Talk:Heartbreak Hotel/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 11:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will look at this later. SilkTork *^YES! 11:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Prose is clear. The MoS fail is the lead, which is very common on GA nominations because a number of editors think that the lead should be an introduction. WP:Lead indicates that the lead should be an overview of the article and should serve as a mini stand alone article. It needs to be built up so that the important details from each main body section are summarised. SilkTork *^YES! 17:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Right, I'll take care to make the lead meet the manual of style and expand it. --Gduwen (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. Just so you are aware - I've not finished the review, so there are likely to be other areas to work on. I'll be taking another look later on. SilkTork *^YES! 12:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• There are a few broken links which are worth investigating. [1]. SilkTork *^YES! 10:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The song became one of the main songs in Presley's acts on live performances, last time performed on May 29, 1977 at the Baltimore Civic Center.[11]" I don't see where the source supports either of these statements (main song and last performance). SilkTork *^YES! 12:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The song was the second recorded by Presley at RCA Victor on January 10, 1956, during his debut session at 1525 McGavock Street in Nashville, Tennessee,[12]" is cited to an unreliable source - a fan club. SilkTork *^YES! 12:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• "That same year, the song was mentioned in Patty Loveless's "Blue Side of Town"." That statement is original research - it is sourced to a website which gives the lyrics of the song, but there is no reliable source which says that the lyrics refer to this song. SilkTork *^YES! 12:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• This source gives a slightly different account of the writing of the song. Which version is correct? The version in the article is sourced to a book that is not available online. I will order a copy from my library - and that is going to delay completion of this review. SilkTork *^YES! 12:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Cover Versions section seems rather thin. I'm aware of a few famous covers not mentioned. Though not a reliable source, this is a useful starting point for further research. The difficulty with this section, is that research could border on Original Research, so it would be useful to find a reliable source which gives an overview. AllMusic gives another listing. Also the Release section doesn't quite cover the importance of the song. See [2] for more details. SilkTork *^YES! 12:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence "Because the vocals on the original record featured a heavy use of reverb, the song was immediately parodied in radio humorist Stan Freberg's" is incomplete. Also, this information more properly belongs in the Cover Versions section. SilkTork *^YES! 12:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• It appears neutral enough, though further background reading may turn up some details which are not in here, so I'll hold on passing that until I have finished researching. SilkTork *^YES! 13:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

On hold

There are a number of concerns mentioned above.

• The article's sourcing could be more secure - there are a number of unreliable sources, and comments not supported by sources. I recommend replacing insecure sources with reliable sources where appropriate. I have not gone through all the sources checking which are reliable or not, so this is something that will need to be done by the nominator, main contributors and any involved WikiProject.

• Coverage of the impact of the song, and the legacy, and the cover versions needs to be developed a little more.

• The lead has been developed and now appears to cover the article quite well, though would need to be looked at again after the article has been improved.

I feel this article should be able to meet GA criteria with just a little more work on the points indicated. I will inform the people involved and put on hold for an initial seven days. Meanwhile I will order some books from my local library - a final pass will need to wait until I have consulted those, though I may close this review in seven days time if there hasn't been any progress on the points noted. SilkTork *^YES! 13:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment With reference to this version of the article:

• Citations lacking page numbers—#3, 4, 5, 7, 17, 55.
• "The song entered the charts on March 3, 1956 . . . In less than two months, the song reached number one on . . . the Billboard Hot 100"—however, according to Billboard Hot 100#History, the Hot 100 didn't exist until 1958.
• A number of citation seem to be to unreliable websites, many of which are fan-sites—#6, 24, 25, 35, 38, 42, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 57. If you agree that these aren't reliable, they need to be replaced by reliable sources.—indopug (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to address several of these issues today, mainly replacing references with ones that are more reliable. The only section where I don't have all the information necessary is the Covers Section. Hopefully someone can help further with that in finding more reliable references. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, great work! I'll do a section-by-section copy-edit of the article over the next couple of days, also adding info from sources on Google Books and this Independent article. As for the Covers, are any of them particularly well-known or famous (has anything interesting said about them)? If not, their inclusion is largely trivial (Alvin and the Chipmunks, I'm looking at you).—indopug (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing is not something I know a lot about so I will leave that up to people like yourself, I think you've done a good job of that so far. As for the covers, I haven't heard any of them, personally, with the exception of Johnny Cash's version. In January I questioned the section and removed a lot of material that really had no connection to the Presley song at all. I think the section looks quite good, but I don't know if its inclusion would benefit a GA nomination or not. I think that the beginning of the section about Stan Freberg is important because it goes on to explain how it affected Presley's future recordings. How about we keep that part in and follow it up with a one line sentence such as "The song has also been covered by several well known performers, inlcuding The Cadets, Johnny Cash, John Cale, Willie Nelson and Leon Russell, Van Halen, and Paul McCartney."

