Talk:Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: EddieHugh (talk · contribs) 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting a jazz article to GAN; I'm trying to get a few there myself. I'll take on the review: I'll go through from lead to the end, making some changes, adding comments and questions here, then polish off the six criteria. Please change / comment on any of my edits that you think could be better.

Lead: Appropriate length and content, but I question some of it...

Consider changing to "by the American jazz pianist Thelonious Monk, featuring...", as this is common/normal in jazz, and would help accuracy in the infobox, as the next recording is not by the Quartet.
The album is credited to the quartet, not just Monk. Changed chronology parameter in the infobox.
Fine, but Monk being a pianist is not mentioned.
"It was Monk's first successful live recording." "Successful" is vague (commercial/artistic/technical?) and remains so in Background. I'd remove the sentence.
"wikt:successful": "accomplishing what was proposed".
What was proposed? If unknown, it's unclear (criterion 1a).
"The album was titled..." This is not fully accurate, as it was titled after the composition from a decade earlier (as stated in Composition) – change to "The album was titled after Monk's 1948 composition, which was..."? "Vividly" is also vague, but I assume it's from the source.
Revised.
ok. See below on "at the time" (1a).
"Misterioso features four of his earlier compositions, which Monk rearranged live." I can't find the "live" bit in the main sections. I'll comment more in Composition.
Doesn't "Giorgio de Chirico'" need an "s" (and in main body)? (1a)

Background: Could be clearer and more detailed...

"After returning to the New York City club scene". Where had he been immediately before? Simpler just to say, "Pianist and composer TM began performing with his quartet, featuring JG, AAM and RH, at the FSC, NYC, in mid-1958" (thereby taking care of my next comment, too)? More info on what he'd been doing would be nice, but maybe not necessary for GA.
I'm just sticking to the most reliable sources on this topic, none of which had mentioned where he had been before.
"After returning" as a start to Background leads to the Q of where he was before (related to the withdrawal of his cabaret card, I assume), so is also 1a.
Try to get the two mentions of his quartet that are in para 1 into a single sentence (they were the same, according to this discog.)
Same response as above.
So also unclear (1a).
I removed "successful"; is the reason for the earlier recording being rejected known?
If there was, I'd have found it, looking through Google, GoogleBooks, GoogleNews, etc.
Unclear (1a).
"and challenging at the time". Clarify which time – recording and release, I assume, but a statement about Monk's reputation up to that point could help the reader.
What other time?
of composition / first recording (1a). Also in lead.
"Latin". Italian is more likely, but I lack the ready means to demonstrate that, so leave it if it's from the source.

Composition: I've edited this a lot; hopefully the result is more structured.

Apart from editorializing beyond what the sources implied and unnecessary diction changes, I don't see how that was necessary. If there is a pertinent issue with my revision, please bring it up here. Dan56 (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change sec title to Music, to be more accurate?
The descriptions of the songs use music theory and composition terms.
ok.
Something about the third track, "Let's Cool One", is needed.
The sources available on this album dictate that; none discussed this song significantly.
Criterion 3a. Also 1a, as the composers & newness of songs have been raised. So any brief mention of it as a new version of a Monk tune is enough.
Comments on, or at least mentions of, the three bonus tracks are also needed.
Why are they needed?
Criterion 3a. Also 1a, especially as Blakey appears. However, for GA, the mention in Reissues can be considered enough.
It's a matter of choice, but using the present tense to describe the music could add more immediacy.
I thought that too, before having reviewers at FAC bring up consistency as an issue. See Aaliyah (album)'s FAC.
ok
In the Lead, using something on the 4/6 compositions that is closer to the phrasing in this section could aid its clarity.
What do you mean by "4/6 compositions"?
The album's 6, or Monk's 4 "earlier compositions" (now in this section also, and 1a – earlier than what?).
This section could be much clearer: an intro to the tracks & composers will provide structure, helping to avoid, taking the first sentence as an example, confusion about terms ("arranged" versus "reworked") and types ("earlier" than what? Did he not rework the remaining 2?); the use of some technical terms is misleading or unclear ("theme", "eight-bar", "thirty-two-bar form"); who did what and when in para 3 is unclear; repeating song titles at ends of sentences confuses.

