Talk:The Notorious Byrd Brothers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Great to have you handling the GA review for this article Jezhotwells. I was also involved with Rlendog in getting the "Chimes of Freedom" article (which you recently reviewed and passed) up to GA standard. I'm looking forward to working with you to get this article passed. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The Notorious Byrd Brothers contains some of the band's most ethereal and laid-back music. This is cited but it needs an attribution, e.g. Ric Menck (if it is he) says.  Done

   OK, I've done this with some slight alterations to incorporate a mention of the cohesiveness of the album as well. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

   The recording of The Notorious Byrd Brothers, during the latter half of 1967, was marked by severe internal dissolution and acrimony. - "dissolution"? I am not sure that is quite the right word.  Done

   Well, it's a reference to the group breaking into fragments and splitting apart — David Crosby being fired and Michael Clarke leaving, coming back, and then being fired. If memory serves I think that the word "dissolution" was already in the article before I started editing Wikipedia but I left it in because it seemed like a good fit since the word means "Decomposition into fragments or parts" according to TheFreeDictionary.com. I guess we could also use the word "disintegrate" as in "was marked by severe internal disintergration and acrimony" but I'm not sure that sounds quite right. Any ideas or thoughts on the matter? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

   No, thinking about it, leave it in - its fine

   His debut solo album (co-produced by The Byrds' current producer, Gary Usher, with both Clarke and Hillman playing on it) Should this be "then current"?  Done

   Yes, I think it probably should and I have amended it accordingly. What I'm trying to say is that Clark's debut solo album had been produced by Gary Usher, who was working with The Byrds on The Notorious Byrd Brothers at the time that Clark rejoined the band. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

   In more recent years, Rolling Stone senior editor David Fricke phrases like this have a tendency to look dated.  Done

   OK, I've been more specific with the year. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   ref #55 [1] is a link to a personal website - was this article published elsewhere? Is Paul King notable in any way? What we need is something to authenticate this.  Done

   I've replaced this with a ref from Johnny Rogan's Timeless Flight Revisited book. To be honest, the new ref I've added is much more specifically about The Notorious byrd Brothers being released as part of the Columbia/Legacy remasters series than that article on Byrds Flyght was anyway. That online article is more about the minutia of the remastering process. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

   all online sources are live, all appear RS, all statements supported.

   Not a GA requirement but it would better to cite the books which are used for more than one reference in the manner shown here.

   Well, as far as I've always been aware and from what I can see at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations it's very much a case of whatever the consensus is among current editors or what style is already being used in any given article. There's no definite right or wrong way to list inline citations. I personally prefer to see full refs - for total transparency and maximum informational disclosure. I favor that method with an accompanying short "Bibliography" or "Further reading" section - as can be seen at Sweetheart of the Rodeo or "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue". If it's not a deal-breaker for the GA review, I think I'd like to keep the refs as they are but it's entirely up to you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

   Fairy enuff, as they say. It is only a suggestion. It could be an issue if you want to go to WP:FAC with this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is nearly there, just some issue above to be addressed. On hold for seven day. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for your hard work. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Now go away and get some more Dylan articles ready for GA :-) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Well, I think myself and Rlendog are going for a GA on "My Back Pages" next. We've already done some work on it but there's still a fair way to go yet. Anyway, great news about the GA pass! Thank you for your time and effort. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)