• Radio humorist Stan Freberg parodied "Heartbreak Hotel" immediately after its release, because the vocals on the original record featured a heavy use of reverb. In the cover, the lead singer repeatedly asks for "more echo on [his] voice." When Presley recorded "Hound Dog" a few months later, he had taken over the role of producer, using what he learned at Sun Records (although Sholes was still credited) and decided not to use echo. The song has also been covered by several well known performers, including The Cadets, Johnny Cash, John Cale, Willie Nelson and Leon Russell, Van Halen, and Paul McCartney.

I'm adding the artists, but also adding information about in what album, or occasion covered the song, I think its really important to include this on the section because, although is a widely known Elvis song, remember that the article its about the song itself and other performing artists shall be included too. --Gduwen (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent progress

There's been a real improvement to this since I first looked. There has been some excellent sources added, and some interesting extra details added. Great work.

I have noted that some statements did not stick closely enough to the source. While we mustn't copy the exact wording of sources, unless we are quoting, we must, however, remain with the information the sources give, and not select any phrasing that gives an interpretation not found in the sources. In the description of the writing of the song there was a line saying that Axton was moved by the suicide - this information was not in the source. We have to be purely factual.

While the formatting of the citations is not a GA concern (as long as statements are sourced it doesn't have to be in any particular format - a uniform formatting is something that FA reviewers comment on), it would be worthwhile while doing the citations to present them in a manner that people have found most useful for the general reader. The general reader will read a statement, click on the link to the citation and expect to be given the information. Using a 2 tier system, where the reader goes to an abbreviated citation, which gives an author name and page number, but nothing else, and then the reader has to scroll through a list of books to find the right text is unwieldy. It is more useful to put all the citation information into the clickable link. However, a list of major texts consulted is useful; these have appeared in various guises in Wiki articles over the years, though there has been a movement toward tucking them into the reference section under a ";" which is a list wikicode, and this now appears to be the most commonly accepted method. If there are texts which haven't been used in building the article, but which may provide extra information, these are usually presented in a separate section, usually under a title such as Further reading. I'll say again that this citation formatting is not a GA concern, so if someone has a strong personal preference for using a different method then the matter could be discussed and a consensus sought. SilkTork *^YES! 10:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Silktork, using a two-tiered system of references is perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines and standards. Further, it cuts down the redundancy of listing each cite as a complete reference, and reduces the page-size.—indopug (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the two tier/shortened footnotes system is not against GA criteria, and that it can be and is used; however, it is an alternative system. Most articles use the single tier/full footnotes system, and that was the system that was in use on this article - if the two tier system had already been in place then I might (or might not) have raised the issue as a discussion point, but would certainly not have changed the system without a discussion. The page size is not a real issue as the full referencing doesn't impact on readable prose size. Repetition of detail is true, though I would hardly call it redundancy as the information is there for when a reader requires it. We cannot second guess which statement a reader would like to check, nor can we assume that a reader will want to check each and every statement - though if a reader does wish to do that, then the actual reading impact of the full reference becomes the same as reading the abbreviation as that is how we read. When reading a word, we do not read each letter, we take in the whole construction. Familiarity assures that we will not read word for word each reference once we know what to expect - we will go to the pertinent section - the page number. The only real argument in favour of shortened citations is they are less intrusive when editing - though we should always favour the reader over the editor (after all we are writing Wikipedia for the benefit of the reader not the editor). If you do find it difficult to edit articles with long citations (as I do!), then put this - importScript("User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js"); - in your monobook. It's a useful gadget - though can only be used when editing the whole article, it sadly doesn't work when editing sections. SilkTork *^YES! 22:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• There's information in Mae Boren Axton about the non-involvement of Glenn Reeves that's not in this article; it's unsourced and possibly trivial, but might be worth looking into. This source has vague stuff about the first TV performance being poorly performed, and stuff about Presley's first RCA record might have been Pins and Needles In My Heart. Worth following up. SilkTork *^YES! 11:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article is looking great, everyone has put in some excellent work in the last seven days. Here's my opinions on the above discussion;

