Talk:Jeff Buckley/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

  • When quotes from Buckley are included, it's best to include where he said it. For example, rather than simply state "The whole family sang," said Buckley. It would be best to state The whole family sang," said Buckley during a 1994 interview with B-side magazine.
  • For the references, they should only be italicized if they are titles, i.e. book, magazine, journal, etc. For websites and other publishers, no italics. Fixed Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Certifications (i.e. gold and platinum) need to be sourced. Sourced certs - couldn't find a source for the 2 million sales part though so deleted that. (Not that i doubt it, US+AUS sales account for over half that amount already)Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Quotes should be formatted with the " inside of the full stop unless it is a full-sentence quote.
    • A fan stated, "This concert was definitely the best ever."
    • A fan stated the the concert was "the best ever".
  • There are quite a lot of quotes. See WP:QUOTE, particularly if you plan to go for FA in the future. I recommend rewriting the prose to avoid using quotes that are not direct quotes. Direct quotes being things Buckley himself said, or [Whatever magazine] calling Grace album of the year, for example. Working out as many of the quotes where you're just quoting text from a page would improve the readability of the article immensely. We want as much of our articles to be original work as possible. So directly quoting other's work should only be done when it can't be rewritten.
  • This seemed out of place, so I've removed it.
  • In regard to the two performances that Buckley considered the best of his career, I removed the dates (April 6 and 7) as formatting was an issue and the timeline was off. The paragraph starts by saying touring recommenced in late April, so it's odd that this happened before that. Removed "late" and Concert dates not necessary. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
  • "From the beginning of September until February 1996, Buckley and the band finally finished touring after over a year and a half. The band was inactive during this period but Buckley played at his old haunt, Sin-é, various times and also performed a New Year's Eve concert at Mercury Lounge in New York." - That doesn't make sense.
  • "old haunt" is not really encyclopedic. Rephrased and fixed. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
  • " The concert on March 1, 1996 was the last gig he played with Buckley and the band." - Are you sure? Source? Sourced Sillyfolkboy (talk)
  • "Much of the material from the tours of 1995 and 1996 was recorded and released on either promotional EPs, such as the Grace EP, or posthumously on albums, such as Mystery White Boy (a reference to Buckley not using his real name) and Live a L'Olympia. Many of the other concerts Buckley played during this period have surfaced on bootleg recordings." Not a perfect source (e.g. discussion of his bootlegs in a magazine/journal) but i think it proves the point given the publisher. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I got pulled away for other matters. I'll pick up tomorrow where I left off. LaraLove 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "Preceding this, the song was used in the movie The Feast of Love, starring Morgan Freeman, which was released on September 28, 2007." - Is there anything that makes Morgan Freeman relevant here? Out of context: removed. Should be placed in a soundtrack section of his discography. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
  • Tribute concerts section needs to be referenced. Concerts referenced. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
  • I think the Documentaries section would be better if it were written out into a paragraph, or multiple paragraphs, with some of the details about each, rather than simply a bullet list. (Note: It appears this was removed.) Readded as a short paragraph on documentaries in "Legacy", still basic info - needs expansion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the Awards and nominations section is the appropriate place to put the Rolling Stone 500 Greatest [Songs/Albums]. This info should be moved up to where the respective songs/albums are first discussed. I also think this section should be in descending chronological order. Fixed, also left them in the Awards section for reference. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's it. I may add more as progress is made, but as it stands, I am placing the article on hold. While there is quite a bit that needs work, I don't think it will take very long, and I will help. As long as progress is being made, the article will remain on hold, otherwise, it will be failed after approximately seven days (June 18). Let me know if you have any questions, and good work so far! LaraLove 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Forgot about this... okay. First, style. All full references should be in the format of: Author-last, First; Coauthor-first Last (Linked date). "Title (with URL)". Publisher: Location/Work. Page(s). Linked retrieval date. - Of course, not all is always applicable, but it's the same format even with not all is used. Now, in the Publisher/Work field, it's only italicized if it's a magazine or book title, etc. For websites, companies, etc., no italics.

