Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2012: Difference between revisions
added {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asymmetric hydrogenation/archive1}} |
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Big Two-Hearted River/archive2 withdrawn by nominator |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
== December 2012 == |
== December 2012 == |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Big Two-Hearted River/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asymmetric hydrogenation/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asymmetric hydrogenation/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otis Redding/archive3}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otis Redding/archive3}} |
Revision as of 23:26, 4 December 2012
December 2012
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Maralia 23:26, 4 December 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): Truthkeeper (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An Ernest Hemingway story about fishing from his first volume of stories In Our Time. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm unfamiliar with this Hemingway story, and look forward to getting to know it. In the backgound section, could you add a little more information about Hemingway, e.g. how old he was in 1923 (23 or 24 I think)? That way, readers will immediately be more aware that "Big Two-Hearted River" was a relatively immature work.
There are also prose issues. I'm including a few here; the rest I will list on the article's talk page and will only raise them here if I feel they are significant. I am also making minor fixes as I read through.
- I'm unhappy with the phrasing: "It is a story in which little happens on the surface. Below the surface and never directly mentioned, however, it is a story about Hemingway's autobiographical character Nick Adams..." First, the conjunction of "on the surface" with "below the service" reads awkwardly. Secondly, in literary terms, if something is "below the surface" it is surely implicit that it will not be directly mentioned? Finally, you should avoid repeating the phrase "it is a story" in a single line.
- You don't "befriend with", you just "befriend"
- "became influenced" → "was influenced"
- "...writers such as Gertrude Stein". "such as" when followed by a single example reads oddly; consider either adding another writer, or rephrasing along the lines "... was influenced by Gertrude Stein and other writers".
- "followed in 1924" → "which was followed in 1924"
- "it would not be finished" → "it was not finished"
- "point-of-view" is not a hyphenated term, it's three words. On the other hand, "11-page" needs a hyphen, as does "stream-of-consciousness" when it is used as an adjective.
- "When asked her opinion of the draft of the story, which included an 11 page section of stream of consciousness reminiscences written from the point-of-view of the single character Nick Adams, Stein told Hemingway to cut the section". This could be shortened: "When asked her opinion of the draft, Stein advised Hemingway to cut an 11-page section of stream-of-consciousness reminiscences written from the point of view of the single character Nick Adams".
Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Brian for taking the time to read and comment. I'm not surprised in regards to the prose - for some reason I found this to be a difficult piece to write. I welcome your remarks, help and advice, as always. I think I've fixed what you've added to this point. I'm still mulling over the issue of how much to bulk up the biographical information - my intention was to keep it inline with Indian Camp and The Sun Also Rises and to try to prevent overlapping biographical info between the main biography and the separate pieces. However, it occurs to me that I'm much too close to this material to make a good judgement, so please let me know whether the pieces I've added are still insufficient. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you've added so far is fine by me. Keep an eye on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I left numerous comments on the article's talk page, and these have been addressed intelligently. I think the article is now erady for promotion, subject to an images review (I have reviewed sources, below). One small suggestion: in the lead, perhaps Nick Adams should be described as "Hemingway's recurrent autobiographical character", since many readers will not be aware that he crops up in a number of Hemingway's stories. The article will no doubt benefit from further minor prose tweaks—almost every article does—but I see no reason to withhold support on this account. A fine article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
- Spotchecks carried out on the online sources; no problems
- A page number could be added to the "Destroyers" source, which is quite a long essay
Otherwise, all sources look reliable and citations are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Brian, that was an enjoyable review, and it's inspired me to work on the Nick Adams page - one I never quite knew what to do about, but now realize that's the place for quite a bit of analysis. I'll reword that he is a recurrent character in the short stories.
- Regarding the images - this page is helpful to anyone looking at them. I'll double check that the relevant template is on the existing images.
- I see that Yomangani is working on the prose now. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (You can just skip my following comments) In how many languages was it translated? In Paul Cézanne influence perhaps link modernists to Modernist literature. Red Badge of Courage or The Red Badge of Courage? Is " the transatlantic review" correct? If yes, then suggest adding a note like you did after in our time. What exactly is Pound's modernist series, perhaps name a few examples. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these Tomcat. I'll have to research the languages question, but it's a good one. Re the link, want to think about it because he knew both modernist artists and writers, so I think I wanted the more general link rather than the specific one. Yes, the transatlantic review [2] is correct I think, and Red Badge of Courage is wrong - I'll fix that. I'll need to chase up more titles regarding Pound's modernist series - I'm not sure I have the sources in the house for that (it's not in the source cited) - it's a holiday where I live, so if it requires a library visit may not be able to pin down for a few days. But it's a good question - and if it doesn't go in here, certainly should be added to Ezra Pound. Thanks for the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding, I've found information regarding the translations - but I'm thinking it's best to add to the In Our Time article. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding more: I've added Modernist literature elsewhere; at the time Pound walked around Paris wearing a scarf with the words "Make it new" and the others were interested in modernism in general not only literature, so I think it's nice to have both links. I don't have the source with the additional information about Pound's modernist series, but it is already described in greater detail in In Our Time. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I read through the article from start to end and found it to be a nice piece of work. A couple of things in the prose bugged me, and I made edits to fix them. Other than those minor items, though, I feel that this comfortably meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and for the tweaks. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- "Gertrude Stein, shown here with Hemingway's son Jack in 1924, advised him to trim the ending of "Big Two-Hearted River"." - this reads as if "him" is Jack
- File:Ernest_Hemingway_recuperates_from_wounds_in_Milan,_1918.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nikkimaria - All those links have been changed at the JFK Library, so good you checked (because obviously I forgot). The link is now fixed, and I hope the caption a bit better. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes -- thoughtful reviews and good support, but on a brief look I feel there are places the prose could be improved:
- It was first published in 1925 in the American edition of his first collection of short stories -- do we need two "first"s in the one sentence? Could the second occurrence become "earliest" or some such, or even the first instance "initially" (I prefer the former but there may be still better solutions that offer variation without appearing contrived).
- ...the minutiae of a camping and fishing trip are described in great depth but background details, such as the landscape and most particularly an area of swamp, are less well described. -- "less well described", as well as being repetitive, seems long-winded, so could we use "more vague", "more ephemeral", or something else?
- ...the quality of writing was noted and praised -- seems redundant, I'd have thought you needed to note something to praise it; for that matter, be nice if we could be more specific than the general term "quality", but I don't want to complicate things...
That's just the lead, which suggests to me the prose in the whole article would benefit from another pair of eyes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unable to work on this right now. Please archive. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments (which may or may not be helpful).
This article is very good. I think this article is close to reaching the same clarity as "Indian Camp" which I especially like.
- lede -
- "it is one of the earlier stories in which he used the iceberg theory, a technique in which the themes and meaning of a piece of writing are not readily apparent." -- repetition of "in which he used", "in which the themes"
- (personal preference) - don't like use of iceberg theory in the lede because I think it requires most readers to click the link to try to understand.
- "the themes and meaning of a piece of writing are not readily apparent." - (suggestion) using predominantly simple sentences and repetition while omitting unnecessary detail(?), or some other wording that conveys what is meant here re Hemingway (as often "themes and meaning" in literary works are not readily apparent to the reader - but for different reasons).
- "The themes of the story are the destruction of war and the healing and regenerative powers of nature." - doesn't seem to go with rest of paragraph. I'm guessing these themes are an example of "background details"? Perhaps sentence could go in the paragraph below, to which it seems more related (I think).
- "The story features a single character who speaks only twice." - seems out of place here and perhaps would fit better in paragraph two of lede - or even better, paragraph three, after "Little happens ..."
- "Little happens story in the story." - extra word?
- "When published, critics praise the quality of writing, and today scholars consider "Big Two-Hearted River" as important in the Hemingway canon." - this seems like a bland understatement in lede. Farther down in the article: "It has become part of the 20th-century American literary canon, writes Beegel, and is considered "among the best" American short stories along with Stephen Crane's ..." and "It has become one of Hemingway's most anthologized stories,[46] and is one of a handful that has been a subject of literary criticism since its publication."
