Jump to content

Talk:Otis Redding/GA3

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: Ishtar456 (talk · contribs) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comments: First reading, I have not looked at the sources yet.
  • Maybe I am just PC sensitive but I would make some changes to this sentence in the lead: "...initially more popular among blacks, he later became equally popular among whites." I prefer:...more popular among African Americans...later...among the general population. I think that other people, other that blacks or whites might be counted among his fans. I do not see why the use of "blacks" when it is linked to the more appropriate "African Americans".
  • Done
  • some of the citations are out of numerical order like "Shooters.[19][7] Wayne Cochran" and "his soul into it."[21][15]"
  • This is because 7 has more content than 19. 19 is a specific reference, while 7 a general. The same for 21/15, but I can reorganize the references if this is necessary.--GoPTCN 10:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)They have to be in numerical order when they occur together, like that.[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, his debut album peak at #20 on Billboard. I would describe it as "least successful, not "worst-selling". As I was reading it I thought it completely tanked and I don't think 20 is that bad. I understand this better now.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by the last paragraph of the "Apollo" section, especially the discussion of "Security" and Jenkins. I'm just scratching my head wondering what it means.
  • This sentence confuses me: "Around the time Redding and Carla Thomas were awarded a gold plaque for their album King & Queen, Thomas recorded a solo-album on the same night, in Washington D.C. at the Bohemian Caverns, entitled The Queen Alone, but the album was never released." Who is Thomas? What does this have to do with Redding's death? What night was it? "Around the time"..."on the same night is confusing". Was it the night Redding died?
  • Around the time they were awarded the gold certification, Thomas recorded a solo-album on that night. I moved it there were it already says he died.--GoPTCN 10:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the first discussion of his death is confusing. Here, he is dead and the next thing I know the band is on a plane. I think maybe the second paragraph could begin "By 1967 the band had taken to traveling by plane..." That way maybe segway from him being dead to how it happened.
  • Second reading: I understand that this article has a history of problems with the prose. I am committed to sticking it out with you to try to get this worked out. I have done a number of edits and am happy with the prose up until the last paragraph of the "Apollo" section. This is the first mention of "Security" and I have no idea what it was (an album?, a song?, a tour? Was it a turning point? Was it successful? I just do not know). All I know about Redding prior to reading this is "Dock of the Bay" which is a good thing for this review I think, because I can tell you straight out that I do not understand that paragraph. There are too many ideas in it, I'm not sure there is a relationship between the ideas and I'm concerned that a lot of it is irrelevant. I would like it if you could rewrite it, making it clearer to someone like me who really does not know. Meanwhile, I am going to work on the chronology of the "Death" section and decide if it needs to be moved to further along in the article. Him dying in the middle of the article is problematic for me. This may end up being a very long review, but hopefully will end up a GA.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After more edits, I am satisfied up to the end of the "Death" section accept for the above mentioned paragraph and the fact that the first paragraph of the "Last studio Album" section needs some citations. There were none until I moved the fact in the last sentence from the death section. The quote especially needs a citation. Also, the problem with the citations being out of numerical order is throughout the entire article and must be fixed. I will plunge on further tomorrow. But please correct those issues. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded the The Queen Alone sentence. You split it into two sentences, but as the first phrase is irrelevant, but is just providing us more information, the two phrases should stay as one sentence. Also I am not sure why you moved that sentence to "Posthumous releases and proposed recordings", since it does not provide any context to this article. As she recorded The Queen Alone before his death, isn't it a coincidence? So I think I should either remove that sentence or move it back. :) GoPTCN 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the "Security" description. It was a single (note the quotation marks), but was despite its funky rhythm commercially unpopular. I agree it does not belong to Redding's biography, and that is why I removed it. Regards.--GoPTCN 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request to re-order the citations is improper. Ishtar456, for GA work you are confined to the actual requirements of the WP:Good article criteria. You will not find "has all the footnotes in numeric order" to be listed anywhere in the GA criteria. Additionally, this request is a violation of WP:CITEVAR, which gives editors a free hand in establishing the citation style. If they want to list the footnotes in some order other than numeric order, then they are entirely free to do so. (This would be the case anyway, because the footnotes reorder automatically, and what's "in order" today will be out of order as soon as the next user moves a paragraph.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so, just so we are clear, it is perfectly alright to bundle citations as such? "Shooters.[19][7] Wayne Cochran" and "his soul into it."[21][15]"Ishtar456 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Neither the GA criteria nor WP:CITE express a preference between "his soul into it.[21][15]" vs "his soul into it.[15][21]". Both are equally acceptable.
