Talk:Tipitina

Tipitina 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.
Review: May 2, 2014. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Tipitina appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 February 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that "Tipitina" is a New Orleans music standard that has been added to the National Recording Registry?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tipitina.

Wikipedia

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

African diaspora Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United States: Music / Louisiana / New Orleans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Music portal This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance).
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - New Orleans (assessed as High-importance).

Questionable RS[edit]

Is this blog a WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Вик Ретлхед (talk · contribs) 07:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since this is a short article with no reviewer in a while, I'll handle the duty myself. We should be done quickly.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Notes

The lead doesn't require citations if the information is already referenced in the body of the text (which is the case).
The description "historically significant song" kinda pushes towards WP:PEACOCK. Have you considered just Tipitina is a song written by...
- Is this set of edits better?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess that will do the work.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, avoid clauses like "a legend of New Orleans music". There are others more "neutral" descriptions like noted/prominent musician, etc.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The song was originally only a local hit in New Orleans. Otherwise, the song was not a hit.—If I understood well, after its release, the song became a hit only in New Orleans, but it was not that successful in the rest of the United States? I suggest some re-wording here, because this could be easily misinterpreted.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2011 National Recording Registry list included the song."—Doesn't "In 2011, the song was included in the National Recording Registry" read better? And don't forget to link National Recording Registry.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"According to some sources"—I think the source should be explicitly credited, if that's John Crosby, I guess.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a cite is needed for Scorsese's cover.
- Ref added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A reference is required for the version of Bo Dollis & The Wild Magnolias
- Reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Since all the improvements regarding the prose were done, I'll evaluate the article according to the GA criteria. The text is understandable and well referenced, so that's first criteria fulfilled. Broad in its coverage–since the song is historically significant, I guess you'll have to do a major expanding if you want to bring this to FA, but as far as the good article criteria go, this article would make it. Except for the single cover, which usage is justified, there isn't any non-free material used. Congratulation, the article passes.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosimo Matassa[edit]

Cosimo Matassa is shown as co-writer of the tune on the record label, but is not listed in the infobox. It may of course be true that Matassa, as "producer", simply added his name to obtain royalties rather than having any creative input, as was very widespread practice in the recording industry at that time. Are there any specific references we can use that explain Matassa's input on this particular recording? In any case, the article should aim to be consistent - or at least explain the inconsistency. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions