Jump to content

Talk:Jessye Norman/GA1

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: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! Jessye Norman was impressively talented—an honorary ambassador to the UN, Grammy lifetime award winner, and a wide-ranging singer. Hopefully, this article will help reduce Wikipedia's heavy white male bias. Over the next couple days, I will be reviewing this article and making minor improvements, while any questions, comments, and/or concerns will be posted here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking up the review. I was blessed by hearing a memorable recital in Carnegie Hall, on top of audio and video. Please understand that I may be slow to respond. I am busy working on articles of people who just died (2 yesterday, and I do only one a day, Jessye Norman was one of them last year), and have a GA review open which I seem to get to only every other day, and don't want to neglect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I'm not the fastest reviewer anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Questions

[edit]
Lede style
  • Is the word "fach" necessary in the lede? I know that it is wikilinked, but is there an English word that also describes the same thing? If not, "fach" should be left in the lede.
    Thank you for looking. I say it only this one time: I didn't write the article (IDNWI), therefore the answer will often be "I don't know. I will think about it. Possibly the jargon word should not come in the lead. I'll involve project opera for such questions. --GA
    It's now without fach, please check ---GA
    I like it much better now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph, there is a list of associated works fifteen items long. While relevant, this isn't the summary style that one would expect from the lede. Could this be trimmed down? It also partially duplicates a second (much smaller) list in the third paragraph which says basically the same thing.
    good point. --GA
    list much shorter, just key roles, no repetition with a bit below ---GA
  • "A towering figure..." violates MOS:PUFF. Simply state the achievements and let them speak for themselves.
    (IDNWI) yes --GA
    I replaced by "commanding presence", then noticed the NYT critic had used the same, so was bold and shortened his comment. ---GA
  • The lede does not summarize Norman's other accolades including being an honorary ambassador to the UN. (This is mentioned in the infobox.)
    good point - I wrote the infobox, not the lead ;) --GA
    I think we really can't mention all that. Perhaps the Marseillaise is too much already, but that will be a bit that even "outsiders" will understand, no? ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the UN ambassador to the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • In the third paragraph of "Early life", the sentence "While at Howard, she sang in the university chorus and as a soloist at the Lincoln Temple United Church of Christ, while studying voice with Carolyn Grant." is bizarrely and confusingly constructed. It contains two temporal clauses, and the conjunction "and" is joining a phrase (or verb) and the "at" clause. Could this perhaps be reworded? Perhaps something like: "While studying voice with Carolyn Grant at Howard, she sang in the university chorus and performed solo at the Lincoln Temple United Church of Christ."
    (IDNWI) will see --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to untangle. ---GA
    Much better. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fourth paragraph of "Early life", you use a numeral and a spelled-out number. Generally, you should stick to one choice in a single sentence.
    will look --GA
    This is a new rule to me, - spelling out 33 would be cumbersome, and count 4 for the teachers looks a bit cruel to me ;) ---GA
    It's not mandatory—it's just a general rule. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of "Early career", there is this sentence: "This ability was partly due to her uncommon height and size but was more a result of her unique, rich, and powerful voice." "But" is generally used to contrast multiple points, whereas here they are adding to each other.
    will need to look at the context --GA
    that is gone with the copyvio ---GA
  • Also from the same sentence, "unique, rich, and powerful" is straying dangerously close to MOS:PUFF again. The "unique" term could probably be dropped since it is implied by the sentence immediately following (the one talking about Norman's unusually-wide vocal range).
    good point again --GA
    same ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...more still to come. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I will respond in more detail and make changes after some RL work. I'd love to get this done within the next 2 weeks, to have a portentiaö DYK in Black history month ;) - but no worries if not: she's a woman, good in March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Early career" contains a sentence fragment.
    I believe also gone with the copyvio --GA
  • Why is "Richard Strauss" possessive in the first sentence of "Mid-career"?
    fixed, probably a leftover from a move, and I delinked all these composers, to avoid sea of blue - concention of project opera. --GA
