Talk:House of Music/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: My76Strat (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

Over the coming days I will review this nomination against Wikipedia's good article criteria. All interested participants are invited to provide their constructive input. Please comment under specific bullets if your comment relates, or initiate a comment in the appropriate section so it too can be considered.

Comments initiated by reviewer

I am optimistic following my initial read of this article. I find it meticulously well written and furthermore find it has been thoughtfully copy edited against the good article criteria, so as to practically require no modification. I do intend to look closer that I have not missed a criteria, and continue to welcome the constructive input of others. My76Strat (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the smallest regard, " ... released November 19, 1996, on Mercury Records." seems to not require the comma after the year and " ... various recording studios during 1995 to 1996", seems better suited for an en dash. This is currently opinion based unless and until I find specific guidelines to substantiate my impression. My76Strat (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two pieces you quoted; a comma is required in month-before-day formatted dates, placed after the year (WP:MOS (dates and numbers)) As for the "to" vs. en-dash, WP:MOS (En dashes) advises not to replace prepositions with en dashes. Dan56 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling you were ahead of me in this understanding based on how well other elements have been incorporated. My76Strat (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you may have misinterpreted WP:MOS (dates and numbers). Although it does contain the notation, (comma required), directly after the year, the reference is to the comma after the day. Consider the opening sentence in this featured article for example. My76Strat (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't compare one article to another. That article was hardly up to Wikipedia's more recent standards when it was made FA in 2007. Even before looking up the MOS guideline, I've been adding the comma after the year in dates b/c of seeing other editors do the same when cleaning up MOS in articles. Perhaps another opinion would help? Dan56 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this to your discretion. You have shown thoughtful rational in every regard, this being no exception. My76Strat (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this sentence, "The album reached number 32 on the US Billboard 200 chart, ... " 'number' seems redundant. My76Strat (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Number #" is pretty much convention for the prose in these articles. Sources like Billboard and MTV mention chart positions the same way, No., #, etc. Dan56 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this sentence, "The album's opening track, "Thinking of You," is one song that the group conceived and recorded together.", relate the track to an album? I recognize the retro theme contained in the prose but wonder if this is best stated as simply "The opening track ... ". My76Strat (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the prose about the track is in the recording sec. and not the music sec., it makes it clearer for readers. With subsequent references, it would be redundant to mention "the album's". On first-reference, though, it seems appropriate to introduce a track this way. Dan56 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment applies equally to other examples where the recording media is referred to as an album. My76Strat (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In both rebuttals, I agree with your mitigation. It is good to discuss the considerations incorporated by the contributor to achieve the fuller understanding. My76Strat (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like prepositions but think they are sometimes overused. Foe example, "House of Music expands on the group's previous classicist R&B-influenced work with live instrumentation and an emphasis on ballads." is more compelling to me as, House of Music expands the group's classicist R&B-influenced work with live instrumentation and an emphasis on ballads." because it is more direct and makes 'previous' unnecessarily redundant. My76Strat (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "previous", agreeing with you about it being redundant, but "expand on"'s connotation fits this statement better; dictionary ex. expand on a favorite topic. Dan56 (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this sentence " ... a man whose wife has left him to raise their children alone." compared to this sourced arraignment, " ... a man whose wife has left him to raise the children." and tell me why this wouldn't be an example of close paraphrasing? My76Strat (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking from the page you cited, such paraphrasing is acceptable when there are a limited number of ways to express the statement (WP:Paraphrase#When...). Dan56 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you are limited in the opportunities to effectively arraign the concept differently, and that you did considerably well with the first part of the sentence. I just think it would be better to add quotations to the latter part and then simply use their words. My76Strat (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also consider this phrasing " ... who sings from the perspective of a man ... " which originally impressed me as a genuine perspective and caused me to scrutinize the reference more closely to ensure there were no BLP issues to consider. I think "persona" could replace "perspective" while removing the associated ambiguity. As it relates to close paraphrasing, I suggest " ... from the persona of a man abandoned on the road by his wife who favored raising the children at home." My76Strat (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel strongly that this sentence needs to be tweaked because of the things I have mentioned. My76Strat (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a man abaondoned on ...." isn't supported by the reference. Replaced with "who sings from the perspective of a man who was left by his wife to raise their children alone." Dan56 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, "alone" is not supported by the reference. Nevertheless, I believe the last changes you made are sufficient to address my concerns. My76Strat (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" ... en route to glistening swingbeat and seductive after-hours balladry." should use a non breaking space for 'en route'. My76Strat (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dan56 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you pipe Earth, Wind & Fire to become Earth Wind & Fire and then later in the same section call them "Earth, Wind and Fire"? My76Strat (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just being faithful to the original quote; otherwise, if it were my words, it'd be consistent. WP:MOSQUOTE says to "preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation". Dan56 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. My76Strat (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence, " ... meditation on mortality with jazzy, philosophical tones."[13][4] shows the references listed out of correct order. My76Strat (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference ordering and other minor fixes are usually made by BOTs, which I expected would have taken care of it by now.

