Talk:Eddie Costa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the love for jazz over at WikiProject Music? Well, I hope you're not sick of getting reviewed by me, but as long as your nominations keep ending up in our list of the oldest noms, I'm going to keep reviewing them.

Anyway, I hope to get comments up about this one today or tomorrow. Thanks as always for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On first pass, this looks like your usual good work. I've only got a few points I'd like your input on so far:

"at the Composer club" -- capitalization seems irregular here--should this be "Composer Club" or "the Composer, a club..."?

Changed to "the Composer, a club on".

"he appeared on approximately 20 albums in both 1956 and 1957. " -- can this figure be sourced?

This is taken from the discography that's part of this article. I usually put a source for everything in the text, but added this, unsourced, as an illustration of the amount of studio work that Costa did. Also see my comment on the discography, below.

Why no label for "1959 Woody Herman Wild Root" ?

I couldn't find the label.... It's complicated by the fact that multiple releases have used the same title (some for different recordings).

No problem, then.

http://www.attictoys.com/GigiGryce/Gigi_Gryce_discography.php seems questionable as a reliable source. Is it possible to source this elsewhere? Otherwise, I wonder if it might just be omitted from the article; if it's not mentioned in other sources on his life, it may be trivial enough not to need inclusion.

I'd like to include it, as there's so little available on his life. There's no doubt that the recording took place: watch it here; it's getting Costa's involvement that's trickier to source. The online source cites "Rat Race Blues: The Musical Life of Gigi Gryce (Berkeley Hills Books, Berkeley, CA, 2002)" as its source. I think it's on p. 295, but will have to play around with googlebooks more to make sure, as I can't get the book from my libraries. Would that work as a source?

Fair enough. Technically, the GA criteria only require reliable source inline citations for quotes, stats, and controversies, and this is none of these. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it's better to have one... I found it on p. 416 of that book, so have changed the source to that. EddieHugh (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to source the discography?

I usually separate the discog to another article/list, so sidestep this problem. It's sourced from multiple places. What are the options (does every item need to be sourced?)?

You might add a single reference to the effect of "Sources for this discography include the following:". But again, this isn't material that necessarily has to be sourced for GA; it's just preferable.

The following can be included: "Eddie Costa Discography" at jazzdiskat.co.uk (this is available only in archive form); Costa Productions' digital archive project (listed in External links at the moment, and not a www archive, despite the name). Please add these to the article if you know the most appropriate format, as I'm not sure how or where to list them. EddieHugh (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added the sources in a format I've seen other musical artist articles use. Feel free to change if you think of anything better, though. jazzdiskat.co.uk seems a bit questionable as a reliable source, but again, this isn't information that strictly required a source for GA in the first place. (If you were ever to advance to FA, though, I'd think a better source would be needed). -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the other criteria go, the article is neutral, stable, and has no images (so no problems with criterion 6). I don't see any MOS issues or prose issues beyond the above. I'll do a more thorough source check for accuracy, copyright issues, and completeness later today or tomorrow. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this one on as well... My responses are indented above. Some of your points are unresolved, so I'll see what I can do and await your follow-up. EddieHugh (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses. I'll do source review later; this may be ready to pass as is. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the On the Sound source and listed two sources for the discog above, with a request for you to add them if you can. These things are indented and signed above. EddieHugh (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good. Manual spotchecks and copyvio detector find no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comparison to online biographies shows no main aspects left out (indeed, this may be the most comprehensive biography on the Internet)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

I cross-checked the discog with other online sources, and ruled a few albums out when I couldn't find anything that matched the jazzdiskat info. Thanks for your help in getting the first article that I really worked on to GA. EddieHugh (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and thanks for the follow up on that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]