Talk:Elmo Tanner/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have this to you shortly ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, We hope and 78.26 are also in on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Dr. Blofeld and We hope for all the great work the last couple of days. Normally I would be volunteering for "assignments", but I have RL issues at the moment, and will be mostly offline until Tuesday of next week, although I may be able to check in from misc. hotels in the evenings. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We will hold the fort while you're busy. :-) We hope (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry if I threw a wrench in things if you guys had planned to do this originally at GA1, I just came across it and it struck me as an obvious premature nomination. I'm glad to see you guys haven since improved the article a lot. Good work and good luck! :) Jacedc (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I'll get to completing the review as soon as I can ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

The lead could be slightly better re-constructed - the first paragraph is too short could easily be expanded a little

Did some work on this. We hope (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on his Style and influence in the lead? Per WP:LEAD it needs to summarise as much as it can
"Besides musical whistling, he also imitated birds for Disney" - Disney films or for Walt Disney himself?

I have no access to the newspaper source itself, but believe this was for Disney's films. We hope (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the only copy of the article I'm able to find and it's behind a paywall. We hope (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I think it's safe to assume he did work for Disney's films/TV sketches etc ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He grew up in Detroit, and moved to Memphis with his family by 1926" - did he move to Memphis in 1926? "by" sounds very approximate

There has been no written biography on Tanner; most books mentioning him provide only a "thumbnail" bio which is much shorter than what we have in the article. Because there were no extensive bios, we've had to rely on news clippings and the like to put together what we have in the article, by using bits of these news stories about Tanner and interviews with him. From this, what we know is that Tanner and his family were in Memphis by 1926. We hope (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"His musical training helped him to develop an ear for music" - sounds a little informal

Fixed We hope (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tanner's whistling talent was unveiled by accident" - why is this mentioned again in the "Ted Weems Orchestra and “Heartaches" sub-sectioned? Unless it's different, it was already mentioned more appropiately in the early life section

Tanner was not whistling professionally until he joined the Ted Weems Orchestra. Weems had hired him as a vocalist and after hearing Tanner whistling on the way to an engagement, believed Tanner's whistling skill was marketable. Weems decided to include a whistling segment in the band's performance. When Tanner's whistling was positively received, Weems then made it part of the band's performances. Until that point, Tanner whistled only for his own satisfaction. We hope (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1933, Victor had assigned the recording of the song to Ted Weems" - why is Victor linked as RCA Records?

RCA Records was once RCA Victor Records. We hope (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern United States" - does 'Southern' need to be capitalized? Done We hope (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Style and influence" section is looking a little short - could it at all be expanded?

I was thinking of merging it Jaguar. What do you think WH?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would work for me. We hope (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was going to suggest merging it if nothing could be found - thanks ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no Discography section in this article? I thought articles on artists usually had a collapsable or non-collapsable table of their Discography

It was advised to move it to a separate page at the first quick-failed GA review and this was done. We hope (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The discography section is the biggest problem in the whole article. First of all, per WP:WPMAG § "Discography section", Tanner's discography should be split into a separate article (e.g. Elmo Tanner discography)." From GA1. We hope (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, some artists' articles have a large discography section consisting of just a wikitable which is usually acceptable for GA. I think that this blank section (considering it has no creative prose and is just 'statistical') could be an exception for the GA criteria. If you're thinking of FACing this it would be great to expand it, if his career was that large ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All answered for We hope Jaguar?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

No dead links, and the references seem to pass reliability

On hold

I have no idea why this article failed last time, the concerns both in this review and the previous GAN are very minor and could be addressed quickly. The sources are in great shape and most of the prose is looking good - the only thing I could find that stops this meeting the GA criteria is the organisation of the lead and the short sections are the bottom of the article (the Discography is also blank). But overall it's a well written article, it shouldn't take too much to pass. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Well done on addressing all of the above - the article now meets the GA criteria. The lead has been expanded and summarises the article well whereas the remainder of the minor prose issues have been clarified. As I said above I wouldn't worry to much about the discography section as it's not a requirement for GA, but it is needed in the article if you want to take it further (although I think some reviewers will disagree). Anyway well done on the work, very well deserved! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]