Talk:Stanford Fleet Street Singers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I will review this article, at the request of the nominator. I have a soft spot for Stanford, having a beloved sister-in-law who attended as an undergrad, and as the main editor of the FA Stanford Memorial Church. Should be fun! I typically use a template for a general review, and then make more specific comments afterwards. Hope you don't mind, but I did some minor copyedits; I find that it's easier and takes less time than directing you to make insignificant grammar corrections. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

For the most part, this is an interesting and well-written article. It has a few global issues that should be addressed before it's promoted to GA, though.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There are some issues with the prose; see comments below.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The format of this article is fine. I especially like that you put notes at the end of your tables. I never thought of doing that; I will probably steal it! ;)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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:

   There are access and source utilization issues. See comments below for feedback regarding sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Is there any way to add more images? Personally, I like to put in at least one image per section or subsection, if possible. How about a sound file of one of your recordings?

   Reply: Put out a call to members I know and managed to secure an image of the early years! Still working on a image for 1992-2003, but it's been slow finding people with any images at all, let alone sorting out the rights. Unfortunately I do not have the rights to publish any audio recordings in the public domain (although it was a great idea!). —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not surprised. Maybe more will come in the future, but it's not a reason to not promote this article to GA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

1. B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is pretty close to GA. I'll happily promote it once you address my comments/feedback. Good luck; I'll give you the customary 7 days. It was fun reviewing this article, and learning yet another aspect about a school I never attended. ;)

Prose

• Most of the paragraphs from the "1992–2003: Growing prominence" subsection are too small; for example, paragraph #4 is only one sentence, something that's frowned upon in WP, as per WP:Paragraphs. I suggest re-working the paragraphs, perhaps by simply combining the paragraphs or by expanding the content. One suggestion is to take some of the quotes you included in the reference section (for example, ref20), and rewording them. For example, you could state: "Over the summer break in 1992, Fleet Street performed in a weeklong appearance at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, their first show outside North America. The festival's program notes called Fleet Street "one of the U.S.'s. premiere a cappella groups", and praised them for their theatrical style, musicianship and "outlandish humour".
  • Reply: I love your solution for the Fringe Festival, and I'll look into that for both the Fringe Festival and the Daily Show appearance. I'll review these two and other opportunities to make sure short paragraphs aren't overly emphasizing their subjects! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done (Quote incorporation) for Festival Fringe. Great idea to include the quote! Unfortunately the Today show's program note seems more for internal use and doesn't provide a worthy quote. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Partially done (Short paragraphs). I reviewed this whole section and fixed the most egregious paragraphs (thank you for your help)! I tried combining some different paragraphs to produce longer ones, but they're currently very thematically distinct and it read as unnatural to combine them. I have maintained separation of paragraphs by theme/topic for the time being. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• The same issue appears in both the "2004–present: Original music" subsection and the "Group identity" section.
  • Reply: Definitely agree in the case of the "2004–present" section. In the case of the "Group identity" section, I was already having trouble trying to avoid combining ideas that were too disparate (that section covers (1) being atypical, (2) being student-led and having student officers, (3) having 12–16 members, (4) selecting members via audition, (5) auditions involving a joke, which was a detail a peer reviewer liked in the source, (6) traditional uniform, (7) Penguin iconography, and (8) The group's name being a reference). Let me review these sections and do my best to make sure paragraphs aren't too short; I'll ask a question here if I'm still struggling with weaving together disparate ideas after I've tried harder, within the next few days. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply (update): Just re-saw your advice on this section immediately below here. Will consider, incorporate and revisit in the next few days! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done: Fixed small paragraphs "2004–present: Original music" —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Done: Addressed small paragraphs in "Group identity" (below)

• "Group identity" section: I wonder if you could restructure the paragraphs. Here's how I would do it; you can take or leave as much of it as you like:

Fleet Street is a student-led organization; the group's music director, business manager, and singers are always Stanford students.[6][13][46] The group consists of a rotating set of 12–16 members, with new members selected each September through two rounds of auditions. At auditions, students are asked to bring a joke, and are assessed on how well the blend with the group vocally.[1][2][47] The group wears a uniform of black tuxedo vests and red bowties, a staple of the group since its founding.[4][33] Penguins also feature heavily in the group's visual identity, appearing on eight of their eleven albums' covers. The name "Fleet Street" is a reference to the musical Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, itself a nod to the group's musical roots in barbershop music.[1][2][3]

In a 2010 interview, music director Julian Kusnadi said, "We're not very concerned about being typical!"[36] That perspective has run in the group for decades: "This is not something that singing groups normally do," said singer Rob Morris when interviewed about a Star Wars-themed computer-animated short film the group made in 1997, at a cost of 1,000 hours and $2,500.[43] In 2010, The Stanford Daily described Fleet Street as "characterized by its creativity and off-the-wall silliness."[36] In 2011, The Daily reported on Fleet Street's May show, calling it, "filled with the silly, goofball antics the tuxedoed singers are known for."[45]

•  Not done. Thank you for this suggestion! This is a challenging section because of the raw number of different ideas. After spending some time working on different ways to reduce the number of paragraphs, I fear they all involve, in one way or another, combining too many ideas into one paragraph for it to make sense. I propose keeping three paragraphs (though they may be short), to express three succinct ideas: (1) identity of their work (atypical/creative), (2) identity of the organization (student-related), and (3) visual identity. Happy to revisit if you'd like me to! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with all the above. I still think some of the paragraphs are too short, but I'm willing to let it go because it's a picky point and shouldn't get in the way of this article's promotion. I still think, though, that you can combine the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the 1992-2003 section because they're both about the recording of the album. I also think you can combine the 4th and 5th paragraphs because they're both about the group performing at festivals. But that's just my opinion; I leave you with the choice to follow my ideas or not. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Thank you for highlighting these ways to do it in particular! I combined them, re-read, and agree they can afford to be combined. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Rudy Galindo paragraph: I'm focusing attention on that 'cause I was asked to by the nominator.

"In March 1996, World Champion figure skater Rudy Galindo skated to Fleet Street's recording of Franz Biebl's "Ave Maria" at the World Figure Skating Championships." I'm not sure if the sources you use support this statement. As I've already stated on my talk page, using YouTube clips (ref23) isn't encouraged. I suggest that you either put it in a note or in the "External links" section. Additionally, the commentator wrongly attributes "Ave Maria" to Schubert, another reason you shouldn't use it as a reference. I don't have access to the Stanford Daily reference (ref24, see my comment below), so I don't know if it supports that Biebl was the composer. Ref25 only supports that Galindo used the music for his short program in 1996, so you should add the info about his short program. I suggest that you use this source [1]; technically, it's a self-published source (see WP:SPS), but I'd use it anyway for comprehensiveness sake. If the Stanford Daily source doesn't support the info about the composer, you should remove it.

•  Done. Thank you for your detailed help here! I revamped this first part of the paragraph with your suggestions, both relating to sources and the specificity of the information they support. I removed the video source, added the autobiography and incorporated a quote from it to better tell the story of Galindo's selection. My initial thought on including mention of the composer (Biebl) was that it might be important to note that Fleet Street didn't use the far more famous arrangement by Schubert (which would be the default assumption). The album liner notes support this explicitly and might provide a good source for the composer's name, but perhaps that level of detail is not necessary... I've removed mention of the composer and just ensured the blue link is to the correct arrangement. The Stanford Daily source remains (see discussion on source access below). —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Following that performance, Galindo commissioned Fleet Street for a new song: a cover of Bette Midler's "The Rose". Galindo performed to that recording in late 1999 at both Ice Wars and at the World Professional Figure Skating Championship." Ref26 states that "The Rose" was "specially recorded for Galindo", not that he commissioned them for it. That's important because most music used for figure skating is re-recorded, so that the pieces fit into the allotted time for their programs and for other reasons. This illustrates why we avoid blogs. You should use it, though, for comprehensiveness, but state something like: "Following that performance, Galindo used Fleet Street's cover of Bette Midler's "The Rose" in late 1999 at both Ice Wars and at the World Professional Figure Skating Championship." I know I'm being picky, but it illustrates a point, which I'll make below in my discussion about your references.

