Talk:Terry Kath/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 08:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Don't need to use FN1 here when already used in body per WP:LEADCITE

It's a matter of taste, and it's certainly not required one way or another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is mentioned that critics praised him, but this is never discussed in article body..... MAJOR ISSUE

Just removing "critics" leaving "praised by the band" would resolve that. A "major issue" would be a large claim that was totally unverifiable. As it is, I've removed the claim entirely Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "in his teens" → "as a teenager"

I prefer "in his teens", I don't think it matters too much either way Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "mid-60s" → "mid-1960s"

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "His guitar playing was evident on stage and record from the start of the band's career"..... reads awkwardly

Removed (no idea what this means) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "and he took the lead vocal"..... served as lead vocalist

"Sang lead" is better Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• "his future lay in music"..... not the best tone

Changed to "he would prefer a career in music" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• It would help to include his brother's name

I don't have a source that says what it is - can you help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Career

• It might be worth having a "career beginnings" or "early career" subheading at the beginning of this section

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "vocalist/keyboardist Robert Lamm"..... this form is discouraged per WP:SLASH

I'm not sure how else you would describe this, can you advise? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The three musicians regularly socialized outside of the band"..... somewhat vague as it doesn't give much detail on what they did during such times

That's what Seraphine's biography says. I would assume they went out drinking and had a good time, but that's not a very POV of looking at it. What can you advise? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Chicago

• "were integral to the band's sound"..... reads awkwardly

Removed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Kath made several important contributions"..... WP:PEACOCK

Removed

• "The song 'Beginnings' includes acoustic rhythm guitar by Kath"..... source?

Album credits Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is "highlights" from "highlights as a recording guitarist" the best term?

Reworded. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "singing the lead vocal"..... vocals

Are you sure about that? I don't think you can sing two vocals at the same (unless you overdub them)

• Chicago X and Chicago XI should be italicized as they are albums

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Equipment

• "a number of them" → "many of them"

Changed to "several"

• I don't see the need for including how much his first primary guitar cost

I think it adds a bit of colour - it shows he could learn on cheap equipment

Personal life and death

• "Kath was in any way suicidal" → "Kath was ever suicidal"

Just "Kath was suicidal" will do here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "one week short of his 32nd birthday" isn't really needed

Removed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• It would help to include when his daughter Michelle was born and when he married Camelia

I don't have a source to hand, and it's not directly related to Kath himself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

• "left to go solo" → "left for a solo career"

Gone with "started a solo career" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discography with Chicago

• According to WP:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section, only studio albums should be listed here.

Done (also linked to "Chicago discography") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

References

• Capitalize the "M" in AllMusic

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• FN22: needs accessdate

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• FN31: for some reason, this redirects to a link from MTV rather than VH1. Should edit the ref to say it is from MTV, also add accessdate and publisher/work

Bad source, not needed. Removed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• FN36: just links to the general website
• FN41: same error as FN36

In both cases, these are links that have gone dead, changed to Wayback Machine versions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• FN42: this is incorrectly labelled as "LA Times" when it actually is from LA Weekly

Oops. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Overall

• Well-written?: Needs a general copyedit
• Verifiable?: a couple of non-working references and an unsourced statement
• Broad in coverage?: Article has nothing on what critics have said of him or his work except for this (briefly), nothing on his vocal rannge/style, and nothing on themes of his work. Commentary from fellow band members is nice to have, but isn't enough by itself.

I'm sure I can pull something out of Allmusic or the CD liner notes and book sources I have (which are not online) without too much difficulty. What would you advise? The main reason I haven't pull out quotations is because I personally feel it comes across as being too WP:FANPOVish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral?: Not quite up to par
• Stable?: Nothing of concern
• Illustrated, if possible, by images?: All good
• Pass or Fail?: I'm failing this and not putting on hold as it needs—among other things—to be written and have more research before being worthy of GA.

@SNUGGUMS: I have addressed all the issues above. What do you mean "it needs ... to be written"? Will you consider undoing your action and putting the review on hold instead? Oh, and I really don't like big templates on articles I'm afraid, they tend to linger for years and years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie, I failed because the article needed copyediting (I meant "needs to be re-written") and lacked crucial detail. There were too many problems. See for example the "musicianship" sectipns from any of the four Beatles' articles for what to expand on. Sorry, but I stand by my decision to fail without putting the nomination on hold. When I fail a nomination, that means I've made my final decision. Feel free to renominate once fixed up or take this to WP:GAR if you feel I failed too soon, though. Wish you luck for the reassessment/next review. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree (so I don't know which direction to go in - it needs a few tweaks, but two or three editors have had a look and pulled things around a bit, per the talk page) and I've done about 100 GAs (from either side) so you would think I know how to write stuff. And indeed you've passed GAs (like The Beatles (album)) that had a lot more action points against it. So, sorry, but I think I've taken the article as far as I can (per edits today), and I don't feel it needs any more input from me, so I've unwatched it. I don't want to mess around with GAR, and I won't be renominating it. At least it's better now than where it was last week. The only editor who I can think of who would be both interested and qualified is Dr. Blofeld and I'm not sure what he's up to at the mo. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)