I'll be going through the references this week to verify them. Check back here to see if there are any needing to be updated or replaced. LaraLove 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an NNDB ref I saw somewhere; that needs replacing, definitely not a reliable source indopug (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Fixed and replaced. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Are the Browne references ok as they are, seeing as it's written fully in the references section? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Was about to start the whole referencing thing but not sure how to do it. Your advice, Lara, seems to conflict with the wiki template and i'm not sure if that's just a guideline or what. My little brainwave to check Mr. FA Bob Dylan's references revealed that his are as tangled up as his proverbial blue. Even Metallica at six FA months old seems to not have a consistent method. I'm happy to do it like this for ones with weblinks if that's ok.

<ref>{{Citation |last = |first = | title = | publisher = | date = | url = |accessdate=2008-06-13}}</ref>

Only the Browne citations and this - (Cross, Serena (Director). (2002). Jeff Buckley: Everybody Here Wants You [Television Documentary]. UK: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).) do not have associated weblinks as far as i can see so that's pretty much it. Does that look ok? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't use cite templaes at all, that's fine too actually. Only consistency is really a criterion:<ref>[[John Doe|Doe, John]] ([[March 2]], [[2008]]). "[ New research concludes that cite templates suck!]". ''[[The New York Times]]''. Retrieved on [[March 2]], [[2008]].</ref> is perfectly fine. The output is this[1] indopug (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Right! I'm done (phew). I personally checked every website for verification and they all check out(I removed broken ones earlier with the tool). Can someone give it the once over? Also i may have left some little parts of old refs in the text by accident so keep an eye out. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away from this review. Okay, indeed the refs look much better. Now to go through—as I had started, not saved, and now lost—and check that they are reliable... LaraLove|Talk 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Indopug, nice example indeed, hahaha. XD I don't use templates either, but they aren't bad. :p LaraLove|Talk 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

These numbers reflect those of this version.

  • 2 & 6 are not reliable sources, but both references only one thing that is also referenced by reliable sources, thus they can both be removed. Removed. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
  • 10, 11, 16 - 19, 27, 34, 47, 58, 70, 77, 79, & 86. All of these are articles transcribed to Jeff's official website. These would be better formatted to express that. As an example, here's one from Maynard James Keenan, an article I successfully took through FAC with WP:WPTool:
    Borzillo, Carrie (December 1996). "Work With Me". Transcribed from Strobe to Retrieved on 2008-03-18.
Listed in this way now. Sillyfolkboy (talk)

I don't know if transcriptions of RS to non-RS sources is appropriate or not. I mean, the source itself is probably good, but you haven't seen it for yourself. Ideally, you'd want to find the actual source. I'll have to do a little research with this. LaraLove|Talk 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • (FYI: I fixed a couple of the numbers above to represent the linked version)
  • On sources 15/41/51/71/72 could we just remove the web link and refer back to the original copy? Or is that just a bad idea?

Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I think I went to the article after my FF crashed... that's why the numbers were off... though I didn't expect them to change that fast. Haha. Okay, so as for your question, it's not necessarily a good idea because you've not seen the source yourself. I'm inclined to trust these sites that it's an accurate transcription, but I'm not sure how appropriate it would be for WP. I would attempt to find the paper copies, or online archives, or even get into contact with someone who has them via the web. I'll consult with some FA regs this weekend to get further info on this. LaraLove|Talk 03:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I contacted David Gilliver and this is what he emailed back:


The SMH review was typed up by me from the paper as credited. It may be possible to find a reference to it in the archives of the paper ( The other review would have been copied from the Addicted To Noise website. I don't believe it exists anymore. The review is referenced here: [1] but I've no idea whether they're just referencing my copy of the review.

So we have confirmation of the Sydney Morning Herald review's existence but it is not present in it's archives. I'm replacing it with a later review of grace from 97, i intended to provide reviews from its initial release but this frankly does not seem worth the effort when slightly later reviews are easily available. I'm replacing refs 71 and 72 with more recent sources as i don't think it will affect the quality of information given. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's get this done with. I've replaced or removed all the bad source citations. For reference here's what i've done = St. Ann's program cites now replaced with refs:13/14/17 (13 is book cite from google scan of Grace 33 1/3 series) (14 is previously cited source) (17 is pierre perrone independent obit). 51 is gone as we have enough citation anyway. 71 is removed completely, ideally another review should be cited here. 72 is replaced with a different citation. 41 (now 40) may still be problematic. It's taken from the author's official website. Otherwise I think that's it. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


I've reduced the amount of quotations a little. Does the early life/career section look ok? Does it still need doing more in the reviews section in Grace? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Very nice. LaraLove|Talk 03:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)