- Background and publication history
- "but did not finish until September, because he spent the summer helping Ezra Pound" - should the comma be removed?
- "As foreign correspondent he traveled to places such as Smyrna to report about the Greco–Turkish War, and he wanted to use his journalism experience to write fiction, believing that a story could be based on real events when a writer distilled his own experiences in such a way that, according to biographer Jeffrey Meyers, "what he made up was truer than what he remembered" - this seems like a run on sentence that doesn't clearly connect foreign reporting with desire to "use his journalism experience" for the writing of short stories (like this one,set in Michigan) - didn't he keep a journal beginning in his younger years? So combination of his professional journalism experience and his early journals? (or am I way off base?) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mathew, as TK is on a break, I'll be dealing with these suggestiions, which from a scan, all seem very resonable and correct. Bear with me and thanks for taking the time. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most dealt with, but a bit more time requested. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear - I am unable to work on this now because of real life issues and won't get back to it for a while and am unable to give the effort required to make this right. I appreciate the help. I wrote most the article almost a year ago, many of the sources have long been returned to the library, and if it's to need complete prose reworking, which it appears it does, I'd prefer the archiving until I can get the sources again and do this properly. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:32, 1 December 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): Bmalbrecht (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is of a similar quality to other featured articles addressing topics in the same field (chemistry). It has undergone peer review by editors with and without strong chemical backgrounds and adjustments have been made to make it as approachable as possible to the non-chemist while still providing enough substance to be useful. I believe that all important aspects of the field have been covered, including areas of modern interest, and that the article is essentially complete. It is thoroughly referenced, clearly written, and is intended to be without bias. In short, I believe it meets all requirements for featured article status. Bmalbrecht (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For comments in the chemistry project, in response to which I am also doing some edits, please see follow this link.
Bmalbrecht (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Promising article and truly impressive knowledge, but the article suffers from excessive reliance on primary sources. Artwork needs to be made less ugly. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeDrive-by comments from Jim Article hasn't been to GA, and the peer review was one paragraph from one editor. Even without reading the main text, just the lead, there are some worrying signs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead section doesn't summarise article WP:LEAD
- First achieved with a heterogeneous palladium catalyst deposited on silk — seems to be the entire history of assymetric catalysis, and even that isn't mentioned in the main text.
- Headings and captions don't conform to MoS
- Quadrant Model for Asymmetric Hydrogenation? also at least two headings and a caption. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- That example fixed, as were various others. Bmalbrecht (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- pov in lead, "flourished","remarkable"
- Shouldn't be refs in lead
What is Wade ref doing?Why are the refs not numbered?- There are non-alphanumeric symbols in the refs
- see ref 32 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Oops. That one is now fixed too. Bmalbrecht (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are eight repeated links in the main text, excluding lead and captions
- The thought behind this is that readers are likely to skip to the sections that are most interesting to them rather than reading the whole article. If that's true, then linking up each section individually allows readers easier access to relevant information.Bmalbrecht (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the last two refs rolled into {{reflist}}- Over-reliance on primary sources, no mention of secondary sources such as Caprio and Williams (2009)Catalysis in Asymmetric Synthesis or Ralph (2007) Immobilization of homogeneous asymmetric hydrogenation catalysts
- heterogeneous palladium catalyst — first line is hardly welcoming with three consecutive unlinked and unexplained technical terms
I'm surprised there is no link to Enantioselective synthesis- A minute on Google found this long full-text article, not even mentioned in your article.
Responses to Jimfbleak's remarks:
- The peer review actually happened from numerous people, but only one chose to comment on the peer review page itself. Others wrote on the WikiProject Chemistry site, on their own talk pages, in personal emails to me, etc. Comments were highly positive to the extent that going through GA then FA nomination process seemed unnecessary, especially when it is not required.
- I tried to moderate the language in the lead somewhat. The use of some "technical" terms is inevitable but I would expect a someone with a pre-university education in chemistry to be able to follow along. An effort at improved summary was also made.
- The palladium on silk is not mentioned in the text because it is essentially an interesting bit of trivia, something to peak your interest. It is not generally discussed within the modern field and did not clearly contribute to any of the advancements in homogeneous catalysis (where nearly all the work is done). Further history is mentioned within the text, though there is no history section. I found that it worked better this way (early editions did have a history section) though if there is consensus that this is a problem I could try to add one.
- Well, the title of the article isn't "Modern homogenous asymmetric_hydrogenation". If this is part of the history of the topic, it should be mentioned in the main text, and I'm astonished that, if your article is to be believed, that it is the only known heterogeneous reaction leading to asymmetric hydrogenation. If that is not the case, you either need to include hetergeneous catalysis or move your article to a more appropriate title. I'm not bothered whether there is an actual history section, just if the article is doing what it (currently) says on the tin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On consideration, I agree. I will need to take some time to put it together but including it is not unreasonable and within the declared purview of the articleBmalbrecht (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of view in the lead seems reasonable to me. There are published works out there that say that hydrogenation is without a doubt the most important process of the modern era (with the implication that the asymmetric version is therefore of like importance). I stay well back from that extreme but the technology does deserve credit. For a reaction to work as well and as consistently as it does is rare. Like the text says, it can literally give results as good as what enzymes give, a claim that almost no other chemical transformation can match.
The use of refs in the lead is an established practice in other FA chemistry articles. It is also largely necessary, since the scientific community would frown upon reference to anyone's work without citation.- I have no idea what has happened to the references. They definitely had numbers in recent times (and you can still see the matching numbers in the text). I will attempt to fix this.
- I don't know what you mean about the roll in. I would say that they are in the reflist because I want to cite them...
- What I mean is that you have formatted them as part of the reflist template {{reflist| <ref name="AsymmetricIndustrial2">Püntener K.; Scalone, M. In ''Asymmetric Catalysis on Industrial Scale'', 2nd ed.; Blaser, H.-U.; Federsel, H.-J., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2010.</ref><ref name="CompAsymmetricCatalysis">Schmid, R.; Scalone, M. In ''Comprehensive Asymmetric Catalysis Vol 3.;'' Jacobsen, E.N.; Pfaltz, A.; Yamamoto, H., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1999.</ref>}} I've never seen that before, why aren't they formatted like normal refs? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Headings and captions now conform to MoS- The issue of secondary sources is again something of a conflict between how Wikipedia wishes to do things and how the chemical community wishes to do things. I have generally defaulted to favouring the chemist's preference since it is their work (again, see the Aldol reaction for an FA precedent in choosing to do this. (There are a handful secondary references, though I understand why finding them in all the primary ones would be difficult).
- I would be happy to link to [[Enantioselective synthesis] if I could find a place where it made sense to do so. It might be logical to add in a "use in total synthesis" section where I could make such a link. Thoughts?
- There are literally thousands of works in this area that I have not cited that can likely be found by Google. To attempt to include them all would be futile as would attempting to include some mention of all the work ever done in the area.
Bmalbrecht (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've withdrawn my oppose for now, but I'll hold off doing a full review util I see other comments on style issues, and I'm still unhappy about the lead section and referencing problems. You may have to reformat the refs with non-alphanumeric characters using the cite journal template instead of cite doi Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the reference issues now.Bmalbrecht (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that you shouldn't strike reviewers' comments yourself. It is for the reviewer to decide if your response has addressed the query, even on minor points. Just indicate that you have taken the action, and leave it to the reviewer to decide. I know you acted in good faith, but it actually makes it harder for the reviewer to keep track Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and in fact I've unstruck two because I'm not satisfied that the issues have been fully sorted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Oppose per prose issues. I only read the first two sentences but I already hate "First achieved with a heterogeneous palladium catalyst deposited on silk,[1] this field..." How can we achieve a field? What's an unsaturated bond? I will read the rest of the article but if it's all as bad as this it wouldn't even meet GA standard. Sorry. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - There are too many issues, most of which have been listed above by Jim. The article would benefit from a much better peer review and a stab at GAC, before coming here. Driving via this route would eradicate a lot of the current problems the article has. -- CassiantoTalk 08:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Serious Doubts - Bmalbrecht, I know that the FAC process is difficult the first time and I know that some of the FAC requirements seem in conflict with scientific practice, but as this is an encyclopedia and not a scientific paper, I advise you that it is necessary to adapt. I am the principal author of one of wikipedia's FA-level chemistry articles, I found the FAC process a real challenge, and I encourage you to keep trying. Unfortunately, I have to agree with others that this article needs a lot of work. I'm going to provide a non-exhaustive list of issues that I see, in hopes they will help you to improve the article.
