Talk:The Carpenters/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I'll review this article. It's long and complicated, but the topic is important and it should get back to FA.

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:

   Fairly well-written article. I'd say the prose in its 1st half is better than the 2nd. For example, I'd weave in the content from the short sections into other parts of the article. I'll be more specific later.

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

   Follows the standard structure of a music article. Some sections are too short, with 1 or 2 sentences. See my suggestions below.

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:

   I don't have the offline resources you use, but I'm willing to AGF that they're okay. I'm only concerned about 2 sources. The Carpenters' webpage: you might want to try and find other sources for what it supports, mostly because of WP:SPS. Also, I suggest removing ref 32; it's badly written and you have another better source for it. The dating system you use (mmddyy) is fine and consistent, although personally I approve the ddmmyy system. But don't change it on my account! ;)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I just ran this article through the copyvio detector, and it didn't fare well. I suggest that you run it yourself, and then make the appropriate adjustments. I compared the 1st ref listed, and much of it was titles of songs and awards, but it's always a good idea. If you go through it and make very little changes on that basis, I'll AGF and accept it.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Very thorough and complete.

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

   It'd be very easy to go off into excessive detail about the Carpenters' illnesses, but you don't. I wonder, though, if you could discuss more about how Karen's death brought more awareness about eating disorders. (This is just an idea; I won't hold you to it.)

4. Is it neutral?

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

   The article is obviously written about a fan, of course, but remains neutral nonetheless.

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

   There are recent controversies about the "the", and this article suffers from routine vandalism (not surprisingly), but it seems to be managed well.

5. 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:

   Images are good.

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

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See below for more suggestions.

Suggestions

• The prose is fairly strong; like I say above, the quality doesn't decline until late in the article.
• The Singles: Agnes had always considered Richard to be her favorite child, which did not sit well with Karen. This sentence confuses me. Did Karen just found out that Agnes preferred Richard over her, or was it something that had just come up in their family dynamic? If so, why? What does "did not sit well with Karen" mean?

I've rewritten this sentence. The essential gist is that the family expected Richard to be a concert pianist and was the "star", while Karen was just "the other one". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Horizon: By this time, Karen was visibly unwell... Again, unclear sentence. How was she "visibly unwell"?

Basically, the audience could see her on stage and tell that something was wrong. I've rewritten this bit to clarify. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hiatus: Is there any explanation for why Richard became addicted?

I think it was just pressures of work, and probably putting more than what is in the article skirts a little bit too close to WP:BLP, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please find a better and more reliable source for the Grammy photo shoot, if it's possible.

There are two sources cited - Randy Schmidt's book and an archive copy of Cashbox - what's the issue with either? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess my question is if Cashbox is a good source. If you insist that it is, I'm fine with it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Karen's death: Why was she divorced?

I don't have the books I originally used to improve this any more, but I don't believe any of the high-quality sources go into any detail. I think Karen just threw herself headfirst into marriage thinking it was a "grown up" thing to do and move on a bit from their family-friendly image, and it inevitably backfired. However, it sounds a bit too tabloidish to go into this depth. Given Tom Burriss' name was changed in the film, and Richard isn't too keen to bring him up in the duo's history any more than necessary, I think we've got the right level of adherence to WP:BLP as it is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Influences: I don't believe in one-sentence sections, as per MOS:PARA. Perhaps you can put it in the next section, about Richard's musical style, since he was "responsible for the group's sound"?

I didn't add this (it might have been when I was on a brief wikibreak earlier this year and not paying attention), and it's not cited to a particularly good source. Removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Public image: From the start of their career, the Carpenters were coached in interviews... Who coached them and why did they listen?

The management and the record company; they listened, because they realised there was a market for middle-class conservative clean-cut apple-pie Nixon voting record buyers which the underground and psychedelic bands popular in the late 60s didn't cater for. I've added a bit to the paragraph in question. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note h: Why is their opinion about marijuana important? Perhaps you can explain; for example, you can say that their views on drug use where more liberal than their image would suggest, and why. Did they have other liberal views, like what did they think about Vietnam and civil rights? You say that they "privately" favor the legalization of marijuana, but they state it in People Magazine. They talk about other things in that article, too; why not include them?
• Logo: Again, this section is too short. I doubt that you'd be able to expand it, so I suggest that you fold it into another section, perhaps in the "Carpenters and A Song for You" section or in the "Promotion and touring" or even "Public image", since it fits with their squeaky-cleanness.

I've merged it into the main history, since the prose deals with it in context, and the logo can act as a lead image to that section. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)*

• Karen's anorexia - research has uncovered the fact, fairly recently, that eating disorders are much more common in female children who were born in the spring, the reason being that the last trimester was during the winter when the mother's vitamin D level would be at its nadir, the worst month to be born in is March, which was indeed when Karen was born. Here is a link from Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201107/season-birth-and-anorexia.

That's all; not a lot, and most of it picky. I will pass to GA once the above issues have been addressed. Thanks, that was fun, and not as complicated as I thought. It was fun; I love the Carpenters and am not ashamed to admit it! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick holding reply; as suggested on my talk page I am not on-wiki much over the next couple of days, so it’ll probably be the weekend before I get a chance to look at these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that you've addressed the main issues; I was really reaching for things, so I appreciate your willingness to take my few suggestions. I fixed a missing semi-colon and fixed the caption for the Carpenters logo. Nice job; you're good to go for a GA. Congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, thanks also to We hope and The Rambling Man for their previous groundwork in this article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)