Jump to content

Talk:Krista Branch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKrista Branch has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 26, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
July 27, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
August 3, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Comments on 2nd GAN

[edit]

SHOULD BE FAILED SUMMARILY It is probably not appropriate to renominate an article the very next day after it was failed and to do so without making any improvements. Considering it was failed because the nominator did not make improvements to allow the article to meet or exceed required standards set by MOS compliance and GA criteria, some improvement would have been a sign of good faith. If you want to renominate it, revise the article per the suggestions made in the 1st GA review. I must remind you that your behavior is rather belligerent to this editor's previous good faith attempt to review the article and provide positive, constructive suggestions for its improvement upon which any GA-promotion would be contingent. As you have refused, obstructed and ignored suggestions for improvement, this 2nd GA nomination is rather disingenuous, spiteful, disrespectful and should be failed forthwith with the nominator sanctioned for improper behavior. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your thoughts are well known i.e. SHOULD BE FAILED SUMMARILY. As a point of information: my subjective impression is that the article as it currently stands is non-compliant in parts and that corrective work is need to bring it up to standard; however, the nomination does deserve a proper review against the criteria, a clear statement of why it is not compliant, and if appropriate time to carry out corrective actions. I also consider that both Talk:Krista Branch/GA1 and this "review" are not acceptable. Reviews are for assessing articles against the criteria not to provide a platform for the reviewer to broadcast what look like confrontational comments to the nominator, such as: I must remind you that your behavior is rather belligerent to this editor's previous good faith attempt to review the article and provide positive, constructive suggestions for its improvement upon which any GA-promotion would be contingent. As you have refused, obstructed and ignored suggestions for improvement, this 2nd GA nomination is rather disingenuous, spiteful, disrespectful and should be failed forthwith with the nominator sanctioned for improper behavior. It is clear from the first review that the nominator was requesting a second opinion and it is also clear from that review that the reviewer (you) had no objections to a second opinion, but had no clear idea of how a second opinion might to obtained. Note: Information on Second opinions can be found in the green box at the top of Wikipedia:Good article nominations, since you are reviewing nominations you aught to be familiar with the processes. At several points in the review the nominator did try and provide guidance on the processes and that did not go down well. I can understand that as a reviewer, but you choose to review the nomination so you aught to be familiar with the processes that are currently used. Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew about the tab on the WP:GAN page and I'm familiar with the processes (several years ago, I was involved in nascent policy discussions under my former name, only a few minor things have changed since then). If the nominator wanted it, I wasn't inclined to do more than I had to--let him work for it (after all, he was too much an aggravation after my review and I really wasn't in the mood). But I do notice that even if someone sends out a bat signal or invitation for a 2nd opinion it is no indicator that anyone will show up for the party. It seems that many of the WP processes RFC, Peer Review, Copyeditors, and GA takes forever to get anyone to notice and even longer to get a constructive opinion (i do wonder how many click a page see length and say "someone else will take care of it"--because I do it myself). The backlog was never this bad. So, it wasn't a lack of familiarity with the mechanics (which are straight-forward enough), it was more "o.k., what next?" I admit, I wasn't clear, but part of that was purposeful omission.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is perfectly true that in many cases a GAN review with the relevant "2nd opinion" flag flying would still be waiting for a second opinion one or two weeks later. I tend to avoid contributing a 2nd opinion, since I find it easier to undertake a new review from scratch even when I'm in broad agreement that an article needs work to bring it up to standard. Possibly of more relevant to me, this is not a topic that interests me, the reviewer-nominator relationship appeared to be troubled, and as you stated above, the hope is that someone else will do it first. I suspect that I am not alone in this. Finally, but not least, thanks for accepting the offer of another reviewer (SilkTork) to undertake the second review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Krista Branch/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 20:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am normally a slow reviewer. I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements rather than make long lists, though sometimes I will make a general comment on copy-editing if there is a lot of work needed. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

[edit]