- First sentence: The first sentence reads "In organic chemistry, asymmetric hydrogenation is a chemical process that adds a molecule of hydrogen to one face of an unsaturated bond." To understand this, a reader must know that "add" refers to an addition reaction, yet there is no even a wikilink to indicate the word "add" is being used in a technical way. Further, ethylene has an unsaturated bond, hence by this definition hydrogenation of ethylene is asymmetric hydrogenation, yet it is not. Have a look at the hydrogenation article - which is also not wikilinked - to see a less technical description of a process. Maybe "Asymmetric hydrogenation is an addition reaction between molecular hydrogen (H2) and an unsaturated organic compound in which one or more new and desired elements of chirality are selectively synthesised." This could be referenced to doi:10.1351/goldbook.A00484 (the IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Technology). I would accompany the first paragraph with an image of a simple asymmetric hydrogenation, such as the top part of the image Noyoriintro.png showing the reduction of ethyl 3-oxobutanoate on the Noyori asymmetric hydrogenation page. Incidentally, that page and this will overlap, but this article should still briefly describe the Nobel Prize winning work, probably in its own section with a 'for more information' link at the top of that section.
- Second sentence: The second sentence reads "A more specific technical definition could term it as the hydrogenation of prochiral substrates to preferentially produce one of two chiral products." FA standards mention prose quality approaching brilliant; unfortunately, this sentence is awkward. One of two chiral products is also questionable, in that if two chiral centres are proiduced there are theoretically four stereoisomers possible.
- Third sentence: The third sentence reads "First achieved with a heterogeneous palladium catalyst deposited on silk, this field has since flourished predominantly in the realm of homogeneous catalysis." It does not make sense as "the field" is what is first achieved, but I suspect "first achieved" is meant to refer to asymmetric hydrogenation. I could go on, but basically the lead needs re-writing.
- Article structure: The article should stand on its own without the lead (which is a summary) so the article needs to start with explaining what asymmetric hydrogenation is, possibly followed by history, before getting to mechanism.
- Mechanism: The prose again assumes considerable knowledge of organometallic chemistry. The side-by-side mechanisms make seeing the differences and similarities very difficult. A single diagram where the active catalyst is show to associate the olefin on one side and oxidatively add the hydrogen on the other, coming together to a common olefin-dihydride-rhodium(III) species (each side clearly labelled) would show the differences, and that the rest of the catalytic cycle is the same. After the diagram, the "sense of stereochemistry" sentence is unclear - does this mean that the stereochemical outcome can be predicted and understood in terms of steric interactions?
- Quadrant model image: This image needs correction. [RhHX(PPh2)2] would be incredibly unstable as the phosphine ligands are short one substituent. Do you mean PPh3?
- Historically important diphosphine ligands image: This image has labels for the ligands with stereochemical descriptors. (R) and (S) should always be italicised in print and underlined when handwritten. This is a mistake in other images too.
- Highly effective system for the asymmetric hydrogenation of ketones image: The '2' in [Ir(cod)Cl]2 dimer should be a subscript, and this is another case of italicised R's needed.
- Asymmetric hydrogenation of pyridines image: What happens to the 5-member ring substituent in the starting material?
- Sequential alkylation and asymmetric hydrogenation of 2-substituted indoles image: The R1 substituent on the phenyl ring of the starting material becomes an R substituent in the product. The R2 substituent in the starting material becomes an R1 substituent in the product. An R1 substituent on the nitrogen heterocycle ring is introduced in the product, yet the R3 substituent on the aldehyde starting material vanishes completely.
- Ok, that's enough for now. Good luck. EdChem (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's closing comment - There are too many issues to resolve in a reasonable time here.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:16, 1 December 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 14:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is the most comprehensive account on soul singer Otis Redding's relatively brief music career. I expanded the article using Geoff Brown's book and made some small corrections. Noleander's peer review was also helpful.Tomcat (7) 14:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good. The information in the post-Death sections needs to be rearranged though. A lot of the first paragraph of Legacy is not really about his legacy at all, but rather what inspired him as an artist. In any case, Legacy and Awards shouldn't be a part of Style at all, but separate. However, I thinking Style and Songwriting are related enough to be sub-sections in a Musicianship section. The inspriation stuff in the first para of Legacy can be moved there as well.
Why use an infobox pic where he's in profile, and his mouth is covered?—indopug (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced the infobox picture with the free sculpture image. I think I made all the formatting changes. Also updated the official websites since the new site is a bit messy. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am actually fine with using a non-free pic for the infobox (since no free alternative exists for a deceased person—definitely satisfies WP:NFCC). My concern was only about that particular photo.—indopug (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to take a more thorough look at the article in a few days, it looks really good. But I definitely agree that the main image was better off before. The statue doesn't really do the subject justice. I would suggest finding a better non-free picture than the older one and then use that. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this statue image is very good as it is more expressive and interesting than the previous one (which depicted a rather sad, thoughtful person). In my opinion, since there is a free file, why should a non-free file be used? On the other side, I could upload this photo, which I feel would appeal to the readers, and add it to the infobox. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to use a non-free image in the infobox then we should at least choose one where Redding is facing the camera. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why?--Tomcat (7) 10:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? If we are already using a non-free image than why not use one where Redding is actually looking at the camera, like a promo head shot or something? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was shot during a performance, and he did not pose for it. It is a unique shot and one of the most interesting.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? If we are already using a non-free image than why not use one where Redding is actually looking at the camera, like a promo head shot or something? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why?--Tomcat (7) 10:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to use a non-free image in the infobox then we should at least choose one where Redding is facing the camera. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Review by GabeMc
General
- Citations. - There should not be citations in the infobox. Any material included in the infobox should also be included and sourced in the article body and that's where the cites should be.
- Why not?
- Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The page declares "References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere". The mention of his nicknames are totally not needed in the text.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If its not explained in the text then it shouldn't be in the infobox or lead. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is your personal opinion then.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If its not explained in the text then it shouldn't be in the infobox or lead. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The page declares "References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere". The mention of his nicknames are totally not needed in the text.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In running prose, per the Wikipedia MoS, the definite article preceeding the proper noun in a band name should be lowercased, e.g. the Upsetters, the Pinetoppers and the Falcons. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization, where it states: "In band names, and titles of songs or albums, capitalize all words except: *articles (an, a, the)"
- Redundant, overly specific genres. - Do we really need four different types of soul music listed here? Wouldn't "soul" cover the other three?
- Yes, as all the genres are different.
- Well, the cite you use to verify the four genres only says Southern Soul, not "Soul, Southern soul, soul blues, Memphis soul[3]" I think soul covers everthing Redding recorded. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference only refers to Memphis soul (that is why it is at the end).--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, and if you have only Memphis soul sourced, then you should drop the other three until you can source them. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are sourced throughout the article, thanks.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the other three are sourced throughout the article, then why not the fourth? Also, per above, if they are sourced in the article then they should not be sourced in the infobox. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the genres to the Style section, and only stated "Soul" in the infobox.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the other three are sourced throughout the article, then why not the fourth? Also, per above, if they are sourced in the article then they should not be sourced in the infobox. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are sourced throughout the article, thanks.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, and if you have only Memphis soul sourced, then you should drop the other three until you can source them. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference only refers to Memphis soul (that is why it is at the end).--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability. - The infobox says Redding was a piano player. Is this explicated in the article body?
