| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because would like to go for FA, and it needs another set of eyes. Currently a GA. This is my first attempt at a FA.
Thanks, Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: What is here is good and well written, with a few MOS nitpicks. I did not know of this artist before reading this (though I know the songs she sings on in the "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" soundtrack). My main concern with the article are issues of organization and perhaps omission. Here are some detailed suggestions for improvement.
- MOS Issues first - the direct quote in the lead needs a reference per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE
- The article is inconsistent on the way it capitalizes, italicizes, and links "the" before names.
- For example in the lead there is "... described by The New Yorker as ..." but the article and official names is "The New Yorker", so the link should include the "The", just as later in the article The Tonight Show links "the".
- The official name and link are Berklee School of Music so it should not be "The Berklee School of Music" but just "the Berklee School of Music" (nitpicky I know, but such are the requirements of FAC
- Last example (not a complete set) are the names of newspapers and magazines, for example "Dave McKenna of The Washington Post praised their version" (The should be italicized and in the link)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reply: Thank you Ruhrfisch, I have made the suggested updates. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You are very welcome - I got busy IRL, have a few more points to make.
- Reply: Again, Ruhrfisch, I really appreciate your time. My replies are below
- One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, and I am concerned about some of her work not being described in the career section, though at least some of it is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The biggest example is Dave Rawlings Machine, which is described in the Influences and collaborations section, but oddly not in Career. Since she cowrote five songs and sings on all (?) it seems like her contribution is greater on that album than in O Brother... (where she sang on two songs and co-produced). There is also a lot of critical material on the 2009 album linked on her web page
- I re-read some refs on the Rawlings Machine album, and Welch is given pretty significant coverage. I moved the info on the Dave Rawlings Machine album, with some more content, to a new subsection under "Career". I also added a little more to the collaborations section, to make it seem less of a mere list.
- As for "O Brother" (this applies to the next reply too) — more weight was given to this because of the critical and commercial success of the album. Note that GW was an associate producer on the album, in addition to contributing to a couple songs. Also, as a ref says, it was a "career boost" for her.
- There is a fairly detailed discography on her website - could some of this be listed in her career as well? I have seen articles where the divisions are by albums, but years are also listed and career work in those years are also discussed in those sections.
- None of the non-album releases, whether they are singles/new songs on films soundtracks, collaborations, etc. have received significant coverage. Note that I did create a discography article, which essentially reflects the discography on her website.. it is linked on the GW article in the discography section.
- I also wonder about the Personal section - it is only 2 sentences long and except for the dating aspect, the information is almost all already in the Early life or start of the Career section. Could this be combined - mrntion the dating when they meet in college? Or is there more information that could be added to this? Is she politically active? Does she support charities? Does she have pets or hobbies?
- I think that's a good point, and agree it's weird to have a section so sparse. This is one area I'm still a little unsure how to handle. She doesn't talk about her personal life, and brief mentions of her and Rawlings relationship beyond music are in a couple refs, but never in detail. I included to follow a common practice (including a personal section) more than anything. Thing is, beyond what is known about their relationship, there really isn't anything in the refs about her personal life besides what's in early life.
- I'm favoring removing the personal section, and as you said, just say they starting dating in college. A reader may be curious if they are married (given that they starting dating in college, which would be appx. 20 years ago) , but perhaps we can trust the astute reader to realize that no mention of marriage means that they're not, and not much is in ref? Not sure.
- The lead is a bit sparse for the detail in the article. I work on the rest of the article, then make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article.
- My preference is to keep the lead concise. I feel that the major aspects of the article are summarized as it currently is.
Overall this is well done, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you again. I welcome any more comments from Ruhrfisch, or other reviewers. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)