Jump to content

Talk:Hoochie Coochie Man/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 21:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Terminology

[edit]
FYI
  • In some sections you repeatedly refer to someone by their full name, while in others you refer to the full name first and then the last. I think the latter is the correct format, but it's more important to be consistent. Do you want to refer to Muddy Waters by his full name first and then just his last or always by his full name? Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in another article. An editor objected to using "Waters" alone, because it is incorrect to shorten a stage name (Waters is not a surname, his legal name was always McKinley Morganfield). I used Muddy Waters throughout, except twice when it seemed particularly awkward. If this isn't standard practice, I'd prefer to use Muddy Waters once and then Waters. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How unusual! Was the editor theatre-oriented, by any chance? I have yet to see this convention used in music, however. Can you find any reliable sources on music, the Blues, or Muddy Waters that uses this convention? If the answer is no, then I would suggest using Muddy Waters once and then just Waters as you prefer. If published RS aren't doing this, then the suggestion by the editor seems misplaced. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency, I've temporarily added consistent usage based on your chosen format. Feel free to revisit this and change it accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Waters". MOS:SURNAME includes "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used." Most sources use "Waters" and "Wolf" (for Howlin' Wolf"), but "Bo Diddley" is often "Bo Diddley", rather than "Diddley". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]
Resolved

Images

[edit]
Resolved

Infobox

[edit]
Resolved
Good, saves me from having to fix it. —Ojorojo (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
Resolved
Fixed typo. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the song's initial release in 1954, it became a feature of Muddy Waters' performances, including in his acclaimed set at the 1960 Newport Jazz Festival. Several live renditions recorded at different points in his career have been issued.
    • "Including" doesn't really work here; please figure out another way to say it. Who issued the live recordings? "X issued live renditions recorded at different points in his career". Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified (none of the others are as important). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been acknowledged by the Grammy Hall of Fame among others and is included in the US Library of Congress' National Recording Registry.
    • "The Blues Foundation and the Grammy Hall of Fame recognize the song for its historical contributions to music and the US Library of Congress' National Recording Registry selected it for preservation in 2004." Or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a try. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, nice work! Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song is a classic of Chicago blues and was recorded by the Muddy Waters band that helped define the genre.
    • I'm still having a problem with this sentence, particularly the second half. Did the song define the genre of Chicago blues or did the Muddy Waters band? Would it help to rewrite this? Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote it more to the point. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoochie Coochie Man" in a variety of styles, making it one of the most interpreted Muddy Waters or Willie Dixon songs.
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
Resolved
  • By 1954, Muddy Waters had been recording for Chess Records (and its Artistocrat predecessor) for seven years and chalked up a number of record chart hits.
    • "By 1954, Muddy Waters charted a number of hits recording for Chess Records (and its Artistocrat predecessor) during the previous seven years." Or, better yet, you could say, "From 1947-1954, Muddy Waters charted a number of hits recording for Chess Records and its Artistocrat predecessor." Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Used the second one (cleaner). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willie Dixon had been singing and playing bass with the Big Three Trio since 1946.[15] After the group disbanded in 1951, he began working for Chess Records.[16] There he served in several capacities, including as a recording session arranger and bassist.
Added (cleaner). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dixon had been writing songs for years, but label co-owner Leonard Chess was slow to show interest in them.[17] However, in 1953, Chess used two songs that Dixon wrote: Little Walter recorded "Too Late"[18] and Eddie Boyd recorded "Third Degree",[19] which was Dixon's first composition to enter the record charts.
    • "At Chess, Dixon wrote songs for years, but label co-owner Leonard Chess failed to show any interest. Finally, in 1953, Chess used two of Dixon's songs: "Too Late", recorded by Little Walter, and "Third Degree", recorded by Eddie Boyd. "Third Degree" became Dixon's first composition to enter the record charts." Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added with small change (Chess wasn't interested in songs Dixon wrote before he went to work for him either). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "hoochie coochie", with variations in the spelling, had been used in different contexts. Appearing the late 19th century, the hoochie coochie was a sexually provocative dance, similar to a belly dance.[21] Women performed it at salons, also called "hoochie coochies".[21] The dance was popular at carnivals and county fairs and was an attraction at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893, although it was sometimes considered disreputable.[21]
    • This section is sourced to a commercial website run by Steve Bekes. Since you already have sources for this information, why are you using the Bekes site? Is it leftover from an older version of this article? The footnotes of Inaba 2011 on p. 147 provide some additional source references. If you can source this information using other sources, that is preferable. Unless of course, you think Bekes is a good source for some reason. Do we know that this self-published, commercial website is accurate? Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a left over, but I don't think the Inaba refs covered it. I'll look some more (including all the lyrics probably violates the copyright). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section looks really good, but again, as the Master of Brevity (M.B.) you left me wanting more with this statement: "It deals with the theme of superstition". If you can say more before you introduce the quote, that would be nice. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and recording

