Talk:Feminist Improvising Group

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Feminist Improvising Group/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one; sorry you've had to wait so long for a review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for picking it up. I'm not in any hurry, so take your time. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Let me start off by thanking you again for taking on this interesting subject. I think this article's off to a good start in its research, and it seems to cover its topic as comprehensively as it's reasonably going to. My main concern is so far is that it presents a lot of material in Wikipedia's voice that seems to shade into opinion and interpretation, or that would be better attributed to the primary source. In many cases here, the reliable sources say something like "X says that Y happened" (rather than just "X happened"); I think it's not wise to shorten those to factual statements of "X happened". As a side note, I'm also concerned that Georgemckay.com, on which the article relies at a number of points, may not be a reliable source--it appears to be a self-published website.

I haven't worked all the way through the article yet, but this was coming up enough that I thought I should stop and get your thoughts. Let me know your take, and thanks again for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "FIG were also educational in that it exposed free improvisation to uninitiated women, and it introduced feminism to uninitiated men." -- A few quibbles with this sentence: The pronoun switch from plural to singular is confusing here--a band can legitimately be either, but it's probably best to keep this consistent in the article, and definitely confusing to switch midsentence (FIG were... in that it...). Also, I realize that the goal here is parallelism, but I feel like usually the syntax would be reversed: "exposed women to improvisation". Lastly, I can't see that particular page of the source, but "introduced feminism to uninitiated men" seems a bit odd--were there really men buying tickets for this group in the late '70s who had never heard of feminism before? (Sorry to load so many nitpicks onto one sentence!)
  • I've changed FIG from singular to plural in the lead and the "Influence" section (in British English bands are generally referred to in the plural). The source (Smith, p.239) reads "FIG was [Smith, Canadian, uses singular] able to introduce feminist politics to a largely uninitiated group of men, as well as introduce free improvisation to a largely uninitiated group of women." —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hm. I'm worried that the paraphrase here is still a very superficial rearrangement of Smith's language. I don't mean to suggest that you've done anything shady, just that it's difficult to write fresh material when a topic like this has so few sources. How about just something like "exposed new audiences to improvisation and feminism"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I've replaced the text with "exposed new audiences to improvisation and feminism" as you suggested. See also Second round comments below. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Male heterosexual improvisers typically dismissed women in audiences as not important, seeing them as "either wives, girlfriends, or groupies"." -- this judgement seems like it also should be attributed in-text to Smith.
  • Attributed to Smith. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Speaking generally, I'm a little uncomfortable this article's heavy reliance on Smith's opinions. Her judgments are rather sweeping--men related to the women on stage this way, women related to them this way, etc. A statement like "Male heterosexual improvisers typically dismissed women in audiences as not important, seeing them as "either wives, girlfriends, or groupies"" seems to me to shade enough into opinion/interpretation that Smith's name should be in front of it. The extensive quoting of Smith also effectively drowns out other voices here, like Myers, Soames, or Pier; of the six paragraphs of analysis, five seem to be predominantly or entirely Smith, with a block quotation thrown in to boot. I realize that Smith may be the only detailed analysis here, but it still seems to me to raise POV issues to draw on her so extensively. I'd suggest cutting Smith's role in this section to 2-3 paragraphs, and making it clearer that all of this analysis is hers.
  • Would removing the block quote help? I've addressed the attribution issues you've raised, but if you still feel that too much is sourced to Smith, I can look at reducing that. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Re-reading it, I think I'm comfortable with the balance now that more of the text is clearly attributed to her. She does seem to be the only source that's offered detailed analysis, so that's fair enough. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• "This was a bitter pill for the members of FIG to swallow " -- rewrite per WP:IDIOM
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Critics of The Feminist Improvising Group were always either very positive, or very negative; there was never any middle-ground" -- this seems to be just a quotation from Roefls, not even a statement by Smith herself--this should clearly be attributed to Roelofs in-text rather than presented in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Attributed to Roelofs. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• "They received little support from male improvisers, who criticised their technical ability and referred to them as "women" and not musicians" -- this, too, appears to be a statement by band members rather than Smith
  • Attributed to Nicols & Roelofs. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Is Georgemckay.org a reliable source? It appears self-published, which isn't a good start.
  • This is self-published, but George McKay is a notable academic and writer who has published several books (see here), including Circular Breathing: The Cultural Politics of Jazz in Britain, which is cited in this article. Is that sufficient to make this a reliable source? Alternatively, the interview with Maggie Nicols that this source publishes is also published here by the University of Salford. I could use that as a source. What are your thoughts? —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think that's sufficient, especially since nothing here seems terribly controversial. If the University is also publishing it, that's good enough for me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• "They also complained about FIG's "irreverent approach to technique and tradition"" -- this needs to be attributed to Nichols
  • Attributed to Nicols. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• "generally felt threatened by the "spectacle of so many unsupervised and unpredictable women on the stage"" -- it seems a little inaccurate to state this as fact, when even Smith is posing this as a question; this paragraph is highly speculative. At the very least, I'd suggest clearly attributing this speculation to Smith in-text.
  • Attributed to Smith and reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Guitarist Eugene Chadbourne said that "gendered style as well as sexual difference factored into the critical assessment of FIG's performances." -- this should be rephrased to make it clear it's a quotation from Smith rather than Chadbourne. (I was surprised that a 1970s guitarist was using such contemporary academic jargon...) It seems better to quote Chadbourne directly, but if you want to include Smith's interpretation of his statement, her name should be in there somewhere, too.
  • Quoted Chadbourne directly. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Avant-garde musician Alexander von Schlippenbach also complained about FIG being there, saying that they "couldn't play [their] instruments" and that he could have found "loads of men that would have played a lot better"." -- it should be made clear that this is Nicols recollecting von Schlippenbach.
  • Attributed to Nicols and reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• " Improvisers Steve Beresford and David Toop were also in the audience and responded positively to FIG's performance" -- the source doesn't appear to actually say this. First of all, it should be clear that this is taken from a primary source (Nichols' recollection); second, she says that she feels she influenced the later scene, but she really doesn't discuss Beresford and Toop's reactions that night: "The second-generation improvisers like Steve Beresford, David Toop were there in the audience, and I really feel that FIG was tremendously influential on all of that scene that soon developed." -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've removed that statement – I obviously misread the source. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review so far. I'll get onto this in the next few days. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed all but two of the issues you raised above (thank you for pointing out my mistakes, particularly my lack of/incorrect attributions). The remaining two I've given my thoughts, please let me know what you think. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bruce, for tackling all these so fast. More to follow later, but just wanted to say again how much I appreciate your work on the article despite my long list of nitpicks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Second round