- Yes
- Where? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is available in this section (eg "where Redding sometimes played piano.").--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is, if Redding was a notable pianist, as the infobox currently suggests, then this should be expanded upon in the "Musicianship" section, which does not currently describe his piano playing. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to describe. He just played piano.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If Redding's piano playing is not worth describing in the article then its not worth mentioning in the infobox. Did he play piano on any of his recordings ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, removed.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If Redding's piano playing is not worth describing in the article then its not worth mentioning in the infobox. Did he play piano on any of his recordings ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to describe. He just played piano.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is, if Redding was a notable pianist, as the infobox currently suggests, then this should be expanded upon in the "Musicianship" section, which does not currently describe his piano playing. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is available in this section (eg "where Redding sometimes played piano.").--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
- Terminology. - Singer-songwriter is not quite appropriate here. Try singer and songwriter.
- Done
- Notablility. - Is his work as a "talent scout" really notable enough for inclusion in the lead?
- Yes
- I disagree. Since it merits only one sentence fragment in the article body, I doubt it is notable enough for inclusion in the lead. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I can express many things with just one sentence. Redding was a notable talent scout, which needs to be mentioned in the lead.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a few examples of notable people he scouted? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For example Arthur Conley, as stated in the article.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a few examples of notable people he scouted? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I can express many things with just one sentence. Redding was a notable talent scout, which needs to be mentioned in the lead.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Since it merits only one sentence fragment in the article body, I doubt it is notable enough for inclusion in the lead. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Puffery. - "he helped to craft the lean and powerful style of R&B". If this is not a direct quote, its an unencyclopedic paraphrase. What does "lean" mean in terms of musical style?
Why do you mean it is unencyclopedic? Did you ever opened an encyclopedia apart from Wikipedia?Lean means "short" (the classic R&B was really short-lived)
- Reworded.--Tomcat (7) 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your above comment: "Did you ever opened an encyclopedia apart from Wikipedia?" FWIW, insulting reviewers is not going to help this FAC pass. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing insulting actually.--Tomcat (7) 19:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it was, and as I said above, if you regularly treat FAC reviewers with hostility this FAC will likely not pass. I assume you did not intend to strike my comment, but just in case you didn't know, never strike the comments of others. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wasn't at all.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it was, and as I said above, if you regularly treat FAC reviewers with hostility this FAC will likely not pass. I assume you did not intend to strike my comment, but just in case you didn't know, never strike the comments of others. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing insulting actually.--Tomcat (7) 19:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your above comment: "Did you ever opened an encyclopedia apart from Wikipedia?" FWIW, insulting reviewers is not going to help this FAC pass. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify. - Per: "his open-throated style", this might be a bit nebulous for non-musicians/singers. Clarify what this means in the article body and hopefully link to a relevant Wiki article.
- It is a simple, plain explanation of his style (even for me). I also did not put this sentence.
- Reworded.--Tomcat (7) 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify. - "Redding later became equally popular among the broader American public", is equally an accurate word to use here? Seems like this type of demographic needs better sourcing.
- It is explained in the text throughout that he was first successful among Blacks, then also among Whites
- So, are you saying that that article explicates that by the end he was equally popular among white Americans as black Americans? I find this dubious. What is your source that he sold as many albums/tickets to non-blacks as he did to blacks? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article states that he performed in the western United States, etc. The peak was at the Monterey Pop Festival, where almost all, if not all, visitors were white.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone at Monterey came to see Redding, in fact he was one of only three American black artists at the festival. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Not everyone knew who would play, either. The aforementioned statement is true.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If its true then you should have no problems verifying it. According to my Rolling Stone encyclopedia, Redding was just starting to sell pop records at the time of his death after several years of popularity among mostly black Americans. The fact that the vast majority of his hits charted on the R&B chart, and not on the Billboard chart also supports my assertion. One Billboard hit after his death does mean he was "equally" popular among all demographics of the American music scene. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed "equally" to "also", hope you are satisfied now.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If its true then you should have no problems verifying it. According to my Rolling Stone encyclopedia, Redding was just starting to sell pop records at the time of his death after several years of popularity among mostly black Americans. The fact that the vast majority of his hits charted on the R&B chart, and not on the Billboard chart also supports my assertion. One Billboard hit after his death does mean he was "equally" popular among all demographics of the American music scene. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Not everyone knew who would play, either. The aforementioned statement is true.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone at Monterey came to see Redding, in fact he was one of only three American black artists at the festival. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article states that he performed in the western United States, etc. The peak was at the Monterey Pop Festival, where almost all, if not all, visitors were white.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are you saying that that article explicates that by the end he was equally popular among white Americans as black Americans? I find this dubious. What is your source that he sold as many albums/tickets to non-blacks as he did to blacks? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose. - "Redding later performed in Paris and London among other venues". Paris and London are cities, not venues.
- Done
- Relevance. - "Redding's death devastated Stax, a label on the verge of bankruptcy, which later discovered that Atlantic Records owned the rights to his entire catalog." This datum is more about Stax and Atlantic then it is Redding, so while its a good piece of information for the article body, it does not belong in the lead.
- I would have thought it is very important since it shows the aftermath of his death.--Tomcat (7) 10:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, its important, and it should be described in the article, not the lead. That's just my opinion really, its certainly not an actionable objection. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is a summary of the whole article that includes the most important aspects. Since this is the case in this article, I don't see any issues.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, its important, and it should be described in the article, not the lead. That's just my opinion really, its certainly not an actionable objection. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability. - It would seem that Entertainment Weekly is the article's only source for Redding's title of "King of Soul" over James Brown and Sam Cooke. I would like to see this verified with a more appropriate source.
- I will search for better sources.--Tomcat (7) 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since "Respect" is arguably his first or second most famous song, I would mention it in the lead.
- It is irrelevant what one individual thinks.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not when that person is an FAC reviewer. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, even if the FAC reviewer would like to push his own opinion. Try a Little Tenderness was much more important and influential then Respect.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I said "Respect" is arguably his first or second most famous song. Isn't there room in th elead for another song? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioned.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I said "Respect" is arguably his first or second most famous song. Isn't there room in th elead for another song? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, even if the FAC reviewer would like to push his own opinion. Try a Little Tenderness was much more important and influential then Respect.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not when that person is an FAC reviewer. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency, accuracy. - Per this statement from the lead: "at age 15 Redding left school to support his family by working with Little Richard's backing band"; however, the article body states: "At age fifteen, Redding abandoned school to help his family financially ... Redding worked as a well digger, gas station attendant and guest musician in the following years."
- And later states that he was a member of the Upsetters.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be missing the point here. The lead says he quit school to work with Richard, but the article says he worked as a well digger and gas station attendant before meeting Richard. He can't have done both right? Did he leave school, then work labour jobs before working with Richard, or did he leave school in order to work with Richard, as the lead suggests? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it later states "and by performing at talent shows for prize money". The statement is netherless true.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did Redding perform at talent shows with Little Richard? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as he left the Upsetters.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did Redding perform at talent shows with Little Richard? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it later states "and by performing at talent shows for prize money". The statement is netherless true.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be missing the point here. The lead says he quit school to work with Richard, but the article says he worked as a well digger and gas station attendant before meeting Richard. He can't have done both right? Did he leave school, then work labour jobs before working with Richard, or did he leave school in order to work with Richard, as the lead suggests? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
- Sourcing. - "Richard has soul, too. My present music has a lot of him in it."[7][8] Which source is the quote from and why do we need two cites for the quote?
- The last is the closing reference, and the second last is the reference for this quote. In Wikipedia, there should be always one or several references at the end of a paragraph.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pronoun use. - "such as Little Willie Jones and bassist Eddie Ross.[9] His breakthrough came when he played Little Richard's" I assume the "his" refers to Redding, but since you've mentioned Eddie Ross most recently, the pronoun is referring to Ross.
