Talk:Red Headed Stranger/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

Crisp article. Good job.

2nd opinion[edit]

The nominator requested I give a second opinion on the article. I'm looking it over now.

Reviewer: – Quadell (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:GDuwen

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. The prose is excellent, and a pleasure to read.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Very good.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The References section is good.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. Sourcing is excellent. Statements are verifiably backed up by the sources, and reliable sources were used (rather than blogs or self-published books). I detected no plagiarism.
2c. it contains no original research. Avoided due to excellent sourcing.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Very good.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No problems.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The selection of reviews helps this adhere to NPOV.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No problems
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. The image is appropriate. The 3 samples are more that I would use, but are not outside of policy.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Captions on samples are very good.
7. Overall assessment. Congratulations!
  • 1a: The lead refers to "sparse arrangements, largely limited to Nelson's guitar, piano and drums", but the Background and Recording section refers to "arrangements of acoustic guitar, accompanied only by piano". But there were drums, and harmonica, 2nd guitar, bass, and mandolin as well. I think the way the lead puts it is accurate, but not the description in the body.
  • 1b: The "Reissue (2000)" section lists all the same information as the previous section, including a link. I think it would be a more appropriate to list only the added tracks, as they do in featured articles Illinois (album) and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses).
  • 1b: Nelson's review is quoted at length, using 152 words of a review that is only 761 words long (excluding quoted lyrics), meaning you have produced nearly 20% of the original parts of the review. That's too much; the length of the quote should be cut in half.
  • 1b: Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize all sections of the article. There needs to be something in the lede about the movie and "in popular culture", even if it's a single sentence saying the album was the basis for a movie and has influenced popular culture.
  • 1b and 2b: The lede claims the album "made Nelson one of the most recognized artists in country music", but this is not mentioned in the body and so is not sourced. If there is a source for it, it should be mentioned and sourced in the Reception section. (If not, the claim should be removed.) Similarly, the lead says "The title of the album would become a lasting nickname for Nelson", but this isn't mentioned in the body or sourced there.
  • 3a: Is there any information on how this album influenced his subsequent albums? I think that would be important to mention. Also, I see from the Willie Nelson article that "The album included a cover of Fred Rose's 1945 song 'Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain', that had been released as a single previous to the album, and became Nelson's first number one hit as a singer." I'd say that was worth mentioning.
  • 6a: The samples are of appropriate length and quality. My only concern is that there are three of them. Looking at many featured articles on albums, most have only one or two ogg files as samples. I don't know if this is a problem, but it's outside of the norm. Would two samples be sufficient?


I have assessed the concerns previously remarked.
  • About the sound samples: I added particularly those three, because I think that the order provides the reader of a good example of the context of the story as well as the particularity of the raw sound that distinguishes the album. I decided to used three based on the GA Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music, which uses four sound samples.--GDuwenTell me! 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. This article passes all criteria, and is a fine example of what an album article should be. – Quadell (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)