Okay, looks like much of the above is addressed, so I'm adding an arbitrary break for clarity. I still see a few small concerns but I think we're closing in.

• "FIG were generally not well received by male improvisers, who criticised their technical ability and their "irreverent approach to technique and tradition"" -- needs to be attributed in the lead as well, that this is according to Nichols (or group members generally?).
  • Attributed to Nicols. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• " FIG redefined free improvisation by introducing "social virtuosity","-- this seems like another sentence that could use "according to Smith"
  • Attributed to Smith. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• "FIG were also educational in that they exposed free improvisation to women unfamiliar with the genre, and introduced feminism to uninitiated men." -- this should be tweaked in body as well as lead to avoid the closeness to Smith's language. Alternatively, I think if it's more explicitly attributed in-text to Smith, it's okay to closely paraphrase her language, but I bet you're tired of doing that. =) Your call how to handle that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In the lead I used the text you suggested in the Initial comments. In the "Influence" section I reworded that sentence to (hopefully) avoid close paraphrasing. Please let me know if you think it's still too close. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed all the points you've raised – please let me know if there is anything else. Also, thanks for all the copyediting I see you've been doing on the article. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for your quick responses. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	For a short article, the lead may be a little longer and more overdetailed than recommended by WP:LEAD; the quotation about lesbian sexuality and the Musics review could probably be cut, for example. But I do think it's within policy enough to meet the GA criteria.
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.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA