--GDuwenTell me! 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I note that some work has been done to improve the article. I will have a closer look at the improvements, hopefully later today, and see how close we are to the GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Most points now passing. I'll take a closer look at the lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Recording details and reception need to be included in lead. And the background details should be cut back. Hold for another seven days to allow that work to be done. Well done on the work so far! SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I expanded the lead, I think it's goo enough now.--GDuwenTell me! 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Good. I'll take a closer look tomorrow as I have two long periods when I can concentrate. Any remaining issues I should be able to clear up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I tidied up a bit and found a few more interesting pieces. Useful article. Meets GA criteria - now listing. Well done to everyone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


Ref 5,6,7,9 and 19 do not point to any citation. Regards--GoPTCN 10:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

All fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 17:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)