Talk:DeFord Bailey/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Pass. SilkTork (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd review by SilkTork[edit]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

SilkTork - Forgive me but I am a little confused by the formatting here... Where am I supposed to respond to your points? Under each individual line in the Query/Fail/ General comments sections? Also, when you say the Fail for the Lead does that mean Pending/On Hold/It's fixable or give up it sucks lol. (When I've come across Fails before in GA Reviews that usually has meant Problems insurmountable, Try again later.) Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folks do it different ways, some create their own section, some respond in the last section, but most do what you have done and respond beneath each individual comment. A Pass means at the moment I feel the article meets that GA criteria. Query means I'm not sure if it does meet the criteria and need more information, or that I feel it doesn't quite meet the criteria, but it wouldn't take much to pass, and if there are no other significant issues I might be prepared to give it a pass. A Fail means I don't think it meets the criteria so needs some work to do before I'd be prepared to give the article a green button. I'm working on the review - when I've finished I either pass it, or sum up what I feel needs to be done. I always give even the most hopeless article at least seven days because sometimes people other than the nominator join in. Depending on the circumstances I'll notify interested WikiProjects and other significant contributors. For me the primary aim is to get the article to a good standard, regardless of who nominated it or worked on it. Secondly the aim is to assist the nominator and key contributors work to get the article to a good standard. And third is to give support and encouragement to the nominator and key contributors so that they feel motivated to take more articles to Good Article standard. SilkTork (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

Is it well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?
A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria[edit]

Pass

Stable. No edit wars. SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is fine - it is clear and readable. Any copy-editing that is needed I'll do as we go along, and as you add more text to the lead and elsewhere as required. SilkTork (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article is liberally cited - it appears that every statement is cited, and where I have checked, the sources are reliable and generally support what is said. Some links may need updating, such as cite 7 (I've added an archive link for that). SilkTork (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't appear to say "distinctive". It says: "It was at this time that he started to develop his playing style. He would lie in bed and listen to the sounds of dogs howling, of wild geese flying overhead, of the wind blowing through cracks in the wall, and most importantly, of trains rumbling in the distance." The documentary film however, does say that the rural sounds that he was copying would become a "trademark in his music". It looks like the wrong cite was used - or perhaps it has changed over time, and the archive I selected is not the correct one. So that needs to be updated, and more information inserted about the rural sounds being part of his playing style. SilkTork (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of copyright or plagiarisms. Examples on the Detector are Wikipedia mirrors, or are texts newer than this article. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence of original research. Article appears to follow sources fairly accurately and honestly. SilkTork (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article is focused. There are no excessive details. SilkTork (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two images used. Both have appropriate licenses and are relevant. The second image could be better placed in the article - there is no reason for it to be centred as it is. SilkTork (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of bias. SilkTork (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Done:

There is a reference section - but the Sources section (which I have reformatted as a list within the Reference section for clarity) is a little unclear. There are four sources listed: 1) Komara, Edward (ed.) (2006), Encyclopedia of the Blues, Routledge 2) Morton, David C. & Wolfe, Charles K. (1993), Deford Bailey: A Black Star in Early Country Music. University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 0-87049-792-8. 3) Morton, David C. (1998), "DeFord Bailey," in The Encyclopedia of Country Music 4) PBS DeFord Bailey Documentary.

I cannot find where Komara is used as a source within the article. Is this work intended to be a suggestion for a Further reading section? Given that it is not a book directly on the subject, but an encyclopedia, what information does that encyclopedia entry have that our Wikipedia article does not? It would appear to make more sense to include the information within this article, or simply to drop it as a source or recommended reading.

Komara was added by another editor in 2010 & has never been used as a source so far as I can tell so it is gone. Shearonink (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to include more details regarding the PBS source, such as name of the programme, writer, publisher, date - details can be found at IMDB and LoC.