- ? It talks about Redding all the time, not about the random guy with the name Eddie Ross.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As it reads now the pronoun "his" refers back to the most recently used proper noun, which is Ross, not Redding. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you are correct, so I will leave it to someone who has more knowledge in English.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, insults will not help this FAC pass. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...It was not an insult :/. But done.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, insults will not help this FAC pass. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you are correct, so I will leave it to someone who has more knowledge in English.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As it reads now the pronoun "his" refers back to the most recently used proper noun, which is Ross, not Redding. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vague. - "Around the time when his tonsils were removed". When were they removed? Clarify this point.
- It states "around the time". The book does not tell the exact date.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusing. - "Redding had doubts whether he would ever be able to sing, but his father suggested the opposite". Did his father suggest that Otis never had doubts, or was his father's opposite opinion that Otis would be able to sing again?
- ? The latter of course.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusing. - "In 1958, Redding performed on disc jockey Hamp Swain's "The Teenage Party", a music contest at the Roxy Theatre, then at the Douglass Theatre" Did Redding perform at the Roxy or the Douglass?
- On both.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did Redding perform at both? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. It was relocated.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not clear that Redding performed at both. Try: " ... then at the Douglass Theatre where Redding also performed". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not clear that Redding performed at both. Try: " ... then at the Douglass Theatre where Redding also performed". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. It was relocated.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did Redding perform at both? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarity. - "Jenkins later worked as lead guitarist and played with Redding on several gigs; with Jenkins' help, he won the contest every week." 1) Jenkins played with Redding during several gigs, not "on" gigs. 2) "he won the contest every week". Every week of what, a year, a decade, every week ever?
- Fixed the first. I totally don't understand what you mean with the last question. If I say every week, it means one week, then the next week, and so on.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every week for how long? A year, a decade? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every century perhaps? Read my comment, please.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your comment: "If I say every week, it means one week, then the next week, and so on." And so on until when? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources state the exact weeks. Many repeat that it lasted several weeks.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your comment: "If I say every week, it means one week, then the next week, and so on." And so on until when? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every century perhaps? Read my comment, please.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every week for how long? A year, a decade? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose. - "Shortly afterwards", try "soon afterwards"
- Done.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations, clarity. - "Redding was well-paid at about $25 per gig,[4][5] but he did not stay for long.[11]" 1) Why do we need three cites for 15 word sentence? 2) "he did not stay for long" is vague, can this be specified?
- The question is which source supports particular claims, and this is the case. Not sure what you mean with your last question.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My last question means, if you know how long, then state it. Was it a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months etcetera. "he did not stay for long" is too vague and this needs to be clarified if possible. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't know, that is why I wrote "about".--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you know approximately how long Redding played with Richard? Needs more research. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He did not play with Richard, but with Richard's backing band. (I think, both never even met each other)--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you know approximately how long Redding played with Richard? Needs more research. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't know, that is why I wrote "about".--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My last question means, if you know how long, then state it. Was it a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months etcetera. "he did not stay for long" is too vague and this needs to be clarified if possible. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In progress ... more to come. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing
- Rocklistsmusic.com. (currently ref #129) is not a WP:RS.
- Several of the listed sources include publishing locations but most do not. Use one or the other for consistency.
Oppose from Maralia I am really happy to see this article being improved. It is in much better shape than the last time I saw it, but it still needs a thorough copyedit to address pervasive grammar issues. Examples follow:
- I am skeptical about the statement that a frequently copyedited article should be again copyedited.--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the current view on hyphenating "African American" when used as an adjective, but at the very least let's be consistent: it's used twice as an adjective in the article, once with and once without a hyphen.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto with black vs Black.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead we have 'the Upsetters" and then in Early life we have "The Upsetters". Similarly, The Pinetoppers vs the Pinetoppers; The Beatles vs the Beatles.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering wikilinking 'session' (in the lead—"An unscheduled appearance on a session" is rather vague).
- I feel it is unnecessary but linked it anyway.--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Necessary because you didn't say what kind of session—recording session? jam session? Either clarifying in the text or linking would have been sufficient. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Willie Jones, frontman of Pat T. Cake and the Mighty Panters" - this should be Panthers, yes? Other instances throughout the article.
- Not sure what you mean--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is you've misspelled Panthers. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "wrote his first songs including "She's Allright", "Tuff Enuff", "I'm Gettin' Hip" and "Gamma Lamma", former later released as a single." - not sure what you were going for with 'former later'.
- The former was later--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "If you mean the first, say the first—'the former' would work with a list of two, but not a list of four. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Around this time he and The Pinetoppers attended a "Battle of the Bands" show in the Lakeside Park." - why 'the' Lakeside Park?
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
""That's What My Heart Needs" and "Mary's Little Lamb" were recorded in June 1963, the latter was the only Redding song with both background singing and brass, but his worst-selling single." - Comma splice. The first comma should be a semicolon.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The title track, recorded on September, the next year" - in September
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The majority of Redding songs after "Security" had a slow tempo, " - "Security" has not been mentioned at all.
- And?--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the reader supposed to know what 'songs after "Security"' means, if they've not been made aware that "Security" even exists? Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "were later recut in stereo during the Otis Blue-session" - no need to hyphenate this.
- Not done, prefer hyphens--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to use a hyphen here. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"including positive press in Los Angeles Times," - in the Los Angeles Times.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"On this version Redding was backed by Booker T. & the MG's," - this should be Booker T. & the M.G.'s.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The song and the album were critically and commercially successful—former peaked at number 25" - the former peaked at.
-
- Why not just "former"?--Tomcat (7) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "play at the Fillmore Theatre around the late 1966" - 'around the late 1966' doesn't parse.
- ? Clarification required--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed "around"--Tomcat (7) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you have "in the late 1966" which is still incorrect. See determiner. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now?--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Three singles were lifted from the album, "Tramp", the first cut song, was released as a single in April, "Knock on Wood", and "Lovey Dovey", all three peaking at least in the top 60 charts on both the R&B and Pop charts." - this sentence is snaky and in the end just doesn't parse.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now we have this: "Three singles were lifted from the album: "Tramp", the first cut song, was released as a single in April, "Knock on Wood", and "Lovey Dovey". All three peaked at least in the top 60 charts on both the R&B and Pop charts." The colon is a good start, as is breaking it up into two sentences. Problems remain, though. After the colon you have both a list and a standalone sentence; we're still trying to stuff too much into one sentence. An improvement would be:
- "...Three singles were lifted from the album: "Tramp", the first cut song, which was released as a single in April; "Knock on Wood"; and "Lovey Dovey"."
- In the second sentence, need to fix '...in the top 60 charts..on both the...charts'. Solution:
- "All three peaked at least in the top 60 on both the R&B and Pop charts." Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "All three peaked at least in the top 60 on both the R&B and Pop charts." Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "She recorded a solo-album" - no need to hyphenate this.
- Not done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Inexplicable hyphenation. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"written by Cropper and Redding while they were staying with friend, Earl "Speedo" Sims, " - either 'with a friend, Earl...' or 'with their friend Earl...'
- Done--Tomcat (7) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"On the next day they were to play at the "Factory" nightclub" - why the quotes around Factory?
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The non-swimmer was unable to rescue the members, who did not immediately die." - unable to rescue who?
-
- The members of what? There were 'members' of several groups on the plane. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "About the cause of the crash, James Brown argued in his autobiography, The Godfather of Soul, that he recommended Redding shortly before his departure not to drive on that outdated plane with such a ballast." - multiple problems here. 'About the cause of the crash' is a strange phrase to introduce one man's opinion. The rest of the sentence has grammatical issues, including that one does not drive on a plane, and that 'such a ballast' is not explained.
