Talk:Sylvester (singer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zppix (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

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

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:

   Could use some more in lead... however I will leave 24 hours for nom to fix

   Personally I prefer to avoid adding sources into the lead. Certainly, there is no requirement to do so as per the MOS, so long as all of the information in the lead represents a summary of the information in the rest of the article (where it should, and in this case is, fully referenced). Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

   You're entitled to your own opinion and so am I. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

   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:

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Reviewing again per request on my talk.Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

   Please fix aforementioned issues to be passed or failed. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

   Zppix, Midnightblueowl does not have to add cited sources in this way, as they are already obeying Wikipedia policies and procedure for the lead. This is not a matter of opinion. As a reviewer, you are expected to know Wikipedia policy and procedure and the GA criteria. I am offering to assist you with, or take over, this review; would you like me to? All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 16:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from other editors

Per my offer of assistance on the reviewer's talk page, I'm adding some points and comments below. This will take me some time to complete—I'm not a fast reviewer. Some of the deeper elements—2B, 2C, and 2D in the checklist, for example—will have to wait until last, when I have more time.

The article appears comprehensive and generally well written, with only occasional prose hiccoughs that should be smoothed out to reach GA level.

There is overly frequent use of the construction "Xing on Y, Z happened". Please use more declarative past-tense statements throughout.

I did notice that you keep punctuation inside quotes, which is generally against the Wikipedia Manual of Style (see WP:LQ); it would be good to fix this all through the article.

Lead

• Please either add a comma after "Los Angeles" or rephrase to something like "the Watts district of Los Angeles" that's used in the body (not sure if "neighborhood" would be appropriate)

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please add a "the" before "avante-garde drag troupe"

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• "un-amicably": either drop the word—it's not very direct and doesn't add anything useful—or do something else entirely, like replacing it with the phrase "and winning a suit against them for unpaid royalties" (yes, he only received a fraction of what was owed, but he did win).

• I've removed the word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Childhood

• Please add a comma after "Arkansas"; generally, if you have "city, state", you also need to have a comma after the state.

• Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've never seen "Euro-American" used before like this. Is it common, encyclopedic usage? (It recurs once later in the article, yet "white" is also used, and more frequently.)

• I'm not sure how common it is in encyclopaedias, to be honest. However, we regularly use "African-American" so I don't see why "Euro-American" (which is used in quite a few books and such like) wouldn't be acceptable here. We have an article on European Americans, for example. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sylvester and his Hot Band

• third sentence: "heterosexual white males"—was this deliberate on Sylvester's part, both the heterosexual and the white parts (I imagine the "male" part was) or did he pick them only with regard to their playing ability?

• I'm not really sure to be honest. I don't think that it specifies this in the sources (although I could be wrong). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• paragraph 1, final sentence: I'm not sure how the source reads or the entirety of Bowie's quote, but the only part I'd quote is "They've got Sylvester" to avoid the tense shift and make the wording smoother. Also, "the people of San Francisco" is not the sort of locution I'd expect in encyclopedic prose.

• I've made some prose edits accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• paragraph 2, sentence four: rather than start this sentence with the album title that wasn't used, just start it with "The album"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• final paragraph: who is Shapiro and why does his opinion matter?

• Ah, I see the problem here. I introduce Shapiro later in the article but only mention him here. I've made some alterations so that Shapiro is described at the first mention of his name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• resulting in Krasnow cancelling his recording contract: please rephrase; something like "after which Krasnow cancelled his recording contract".

• Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• final sentence: again, I'd recommend deleting "un-amicably"; "broke down" is sufficient, and what would be notable would be if it were a friendly split

• Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Two Tons O' Fun

• After a brief sojourn to England: I'd make this "in England"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• The phrase "his backing singers" appears twice in two sentences. Please vary.

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Employing Brent Thomson as his new manager, she suggested: a few things here. First, when did Sylvester fire his previous manager? Also, make the new manager a declarative statement, and if Brent is indeed a she, you'll want to explain this further.

• Unfortunately I'm not sure what happened to Sylvester's previous manager. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• with Sylvester being enamored with one of those auditioning, Again, make it a new sentence: "Sylvester was enamored with one of those who auditioned", though "enamored" carries the literal meaning of "in love with", so you might want to choose a different word.

  I've gone with "captivated", which I think is an improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• his-then guitarist: should be "his then-guitarist", or better, "his guitarist"; it's the guitarist who played that show (and others, obviously). When did Wirrick start playing with Sylvester, anyway? After Dunstan and Reich? Before?

• I'm unsure when Wirrick joined the group, although have changed the prose to "his then-guitarist". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Initial summation

That's all I have time for now; I'll continue at a later date. There is some work to be done, but nothing should be difficult. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, BlueMoonset. It's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Midnightblueowl. Rather than continue, I'll leave the reviewing to Prhartcom, who will be doing a complete review now that Zppix has withdrawn from GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, see the last point at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA reviews and approvals in under ten minutes from new reviewer; it looks like we're going to work together again, are you willing?  :-) — Prhartcom♥ 19:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer Prhartcom; I'm happy to hear your input in the article, although given the problematic nature of Zppix's recent actions, I would suggest that BlueMoonset take on full control of this particular GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I misunderstood. I thought that the message indicated that you were going to guide Zppix in re-reviewing this (which I wasn't too enthusiastic about); now I see that you are actually going to take on their position as a reviewer, which I am more than happy with! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy as well; I am quite fond of you, Midnightblueowl, and it's wonderful working with you again; it's been too long. Now, as you correctly pointed out, BlueMoonset has done an impressive job above, starting this review. Let us build on that. I see you have already improved the article according to their suggestions; that's great. Please allow me a few days, and then I will provide my review on a GA2 page. All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, there's no need to open a new review page; you could simply start your review in a new level-3 section below. It's typically (but not always) done that way, and I'm happy to update this page to show you as the primary reviewer if you'd like. (If you'd prefer the new page, though, that's fine, too.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you; it's just procedural, Just to allow the statistics to show that I am performing another review. Midnightblueowl, please place the nomination template on the article talk page again. Thanks again. —Prhartcom♥ 16:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the proper procedure when a reviewer withdraws is either to continue with the original review or to place it back into the pool of nominations while retaining the seniority of the original nomination: up the page number of the GA nominee template by one, and remove the value from the status field. I've done that, Prhartcom, so all that needs to be done is for you to open the review; Midnightblueowl doesn't need to do anything. I'll add a note that you'll be taking this on so that no one slips in before you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Easy. Thanks BlueMoonset; I am always learning from you, it seems; many thanks. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 01:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)