  • In the "Later life" section, there are a very large number of prepositional phrases starting sentences that do not have commas after them. (For example, "In 2020 Brian reviewed this article." -> "In 2020, Brian reviewed this article.") However, I'm not certain that starting close to twenty sentences all in the same way is good. Perhaps (this isn't mandatory) more sentence variety could be introduced here?
    I tried, please check again. It's a lot of detail, for my taste. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • What makes "Kham.com.tw" (1st reference) a reliable source?
    (IDNWI) I don't know. Without it, the early year will be rather thinly covered. What can we do? --GA
    positive: many could already be replaced by a new Decca ref, - negative: much of the article in "later life" was taken word for word from there, - I tried to rephrase, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things are leftsourced only to this, Taipei and Singapore. Can't find others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of "Early career", the sentence "In 1970, she made her Italian début in Florence, in Handel's Deborah." is not in the given citation, or I'm just missing it.
    no citation is given, but I found one, which may actually replace the kham.com: [1] - I'll place it at the bottom, will use for the one fact for now, but probably more. Stopping here for now, because I assume it could also solve the later questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 14th reference needs more metadata—it's just a link and title.
  • What makes "inspiredminds.de" (19th reference) a reliable source?
    supported 2 things, a useless quote - dropped, and the Philadephia 1982, which the local paper has much better --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 27th reference is already tagged as an unreliable source.
    numbers changed, but I guess it's for Voix humaine? Replaced by a NYT review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe so. It's gone now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 46 & 47 need more metadata (i.e. publishing / access dates for web content). Replaced below.
  • What makes "brainyday.com" (55th reference) a reliable source?
    no longer there, replaced by 4 others --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #56 is just a link and title.
  • The publisher of the 64th reference is not web.archive.org. This citation should be to the original content and include the archived link; not cite the archive.
  • Reference #76 is just a raw link.
  • The twenty-something links to the same reference in the section "Oratorio and orchestral parts performed" can be combined into one as they are in the "Opera roles" section.
    fixed - there are some hidden not covered by the link, but I hope to remember that they should oly be brought to light with a ref, - on the way I split recitals and orchestra, and delinked many composers, per project opera --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General: those with just a ref no. don't match any more, kham is no longer #1. If you still see problems, please use url or part of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot that they would change when you edited the article. Let me re-review these... Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jessye Norman Biography at AllMusic.com (3rd ref) needs an access date for web content. Author too, if known. This is also true for the discography sourced to AllMusic.com (88th ref).
    done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jessye Norman's biography from last.fm (9th ref) needs an access date for web content. Author too, if known.
    I dropped that bio altogether, - I don't what it was before, but at present, it was a mirror of Wikipedia at a former stage. I know that the BBC does that, but saying the info is from Wikipedia, with a link, not copy of some former version. Who knows about the other "copyvios"? They, too, may be miroors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapter history from Howard.edu (13th ref) needs an access date for web content. Author too, if known.
    added (Howard University) - no author --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jessye Norman At Notre Dame – A Christmas Concert / Foster arkivmusic.com" (33rd ref). Same as above. This type of reference to a catalog is also notoriously unreliable in that it may disappear at any time. If it cannot be replaced with a better source, it should be archived to prevent against link rot.
    I found ArkivMusic constantly reliable and well organized - better than AllMusic. It's a recording, - no harm if that should some day have no ref, nothing critical. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references to the Deutsche Grammophone (currently #49 and #50) need additional metadata like access dates.
    done, more tomorrow --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference "Honorary and St Radegund Fellows". (currently #61) needs an access date, publisher, and author if available. It's currently just a link and title.
 Fixed Grimes2 (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Past Honorary Degree Recipients, Reunion & Commencement". Wesleyan University. An access date is needed for web content (82nd ref)
 Fixed Grimes2 (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Very optional.) The subsection called "Cited sources" might be better titled as simply "Sources". The sources in there look good.
[edit]

Some spot checks done,  copyright problems found.