- ? Changed to fly. ballast means the people or things on the plane.--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what ballast means, but you've not made any reference to the plane being overloaded, so we have no context; the sentence still has multiple issues. It is also misplaced within the section, strangely in a paragraph about reactions to his death rather than the situation leading up to it. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Plans were made by Carla Thomas to record another duet album in December the same year, although Phil Walden disputed this claim." - This sentence asserts that Thomas did make plans and Walden disputed this. If the assertion is that Carla claims making plans but Walden disputes it, this needs a rewrite.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I hope--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to several advertising copies, he had around 200 suits, 400 pairs of shoes, and he earned about $35,000 per week for his concerts." - 200 suits and 400 pairs of shoes, and he earned...
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've fixed that problem, but there is another: 'copy' is a mass noun much like the word 'furniture'. Just as you can't say 'a furniture' or 'seven furnitures', you can't say 'an advertising copy' or 'seven advertising copies'. A simple way to fix this is "According to several advertisements". Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Early on Redding copied the singing style of Little Richard, one of his role models, but gradually developed his own style." - but he gradually...
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He studied contemporary music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan." - multiple issues. Did he study contemporary music such as or including these two groups or the contemporary music of these groups? Also needs to be 'The Beatles and Bob Dylan'.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Redding appeared a little bit clumsy on stage, and he sometimes received advice from Rufus Thomas." - this sentence begs the question: what kind of advice?
- A simple one--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworded the sentence.--Tomcat (7) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wexler later explained Redding was well received by the audience, as his delivered strong message was noticeable" - 'his delivered strong message' doesn't parse.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still problematic. "strong delivered message" doesn't mean anything, and 'noticeable' is a weak descriptor especially in the presence of the word 'strong'. Can you not simply say "as he delivered strong messages"? Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Booker T. Jones, an American musician, described Otis' singing" - by this point in the article (the Style section), we are well aware who Jones was; he doesn't need a link here or a description.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In his early career, Redding mostly covered songs from popular artists, such as Little Richard, Sam Cooke, or Solomon Burke." - and Solomon Burke.
- Done (error introduced by the "copyeditors")--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He often worked on lyrics with other musicians, such as Earl Sims, his brother Rodgers, Sylvester Huckaby, Phil Walden or Steve Cropper" - again, and Steve Cropper.
- Done (error introduced by the "copyeditors")--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "During the time of regeneration, Redding wrote about 30 songs in a session lasting about two weeks." - what is 'the time of regeneration'?
-
- I linked to this page accordingly.--Tomcat (7) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of the definition of the word, but how does this word apply to Redding? When is his purported 'time of regeneration'? Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified a bit--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the journalist Ruth Rob, author of the liner notes for the 1993 box-set" - this is Ruth Robinson per the source.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Otis Redding favored short and simple lyrics over long and complicated; When asked whether" - no caps after a semicolon: 'long and complicated; when asked'
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The items in the bibliography are all in the format 'lastname, firstname' so the items in the references should be as well.
- Done I hope.--Tomcat (7) 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references and bibliography are also in need of some minor attention:
- "The RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on June 25, 2008. Retrieved February 14, 2012. - this source has a date. Many other online sources have dates that should be listed as well.
- Please explain what you mean.--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean that you have listed accessdates, but in many cases have not listed publication dates. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing...
- I cleaned up the references.--Tomcat (7) 20:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"CHI68A0053". National Transport Safety Board. Retrieved September 4, 2011. - the agency is the National Transportation Safety Board.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Otis Redding remembered". Cincinnati.com. Retrieved May 14, 2012. - this source has an author.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but you have a double period now (no need to use a period after initial). Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but I am unsure whether "Foley, Ryan J" or Foley J, Ryan" is correct
"Death of the King of Soul". Entertainment Weekly (252). December 9, 1994. - this source has an author.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "21) Otis Redding". Rolling Stone. Wenner Media LLC. Archived from the original on June 20, 2011. Retrieved August 20, 2011. - this source has an author.
- Done, also fixed a similar ref.--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Eyewitness Tells of Otis Redding's Violent Death". Jet. December 28, 1967. - this source has an author.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but lastname first please. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link for the last cite ( "Major Exhibition Commemorating 40th Anniversary of Otis Redding's Passing on Display at the Georgia Music Hall of Fame in Macon") does not work (it takes you to the home page); can the article be found at the internet archive?
- I can't find it anywhere.--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed this passage.--Tomcat (7) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not listed everything I found; I only skimmed the Legacy section, and found similar grammar issues there. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this needs an independent copyedit or two before it's ready. Maralia (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this is a very long review, so I will proceed carefully.--Tomcat (7) 10:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are various places where you refute the need for context ("Security"; 'members'; 'such a ballast"; "time of regeneration"). I have attempted to elaborate in each instance above, but I don't understand the reluctance to tell the reader what you mean.
- I know that it can be really difficult to catch grammar errors in something you've read a hundred times, but I should think that this (incomplete) list of errors would have been enough to overcome any skepticism regarding the need for a thorough copyedit. A few of the problems, like the improper usage of 'copy' in the context of advertising copy, are wholly understandable. However, basic English grammar—such as the proper use of hyphens, conjunctions, and articles with nouns—should not be issues of contention at FAC, requiring lengthy back-and-forth. This, again, is why I recommend a comprehensive independent copyedit. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your review. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and please withdraw to obtain an independent copyedit-- per the length of this review and per Maralia's comments, this article was clearly unprepared for FAC, and the faster route to the bronze star will be via an independent copyedit off-FAC. I jumped to the bottom of the article to check prose, and easily found this sentence: Beside the songwriting, Redding also arranged horn lines, always humming to show the horn section what notes he had in his mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No way. It should stay here as I want to see it on the mainpage, 10th December. Please add what you don't like, thank you. I don't want to wait another one year :D. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you "jumped" to the bottom (why I don't know), and you found only one sentence? What exactly is wrong with " Beside the songwriting, Redding also arranged horn lines, always humming to show the horn section what notes he had in his mind"? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Realistically speaking, considering the support that Imagine (song) has for December 8, the chances of this running on December 10 are not high (too similar). I jump to the bottom because I do not intend to copyedit your entire article, only highlight random issues. Beside --> besides. Always is redundant. In his mind --> in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ironical that nobody saw these issues in the several months.--Tomcat (7) 16:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:16, 1 December 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because, as part of my ongoing goal of improving Sesame Street articles, I feel this one is ready for FAC. It's a GA currently, and has been thoroughly copyedited. It's an interesting article; I hope that its reviewers will learn a lot and have fun. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Found untranscluded at this timestamp. Graham Colm (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check
- File:Educational_Testing_Service_welcome_sign.jpg - OK
- File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg - needs work, fair-use rationale has some problems:
- Please elaborate in the summary, why this image is not replacable. It's pretty obvious, but the guidelines call for "detailed" information (check other screenshots for more detailed information, f.e. "no free screenshots of this television show are available" or something similar).
- See WP:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline for more information about FUR requirements. The purpose of use is too general and fails to address the image usage in this specific article (why is this image needed in this article? what specific information does it add to the article topic, which can't be conveyed as text?) Fair-use could be strengthened, when you add some additional information to the main text, how the CTW research influenced the set and character design and provide some more context between article text and image in the rationale.
- Not relevant for this FA, but a separate FUR for Sesame Street media is missing. All article usages must have own, specific rationales. GermanJoe (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that I've fulfilled this request. Images for Sesame Street articles have always been an issue; there are very few free images associated with it that we can use here. Additionally, images are my weakest area as a WP editor, and the area that I need the most assistance. So thanks, and if there's anything else that should be done, please let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check (FUR) (File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg fails NFCC #8) After thinking this over, checking other Sesame Street related FAs with similar situations and the current policy, the image doesn't meet all criteria to allow usage of non-free content:
The main issue is NFCC-criterion 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (see WP:NFCC for more information, all of the listed criteria have to be met). Checking some of the most common reasonings:
- When you remove the image, readers' understanding is not significantly reduced. The complete section is easily understandable without the visual, it makes almost no difference.
