Talk:Ralph Patt/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 16:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Over the next couple days, I will go over Ralph Patt to determine if it meets the good article criteria. During that time, I will make minor copyedits and fixes to the page to help clean it up to pass this nomination. After I am done, I will reply here with an assessment and some recommendations. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "He invented major-thirds tuning under the inspiration of the atonal music of Arnold Schoenberg and by the jazz of John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman." This makes no sense, because if you drop out the first prepositional phrase, you will end up with "He invented major-thirds by the jazz of John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman." The word "by" should probably be removed.

Biography

• There are simply too many pictures causing the text to wrap and flow in odd ways. File:Joe Negri.jpg can probably go, along with maybe one of the two diagrams. The Chuck Wayne photograph is probably also unnecessary
• Guitars with seven or eight strings micro-subsection: The title should probably just be removed since it just makes the flow of the article more convoluted.
• Please convert the "books" subsection to either prose or a publications list at the bottom of the article. They are currently formatted as references.
• Return to geology subsection: "Patt studied geology at the University of Pittsburgh" has already been mentioned.
• Death subsection: "Canby is in the metropolitan region of Portland, and it is part of Clackamas County." is unreferenced. You could probably just use a {{cite map}} to source this.

See also

• Please link the PDF as a link rather than an image.

Notes

• Ref 1: I don't think Death-Record is ever likely to be anything but a redlink, so it may need to be delinked. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
• Ref 2: Why is "Biography:" in there?
• Ref 3: This isn't a reference and should be displayed in its own grouping, and the material it contains needs to be sourced. I can move it into its own group if you want.
• Ref 14: The link is already provided in the "References" section.
• Ref 15: This is not a reliable source.
• As an aside, why are the citations linked through the end of the year rather than the end of the last name? I'm guessing this has to do with the template and that there is nothing we can do about this.

Notes & References

• Would it look better if they were presented as:

== Notes ==
  (What is currently ref 3 would go here, since it is a note but not a reference)
== Sources ==
;Footnotes
   (This would be what is currently "Notes")
   ...
;Bibliography
   (This would be what is currently "References")
   ...

Overall, this article appears to be in decently good condition. The main problems have to do with structure and flow rather than with POV issues, unreferenced material, or incompleteness. I hope these comments help! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

I shall quote your comments and give replies sequentially.

"Lead

• "He invented major-thirds tuning under the inspiration of the atonal music of Arnold Schoenberg and by the jazz of John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman." This makes no sense, because if you drop out the first prepositional phrase, you will end up with "He invented major-thirds by the jazz of John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman." The word "by" should probably be removed."
  • Fixed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Biography

• There are simply too many pictures causing the text to wrap and flow in odd ways. File:Joe Negri.jpg can probably go, along with maybe one of the two diagrams. The Chuck Wayne photograph is probably also unnecessary"
  • Those pictures and some diagrams have been removed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• "Guitars with seven or eight strings micro-subsection: The title should probably just be removed since it just makes the flow of the article more convoluted."
  • In hypertext documents, subsections improve accessibility and browsing, at the cost of annoying readers accustomed to traditional texts. In this article, the subsection spotlights Patt's pioneering (if probably not inventive) use of 7-8 string guitars for jazz. You or other editors are welcome to remove the subsection heading, if you like, and I shall not restore it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Please convert the "books" subsection to either prose or a publications list at the bottom of the article. They are currently formatted as references.
  • They have been added to the bibliography, which is simpler than creating a new section of "books" written by Patt. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Return to geology subsection: "Patt studied geology at the University of Pittsburgh" has already been mentioned.
  • I imagine the reader looking at this, at the end of a long day, perhaps after having a beer, and benefiting from a brief review. This is also a transition from music to geology. (I reworded the opening sentence. Does it work?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Death subsection: "Canby is in the metropolitan region of Portland, and it is part of Clackamas County." is unreferenced. You could probably just use a {{cite map}} to source this.
  • I removed this, as OR by primary source, and not of great interest. It was put in to resolve Patt's statement that he lived in Portland and the death notice stating that he died in Canby. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See also

• Please link the PDF as a link rather than an image.
  • Done. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Notes

• Ref 1: I don't think Death-Record is ever likely to be anything but a redlink, so it may need to be delinked. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
  • The same information appears in at least one other site. This is just information from the U.S. Social-Security Administration's index of deaths, which contains the date/location of birth and location and death space-time info. I don't include his other personal information.
• Ref 2: Why is "Biography:" in there?