Images

Everything looks fine here. Checked

External links
General
  • I believe the "Jessye Norman School of the Arts" subsection is misplaced. It's under the "Life and career" section (which is generally sorted temporally) but is positioned after Norman's death, when, in fact, it was founded before her death.

Review should be mostly complete now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Pretty much everything is done here now with the exception of the external links and getting another pair of eyes to check for any remaining copyright issues. I flagged this GAN for a 2nd opinion several days ago, but if you want to ping Nikkimaria and/or Dianna, you can definitely do so. It might get a faster response than just waiting for someone random, which is important if you want this completed in time for a DYK for Black History Month. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion requested

Due to finding the close paraphrase mentioned above in the "Copyright" subsection of the review and the plagiarism you found, I'm requesting another reviewer to help double-check against sources to ensure that all copyright problems are now fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria and Dianna are the first names coming to my mind for copyvio-check. What do you think? Will look at you points above now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, we became aware at a time parts of this article were rather too closely taken from the buio at AllMusic, and the on by DECCA. Could you please check if the current version is independent enough? - Thank you for checking the clarinetist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion there are spots that are too close to other sources as well - compare for example "arbitrarily changed the rules of the competition during the second round in what was likely a racially motivated decision" with CNN's "arbitrarily change the rules on her during the second round in what appears to have been a racially motivated move". As to AllMusic, unfortunately I do still see overly close paraphrasing there: compare for example "Its slow tempo is controversial, but the tonal qualities of her voice are ideal for these late works of the Romantic German lieder tradition" with "Its slowness was controversial, but the tonal qualities of her voice were ideal for these final works of the great Romantic German lieder tradition". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just dropped that long-ago clause about the prize judge. Can't help thinking that perhaps CNN rather copied from "us" than the other way round, but won't argue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they did (haven't checked) we can add {{backwards copy}} on the talk and should definitely not cite them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased the 4 last songs elaboration which I never liked anyway - as said several times: I didn't write it. Anything else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rephrasing misinterprets the source somewhat: it agrees that the vocal qualities are suitable, but the tempo is deemed controversial rather than simply appropriate. Perhaps quoting would avoid that problem?
By the same logic as above with the CNN source, either we're copying from Bach Cantatas or we shouldn't be citing it - some of the content is identical between there and here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to find Bach Cantatas among the sourcs, because it takes from Wikipedia. - Too tired for more right now. Can you perhaps paraphrase the Strauss, or use quotes? It's really something a native speaker can do better. - We can also drop the sentence, - it won't change much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the 4 last songs, this review is perhaps even better, attests that her version with Masur is the slowest, and has "its slowness leaves us suspended between heaven and earth in transfigured ecstasy, as the skylarks serenade". Use it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have the copyright issues been fully cleaned up now? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will go ahead and remove Bach Cantatas as a ref. Will ping you when done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reaper Eternal, I did it, - was harder than expected. I also rephrased. Nikkimaria, would you please check once more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Life and career is clear. When I got further down though I did find some potential issues with non-cited sources: for example, "innovative programming and fervent advocacy of contemporary music" is a direct quote from this earlier source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased that one, actually the whole paragraph, dropping the windy praise. Next? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same section also copies from http://gcdtp.com/proof/norman/ - suggest checking both this and the following section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to cut these two paragraphes complete, integrating a bit - such as quotation - elsewhere. They come at a point in the article when readers may have concluded these remarks from the bio anyway. Nikkimaria, Reaper Eternal, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and did that, keeping mostly the quotations. Nikkimaria, Reaper Eternal, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done another pass through this article and its sources, and it appears that the copyright violations have all been cleaned up. I've also fixed a few minor issues with the prose that were introduced in the cleanup process. Thanks to both of you for all your work on this article throughout the review process! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jessye_Norman/GA1&oldid=944243820"