Done Dan56 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence states, "House of Music is the fourth studio album by American ... ", Is it more important that it is their fourth opposed to final, and should the finality be summarized in the lead since it is expanded in the body? My76Strat (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal numbering in the lead statement is conventional; the finality is summarized in the lead's last sentence; I think that mentioning it in the lead statement would be a little redundant with that last sentence. Dan56 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see and agree. Thanks - My76Strat (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many examples of ('s) like, " ... inaugurated the album's release ... ", "One of Saadiq's songs for the album ...", and " ... praised the group's "intelligent, sometimes brilliant pastiche" and as many using (s') as in, " ... represent each group members' songwriting ...", " ... described the songs' lyrics ...", and "Of Wiggins' songwriting style ... ". Is there a reason consistency should not be desired in this regard? My76Strat (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just grammatical convention; to indicate possessive case, words that end with the letter S are followed by an apostrophe, while the apostrophe in other words precedes the S, i.e. " 's". Dan56 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair enough. My76Strat (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article primarily shows positive use of the serial comma. These examples are inconsistent, "D'Angelo,[2] En Vogue, Karyn White, Tevin Campbell and A Tribe Called Quest", "Encore Studios, Image Recording and Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles", and "Marvin Gaye, Earth, Wind and Fire, Prince, the Stylistics and Al Green,". My76Strat (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the first two examples, but the last is a quote. WP:MOSQUOTE says to "preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation", although it does list "Allowable typographical changes", but the only mention of altering punctuation is removing spacing before punctuation in a quote. Typography can have some gray areas. Dan56 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I meant to not include examples where the quotes integrity was involved. Including the third example got past my scrutiny, I am glad it did not get past yours. My76Strat (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sheila E. is another example where a non breaking space would be an improvement. Especially because my browser currently shows Sheila on one line and E. on another. My76Strat (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dan56 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this sentence, Two singles were released in promotion of the album, "Let's Get Down" and "Thinking of You.", Should there be a colon after album? And why shouldn't this example, (perhaps others), terminate with the period outside of the quotation marks? My76Strat (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For more complex lists, a colon would be appropriate, but here a comma is sufficient (Wikipedia:MOS#Colons). Punctuation goes before quotation marks. Writing convention. Dan56 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LQ has guidance to suggest this convention has deeper ramifications. To the extent you have not, you should consider these guidelines. My76Strat (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dan56 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be exclamation points after each rendition of Tony? The references support the name without them, and the image shown omits them. I realize this is the Wikipedia article name, but can not consider this a source, and perhaps that article should be moved to a correct title? My76Strat (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While their artworks show different, except for their first album, the group's published name (found in liner notes, catalogues, etc.) remained "Tony! Toni! Toné!", or publishing copyright "Tony! Toni! Toné! Music". Dan56 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. My76Strat (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments initiated by article contributors

Appreciate all the love about this. Learned a lot, too. Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments initiated by interested observers

Preliminary findings

Based on my review, I find this article meets the criteria for assessment as a "GA" class article. All suggestions have been thoughtfully considered and where appropriate, amicably amended. I do wish to extend admirable mention to the nominator for the obvious preparations and diligent copy editing that preceded this review. I have used numerous tools to assist my evaluation, and none, have delivered so much as a suggestion. I would also like to note that by effective writing, this otherwise benign topic is a rather interesting read. I believe if I don't soon conclude this review, I am likely to purchase the album. The story of this album could not be told better if even by a publicist. And yet it is encyclopedic from the start. You are an asset to Wikipedia, and I want you to know you have earned a place of prominence on my own wiki-Rolodex. I will leave this review open for a short time, while I formulate a final disposition. This to allow comments from others regarding aspects I may have missed, or considerations I have not entertained. Absent mitigation to the contrary, I intend to soon close this review as successful. With regard, I say "bravo". My76Strat (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I have found

House of Music is a good article because—

It is Well-written to wit:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

It is Verifiable with no original research. It has been reviewed, and found compliant to the following standards:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

The article is Broad in its coverage and has shown that:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

It is Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
The article is Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute and it does:

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio, and the specific examples within the article have shown:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Well done

My76Strat

talk

20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

[reply]

Footnotes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]