Talk:A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request

A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 18, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Baseball: Cubs Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chicago Cubs.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Roots music Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HueSatLum (talk · contribs) 03:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on reviewing this article in the coming days. ~hue sat lum 03:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. There's certainly no rush on my end. Happy to receive feedback, as I normally don't write music-related articles. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Completed a first pass – mostly minor except for some concerns about statements being cited. ~hue sat lum 02:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Reasonably well written

Some of the sentences are a little choppy, particularly the first four sentences of the "Background" section.
Generally terms that are linked in the lead can also be linked again in their first mention in the body.
Could use some more wikilinks for someone unfamiliar with baseball/Chicago/the US (for example: baseball, 1945 World Series, 1908 World Series, general manager, National League, Cincinnati, Chicago, Lake Michigan, WGN-TV, national anthem).
Is there a better section title than "Aftermath"? That word has a negative connotation to me. Perhaps Legacy?
I'm not sure Bleacher Bums is an appropriate link since it's not talking about the play specifically – perhaps Chicago_Cubs#Bleacher_Bums?
Loveable Losers seems to be more commonly spelled Lovable Losers (and perhaps linked to lovable loser).

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

All quoted lyrics should be cited.
Many of the statements in the "Composition and lyrics" section are not cited or are not cited in a way that backs up the connection to the song. I believe some of them (such as the team's long history of bringing disappointment to fans and The song presents a cynical look at the Cubs from the perspective of a long-suffering fan) would be considered interpretation (which would require reliable secondary sources) rather than stating a fact from a primary source.
Jack Brickhouse, a sportscaster who covered Cubs games from the 1940s to the early 1980s needs a cite.
A mock-serious rewrite of "St. James Infirmary Blues" is not mentioned or cited in the body.
Ref 5 (Clark) is missing an access date and archive URL, and the site name should be moved from the title to the work.
Some of the newspapers.com links are missing via parameters. They should all be marked as url-access=subscription too (assuming they are all paywalled, I only tried a few).
Are there no page numbers for [10] and [12]?
Newspapers and other works should be wikilinked if possible (and make sure they're in the work parameter, not publisher).

3. Broad in its coverage

Is there more information about technical aspects of the song such as its key? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Additional_information_to_include mentions that.
Were there any sources discussingthe song in a way that would be relevant to the article in reference to the Cubs' success more recently, such as 2016 or 2003?

4. Follows the neutral point of view policy

5. Stable

6. Illustrated by images and other media

Image of Goodman is free and relevant.

I think this article would benefit from an image of the album's cover art in the infobox.

Thanks for a great review! I started with fixing the linking issues, and I will work through the citation issues. I uploaded what I think is a fair use image of the cover of Affordable Art, the album that includes this song on it. But now I've found this image (a pretty dull image but maybe more appropriate since it depicts the 45 of this single). Before I messed anything else up, I thought I would ask your opinion. Thanks again. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Working through the feedback. I'm not sure why I was under the mistaken impression that song lyrics didn't need citations, but I am fixing it. Regarding the two book citations, I was only able to find the Google Books e-book version, which doesn't seem to list page numbers. I realize that's not ideal, so I am working on replacing those with other sources. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Hockett: How is the progress going? This has been on hold for two weeks now – if you don't think you will be able to address the comments in a timely manner you might consider withdrawing and re-nominating at a later date. ~hue sat lum 02:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed most of it. I am still looking for references that might replace the electronic versions of those two books that won't let us see their page numbers. I haven't found reliable sources with some of the information like time signature and key (believe it to be G major, but I am betting I need a better source than something like this) and would welcome suggestions. I usually don't wikilink the newspaper titles, as I think the style in the examples at Template:Cite news is easier to read than something with lots of blue. I need to fill in a few reference details such as the via parameter, but I don't think it will take me long to do that. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HueSatLum: it's been a couple weeks, how's this going? ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 04:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for word that it's ready for a re-review. @Larry Hockett: Do you have an update? ~hue sat lum 03:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I am still trying to resolve a few issues, such as a sourced mention of time signature and key. I have a lot going on this month and I'm only on WP in short bursts, so it may be easiest to close this for now. I need to dig into a few things (such as locating some RSs for music information that I mentioned earlier in the review), and I can nominate it again once I'm more available to respond to review feedback. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, I think that's a fine decision. I'll close this nomination so you can work through the comments on your own time and re-nominate when ready. ~hue sat lum 16:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]