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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]
Pass
Query
  • Stable. There has been a recent dispute. I think the dispute is now over, and I would hope to not see any further edit warring; however, I will not pass the article for at least seven days to measure stability. I'm also unsure which version of the article I'm to review. This version is the last version by the nominator, and appears to pretty much meet GA criteria, or the current version which has a lead that doesn't meet WP:Lead, a layout that doesn't meet WP:LAYOUT, and has a clean up tag. I would prefer to work with the version which is closest to being GA compliant, and would advise going back to that version; though I'm open to suggestions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually tried to put a note in the renom that I wanted that version to be the one that gets reviewed so I will restore it to that. From discussions elsewhere it seems the objections of the previous reviewer that made the changes are not supported by anyone else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broad coverage. I note that there is no date of birth, nor a birth name. In the alternative version there was a birthdate and a birth name. Where did those details come from, and why are they not in the article now? I just did a search myself, and one blog site had the 1981 birthdate, which it said came from the official site, but I looked on the official site and couldn't find anything. Is this information which was available, but has now been suppressed by the subject herself? SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was working on this article I did not notice her full name or maiden name mentioned in any reliable sources online, let alone a birth year. I first saw that when it was added here so I am not sure it should be included.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's useful but not essential detail to have birth name and date. If it is to be included, it needs to be accurate and reliable - it is not reliable, then best leave it out. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead. The opening paragraph has info about her marriage and children and where she was born - is this what she is notable for? The second paragraph appears to contain details of why she is notable. I'll switch it round - if I'm wrong, let me know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fail

General comments

[edit]
  • "best known" - unless there is a source for this detail, it would be better to leave it out. Consider: "Krista Branch is an American singer whose 2010 single "I Am America" has been called the anthem of the Tea Party movement." The most important details of a person - the reason they are notable - is generally what we put in the opening paragraph, so there's an element of editorial opinion anyway, but that's not quite the same as making a firm statement. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2010 single "I Am America" - I have checked the sources - nobody refers to it as a single. Where is the information coming from that it was released as a single? It appears to have been posted on YouTube. There is one source in the article, IndieVisionMusic, which mentions an EP - though with no label details, and little indication of format. Are there any other sources for the music being somehow released, rather than posted on YouTube, or available to download from IndieVisionMusic? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an old man, so I still tend to think of a single as something physical - though, of course, a single can also mean a download. Might be useful to get some form of chronology and clarify for the reader what has happened. The song was posted on YouTube, and it was there that it attained some attention; and at some point the husband creates a distribution company which allows the song to be downloaded from iTunes. I am assuming that the EP is available in some physical format such as a CD, though the "single" version, is download only. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity I have changed a couple of instances of "single" to "song", where song seems more suited - such as posting onto YouTube. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed around one of those to more closely reflect the sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this point, there had actually been an external link to an iTunes preview page supporting that, but an editor removed it per WP:ELNO. As it was only being used to indicate that her music had been released on iTunes I felt it was a reasonable use of the source. Would it be reasonable to use that site as an external link or reference to verify that the music had been released on iTunes?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Preferable would be an independent source saying that the music is available to download from iTunes. Though primary sources are permissible if an independent secondary source cannot be found. Treat it as a source, and use an inline citation rather than an external link. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I figure it isn't really important to mention iTunes so I removed the mention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As above, a primary source is permissible if a secondary cannot be found. But care must be taken not to analyse or interpret. The source must stand for itself, and not need explaining. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did good on that. Technically the first time it pops up is regarding the EP, with the name "Soundmindpro Publishing" being listed, but I think saying that Soundmindpro = Sound Mind Productions is sufficiently obvious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the Politics section, there are several statements made which are cited to four sources at the end of the paragraph. Per WP:INTEGRITY, it would be preferable to have the sources cited closer to the appropriate statements, so the reader can quickly and easily check, for example, the source for Branch saying that her "admiration for America is the unifying principle of her music". SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I looked it up: "No reason that this cover is significant. While there is a general consensus that a single cover image on an article about a release is acceptable, this does not extend to related articles, whether or not there is a specific article on the release." SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A case could be made that the article deals in critical commentary on the song, so an image of the song's CD release identifying the release, would be acceptable. But that is outside the scope of this GAN, and is something that could be considered for future development. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

[edit]

The article now appears to be stable. This is a readable and informative article that meets the GA criteria; though a minor topic, it provides the sort of useful, neutral and reliable background information that a reader would be looking for in a general encyclopaedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Krista Branch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Krista_Branch&oldid=1257301152"