The PBS cite has been removed from the sources section as it is completely referenced elsewhere. The link to the actual documentary has been retained in External Links so readers have a direct link to watch it if they wish. Shearonink (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Morton source is identified purely by the name Morton - I assume this refers to Morton's entry "DeFord Bailey," in The Encyclopedia of Country Music, as the other work by Morton is a co-authorship; however, it would be useful to clarify this. The normal way with short citations is by date. However, as the information is so short anyway, (Morton, David C. (1998), "DeFord Bailey," in The Encyclopedia of Country Music), it would be as well to aid those reading the article by giving the full details. There's hardly any space being saved by using the short form. My suggestion would be to use the standard format <ref>{{cite book|title=The Encyclopedia of Country Music|chapter=DeFord Bailey|author=David C Morton|date=1998|page=}}</ref> , though that is not required for GA or FA - it's just more useful for the general reader (and anyone, like a GA reviewer!, who wishes to check the details against the source cited). SilkTork (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now fixed/adjusted all the refs, especially the various Mortons... I *think* so... Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the links in External links necessary? For example, what information does AllMusic have that our article does not have? Better to bring that information into our article and cite AllMusic as a source rather than send readers off to AllMusic as an alternative to Wikipedia. And better yet, let's get at the sources that AllMusic have used to write their entry. SilkTork (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted that section. The links I have left in it are as follows:

Because AllMusic has links to samples of DeFord Bailey recordings on their site and Commons does not.

Because the wirz.de article has a complete illustrated DeFord Bailey discography that is unavailable elsewhere.

Because the Narratively article is immensely detailed, is illustrated with photographs that are unavailable on Commons, and is of recent scholarship as it is a 2020 publication.

Because the defordbailey.info website has gone dark and I wanted to preserve access to its information.

Because, although the PBS page has links to it as references, the PBS documentary itself isn't directly linked to within the article. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"traveling in the South and West". South and west are not normally capitalised. Is the intention to refer to specific parts of America, such as Southern United States and Western United States? If so, could you clarify that. SilkTork (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shearonink (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"polio (or, as it was called at the time, infantile paralysis)". Is there a reason why you are giving additional information on the name of polio? The source used calls it polio. SilkTork (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that wording is an artifact left over from research. I've removed it. Shearonink (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fred Exum's Nashville's radio station WDAD " - can you clarify that this was a short lived station running from 1925 to 1927, not to be confused with the current WDAD. SilkTork (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it was Fred Exum's WDAD - as opposed to the present Indiana County PA WDAD - isn't enough? Ok. Shearonink (talk)

Adjusted accordingly. Shearonink (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

The lead needs more details. As I said earlier (now below): "There is no mention of his "arguably greatest recording, "John Henry""; no mention that in 1974 he was on "Opry's first annual Old Timers' Show"; no mention that he had polio and "was confined to bed for a year, during which he began developing his distinctive style of playing". The lead needs to contain all the significant details that are brought up in the main body. And there should be nothing significant mentioned in the lead that is not also mentioned (usually in greater detail) in the main body. The lead is a summary of the main body. As regards citations in the lead. Policy is that contentious or challengeable material must be cited. Convention is that minor details which are already cited in the main body don't require citing. If in doubt it is always better to cite than not to cite. But don't cite bomb unless the statement is highly contentious! SilkTork (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on the lead section. I have to mention that when you say "Fail" I am going to assume in this context that there is room for improvement and not a Fail across the board. I'm a little gun-shy over the use of the word "Fail" on GA Reviews... Shearonink (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have just now worked up some more details into the lead and did some C/E on refs etc elsewhere in the article. Shearonink (talk)