• I have a very vague memory of reading one time before that Reeves was asked to help write the song, but it's such a vague memory that it may even have been on the Axton article that I read it. I don't have any verifiable information about that to help put towards this current article, not for the moment anyway. I can have a dig around. There's no question that he recorded a demo.
• I think the inclusion of the information about the orchestra during that first performance on TV would be a good addition to the article. I was going to add it before but thought it might be considered too trivial. Not sure if I would describe it as poorly performed or a mess, though. I would put that down to personal opinion. I personally think it was quite good except for the clear sound of Presley's guitar being out of tune (also heard during his performance of Blue Suede Shoes beforehand) and a slight timing mishap in the last 10 seconds of the performance (which I think is actually Presley's fault). It's possible the journalist is writing from their own POV.
• I've never heard, or read, anything about Pins and Needles In My Heart being considered as Presley's first single. It seems odd that, if RCA were so keen for it to be the first song, they didn't at least get him to record it. RCA had no idea that he was bringing Heartbreak Hotel, and if Pins and Needles was on the list of songs to be considered for possible recording I am sure that it would be mentioned somewhere amongst my reference books. I even googled it and couldn't find anything. If I do find anything on this I'll bring it to the article, and if it does turn out to be true then it is a nice new piece of information that I can add to my knowledge of Presley. New information is always being thrown up so I won't rule it out completely. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing what an hour of digging around can bring up. Found references for the Reeves info, and the Pins and Needles info. I claimed to have never read about it before but its in the first biography I picked up this afternoon; a book that I've read twice before! Life is funny, and I will not forget about this song a second time lol. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pins and Needles was never suggested as Presley's first single, it was only suggested as an album selection after Heartbreak Hotel had been selected as the single. I've added this to the article to clarify it for anyone in the future who might think otherwise. I think the journalist in the above article was merely pointing out that it could have been, not would have been, Presley's first single. The reference doesn't at all say that Sholes wanted Pins as Presley's first single, so I don't know where the journalist got that from, but if it's out there we will find it at some point. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good research. The best articles come when those involved are able to both access and intelligently use reliable sources. And it helps when somebody knows the topic well! SilkTork *^YES! 16:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I added this source. It has declarations by Axton about the writing of the song, and states that she was indeed moved by the suicide. Should we quote Axton's statement "Think of the Heartbreak he must have left behind him, so there ought to be a Heartbreak Hotel at the end of that lonely street"?. --Gduwen (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In Peter Guralnick's book Last Train To Memphis, she is quoted as saying

• "It stunned me. I said to Tommy, 'Everybody in the world has someone who cares. Let's put a Heartbreak Hotel at the end of this lonely street'." (p.238)

Both quotes are from her and both say basically the same thing, so I think they can be used if everyone thinks it's good for the article. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading Guralnick right now. He has some good info on the recording. SilkTork *^YES! 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Reeves

....There's information in Mae Boren Axton about the non-involvement of Glenn Reeves that's not in this article; it's unsourced and possibly trivial, but might be worth looking into... SilkTork *^YES! 11:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

....I have a very vague memory of reading one time before that Reeves was asked to help write the song, but it's such a vague memory that it may even have been on the Axton article that I read it. I don't have any verifiable information about that to help put towards this current article, not for the moment anyway. I can have a dig around. There's no question that he recorded a demo....ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There's info in The Rough Guide to Elvis - "Glenn Reeves, the singer who cut the demo, was not impressed, saying it was the silliest title he had ever heard, and insisted his name was kept off the demo." Page 240. Nothing about him being invited to write the song and declining. The Independent says: "Axton asked Glen Reeves to cut a demonstration record. She offered him a songwriting credit, but he did it for free." Difficult to know what actually happened, and we cannot make interpretations. More sources would be useful. In cases like this as sources give slightly different (but related accounts) we quote them all, and say - "The Independent says ...." My personal feeling is that Axton offered Reeves a songwriting credit as payment for the demo (rather than ask him to help write it), and that he refused the writing credit because he thought the title was silly (rather than that he asked for his name to be taken off the demo). But each person will make up their own mind from the info. SilkTork *^YES! 23:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cover versions

Since "Heartbreak Hotel" is practically a rock 'n roll standard, it has been covered by any number of artists. Listing them all out (even with references) is unnecessary, and of little more value than trivia. I suggest condensing the section to a tight two-three paragraphs.—indopug (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The covers section is going to be problematic, but can prove to be useful. It will need to be done with care. As Indopug says, a simple list would not be as useful as commentary from a reliable source to put the cover(s) into context - and GA criteria would not accept a simple list in this context (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)). Amazing_Grace#Recorded_versions is a very high quality example of the sort of thing to aim for. Like_a_Rolling_Stone#Cover_versions is not a good example, but in this format it was accepted as a FA in Feb this year. A slightly better FA example is Smells_Like_Teen_Spirit#Cover_versions - the content is good, but bear in mind that this was reviewed a few years, and the patchy citing would not be acceptable today. Those are useful examples to look at and consider. SilkTork *^YES! 10:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I shortened the section to three paragraphs but I didn't modified any information, I think its relevant to the article due that most of them are widely known artists.--Gduwen (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking to close