I'm pausing for now – will continue tomorrow.EddieHugh (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review restarts

I'll continue in your preferred style, so won't edit the article; this is also reflected in the latest comments above.

Release and reception

First sentence: released where? (1a)
Down Beat: first in which category? (1a)

Reissues

change to "remastered for CD"? (1a)
Evans' album was not Moonbeams. (1a)
"three previously unreleased tracks" is contradicted by Track listing section. (1a)
Blakey replacing Haynes, or both playing? (1a)

Track listing

Nice, except bonus tracks clash with Reissues section. (1a)

Personnel

Tarantino also did 2012, according to Reissues section. (1a)
(1989 personnel not needed for GA.)

Release history ok

References

Year for 7. (2a)

Bibliography

Years for all. (2a)
The first one is "Fantasy" in References, so having that as first word would be clearer (1a)

External links

ok, although, unhappily, it gives different release years (1958).

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
See comments above.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Very minor changes, as above.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
See comments above.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Images from nearer 1958 would be ideal, but not needed for GA.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold.

EddieHugh (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaking clarity of the prose with subject matter; all the sources available on this article's topic were expended, so there shouldn't be a question of comprehensiveness. Per WP:GACR, the (3a) 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." I don't understand most of your references to (1a) and (3a), apart from a few citation blunders, typos, not spacing the link for Moon Beams, and mistaking what the AllAboutJazz source said about "previously unreleased tracks". You're demanding a bit too much than what is needed and what is notable to the article's topic; Per WP:Notability: "evidence from reliable independent sources ... gauge" whether something is notable to include. The information on Monk and the bonus tracks you're asking about isn't warranted. The former would likely be found in something biographical on Monk, and that would be appropriate to include at Thelonious Monk. You referred to my response as "your preferred style", but I doubt this revision would be accepted at an FA review: "featuring, in addition ..." is both unclear and a run-on, the changes to "background" were just more verbose and said the same thing, "one new original" and "one standard" are just repeating what is mentioned in subsequent paragraphs, "backed the saxophonist's" is unclear and informal, and the roles of each musician were already mentioned on first-reference in the preceding section. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to withdraw this nomination and have someone else review it after it's closed. Dan56 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and for making additional changes to the article in response to my previous comments. My main points... 1. My aim was to help improve the article in a collaborative way to get it to GA. I stated at the beginning that I would like you to change any of my edits that you thought could be better; my article edits were an attempt to do the review in an efficient way, instead of listing lots of problems on this page. When you asked me not to edit the article, I listed problems here instead. I didn't claim or mean to suggest that my edits were perfect/FA class/final. 2. Almost all of my edits have been reverted (that's fine), but my comments on clarity remain valid. The things highlighted as problematic re. 1a are either from the source (e.g., "It was his first successful live recording" – this is unclear in the source and, when it is put in the article, even when it has come from a strong source, it remains unclear), or from apparent mis-readings of the source (e.g., "resumed piano and played a two-minute theme" is "tweaking an all but straight A theme" in the original – the latter is a reference to part of the AABA form, not to a theme lasting 2 minutes). These sorts of things are likely to put off readers who know little about the topic and confuse those who know more: in short, "the prose is clear" (1a) is not met. This is not confusing clarity of the prose and subject matter: if the wording and grammar are fine but the meaning cannot readily be discerned, then clear prose has not been used. 3. On criterion 3a. I stated in my last comments that, for the bonus tracks, "the mention in Reissues can be considered enough". The only other 3a I requested was merely "any brief mention" of "the third track, "Let's Cool One"" – in an article about an album (that contains 6 tracks), the tracks are a core part, so having no mention of one means that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" (3a) is not met (tracks are "main aspects", not part of "every major fact or detail"). 4. I'd prefer to work these things out in a collaborative way, as the article is close to GA, but I'll accept your wish to withdraw it, which means that I will list it as Failed. And then I'll listen to the album again; maybe we can agree that listening to some Monk is a good thing to do... EddieHugh (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.