•  Done! Thank you for your advice. Given "The Rose" doesn't appear on any albums, I assumed it was commissioned-- but I appreciate your broader perspective from ice skating! I've reworded per your recommendation. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this is really picky and has nothing to do with the article, but the two pieces by Schubert and Biebl are not the version of the same song; they're different settings (or tunes) to the famous Christian prayer, "Hail Mary". Ave Maria is "Hail Mary" in Latin. There are numerous settings of the prayer that have been composed over the centuries. My personal favorite is Schubert's. ;) But thanks for following my suggestions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Watch your commas. Although I personally prefer the Oxford comma, your uses are up to you, but make sure that you keep them consistent, please.
  •  Done! I reviewed the entire article and it now uses the Oxford comma in all cases. Thanks for catching this! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• I only checked 6 The Stanford Daily links, which bring up an error message and state that payment is required. (Ref36 works fine.) Are there more accessible sources? I suspect that there is; you may have to hunt for them. Many of your sources seem to be from The Stanford Daily; a university newspaper isn't as reliable as other sources, but sometimes it needs to be included for comprehensiveness sake. For a GA, it's fine, but it may become an issue if you take it further to an FAC. I'd like you to, however, assure me that these were the best sources you could find to support your content, and I'll assume good faith and take your word on it.
  • Reply (RE: Inclusion of The Daily): I've done a pretty comprehensive bit of searching about Fleet Street (across digital and print media) over the last two years and these Stanford Daily articles are pretty important. Their prevalence in this article (I believe they comprise ~25/100 sources) is indicative of their breadth of coverage of Fleet Street over the years (as it is the newspaper of record for the Stanford area). It fills holes in Fleet Street's history no other sources can quite fill. Where they are included, I believe they are among the best sources (if not the best sources available). Where they could use help, I've done my best to support or replace them with other sources such as critical reviews, program notes, official award notices, books, and more —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation makes sense, so I'll accept it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply (RE: Paywall): I tried to replicate your problem with the link but wasn't able to replicate the paywall. There's a banner at the top that asks for a $5 donation but nothing else. I checked with a mobile connection, and checked references 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, and 14. I do know that the Stanford Daily Archives changed their website in the last few months, so I ought to go through and replace the links for every Stanford Daily Archive source. I will do this in the next few days! I will also try different system configurations to see if I can replicate the paywall, in which case I will work to either create article clippings available to all or I will indicate the paywall with a note in the references. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with this, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. It seems they updated their website circa February 2020. I went through and replaced all 23 stanforddailyarchive.com links with correct and up-to-date links to archive.stanfordddaily.com, which should point directly do the correct article inside the archived newspaper issue. I tried a number of different systems (mobile, desktop, Safari, Firefox, and Chrome) and was still unable to reproduce the paywall, so I'll mark this done for now. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ref23: I think it's okay if you use the YouTube clip, but not to support the statement, especially since it doesn't state that the song was recorded by Fleet Street. I suggest that you either put it in a note or in the "External links" section.
  •  Done: Removed it. With the new Galindo book source added and the removal of the composer's name, it's unnecessary to support the information in the article. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Source utilization: I haven't gone through the entire article, but I found problems in how you use sources in this article. It was most apparent in the information about Galindo as discussed above. Your sources need to support your statements. I suggest that you read WP:SOURCEMINE. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Mostly done. Thanks for highlighting this for me! I fixed two issues in the Galindo paragraph with your above recommendations (thank you!). I reviewed the rest of the article, and, with the Daily sources, almost everything seems to me to be directly sourced.
  • Question: The most challenging section for me otherwise was the mention of the song "The Dirty Golden Bear". The source calls it a "classic Fleet Street tune" alongside "Masochism Tango" and the "Stanford Hymn Rap". This article's statement "They often subverted songs like these for humorous effect" refers to at least the Dirty Golden Bear and the Hymn Rap-- but the description of "The Dirty Golden Bear" ("They sang a parody of UC Berkeley's official fight song, with alternate lyrics lampooning the rival school's mascot") is not supported by the source. I suppose it's simply explanation of what "The Dirty Golden Bear" is (discoverable by listening to the song and by following links to the explanation on its own page. Is this type of prose permissible via WP:MINREF, or should I find a better, direct source for this?

