Talk:Oh Father/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article over the next several days. Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
No disambiguation links or linkrot. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 29 November 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):

   Well written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I checked the online refs, and they all check out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very good amount of detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable with no edit wars.

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):

   The two non-free images and one sound clip have proper fair use rationales. The captions are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• In the References section, there are no references for Morton 2002, Metz & Benson 1999, Fincher 2010, or Kent 2007. Voller 1999 and Browning 2010, which are in the References section, don't seem to have any citations going to them (unless I've missed them?). Moisejp (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  
  • Hello Moise, please find my responses as following: Morton is footnote 3, MEtz is FN 20, Fincher is wrong, changed it to Browning in FN 21, Kent is FN 37 the year was wrong, corrected it and Voller has been removed. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, they all look good now. Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead and Background:

• In the lead it says "Madonna's relationship with her father had soured after her mother died and Tony re-married in 1963." When I first read this I interpreted it like "[Madonna's relationship with her father had soured after her mother died] and [Tony re-married in 1963.]" This seemed to contradict the Background section, where it says that her father's remarriage lead to the rebellion. However, when I read the sentence again, I saw that it meant "Madonna's relationship with her father had soured [after her mother died and Tony re-married in 1963.]" From the point of view it makes perfect sense. It's just a small thing, but I wonder if anyone else reading this could get confused. One solution: "Madonna's relationship with her father had soured after the death of her mother and, in 1963, her father's remarriage." It's not as elegant, though, because "the death of her mother" comes too suddenly. Well, I'm not saying you absolutely have to change this sentence, but have a second look at it, and see if you have any ideas for removing the ambiguity.

About the first issue above, I guess technically since there is no comma after "soured after her mother died", everything that follows that is the same clause, so technically it's OK, but in everyday English people might casually drop that comma and some people could get confused. Yeah, I guess all things considered, if there is a way to remove the ambiguity, it'd be better. But, again, only if you can do so naturally. Moisejp (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little bit. See if its clear now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tweaked your tweak. I think it looks good now. Moisejp (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• In Background, it says "Two years later, her father married..." That's presumably two years after her mother's death? (It's not 100% clear, but that seems most likely.) But then a little later "Because for the three years before he married, I clung to him." It's kind of implied that the clinging started after her mother's death. But then the reader wonders whether it was two years or three. Moisejp (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the explanation here is that for one year before her mother's death, Madonna had kind of started clinging on to her father because she inevitably knew what was coming. After Madonna Sr. passed away, her father was grief-stricken for about two years after which he married Joan. That does technically make it three years isn't it? I would like your suggestion whether any explicit explanation needs to be made here? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess life isn't always neat and tidy with clear-cut starts and beginnings. I'll accept that. Moisejp (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have been continuing my read-through, and so far have gotten to the end of Recording and composition. A few more points:

• I've been making various copy-edits. If you disagree with any of them, don't hesitate to bring them up.
• Not a huge deal, but in the description of Speed-the-Plow it says she got revenge on the men who exploited her, but there is only mention of one man having exploited her. Are the other men the other people invloved in the bet? I guess the reader can just assume there were other problem men in the story. But if you had a good way to clarify that without making it too wordy, it'd be ideal. (But if you have a good reason not to, I'll accept that.)
  • I have clarified this. Thanks for pointing this out. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• At the beginning of Recording and composition, could you clarify what you mean by "she let go of herself"? Possibly change it to a different phrase?
  • Changed it. Basically she vented out all her emotions during the recording. She used to cry a lot in the studios during that album. Her biographies quotes producers saying that it was her "crybaby-breakup" album. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• About the studio, the article says Madonna and Leonard "worked on" the song in the studio in the Garment District. But doesn't that just mean they figured out the arrangements, worked on the vocals, etc. there, and then went for the real recording in a proper studio? It'd be surprising that such a high-profile album wasn't recorded in a professional studio. And the Like a Prayer article mentions some big studios. Or was the studio in the Garment District the place called D&D Recording?
  • The Like a Prayer article is wrong and fabricated I believe. I haven't touched that article for development yet. I have the CD personally and there is no mention of D&D Recording. Moise, the books are right, the songs were all indeed recorded in dingy, and extremely low-profile studios. Madonna did not want to waste time and money on big recording locations and since they were working with live instruments and relatively unknown musicians, it made sense for unknown places where she would be able to hide from the paparazzi who were swooning on her since the break-up with Sean Penn. I can quote you from both O'Brien and Taraborrelli's books. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of Recording and composition, two sets of quoted lyrics are: "Boy your anger was cruel, Oh Father I have sinned" and "Seems like yesterday, I lay down next to your boots and I prayed, For your anger to end, oh father I have sinned." Should "oh father" be capitalized or not?
  • Have corrected this, my silly mistake. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's all for now. I'll try to finish the review within a couple more days. Moisejp (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, one more I forgot: "Like the rest of the songs on Like a Prayer, the lyrics of "Oh Father" are also ambiguous, referring to both God as well as her human father." Maybe this sounds like all the songs on the album may be about her father or about God. That's not what you meant, is it? You could break it up like this: "Like the rest of the songs on Like a Prayer, the lyrics of "Oh Father" are ambiguous; in this song, "Father" can refer to both God and Tony Ciccone." (Or if you have another idea to resolve that, that's fine too, of course.) Moisejp (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  
• All right, now it's later and I have just looked at the Critical reception section. By the way, I was thinking as I was formulating the concern below that some of my points here may go beyond what is required for GA. Even if you didn't make some of these changes, I would probably still pass this. However, since we're in this situation where I'm looking at the article critically, let's take the opportunity to try to make it as good as possible. But if you were to say to me, "Moise, to be honest, I'm really in a hurry and I just want to get my GA and move on," then I won't bring up some of the smaller points.
• So, in Critical reception: "Rooksby said that the "psychobabble" phrases of feeling good about oneself in the song, would have made it extremely popular in the Eighties." I wasn't sure what that was trying to say. The song did come out in the eighties (right near the end of the decade), but it wasn't one of her most popular singles. Does Roosby mean that if it had come more in the middle or at the beginning of the eighties, it would have been more popular? Or is he saying that it was an example a very popular song in the eighties?
  • Again my mistake, I missed the crucial word "early". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• I kind of would like to see a clearer structure to the Critical reception section. (Or maybe there is a logical structure there, but I just haven't seen it.) Right now it just seems like a bunch of random quotes to me. It would be great to have a topic sentence at the beginning that sums up the section (for example "Critical reception of the song has generally been positive"??). Also, possibly, organize it so that the positive reviews are at the beginning and the negative ones at the end. Additionally, for me, Critical reception implies some kind of expression of opinion about the quality of the song, but there was at least one—Gavin Edwards, who described the song as "mournful"—where it just appeared to be the critic's general description of the song, not an opinion about quality. But if for you, that kind of general description is also OK in Critical reception, then fair enough, but I kind of would like to see a clearer structure in the section, so it would be clearer what to expect in the section. Here is the Appraisal section from an article I worked on: Santa-Fe (Bob Dylan song)#Appraisal. It's shorter than yours, but I think you can see the structure is (I hope!) very clear: it has a topic sentence, and the reviews gradually move from very positive to very negative. Moisejp (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely happy to get you as a reviewer. I'm spellbound by the points you are making for the betterment of the article, not many do it actually. Please continue in this way. I will respond in time. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    
    • I have rearranged this section, sorting out the reviews. Merging them and making them flow better. I only found one "pure" negative review though. I had another one from Blender magazine, but that link turns dead now. :( — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• I read through the other sections and did some more edits. This may be my last question: In Liver performance and covers, it says that in the middle of "Live to Tell", she starts singing "Oh Father". So that means she only sang half of "Live to Tell"—she didn't come back to the second half after "Oh Father" or anything like that? It's not a big deal, but I was just curious as I was reading. Moisejp (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes Moise, she sang only till the half of "Live to Tell" and then started from the middle of "Oh Father", but the sources I'm using do not explicitly say this. Hence did not elaborate further. You have any suggestions on this? PS: I'm changing the critical response in the meantime. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, when it's not explicitly written in the sources there's not much that can be done. Sometimes we just have to do the best we can with sources that don't quite give us the details that we wish they would. Yeah, so if I were you, I would just keep that part as it is. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Legolas. Your changes look good. Since it's a longish article (well, longish for a GA candidate, at least), I decided to read through one more time to see if I've missed anything. I started that, and I was hoping to finish today, but I don't think I'm going to be able to do so. One thing I noticed in my read-through so far is this. You have pretty much the exact same sentence in the lead and in Recording and composition: "Musically, "Oh Father" is a pop song, with undertones of being sung like a ballad." (I think just the punctuation is slightly different.) I was going to try to rewrite one of them for you, but then I realized I'm not even totally sure what specifically "undertones of being sung like" means. Anyhow, I'll finish reading through the rest again probably tomorrow, or if not, very soon. Talk again shortly! Moisejp (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mise, I did a simple tweak of the line. That did the magic I wish. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Legolas. About your edit, one thing I was wondering, for you, are "pop song" and "ballad" mutually exclusive? I didn't think they were, but I'm very open to hearing your point of view about this. I almost mentioned this issue before, but with your older version I wasn't totally sure that's what you were saying and that the text didn't necessarily have to be interpreted that way, so I let it pass. But with your change, I think it seems even more clearly to imply that a ballad cannot be considered one kind of pop song. Let me know what you think about this. I'll finish looking at the rest of the article in the next couple of days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have now read through the rest of the article and it all looks good. I made a few more copy-edits in there. I also tried to fix the pop song/ballad issue. If you don't agree with my change there, you can tweak it as you see fit. That's too bad the Blender link doesn't work anymore—I guess you tried the Internet Wayback Machine? If there were one more negative review the balance would be all the better, but oh well, if you can only find the one. All right, great, I'm passing this article. Congratulations! Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)