Talk:Jack of All Parades

Jack of All Parades has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 30, 2023. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a review for this in the next day or two. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, the article mostly looks good. The one issue that stands out is WP:OVERQUOTING, which happens enough that there wasn't enough encyclopedic text under "themes and reception" for me to fully evaluate criterion one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Thebiguglyalien. I've attempted to address all of your comments. Let me know about anything else that is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose I looked over the revised themes and reception section. The article is just about good to go except for a few points where the wording is unclear or reads awkwardly:

as openly about Costello's love for O'Riordan
and that the narrator was clearly genuine about this
songs that were more affecting than Costello's other output

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thebiguglyalien - I've had another attempt at those. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

I was unable to closely review "Themes and reception" because there's little original prose, mentioned below in criterion two.

Avoid one-line paragraphs per MOS:PARA.
Clarify in the body where he was credited as MacManus and where he was credited as The Little Hands.

I've amended the article per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and one of only three "three songs of relational celebration" – three three

Fixed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The song contains an obscure reference – Obscure according to whom?

I've removed that word, and slightly reworked that part. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Crimes of Paris" was a song on Costello's next studio album, Blood & Chocolate (1985) – Wasn't Blood & Chocolate the previous album?

The year has been corrected to 1986. (King of America was released in February 1986, and Blood & Chocolate came out in September 1986). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a little too long, and it can bleed into the references section on some displays.

I added a "clear" template. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear reliable. The article suffers from WP:OVERQUOTING, which is a common problem in music articles. Given how short this article is, the quotes make nearly half of it a copy-paste construction. It's generally better to paraphrase rather than quote unless there's a good reason not to.

Fair comment! I'll work on this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed quotes (and tried to avoid simply rephrasing them). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

Brackett (2000) – Good.
Griffiths (2008) – Good.
Hinton (1999) – Good.
Gouldstone (1989) – Good.

Broad in its coverage

Covers all of the main aspects. It's on the shorter side, but about what can be expected for a non-single song.

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight.

Stable

No recent disputes, no major updates are expected.

Illustrated

The one image is Creative Commons and the caption explains its relevance. I took the liberty of sizing down the image to limit any stretching into the next section.

Ive added another which I think is relevant, but happy to remove it if you disagree. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.