Talk:Kind of Blue/GA2

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

GA Review[edit]

Hi! I am reviewing your article and will list my comments here. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The lead section is too short and does not summarize the article. Most of what you talk about in the article, the Conception, the Composition etc., are not summarized in the lead.
  • As described in Wikipedia:Citing sources, when you use a shorted form of footnotes (as you have) you must have a Reference section where you give the full reference for every footnotes, e.g. full title, full authors, ISBN, etc.
  • This statement needs to be referenced by a reliable source. For example, "Kelly may not have been happy to see the man he replaced back in his old seat. Perhaps to assuage the pianist's feelings, and also to take advantage of Kelly's superior skills as both bluesman and accompanist, Davis had Kelly play instead of Evans on the album's most blues-oriented number, "Freddie Freeloader"." is not referenced and it gives an opinion.
  • Further, this statement contains what Wikipedia calls weasel words. "Kelly may not have been happy..." and "Perhaps to assuage the pianist's feelings..." are weasel statements as they hypothesize a situation without stating directly (attributing) who is doing the hypothesizing.
  • You could consider not autoformatting the dates. It is not required anymore, and the "sea of blue" created by the autoformatting hides you "high value" links.
  • This is not my area of expertise, but I thought using modes or modal music had 12 notes per mode and was different from using regular scales. Or am I not understanding the section Conception?
  • I believe that you should be consistent in the type of reference format used for footnotes, and use the same format throughout the article.
  • Cquotes have been deprecated in articles in favor of other forms of quotation. Can't find the citation at the moment.
  • You repeat some information on George Russell under Conception and again under Composition.
  • Otherwise, it is a very nice article. I will put it on hold until you fix the problems listed which should not be hard. All in all, you have done a good job. Please feel free to ask me any questions.

(copied from Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music review:

  • You must have a consistent standard for formatting references. See WP:Citation templates and scroll down to where the templates xxx are. Or go to Template:Cite book. WP:Footnote gives an over all explanation. The issue is to choose a format and be consistent in the article. Always provide the publisher. And when you have a page range e.g. pp.56-67, you must use the pp. The single p. is for a single page. Hope this helps.
  • Everything is taken care of except the following:
  • What does "name-checked" mean?
  • Also, to be strictly correct, the reference citations should be moved out of the lead and put in the article at the place where they are discussed. As we discussed, we can consider this optional.
  • Reference 22 has "take information chapters 3 & 4." What does that mean?

Name-check means mention or cite. I fixed Ref. 22. My bad. Dan56 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if I change it, as it is an unfamiliar term in my world. You can change it back if you feel strongly. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)