- The image does not serve as visual identification of the article topic.
- The main article text does not contain detailed information about the set, the co-operation or the influence between research and set design, so the image is not used to support any "commentary" in the article.
Sorry for the lengthy essay, but i wanted to make clear, why the image is not usable and should be removed from the current article (please feel free to move this whole issue to the nomination's talk page, when it's resolved to reduce clutter). WP:Media copyright questions is also a good page for additional help with this or other difficult images. Hope that info helps you - despite the bad news. GermanJoe (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I kinda had a feeling. I'm willing to bow to more knowledgeable folks in this area, so no need to move this discussion. I will remove the image, though, which means that this article will only have one image. I hope that doesn't get in the way of its promotion, although I know that images aren't necessarily a requirement for FAC, especially when there are no free images available, as is the case here. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What makes http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/newtonminow.htm a high quality reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's simply a copy of the text of Minnow's speech. I could find the same text in another source if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- moved this section a bit down, as it was splitting my (too lengthy ...) image review. Content hasn't changed. GermanJoe (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably best to find it in a reliable source Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's simply a copy of the text of Minnow's speech. I could find the same text in another source if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN4, 36, 40, 55, 62, 63: should be endash
- FN11: formatting
- Use a consistent date format
- Be consistent in whether you include dates in shortened citations
- FN24: which source does this refer to?
- Check for template glitches like doubled periods
- FN18: given ISBN is 9 digits, should be 10 or 13. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrections made. Thanks for the catches. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - reading now. notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two "landmark".... I find that too-frequent use of quotation marks can be jarring to the prose. Would be good to instead dequote and use a word like "key" or state who described them as landmark....
- Fixed. One recent criticism of my writing is that I add quotes around single words in an attempt to cite sources, which results in overusing quotation marks. Always learning new stuff here.
Using Overview as a heading is problematic as it is a nebulous defining character which has no sub-definition (if that makes sense). If anything, the lead is an overview, thus making an overview section repetitive and redundant. What this section really is is Background and development (from what I've read) which would describe its contents more accurately.- Done.
- it as "a backbone" of the creative - de-quote and rephrase--> "integral"? "key"?
- I'm not unopposed to changing this per se, but it's exactly how Jon Stone described it, so I hesitate changing it. Can you explain your problem with the phrasing as it is?
- I find excessive quotes jarring to read - so prefer to keep them only for phrases and words that are in and of themselves memorable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. I changed the other instance of this (see below), so I'm inclined to leave this instance as is, if you don't mind. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Methods subsection has alotta "research" in the first para (any reduction in the number of times this word is used without losing meaning would be prudent...)
- Done, hopefully enough.
- much better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and became "a mainstay" of CTW's research ... de-quote and rephrase--> "a key element"?
- Perhaps you're wondering why I changed this instance and not the one above. I changed it here because I don't attribute the person who stated it like above, and it doesn't feel as important a concept. I could be wrong if you convinced me of it. Thanks for the above catches and for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say I am not a fan of the opening sentence Sesame Street research is the research conducted by producers and experts when scripting the popular children's television program Sesame Street to improve its educational quality. - the need to mention the article title in the first few words makes the sentence sound funny, this might be one time where being bold and ignoring the rules to make a good opening sentence would be prudent...just don't know what yet.
- I'm inclined to agree. A previous version of this article didn't have the opening sentence, but someone along the way (during its GAC, I believe) suggested that I change it so that it included the title. I also agree that there are times when it's better to ignore the rules, and that this is most likely one of them. Consequently, I suggest removing it, and if we do so, switching the next two sentences and tweaking it a bit. Like this: As of 2001 there were over 1,000 research studies regarding the efficacy, impact, and effect of the American children's television show Sesame Street on American culture. It marked the first time research was used in the development of a children's television show. According to author Michael Davis, Sesame Street is "perhaps the most vigorously researched, vetted, and fretted-over program". What do you think? If there's no objection, I'll make the change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that in this case, teh appeal and readability of the opening sentence trump the insistence of an am emphatic placement of the article name in the first sentence, so am happy for that sentence to be first. We will see what others say when they arrive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has chimed in, so I went ahead and made the change. Sorry it took me so long; I've been dealing with other fires (i.e., Kevin Clash). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that in this case, teh appeal and readability of the opening sentence trump the insistence of an am emphatic placement of the article name in the first sentence, so am happy for that sentence to be first. We will see what others say when they arrive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree. A previous version of this article didn't have the opening sentence, but someone along the way (during its GAC, I believe) suggested that I change it so that it included the title. I also agree that there are times when it's better to ignore the rules, and that this is most likely one of them. Consequently, I suggest removing it, and if we do so, switching the next two sentences and tweaking it a bit. Like this: As of 2001 there were over 1,000 research studies regarding the efficacy, impact, and effect of the American children's television show Sesame Street on American culture. It marked the first time research was used in the development of a children's television show. According to author Michael Davis, Sesame Street is "perhaps the most vigorously researched, vetted, and fretted-over program". What do you think? If there's no objection, I'll make the change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:16, 1 December 2012 [6].
- Nominator(s):
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. I have spent the past several months researching, writing, and making the article the best I can. It has gone through a peer review, a good article nomination, and another peer review; I feel the article is ready. I hope everyone has a good time reading it, and become well-informed on a site my family has spent the past 50+ years at. Comments are appreciated.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-checks - Went through some of the sources and found a couple of verification issues and one close paraphrasing concern, along with a few formatting issues and such.
- Ref 17 verifies the sentence it covers with no paraphrasing concerns. No problems here.
- Cool.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool.
- Ref 21 verifies that Cam's Card Shark was threatening to break the single-season earnings record. It doesn't mention the William E. Miller Memorial or other notable horses, but ref 20 is also used here and the title implies that it is about the section (it's offline and I can't check it).
- I fixed that sentence a little bit and added another reference. Reference 20 does mention the Miller Memorial; if you want to see it, I can get a copy and upload it online.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed that sentence a little bit and added another reference. Reference 20 does mention the Miller Memorial; if you want to see it, I can get a copy and upload it online.
- Ref 29 verifies its short sentence with no paraphrasing concerns. No problems here either.
- Cool.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool.
- Ref 35 verifies the partnership going into bankruptcy, and it looks like the previous reference deals with the cocaine arrest.
- Ref 51 verifies its sentence for the most part. It doesn't say the races were actually dropped, but again an offline reference is also there, and may support that part.
- As previously mentioned, if you want me to scan and upload it, I can do that.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously mentioned, if you want me to scan and upload it, I can do that.
Ref 67 doesn't say live racing ended in 2009, or that the track depended on simulcasts. It mentions simulcasts, but I don't see anything on dependence.The other facts the reference supports are verified.- I added another reference, and I edited the sentence. Let me know if this works.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added another reference, and I edited the sentence. Let me know if this works.
Ref 70 should have its publisher italicized. Not a spot-check, but worth mentioning while I'm here.- Thanks. Fixed.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Fixed.
Ref 76: "Penn National would demolish the existing grandstand at Rosecroft and build a casino alongside the track...". Article: "It proposed demolishing its existing grandstand and building a casino...". Some of the wording verges on overly close paraphrasing. Also, the ref could use a date.- The reference already has a date? And, I reworded the sentence a bit. Let me know if this works or not.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference already has a date? And, I reworded the sentence a bit. Let me know if this works or not.
Ref 81 doesn't say the voter referendum will be in November.- Used a different reference. Let me know if this works.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Used a different reference. Let me know if this works.
All caps in ref 93 should be removed.- Should it? It's an abbreviation/their stock symbol.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it? It's an abbreviation/their stock symbol.
