Talk:Grammy Award for Best Zydeco or Cajun Music Album/Archive 1

Sources

--Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grammy Award for Best Zydeco or Cajun Music Album/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 23:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Generally well-written, a few points below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Appropriate citation, sources look reliable, 2 dead links. No original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers the main points, stays focussed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral and well-balanced
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article appears to be stable; no evidence of content diputes.
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):
All images are free and appropriately described/licensed
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

No links to disambiguation pages
No apparent problems with plagiarism or close-paraphrasing, based on Coren's tool, Earwig's tool and spot checks of sources
Spot checks of sources reveal no problems with verification
2 dead links:

Ref currently at #2 ("Overview")

Replaced. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref currently at #3 ("Grammys nix Cajun...")

Bummer. I hate when this happens, as this source was particularly helpful and I even incorporated the author's and publication's names into the article. I do not want to replace the source unless that is required of dead links, but do I need to add another that tries to cover as many as possible of the details presented in this article? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried searching the website in case the article's moved, and tried the wayback machine? If you have other sources that back up some of the same information, then I would add them as far as possible. Otherwise, I'd be inclined to leave the dead link. It's not great, but it's possible that the newspaper website will readd the article if they do a reshuffle. Ideally, not being available online, we should have a page number - perhaps someone will be able to add that in the future. I'm not inclined to fail the nomination over this because in my opinion, this information is still verifiable with the details provided. Someone looking at a newspaper archive could find the article - they'd just have to look a bit longer for the right page. But, adding other sources to back up the statements if available would help.--Beloved Freak 11:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet archive doesn't seem to have the article Wayaback Machine, but I have found a copy of the article on Zydeco Online: http://www.zydecoonline.com/dev/index.php?name=News&file=print&sid=448. It cites the daily advertiser. Is this good? Michael miceli (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced link. Thanks, Michael! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, this is a well-written and researched article. I just have a few comments, mostly minor prose issues.

Lead

"Awards were also presented to the engineers, mixers, and/or producers in addition to the performing artists." - as before, also and in addition are redundant, only one is needed

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the "Recording Academy" here and a couple of times later, but it wasn't 100% clear to me that that was another name for the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. This could perhaps be clearer from the outset. (Not a huge deal—I didn't even notice this in the Hawaiian article!)

Changed to "Academy"--this should be more obvious since the only organization mentioned to this point is the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Consider linking zydeco and cajun music again - I know you have them linked in the lead, but considering that they will be unfamiliar to a lot of readers...

Done. Good idea. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Then Lieutenant Governor..." - this sentence is slightly confusing on first reading it, just because "then" could mean two things. I presume you mean that he was the Lieutenant Governor at the time. Could this be slightly reworded? Or, perhaps just add commas around "Mitch Landrieu" to break it up slightly.

Changed to "Mitch Landrieu, Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana at the time, also supported the effort." I hope this is better. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next sentence is also slightly ambiguous. Although it's obvious what is meant when you get to the end of the sentence, when I started reading it, "According to Cynthia, a trustee of the Memphis chapter of the Recording Academy..." this could have been about Cynthia describing the actions of a trustee. I hope that makes sense. Could this be reworded slightly? Or, perhaps use parentheses around "a trustee of the Memphis chapter of the Recording Academy", to make it clearer.

Changed to "Cynthia, a trustee of the Memphis chapter of the Recording Academy, claimed hundreds of dollars..." Let me know if you can think of a better alternative. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recipients

Probably don't need to link French language

Really? I feel the link could be helpful to some readers. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Common languages" are actually mentioned in WP:OVERLINK as generally not to be linked. I don't really see what readers will get from that article that will help their undertanding of this. However, it's not explicitly part of the GA criteria, nor is it by any means the worst overinking I've seen, so it's not a deal-breaker. If you're happier leaving it in, that's fine. Same goes for those below although I think the language one is probably (in my opinion) the most unnecessary. I'll leave it up to you.--Beloved Freak 11:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Of the seven nominees, only one was based outside Lafayette, Louisiana" - might be interesting to know who that was

I recall thinking the same thing but being unable to determine which musicians was from outside Lafayette. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be Lisa Haley. She's from California, I believe. Michael miceli (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably don't need to link cover version

I have to disagree here as well. This is potentially helpful. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Doucet ... is the only artist to receive more than one nomination..." - would be good if you have a citation for this although not a big deal as it is verifiable just by counting the nominations

I was unable to find a source verifying this specific claim, though it is verifiable in the manner you suggested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nominees for the 52nd Grammy Awards included..." - would be good to mention the year here as you have for the others. I realise you're trying to keep it from being to repetitive. Perhaps simply, "Nominees for the 52nd Grammy Awards in 2010 included..."

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you need to link record label

Again, I disagree. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...featured his "trademark party songs" and an "accordion-flavored" cover..." - citation for these quotes?

Was after the following sentence. I went ahead and put the citation at the end of both sentences. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, better safe than sorry. :) --Beloved Freak 11:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

I'd give Carrier's and simien's full names here as it's a new section

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, and this obviously has absolutely no impact on GA status, but have you thought about creating a new navigation template that focuses on the different award categories rather than the years? Might be nice to have on these award category article.

Some award categories do have such templates, though most do not. I will remember this for the Grammy Awards task force "to do" list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the article on hold to allow you to address these issues.--Beloved Freak 13:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much (again) for your time and assistance. I believe your concerns have been addressed. I admit that I did not remove the three linked words or phrases you mentioned, but I am happy to remove the links if you feel strongly that the linking is unnecessary. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, only outstanding issue is the dead link - see my comment above. --Beloved Freak 11:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link replaced. I hope your concerns have been addressed. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good now, so I'm happy to list it as a Good Article. Well done. --Beloved Freak 20:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.