I'm not generally supportive of much explanation, especially if there's a link to it. Since there isn't in this case, I think that some explanation is acceptable. The source doesn't call "Dirty Golden Bear" a parody of Cal's official fight song, though, so yeah, I think that you need to find a more direct source which supports your statement. The source also doesn't support that the group subverted songs, so I think that unless you find a better source, you need to remove the statements. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Thank you for your advice! I did some digging into the history of the song and found some relatively substantial information (given the subject), which I used to expand the song's original article (Fight for California). I pulled the best couple new sources I found to support the statements in this article. I re-organized that initial section ("1981-1991: Stanford patronage") to better communicate and support the ideas expressed in it.

Replies / Timeline / Progress

17 March 2020: Thank you so much for your thoughtful review! I'm sorry for the delay on my end. COVID-19 reached my country and I had to move. I am reading through your comments and will work on them and reply one-by-one. I expect to have most of them replied-to and given a status, if not completed, within the next few days. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

7 May 2020: Thank you for your patience, Figureskatingfan! I've finished going through the article and your review, and I've done my best to improve the article per your recommendations. Three replies/questions worthy of your particular attention (all elaborated upon in-line above):

• I replied to your question about inclusion of The Stanford Daily sources
• I replied to your paywall concern
• I would like your advice on an instance of source utilization in the section "1981–1991: Stanford patronage"

Let me know what else I can do, if anything, at this stage! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

8 May 2020: I think that this article is good enough--har har--to be a GA, so once you fix the one issue above, I'll go ahead and pass it. However, I still think that you don't take advantage of your sources enough, especially in the above-mentioned section. I don't think it's my place as a GA reviewer to take up this space to try and explain how you can better use your sources. Instead, I'm willing to demonstrate it in draft-space, if you like, and you can decide if you want to use it. I think that if you used your sources more effectively, the article can be expanded, which would improve this article even further. If you like, we can discuss it further. For now, what you include is adequate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed advice here! I've incorporated your latest round of recommendations into the article and replied in-line above.

Beyond that, I'd love to improve. When you mentioned WP:SOURCEMINE above, I went through to make sure statements were supported by their sources. But I see what you're saying (and what SOURCEMINE says) about there being additional information left on the table. I've often approached this article story-first, looking for sources that build out the story, instead of source-first, looking for information to go anywhere, so I would appreciate your guidance in that regard (if and/or when you have time). —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, I think that this article is fine for a promotion to GA, which I will do now. Congrats on your first GAN! I'll put this on my radar and perhaps will see if I can find more info to add. You might be surprised about how far you can take this article. Stanford Memorial Church was one of my first FACs; I learned a lot while working on it. One of the most important lessons was that improving articles can take you to places you never imagined going. I stumbled upon the MemChu article, correcting typos, grammar, and sourcing issues, and as I researched it, I found that there was enough information out there to eventually bring it to FA. I also learned things about church architecture, two earthquakes, organs, the Stanford family, and of course the campus itself. One of the biggest moments in my life was when I visited the campus and the church in 2012. You never know; perhaps this article will surprise you, too. Best of luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)