- What makes ref 84 (Boxing Along the Beltway) a reliable source? It looks like a blog. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the about page:
BATB is "The place to go if you want to know about any upcoming show or results, from amateur to the pros, in Virginia, Maryland and the District." -- Thom Loverro, ESPN 980 radio. I've covered the Boxing scene in the Washington, DC/Baltimore area for 28 years. I was inducted into the Washington, DC Boxing Hall of Fame in November, 2009. I am also a feature writer for Fightnews.com. I was the play-by-play announcer on the TV series "Boxing Spotlight" which highlighted pro boxing along the Beltway. I have also appeared on numerous radio stations across the country talking about the sport.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Giants, for the comments. I greatly appreciate it!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I was planning on leaving the substantive reviewing to others, but I feel guilty that nobody has looked at the article in the last month. Therefore, I want to leave some comments so you'll at least have some feedback from this process.
Optimally, facts in the lead should be in the body of the article as well, and cited in the body. Nicknames aren't easy to work with, but I think this would be improved if the nickname and cite could be worked in elsewhere.- Alright. I added something about the nickname in the construction part. Does that work?
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. I added something about the nickname in the construction part. Does that work?
"Following the death of Miller". Which one are we talking about here, William or John? I think it's John, but the current writing leaves it unclear. I don't like seeing first names repeated without a good reason, but this may be a case where doing so is appropriate.- I prefer to leave first names out, but you're right; this is a case where first names may be appropriate. Added.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer to leave first names out, but you're right; this is a case where first names may be appropriate. Added.
"Money generated from the casinos was used to increase the purses, handle (daily betting turnover), and Rosecroft was unable to generate the same amount of money." First, I'm thinking that the comma after "purses" should be removed and "and" inserted for the benefit of the sentence's structure. Second, I'm not wild about seeing two "generate"s in a sentence like this. Surely some more variety can be put into the writing with a different but similar word?- Fixed, and changed the second generate to "produce."
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, and changed the second generate to "produce."
"Lyndon B Johnson, Elizabeth Taylor, and Nancy Pelosi, and among others". Second "and" should be removed, and a period should be added after the president's middle initial.- Fixed.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
Miller family: 1947–1987: "Each year during the Miller era, several thousands of people...". Sounds like it should be either "several thousand people" or "thousands of people", but the current wording sounds odd.- Fixed.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- Not sure we need two non-free images to show old grandstands. I can't see more than one being considered acceptable, if that.
- I felt it was necessary since it shows different designs of the track. Also, the first non-free image shows the high attendance the track used to have, unlike nowadays.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt it was necessary since it shows different designs of the track. Also, the first non-free image shows the high attendance the track used to have, unlike nowadays.
- Mark Vogel: 1987–1990: "Rosecroft was awarded with another Breeders Cup race in 1988, making it their fifth straight—but final—year." We haven't learned to this point that Rosecroft had a Breeders Cup race as early as 1984, or that it was an annual event there, only that a race was hosted in 1985. Consider adding something about this in the previous section.
- I notice that an addition was made, but it introduced a typo: "augural" should be "inaugural". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and attendance figures lowered." Not sure about "lowered" when "declined", "fell", or numerous other words would improve the prose here.- Changed to declined.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to declined.
Typo in "Instead, Vogel focused more on his real state business."?- Fixed typo.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed typo.
Cloverleaf Enterprises, 1995–2010: In the chart caption, "decrease" needs to be "decreased" instead.- Fixed.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
Penn National Gaming: 2011–present: "Penn National also said its intent to ...". "said" → "announced"? In this sentence that word would work much better.- Changed to announced.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to announced.
Since the abbreviation PG isn't explained anywhere, this might as well be spelled out.- Spelled it out.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spelled it out.
Non-horse racing activities: "The Old School Boxing Gym located there". Add "is" before "located".- Added.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.
"The gym served as refuge to children in the area." Needs "a" before refuge, I think.- Yep, it does. Added.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it does. Added.
Normally I'd tell you to decapitalize "Heavyweight Championship", but there's a bigger problem here. George Foreman was not the heavyweight champion in 1969, and our article on Foreman says this was the third fight of his career. This probably needs to be changed to "Before his heavyweight championship tenure" or similar.And is there anything else that can be added about this? A heavyweight champion like Foreman fighting at this track is very interesting, to say the least.- I agree. I fixed the sentence, and I'll go digging to see what I can find about the fight and such.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I fixed the sentence, and I'll go digging to see what I can find about the fight and such.
Seth Mitchell is no longer undefeated; he just lost his first fight last week.- Fixed.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
Remove "for" from "The area also serves for large banquets."?- Removed.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.
Add "an" before "annual Senior Citizen Day".- Added.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.
Reference 84 has a formatting issue that causes the link not to show up.- Fixed the error.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the error.
Giants2008 (Talk) 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comments
- I know a person can work "at the track", but can a horse?
- I guess not. I reworded the sentence.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess not. I reworded the sentence.
- "winningest" is not a word that I know of.
- Per Oxford Dictionary, it's an informal word. Since it's informal, I changed it to "most winning," which the dictionary says is correct.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Oxford Dictionary, it's an informal word. Since it's informal, I changed it to "most winning," which the dictionary says is correct.
- the section on Vogel's ownership is underwhelming and not entirely consistent. Snyder says Vogel made mistakes. One was that he took money out of the betting pools. This is said to reduce profit for the owners. But Vogel was the owner. So why would it be an issue for him to move money between two of is businesses? it says attendance dropped. But later we are told that, during Vogel's tenure, It attracted maryland's most popular race, and also a race at which a record was set for the handle at the track. Hardly the signs of a failing business with declining attendance.
May do more another time. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over a month at FAC, no support, and prose issues calling for an independent copyedit are apparent. Random samples only (fixing these alone will not resolve my concern), suggest withdrawal:
- In the early 1950s, attendance reached over 7,000 every day. Every day?
- Yeah, like every day? Not sure what you mean here.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- If I may butt in, I think Sandy means that there weren't literally that many people there at each racing session. Something like "In the early 1950s, average attendance was more than 7,000 per day" is probably close to what she's looking for. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohhh, I misunderstood. I changed the sentence.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohhh, I misunderstood. I changed the sentence.
- If I may butt in, I think Sandy means that there weren't literally that many people there at each racing session. Something like "In the early 1950s, average attendance was more than 7,000 per day" is probably close to what she's looking for. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, like every day? Not sure what you mean here.
- After Miller's death in 1954, his son John owned Rosecroft until his death in 1969. Death, death repetitive prose. Find a synonym.
- Per, WP:Euphemism, it says to use died or death because it's neutral.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- You could say "After Miller died in 1954" to fix this issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true.
- You could say "After Miller died in 1954" to fix this issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per, WP:Euphemism, it says to use died or death because it's neutral.
- Vogel made several mistakes that hurt the horse racing industry in Maryland. That's vague.
- It's used as an intro sentence, and it is explained better throughout the paragraph.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's used as an intro sentence, and it is explained better throughout the paragraph.
- In the 2000s, Cloverleaf attempted to sell Rosecroft multiple times, but due to lawsuits and politics, all the potential buyers left. Politics? Left?
- Changed the left to "became uninterested." Also, not sure what to add about the politics part. That's in the lead, and the reader finds the information--in greater detail--when reading down.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the left to "became uninterested." Also, not sure what to add about the politics part. That's in the lead, and the reader finds the information--in greater detail--when reading down.
That is only a few sentences. This article will likely have a better chance at promotion if it is copyedited off-FAC and re-submitted in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thank you for the comments, Sandy, but I have to disagree with a majority of them. Maybe I am misunderstanding them.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Returning for another look after noticing Giants has been at work in here. I went to the bottom for a prose check, and found excessive wordiness:
- Built in 1949, Rosecroft is on 125 acres
of land. There is main parking by the main entrance;in totalthere are 2,500 parking spots.
That has several redundancies and also note the missing conversion on acres-- that needs to be checked throughout. Eliminating the redundancies could yield something like:
- Rosecroft was bult in 1949 on 125 acres (51 ha). There are 2,500 parking spaces including main parking by the main entrance.
The prose needs an independent copyedit-- this is a random sample only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.