Jump to content

Talk:Otis Blue/Otis Redding Sings Soul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOtis Blue/Otis Redding Sings Soul 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
May 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
November 5, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Otis Blue: Otis Redding Sings Soul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'll start reviewing the article by next week. By Monday May 7, i think.--Hahc21 (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i'll contact the editors who collaborated in the article.

Round 1

[edit]

First scan

  • Lead section
    • The lead section needs to be reworked to properly cover all the topics of the article.
    • "Written in a 24-hour period, except "I've Been Loving You Too Long", Otis Blue mainly features cover songs by popular R&B and soul artists." Needs to be rewritten to be clearer. And also if the album covers past songs, it could never be written.
  • Overview
    • Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide this section should not exist. The article body should be divided into the following sections:
      1. Background
      2. Recording/production, Release/promotion/marketing
      3. Musical style/writin/composition
      4. Artwork/packaging
      5. Touring
      6. Reception (including both commercial and critical)
      7. Tracklisting
      8. Personnel
      9. Charts
      10. Certifications
      11. Release history
    • The article only meets a couple of them. Of course, these sections appear if information regarding its content is available. This article mixes critical reception with recording and releases, three topics that should be in different sections, whatever be the length of them. Also, on the lead, the article talks about commercial performance which is not explained in detail into the body. There is no release history even when the article talks of several releases and re-releases and collectors editions.
  • Trackslisting
    • The tracklisting for the original release is perfect. However, the tracklisting for the 2008 CE is a different story. it needs to be rewritten and included into the tracklisting above. Example: I Am... Sasha Fierce.
  • Charts
    • Almost perfect. The tables are as the should. But the sources need to be put insise the table, not underneath.
  • Personnel
    • The Personnel section is perfect.
  • References
    • The references are a mess to read. I'll be doing a minor fix to see if i can make them more readable.

Final comments: This article needs to be re-structured, reworked and also copyedited or peer reviewed to be a GA. As of now, it cannot reach that status on this review. I'll be waiting for the contributors (which i've contacted) to see what options they give me and make my decision. --Hahc21 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If i don't see any response by Thursday May 10, 2012, i'll be checking the article against GA criteria and give my verdict. --Hahc21 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The verdict

[edit]

This article needs so many changes, and they cannot be done during the review process. So i recomend doing what is needed to be done first and then renominating the article again for GA. Also, i suggest a copy-edit or a peer review. All that has to be done is pointed out above.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Final comments: With some work, this article could surely reach GA status. 2 things it mandatorily needs: grammar revision, and a modification of the article body with the right sections. it needs to comply with the Manual of Style and the album article style. --Hahc21 (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One day on hold is very short, and furthermore you did not leave me a message on my talk page that it is on hold...--GoPTCN 12:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That could be easily done if you would have contacted me and waited until I did the changes; why you failed it? I worked on other articles and I was busy in real life...--GoPTCN 12:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually left a comment on your talk page a couple of days before to let you know i was reviewing the article. I didn't put it on hold. I felt the issues were too many to be fixed directly on the review. As i said on my talk page, i'd be glad to help you out to prepare the article for GA, and i'll make the reassessment by myself. --Hahc21 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2012 (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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually doing GA Reviews at the moment, but an article on a classic album done by a decent contributor, and it's been hanging around for three months! Well, gotta do that!

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:46, 4 October 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 on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
Query
I've removed the image. This resolves the question. I feel it is inappropriate as it gives undue weight to Cropper in an article about Redding (much as I admire Cropper!). SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::The image has returned, so that will need to be discussed as to if it is "appropriate" under GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fail
  • Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
  • "Generally speaking is Otis Blue more individual than Redding's prior albums, leading to be named "one of the most complete LPs ever recorded" by Glasgow Herald's David Belcher." This is a problematic statement for several reasons, and I was about to parse it in order to tidy it up (should it say "Generally speaking Otis Blue is more individual...." and "leading it to be named"), when I thought to check on who David Belcher is, and the Glasgow Herald. When neither David Belcher nor the newspaper turned up as being notable for their reputation for commenting on classic soul albums, I wondered if it might simply be easier to remove the statement. Reading the quote in context: "words fail me, as you may have noticed. In short this is one of the ....", and it appears that he is a fan enthusing over the album, but not actually articulating very well. He appears to be saying that he likes the album because it contains so many songs he enjoys - and that's why he considers it "the most complete". SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the sentence. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

A very useful introduction to a very important album. I've passed everything apart from the lead, which needs building up from information contained in the article (like the backing band, etc). And the statement about best album to date needs clarifying. On hold for an initial seven days to allow the work to be done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note left for Tomcat7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will shortly begin with the expansion of the lead. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded it a bit. What do you think? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

""Ole Man Trouble" and "Respect", were written during the sessions..." - Later we have the information that "Respect" was "written by Redding for R&B singer Speedo Sims...." So it appears that "Respect" at least wasn't written during the session. Is it supposed to say "...were recorded during the sessions"? Also, when checking Guralnick's book, it seems that the claim by Speedo is that he wrote the song himself, and that Redding rewrote it, but that most of the lyrics were Speedo's. Not sure how true that claim is given that Speedo says he's not interested in suing, but we'll need to adjust the wording slightly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "only song not recorded during the 24 hour session". It appears that "I've Been Loving You Too Long" was re-recorded in stereo during July 1965. The mono recording with Booker T on piano, and the July recording with Hayes on piano. Seems likely that the re-recording was done during this session. A bit more research and another rewording perhaps? SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

[edit]

Article meets GA criteria and is a useful and readable guide to an important album. I have removed the ratings template as I feel it is not in compliance with GA criteria nor with other guidance on Wikipedia. What happens to the article after this review is not up to me, and if someone wishes to replace the template, so be it - but I cannot in good conscience pass this article as a GA when I feel it is in contravention of the GA criteria and other guidelines.

Well done to all involved in improving the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cropper image

[edit]

Not much specified about appropriateness at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Per WP:PERTINENCE, "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." While it may not be contemporary, it's in black and white, which adds to that old aesthetic. No Otis images available. Perhaps a picture of the original Muscle Shoals studio would be more appropriate? Dan56 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a nice picture from a book depicting the session. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect image. Dan56 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Otis Blue/Otis Redding Sings Soul/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Green tickY All the start class criteria

Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album.

User:Dan56 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 23:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Otis Blue/Otis Redding Sings Soul. 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) 03:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recording dates

[edit]

I see several sources mention that, except for one track, the album was recorded in a 24-hour session on July 9–10, 1965. None of the sources specify which track is the extra one though, nor do they say on which day it was recorded. The infobox writes it was April 19, 1965, but this is unsourced by the current version of the page. I lookied at CD reissues on Discogs to see if there were any helpful liner notes, but I came up empty. Can anyone help here? Tkbrett (✉) 01:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In his liner notes to the 2015 CD release, Rob Bowman writes that the mono version of "I've Been Loving You Too Long" was cut in April 1965. That is as specific as he gets. The song was rerecorded for stereo during the Otis Blue session. I have added this to the article. Tkbrett (✉) 15:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Otis_Blue/Otis_Redding_Sings_Soul&oldid=1211307379"