I'll look over the article again in the next day or so to see if this can be closed. SilkTork *^YES! 17:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's been good involvement and progress with the article. Well done everyone! I like the pic of Presley stripped to the waist! (I have cropped that to remove the fan, so the focus is on Presley without the distraction of who the woman is). SilkTork *^YES! 12:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We're almost there with the GA listing; however, I feel that some of the statements regarding the writing of the article are a little too certain, given that we are aware of alternative versions. The reader should be made aware that there are alternative accounts, and no one version should be favoured in this article over any other. The involvement of Glen Reeves for example - there is a section above in which we have different accounts of his involvement. There is a reliable source which says that he was offered a song-credit, but declined. Another sources says he was invited to help write the song but declined. Writing a song and taking a royalty credit are not the same, and mention should be made in the article that sources give both accounts. The article musn't select one account and present it as fact when there are equal alternative accounts. SilkTork *^YES! 12:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking for this article to be comprehensive, and what I'm saying now is open for discussion as it may be more to do with ongoing development rather than requirements of broad coverage for GA listing. In my reading I've become aware of the importance of this song to Presley's career, especially in the UK. I feel a little more content on the importance of the song to Presley's career, and to rock and roll, would be worthwhile. I'm prepared to help out on that, though probably not until the new year. The Legacy section could do with a tidy - Clinton playing the song is a piece of interesting trivia, while being given the Grammy Hall of Fame award is fairly significant. I think there is room for both, though perhaps not in the same sentence.

The Cover versions section is looking good, though while it starts with some explanation regarding the covers, this starts to fade toward the end, and we get: "Appeared in 1996 Roger McGuinn's album Live From Mars." SilkTork *^YES! 12:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold for the holiday period to allow a bit more tidying to be done, for the section on the song's origin and writing to give a more balanced account of sources, and for consideration to be given to presenting a bit more detail on the song's importance. SilkTork *^YES! 12:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I remembered that Florida site from taking some images for another article, I'm not sure about the exact date of the picture but we will discuss that (according to the site the picture was taken between 12-13 but there's a slight different version. (Stripped to the waist....)--Gduwen (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I actually preferred the uncropped Presley image; it was more charming and funny. Without the fan, it's just a pic of Elvis topless. I do agree that we needn't name the fan in the caption, though.
• Elvisconcerts.com is a fansite and cannot be used as source in the article. The opening sentences of the Background and Legacy sections would have to be thus rewritten.—indopug (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The uncropped image looks better, agree. --Gduwen (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

January

• I'm just looking to close this, and I note that the lead has gone backwards so it is now further from WP:Lead than it was the last time I looked. The importance of the topic, and the location and date should be mentioned early on. This information has been moved further back. Currently the article fails WP:Lead. That needs to be sorted. SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still not clearly seeing the impact this record had on Presley's career, and on the development of rock and roll. I note that some information has been added, but not quite enough, and the information appears to be mainly a cut and paste from one author. What we would be looking for is an overview of what several critics say. A quote may be used if it is notable in itself, or if it manages to summarise in a unique manner than cannot be so easily said in other words a particular opinion or incident. Normally a song is an easy GA listing - but this song happens to be somewhat more important than most, so there is more research to be done than normal, and more detail that needs to be shifted through, organised and presented in a manner that does the topic justice. I had intended to help out where possible, but time has been against me. SilkTork *^YES! 12:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• The covers section can still be tidied up, as the sentences are a bit choppy. I think the section is possibly acceptable enough for the GA criteria, though it wouldn't hurt to go through it and smooth it over. SilkTork *^YES! 12:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• The article still doesn't deal appropriately with the alternative versions of the writing of the song. SilkTork *^YES! 12:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing much improvement since I last looked. I don't wish to fail this, as I feel the article can be made to meet GA criteria, though there needs to be movement forward. The article has actually got worse since I last looked. I'd like to help out on making the improvements, as it seems to have stalled, and I will hold for another 7 days, and see what I can do. If nobody, including myself, has made a significant attempt on dealing with the remaining issues, then I'll close this as a fail on or shortly after 12 Jan. SilkTork *^YES! 12:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Looks like he's made the above changes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there's been some positive work done on the article. I still have an outstanding concern however. The information about the genesis of the song has not been sorted. I don't want to fail because of that, because the rest of the article is so good, so I have kept it open. I intend to sort it out myself, as it shouldn't take more than 20 minutes; I just haven't got round to it yet. Hopefully today. SilkTork *^YES! 10:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pass

Well done everyone. The article does good service to the song. I enjoyed working on this. SilkTork *^YES! 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)