  This is the body of the article, which otherwise would have a segmented body, like an insect. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 3: This isn't a reference and should be displayed in its own grouping, and the material it contains needs to be sourced. I can move it into its own group if you want.

  Joe Negri's status as handyman Negri is now a note, which has been sourced to NPR. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 14: The link is already provided in the "References" section.
• Ref 15: This is not a reliable source.

  Williams's death-notice is used for the cause of death and a second reference for a few details, e.g. The Vanilla book and the death date (which is given in the Death website using Social Security information). I think that this message in a central jazz-forum is reliable for The Vanilla Book. This seems unlikely to be challenged. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• As an aside, why are the citations linked through the end of the year rather than the end of the last name? I'm guessing this has to do with the template and that there is nothing we can do about this.

  This is due to the Harvard citation template. It allows the use of multiple documents by the same author. (For example, repetitive tuning refers to different chapters of the alternative tunings guide by William Sethares (2001), along with later pdf compilations (2010) and his associated html webpage (2011).)

Thanks for the fixes! I'll just wait for Drmies's reply concerning WP:RS before making any more comments, but it's really starting to look good! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks for your clarifications and fixes, especially pertaining to the removal of the Yahoo groups source. I believe that this article now meets the good article criteria, since it is now reliably sourced and the fair-use issues are dealt with. Thank you for your work, and I will leave the standard review template below! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by another editor

Howdy Kiefer. I'm a hardrocking old man, and this fancy stuff is too technical for me. I bet the guy never touched a Marshall in his life, but I'll make some comments anyway since this is my prerogative.

• I think the lead is a bit disorganized. The second paragraph is real short, and the third seems to pick up where the first one left off--with theory and teaching. (In addition, I'm going to make a tweak to that paragraph: see if you like it or not--I don't think we need to explain what a chord is in the lead of this article.) The fourth kind of comes out of nowhere: it's a professional note but this is not what he is notable for. I suggest you try something to see if you like it: swap the second and third paragraphs and combine the third and the fourth, so you have 1. an introduction to the man citing his notability; 2. a paragraph that continues the technical note struck in the first paragraph; 3. a paragraph that lists his professions sequentially (see my second edit, which aims to enforce chronology). That will make for three notes of roughly the same length--a chord if you will.
• The image of the Hanford Site strikes me as redundant, since that slam isn't the reason for his notability and I don't see that he had anything to do with the thing besides writing a report. That the text is shorter, vertically, than the image is indicative enough, IMO.

Happy days, papa. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Drmies!

Thanks for the good wishes and the help. I've written this mainly on autopilot and with distractions aplenty. :)

I shortened the lede, removing two paragraphs. This is a short article, after all.

Following your suggestion, I removed the Hanford Site picture.

Thanks again for your help! Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Do you have any thoughts about the Death Record or Williams Yahoo message and WP:RS? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Reaper Eternal, for the comments. The i.d. cleansing may be orthodox, but I'm giving page references to the pdf. I think that the html page is more stable, so that's the main page. Most readers will want to just download the pdf file, I'd guess.

I raised the question at RSN yesterday. There've been no comments. Perhaps BLP is worth a try, especially about the SSN info. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There was only one comment at RSN.

The death data seems okay, being based on SS information. The Yahoo Group is not a Reliable Source, unless we know more....

Of course, a Good Article does not need to have every fact based on reliable sources, only contentious facts or claims likely to be challenged. The unreliable source (Yahoo) remains to document unchallenged and non-contentious facts, and so avoid OR (and avoiding OR is a requirement for GA). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Final review

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):

   The prose in this article reads quite well. It could probably do with a good polishing before taking it to FAC, but it reads well nonetheless.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All unreliable sources have now been removed, and information is appropriately sourced to reliable sources. Original research has not been performed, and neither is there close paraphrasing.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers Ralph Patt in as much pertinent detail as appears to be available in reliable sources. A review of magazines and similar sources through my University's online subscriptions yielded no additional nontrivial information.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is neutral and has no peacock phrasing.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The fair-use image controversy appears to be settled.

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 fair-use images are appropriately tagged, and the extraneous ones unnecessary for understanding of the topic Ralph Patt have been removed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article meets all criteria for a good article. Hence, I will pass it. Thank you very much! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions, patience, and your many direct contributions to the article.

Thanks also to Drmies for help.

I added a reference to an article about the Saul Koll guitar recently; when my library delivers the 3-page article, I shall probably be able to write more.

Now that Lloyd Shapley has finally won the Nobel prize in economics, I need to revive the FA nomination of the Shapley-Folkman lemma! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.