[edit]
Resolved
  • Not long after the success of "Mad Love", Dixon approached Leonard Chess with a song he wrote, "Hoochie Coochie Man". He mentioned that it was right for Muddy Waters and Chess responded, "well, if Muddy likes it, give it to him".
    • What year? Not long after the success of "Mad Love" in 1953? This might read better like this: "Not long after the success of "Mad Love" in 1953, Dixon approached Leonard Chess with "Hoochie Coochie Man", a new song he felt was right for Muddy Waters. Chess responded, "if Muddy likes it, give it to him". Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, it flows much better. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dixon encountered him in the men's room at the club..
Simplified and added footnote. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By January 7, 1954, the arrangement was sufficiently developed and Muddy Waters and his band entered the recording studio to record the song. His group for the recording session is considered the classic Chicago blues band; music critic Bill Janovitz describes them as "a who's who of bluesmen".
    • "'Waters finished arranging the song on January 7, 1954, and entered the recording studio with his band to record the song. Considered the classic Chicago blues band, music critic Bill Janovitz described Waters' group as "a who's who of bluesmen"." Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hoochie Coochie Man" follows a sixteen-bar blues progression, which is an expansion of the well-known twelve-bar blues pattern.[11] The first four bars are doubled in length so the harmony remains on the tonic for eight bars or one-half of the sixteen bar progression.[14] Dixon explained that expanding twelve-bar blues was in response to amplification, which gave instruments more sustain.
  • A bit too much reliance on quoting and not enough paraphrasing, but I think you're just under the limit so I'm marking it as resolved. In the future, focus more on paraphrasing and shorter quotes that cite the meat of the matter. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun to paraphrase or trim. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics and interpretation

[edit]
Resolved
Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fortune tellers would emphasize auspicious circumstances to enhance their remuneration, especially when doing readings for pregnant women.
Very much pleased to be thanking you sir. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dixon explained that the use of self-aggrandizing lyrics taps into a part of the audience's psyche, which he felt was a role in blues.
Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Releases and charts

[edit]
Resolved

Influence and recognition

[edit]
Resolved
I couldn't find any examples of formatting for encyclopedias (author, different editor), so I added just the author (Bryan Grove). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I must have I copied it from somewhere else, but cited Gordon (I have the book). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings by other artists

[edit]
Resolved
Yes. I followed the "Purple Haze" article. None of the many versions by others have charted or are noted as having some importance. For a while, there was actually a separate "List of cover versions of Hoochie Coochie Man"[2]. We'll see how this works. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
Resolved
Citations
Done (& a couple more). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • As I asked in the previous review, is there a way to make the record album IDs functional links? For example, the reference to "Aldin, Mary Katherine (1994). One More Mile (CD booklet). Muddy Waters. MCA/Chess. CHD2-9348." Isn't there a way to make the CHD2-9348 link-out to the album? Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added OCLC numbers for albums (since these aren't listed on the albums themselves, I picked the most likely example from several different entries). BTW, there is an ID system for song recordings, the ISRC, but it doesn't appear accessible to the public. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Lead, background section (per above)
    Not enough paraphrasing in "Composition and recording" and "Lyrics and interpretation" sections, but possibly just under the limit for quoting
Addressed above. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Issue with consistent format of names (see terminology section on top)
Addressed above. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources:
    Is Steve Bekes a reliable source?
Addressed above. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  5. 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:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    After extensive copyedits by the nominator and a few by myself, I feel the article currently passes the GA criteria. I do have some suggestions for immediate improvement:
    • Please investigate the appropriate formatting of the "Muddy Waters" stage name and determine if it should read "Waters" instead. I believe it should, but the current format is consistent, and therefore acceptable.
    • Please review the current use of quotes in the "Composition and recording" and "Lyrics and interpretation" sections. I believe it is acceptable for GA, but further attempts to paraphrase will improve the flow of the prose and the overall narrative. Additionally, I found (and fixed) at least one instance of misquoting in the "Influence and recognition" section, so make sure your quotes are accurately cited.
    • The "lyrics and interpretation" contains the sentence about "self-aggrandizing lyrics" that tap "into a part of the audience's psyche". Please see if you can improve this sentence to make it less ambiguous. Simplify if you can.
    Thanks for your good work. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll work on this. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've taken care of your concerns. Also, thanks for your judicious copy edits. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hoochie_Coochie_Man/GA2&oldid=636180325"