The lead is looking very good. I'm impressed. Can we have that bit about him shining shoes in the lead, as I think that is so evocative, and a key part of his story. When looking through sources the other day I think I recall that it was his own business - so maybe he didn't actually shine the shoes himself. Can you look into that? SilkTork (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is now more query than fail. SilkTork (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your personal preference then? Ok. Adjusted the lead section, true that it's a personal & compelling detail. Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but as it's mentioned in the main body and would likely be a point that people would find interesting it seems appropriate for the lead. Such matters are always going to be a judgement call or "personal preference"! ;-) SilkTork (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More information needed on why his harmonica playing was special or distinctive. SilkTork (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that people called him a "Harmonica Wizard" isn't enough? Ok. Shearonink (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shearonink (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am wondering what is wrong with the article's Wikipedia:Out of scope|Major aspects at this time. Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little more on his harmonica playing style, and why people felt it significant would be useful, though there is enough to meet the broad coverage of GA. If wanting to develop the article a little further, particularly for FA, that would be an area to look into. SilkTork (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Why is this cite [1] being used at the same time as this one [2]. I'm not seeing what the first cite is saying that is not in the second, and far superior, cite. SilkTork (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to reference the fact that Mr. Bailey hadn't played for years until he was asked back to the Opry in 1974, plus the fact that I hadn't seen the Smithsonian's photo of Mr. Bailey in-concert anywhere else online. That's why both refs are included. The fact that the Tennessean's article seems more complete was immaterial to me. Shearonink (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have since found, in the course of responding to this Review, other incidences of that performance photo. Nevertheless, is it not available on Commons and I wish to retain the link to it here. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. It's a good photo. You could try asking the photographer (Henry Horenstein) for permission to use the photo on Wikipedia. He would have to agree that others could use it for commercial purposes, provided they credit him, but a number of photographers are prepared to do that for Wikipedia when asked. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. His email is: henry@horenstein.com SilkTork (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some example letters: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. SilkTork (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know yeah, sometime in the future I might do that but for the moment and for the purposes of this review is there any harm in leaving the text & refs as is. Shearonink (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I asked and got permission from the Mortons to use the photo of DeFord Bailey that is at the head of this article. Shearonink (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, nice to be reminded but I do know how to ask for image permissions. Actually just now have sent off an email to Horenstein. Let's see if he responds. The other thing is that that photo is hosted at the Smithsonian and the rights to it might be murky. Shearonink (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Horenstein has declined my request. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Well done for trying. SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, we should spell out an acronym the first time we use it, followed by the acronym in brackets. So "American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)" rather than "ASCAP". SilkTork (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Shearonink (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the short sections per MOS:OVERSECTION, and tidied up the second image at the same time. Additional sections can be introduced as appropriate as the article develops. SilkTork (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Shearonink (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork I believe I have dealt with most (maybe even all?) of your comments in your Review. Is there anything I've missed or have not adjusted to your satisfaction? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look shortly. Though my "shortly" is sometimes not very timely as I frequently get called away to do other things - or, to be honest, simply get distracted! :-) SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pass/Hold/Fail[edit]

Pass. Well done! SilkTork (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1st review by Kyle Peake[edit]

Collapsed - click Show to expand

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 13:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Even though I have some other projects on atm, I will take this article on since it is quite small so can easily be gone through quickly. --K. Peake 13:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail[edit]

Sorry to do this since you have been waiting for days for review, but it has to be done. I was somewhat sceptical of a quick fail upon first looking at the article and I am doing so because not only is the lead too small, but there are citations in the infobox which do not comply with MOS, and it is far from being broad in coverage with only one section, which is jumbled together anyway. --K. Peake 14:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry, days waiting are not a terrible thing, I appreciate fellow WP editors taking their time to do GA Reviews.

But. Quick Fail? I am flummoxed by this assessment. There aren't any clean-up tags, there aren't any copyright violations, it is stable/no edit-warring, it is scrupulously referenced, etc. The article fulfills - according to what you have posted above - at least the following: stable, verifiable, neutral, illustrated.

So about MOS and the lead...MOS:LEADLENGTH states that the length should be commensurate with the length of the article itself - A fewer than 15,000 characters article gets one (or two) paragraphs, every article doesn't have to have a multi-paragraph lead section - I don't see a QF problem with the lead length.

Next about "broad coverage/jumbled-together". If a reviewer thought this was an issue in the course of a review, and it was discussed then I could have taken a look and maybe instituted different sections to hopefully clear at least some of that stated issue up. So that's what I just now did - instituted different sections. As to the coverage not being broad...What I could find is what I could find.

The citations in the infobox that are stated as not being compliant with MOS. What exactly is wrong with them? They are all in the Citation Style 1 template of cite web...Oh! Are you referring to the shortened cites like the JET cite? The order of refs - first appearance and subsequent appearances of a ref in a shortened form - is something that can have easily been overlooked in the course of editing and is easily/quickly adjusted. You've made me, the nominator, guess as to your exact issue with the format (not with the content apparently...) There's nothing inherently incorrectable about the actual cite, it's just a matter of cosmetically moving the full cite to the infobox I have just now done so. So, again, I don't see this as a QF.

