Talk:Robert Schmertz (artist)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Schmertz (artist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk · contribs) 03:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I will take on this review. Please note that it is my first GA review.

Key

• Text in black indicates that there are no issues.
• Text in red indicates that there are issues that must be resolved - or at least addressed as best as possible - before the article is passed.
• Text in brown indicates that there are issues that if resolved would improve the article, but which are not part of the GAN criteria, and thus will not prevent the article from being promoted even if they are not addressed.

Review

1) Well Written:

• The article is easy to understand, grammatically correct, and concise - perhaps to the point that interesting details are left out - although that's beyond the purview of this GAN. There are little bits of information - like his children's song being used in a television show (mentioned in the Historical Society obituary) - that would improve the article with their inclusion.
• Earwig's copyright violation tool didn't come up with anything. None of the direct quotes were misrepresented or taken out of context.
• The manual of style is egregiously long, so I will admit that I only read the lead sections of each manual page. This article meets those standards. Obviously the fiction and list incorporation pages don't apply.

2) Verifiable with no original research

• Source 2 does not load (for me, at least). Please check to make sure that the link is right, and if it is, please see if there's any other address you can link to in order to make that content accessible.
• It appears that you're using several different styles of citation, as some have the date at the back and some have the date in the front, right after the title. Please consider using the same style for all citations.
• The article contains a list of references. All of them are reliable, although I did remove one of them in the last section, and used another source already in the article to support the content it was supporting. ([1])
• I don't see any original research.

3) Broad in its coverage

• Aside from a brief mention of his wife, there's no coverage of his family. I know that he has at least one son because he's mentioned in the McCoy source. Consider adding a bit about his wife and child(ren).
• What was the name of his first album? You've named the other three, so you should name this one.
• Aside from the points directly above, there's nothing that immediately stood out as an area of coverage that was missing.
• The article stays focused on topic.

4) Neutral

• Yes.

5) Stable

• Also yes.

6) Illustrated, if possible, by images

• There's one image in the article, and it's in the public domain. I'd love to see a higher quality image - if you tried to use it in your DYK nomination the person pushing hooks to prep would probably drop the image - but that has no bearing at all on the GAN process.
• The image is appropriately captioned. It even has an alt. Kudos for that.

7) Conclusion

• There's only one hold-worthy issue that needs to be addressed, and even that is - if push comes to shove - not enough to prevent this article from being promoted. That being said, there's room for more information to be added to this article, and I've pointed out a few such areas in this review. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the review! I've fixed the URL for ref 2. Added the name of the LP w/ref. I do use the same citation template, but it renders dates differently based on if there's an author or not. Changed from "Fifth section, page 4" to "Fifth section, p. 4" (two different instances) for consistency. There's another image of Schmertz but it's not in PD, and it's not much clearer (it's a group shot zoomed out). Found the name of the song and the show, and added; found another review of Sing Oh! The City Oh!: Songs of Early Pittsburgh, added; found children, added. If you have any other comments, let me know. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a small thing, more semantics than anything else: shouldn't this be a good article nomination for art and architecture instead of miscellaneous? Elisfkc (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that's everything then. I'll read through it one more time tomorrow, but unless I spot something seriously wrong, this is pretty much ready to promote. As to Elisfkc's comment, Mr. Schmertz, at least from my reading of the article, is a musician that happened to also be an architect, rather than an architect that happened to also be a musician (i.e. the notability comes from the musician side). I'm thinking it should be promoted under Music, in the Performers, groups, composers, and other music people subsection. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep. This passes. Great work. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: a link to Burl Ives video short w. the Masquers (including Don Williams, Andy's brother, on far left of the group's shot) singing Schmertz's "Noah Found Faith In the Eyes Of the Lord": 192.12.90.14 (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Schmertz Collection

Seattle, could you help me understand the removal of the section added by Barbara_(WVS)? Seemed pretty well-researched and appropriate, NPOV, all that good stuff. Rschmertz (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem Rschmertz. I removed the post because the image was a copyright violation, and the text seemed superfluous to the second external link. If you'd like to add a condensed version of the text of that diff to the second EL, feel free. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! Seattle (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Seattle and Rschmertz: I think the brief text describing the contents of his papers is very much valid material for a bio article. I'm not sure the UPitt Archives navigation template or the "archives" related categories, given that the article's focus is clearly on the person. I'd prefer to see thoes removed. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Template's thrown in, URL not formatted, nothing correct. Maybe sentence to end of "Later life" section but not its own section. Agree with removal of template. Seattle (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)