(WP:CITEBUNDLE, by the way, is a bit of jargon for something unrelated.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how the "Queen Alone" discussion ended up in two placed. It took me a while to figure out where it belonged. I finally decided that it belonged with the discussion original discussion of their collaboration, but I guess I left it elsewhere too. Speaking of that paragraph, there is a quote there that needs a citation. You removed the "citation needed" tag, but did not replace it with a citation. And speaking of citations, it has been pointed out to me that I was wrong about the numbering of citations. I am sorry about that.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific? I myself read the Apollo several times aloud and I understood it. I am a big Redding fan and a non-native English speaker, so maybe that is the reason why I don't see errors. --GoPTCN 11:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Read: I want to try to wrap up all my comments tonight. I am good with the "Legacy" section, But the "Influence" section appears to be a long, long list of other artists. I think that that could be reduced to a couple of sentences and added to the "Legacy" section. I think that some of the most notable of those influenced could be mentioned as examples.
  • How about now?
  • The "Stage performance, ect, etc." section is odd and poorly written. There are sentences that seem incomplete and have problems with verb agreement. Statements like "that even the Ku-Klux-Klan would have respected him." sound like quotes. That phase alone is a good example of poor writing ["some one even the Klan could respect"... leave out "him" or "even the Klan could respect him"]. Again, I think that this part should be shortened, re-written and added to the legacy section. Another confusing sentence begins "Jerry Wexler meant Redding "did not.." meant when he said what? I do not think that meant was the right verb here. It is also used in a confusing way here: "His brother Rodgers meant he was 'confused'" When did Rodgers "mean" this? It is confusing because there is no quote from Rodgers prior to which the sentence refers, so I do not know what he was saying when he meant it.
  • I think if I merge the content to the Legacy section, then it would be too large. I do not understand why "that even the Ku-Klux-Klan would have respected him." is problematic. Anyway, I reworded it. I don't understand why you chose "could" instead of "would" and why you left out "him", since the intention of that sentence was to say that if he would be alive and still perform in front of KKK members, they would tolerate it. But "could" means that it was a possiblity, but when you write "would" instead of "could" the whole sentence becomes a redundant repetition.
  • "meant" can be synonymous to "believe" or "think".
  • The book just tells that he described him as such.--GoPTCN 11:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Song writing" section is okay. And so is the awards section although it says "aforementioned magazine" and there were several magazines mentioned before, so I would like to know which one.
  • My final analysis follows. I am asking for a second opinion based on the fact that I did a number of edits myself.
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:
    The last paragraph of the "Apollo" section, the "Influence" section and the "Stage performance, etc." section as discussed above. Second opinion requested because I made a lot of edits. Best of luck.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you have done a good job of addressing the concerns about the influence section. My observation is that there are just a few sentences really at issue. Since I had an idea of how to rework the "Security" mention in the Apollo section I took the initiative in fixing that up. However, I think the mention of "Guitarist Jenkins" in that paragraph could use more work to clearly communicate what it is talking about. That part of the paragraph is not entirely clear to me. The rest of the paragraph seems to be sufficiently in line with the GAC.
With the stage performance section I think you should split the sentence between him being described as "a true businessman" and the material about him being generally liked so that you can more appropriately reword the KKK comment. As it stand the sentence as a whole is a tad awkward and could be better handled as two separate sentences.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I should be clearer regarding the stuff about Jenkins. It is unclear to me what this wording is trying to say: "became more independent due to his acrimony and paranoia caused by the alleged plagiarism of his style during the only session between Galkin, Walden and Cropper."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It simply means that he thought they would steal his guitar style during that session. So he became more independent and had acricmony and paranoia. Do you have a suggestion to reword that sentence? You are the third who does not like it. There must be a solution, I believe.--GoPTCN 08:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what you just said is not what I was thinking that was saying at all, so surely there can be a way you can make it clear that he thought they would steal his style during that session. Presumably you have or had access to the source material, so I would sooner leave it to someone who does than try and suss out the right wording from what is included here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps something along the lines of "Because he feared that Galkin, Walden, and Cropper might plagiarize his playing style during the sessions, Jenkins began working independently from the group" would be better? Basilisk4u (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (summarized from talk page)