I am submitting this article as a GAC again in its now-changed form. Thank you for your thoughts. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink Sorry if I offended you with the fail, I was trying to be fair with it; the issue is that the citations should not be in the infobox if the info is written out in the body, plus the lead is literally three sentences long which is too short even for a small article and it was too far from being broad/also messy in coverage, so do you respect my previous decision? --K. Peake 16:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INFOBOXCITE does not prohibit cites in Infoboxes and it states (emphasis mine):

References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious.

Mr Bailey is almost singularly known for his harmonica-playing so I thought it necessary to cite the fact that he also played additional instruments in the Infobox since I have seen edit wars break out in other musicians' articles' infoboxes about how many instruments they played etc. That additional citing is allowable and is not prohibited.

"too far from being broad" What more should a GA have? Childhood, career, getting fired, resurgence/Hall of Fame Induction...the verifiable facts are the facts. This is a GA assessment not an FA, just because an article is short doesn't mean it can't also be Good.
"messy in coverage". IF the GA assessment process is supposed to help make articles better, saying an article is "messy" tells the nominator nothing about how to improve the article.

Your opinion is your opinion, everyone around here has one. There's nothing for me to disrespect about it, you stated what you stated, that's what you thought about the article. A GAReview Fail isn't immutably written in stone, articles are edited and improved all the time. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

@Shearonink: I have retracted the second GA nomination of this article, as I regret failing it in the first place and believe a second opinion should be allowed for the original review after our discussion on the GAN backlog talk page. This decision has been made for me to change it to that status because I am not too familiar with artists' articles and only reviewed it because I initially thought it was in terrible shape, though apologise for my wrongdoings. --K. Peake 06:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K. Peake. What would you like a second opinion on?

Is it if this article is a quick fail? If so, I don't think it meets the criteria in WP:GAFAIL, and even if it did, failing quickly is not something we have to do, only something that some reviewers do if it appears the nominator is wasting everyone's time. I don't think that Shearonink is wasting our time.

Is it regarding does the lead meet WP:Lead? If so, I agree with you that the lead does not sum up the significant points in the article. There is no mention of his "arguably greatest recording, "John Henry""; no mention that in 1974 he was on "Opry's first annual Old Timers' Show"; no mention that he had polio and "was confined to bed for a year, during which he began developing his distinctive style of playing".

Is it regarding having cites in the lead? If so, then cites are required in the lead in certain circumstances by policy as outlined in MOS:LEAD: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." The guideline regarding cites in the lead is that they are not obligatory for non-contentious statements that are already cited in the main body. But, of course, any challengeable statements must by policy be cited.

Is it regarding the broad coverage? I'd need more time for that in order to do some research into the topic, but I am struck by the comment "his distinctive style of playing", which is not explained further, so I'd be inclined if I was the reviewer to ask for the possibility of more information about that distinctive form of playing.

Anyway. Let me know if I've not already answered your question. Also, if you're fed up with this review (I get like that sometimes), then let me know and I'll take over and finish it off. SilkTork (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork - I'd be happy to work with you on improving the article. I'm in the middle of a GA Review over at Talk:John Warren Davis (college president)/GA1. I hope to get it finished up sometime this week and after that will be able to devote my full attention to getting DeFord Bailey to a GA. It would be awesome to have someone come in and do a thoughtful & complete GA Review.

I do disagree strongly with the previous reviewer's Quick Fail, I think it was completely undeserved. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Peake is the reviewer, so unless he makes no response at all, it is his decision as to what happens. Options are he closes this as a fail, and you nominate again, and I'll take it up. Or I take it over and finish it one way or another, and the outcome will be listed against his name. Or, if he's fed up with it, and just wants to move on, I can delete this review as a piece of housekeeping - the review will never have happened, and I do a new one. Or K. Peake continues with a full review. I'm OK with any of those outcomes. It's up to K. Peake what happens. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Whatever is Wiki-right according to our own particular Roberts' Rules of Order... Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork I have left this review open for a second opinion because I would like someone else to take it on for review, though the article's status as a previous quick fail has been contracted and that is not up for discussion; I will not close this as a fail and have the user re-nominate because that would be pointless. My reason for putting it up for second opinion is because I am an inexperienced editor with articles specifically covering people, so I believe it would be appropriate for someone more well-versed in this area to review the article... do you want to step up? --K. Peake 19:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]