The article says, "At the age of 19, Redding met 15-year-old Zelma Atwood at "The Teenage Party". She gave birth to Redding's son, Dexter, in the summer of 1960 and married Redding in August 1961.[15] In mid-1960, he moved to Los Angeles with his sister, Deborah, and wrote his first songs including "She's Allright", "Tuff Enuff", "I'm Gettin' Hip" and "Gamma Lamma", the first later released as a single." What happened to his wife and child? As far as I can tell, they're not mentioned again. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see the editor's response on talk.

  • "His wife and daughter lived in a conventional American society" (the editor)
  • "His wife and daughter lived in a conventional American society." What does this mean? Is there a reference for this? Did he still have contact with them? Though he was extremely wealthy when he died (according to the article), did his son and wife get any? Did he have relationships with other women? (Did he have a personal life - other than the rather odd stuff about his personality mentioned in the article?) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "It means that this family was a classic example of a conventional, every-day-life American family. I, of course, can describe what she did her whole life, such as cooking, vacuuming, make the bed, washing up, ... She was not an important person in the music business, and she was just a housemaid; she had no impact on Redding. No, Redding had no other affairs. As stated below, he was a family man and would never leave her for other women. Well maybe they get money, but since his wife was married to him, she might have given a share of money to her children." (the editor)

I'm not satisfied with this answer. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be some more information about his wife. A few sources I found show that his wife has greater prominence in connection with his music and his legacy than the article acknowledges. Here is a listing: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. More information on his wife's role in his music before and especially after Redding's death would be the last barrier to GA status I think.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read (or listened) to the sources, except the book, and I did not found anything special that we could include here. She was simply not an important person in his music business. Sweet Soul Music, the best book about soul music, has an impressive biography about Otis Redding, and I doubt that anything can surpass it, and there is not a single statement that she contributed to his music. If she was really that notable in music, there would be surely an amount of information, but I did not find anything. Also, to avoid trivia, there is no need to put information about her wife in this article. As I said, if there is anything special, then point me to it. Regards.--GoPTCN 19:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the sources above indicate she is in charge of his estate, including his music.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be kind to name a few. Regards.--GoPTCN 21:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I listed six sources above, many of them contain that information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, over a week ago I had put this on hold thinking that the second opinion had been completed. I went back to re-read the entire thing in order to decide once and for all whether or not to pass it. I found a few more things that bothered me and when I came on to list them I find this discussion. I think the problem with his wife is that it is mentioned that she had his baby and married him and then he moves away with his sister. It reads as if he left his wife. I think if the answer to the question "Well...did his wife and kid go with him????" was answered it would be fine. I also think that it would be nice if there was more information about his wife and kids, because it is a biography and, gee whiz, that is part of his bio, is it not? Either way, but I do think at the least the question should be answered because it is so obviously leaving the reader hanging. Also:

  • In the lead "His legacy remains solid" seems vague and possible slang and it is irritating.
  • "his legacy includes the inspiration that he gave to other popular musicians..." something like that?
  • In the Whiskey A Go Go section it says "When the crew arrived in London, The Beatles sent their limousine near the airport to pick up the band.[40] Redding, however, began touring Europe six months later.[41]" I do not get why it says "however".
  • In the Last Studio album section it says: "Redding whistled at the end, either forgetting Cropper's ending rap..." should it be "wrap" or "rap"? I am asking because I really don't know, sounds like slang. I don't know the lingo so I do not know what it means.
  • Well, that is why I ask, because I am not familiar with the term, does it mean the end of the song? I was thinking that if it does, it might derive from "wrapping it up" like as in ending it...like "it's a wrap!" Other than that all I can think of is "rap" music" which "Dock of the Bay" certainly is not. So I am confused. Is there another way you can put it so that someone like me who is not familiar with the term will not get this confused?
  • I think you are confusing hip hop music with rapping. Note that hip hop music is a genre, and rapping is a sprechgesang invented by African-Americans. Although the Golden Age of Hip Hop was in the early 70s, there were indications of rapping in the early 20th century. So, it is very likely that Redding could perform a rap at the end. I don't see how it is confusing, especially since Redding was African-American, born and grew up in the South, and his genre (soul/R&B, sometimes funky) was influential for hip-hop artists.--GoPTCN 09:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is my point. I do not know as much about music as you do so I did not know that rap meant (as the source explains) a spoke part of the song). I was thinking it meant the end of the song like "wrapping it up". But now that I read in the source that a rap can occur in the beginning, middle or end, I understand the usage so I think that if you are going to use it that way you need to somehow define it since not all of us were born knowing that that is what it meant. The source did not assume I knew what it meant, why would you?--Ishtar456 (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Death section it says "Fraser radioed for permission to land". Who is Frasier? It is the first time that this person is mentioned and it does not say who he was. Maybe the pilot, so it should say "The pilot radioed..." Unless you want to introduce him in a prior sentence.

That is it for me for tonight. I guess the hold can stay for another week, but at some point I am going to call it quits.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the corrections. I agree though, that something needs to be done about his wife. Please let me know on my talk page when you make significant changes, otherwise I might not check. Thanks, --Ishtar456 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC) This review is a month old now and has been on hold for over two weeks. I see no changes regarding his wife (as several people have suggested) and nothing has been done to clear up the meaning of "rap" (see response above). I feel like you are so very close to having this pass, but I am not going to sit here and read the whole thing again knowing that those comments have been ignored. If you deal with them today, I will read through one more time tomorrow (afternoon EST) and make the final call. But if you don't, I will fail the nomination on the grounds of faulty prose.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has failed due to the issues with proses stated throughout this review.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Otis_Redding/GA3&oldid=1064612957"