Talk:Red House (song)

Red House (song) 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.
Review: October 21, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Multi-Artist Collaboration

I saw a video on YouTube where Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and one of my favorite musicians, Jim Morrison of The Doors all performed this song together. When did that performance take place? 70.110.242.249 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at the scene club, nyc, march 1968

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red House (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheGracefulSlick (talk · contribs) 02:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a few GAs but this is my first review so bear with me a little. For what it's worth, I choose to lead with this article because I believe it is close to GA status already. I will provide a review with concerns and recommendations soon. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have a fresh perspective. Thanks for taking this on. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see this finally got a review, I have a little drive-by comment: it's probably best to avoid huge walls of white space like the one under "recording". It could be fixed by just right aligning the image. The subject isn't really facing any particular direction, so there isn't a MOS problem with "looking away" from the text. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FunkMonk. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening thoughts

Unfortunately, you have done a superb job and have given me little to critique ;) I have a some cosmetic recommendations and small concerns in need of clarification.

Lead

The lead reflects on the material in the body; no new information is included. I am happy to see the genre is already supported by a reliable secondary source.

Background

* A small query for the background: are songs usually described as "a blues"? I see this phrase used twice but in other places "Red House" is referred to as "blues number" or "blues song".

Composition/Lyrics

* In composition the question above applies here as well.

- References often use the terms interchangeably; I added it for variety and can change it if needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessary. I should have ~~crossed~~ this part out with the question above. It's the first time I have seen it but you and Ritchie333 assured me it is correct.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With GAs I've written and seen, the lyrics, including inspirations and themes, are detailed in the composition section. I recommend it here but consider it optional.
- Yes, it's an approach I've taken several times. However, here the lyrics are given more focus, which I think justifies a separate section. Of course, a combined "Composition and lyrics" section would work. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done That is a reasonable explanation to me. Those sections are fine as is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One quote in the lyrics could be explained in your own words. It was: "the song was written about Hendrix's old high school girlfriend Betty Jean Morgan".
- Will change. I'm looking through Redding's bio for more quote-worthy material. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't find anything, so will paraphrase. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done

Variations

Some of the versions you listed are unsourced. I assume you used Variations on a Theme: Red House for them but not all of our readers may realize that.
- Will add. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've clarified it and added extra citations. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done
This section should be re-titled "Live versions". Do you agree?
- Two are studio recordings, perhaps "Other recordings" or "Other recorded versions"? —Ojorojo (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Other recordings" sounds more concise. That will work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Used "Other recordings", but I didn't think repeating "Other ..." for the next section looked good, so I left it as is. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done

Renditions by other artists

Generally such a section is titled "Cover versions" or "Covers".
- Cover versions or covers mean different things to different people. The references (Erlewine, Murray, and Wetsergaard) don't mention the terms, preferring "versions", "renditions", "reinterprets", etc. "Cover" doesn't seem appropriate for a "radically Hookerized and thoroughly deconstructed version". At one time a cover was a close recreation of the original for use in the pop market. Today I think it's overused, when a song may be reworked or given a new arrangement (Prince's even has a new name); it lacks the nuance. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I cannot argue with that sound logic. The header can stay as is, unless you can make it a bit more concise. I consider this Done regardless.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts thus far. Great sources and even better work on your part.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In closing

It appears all my concerns have been addressed in some capacity and I do not have any additional ones after a final run-through of the article. Thank you Ojorojo for making this a painless experience and for being open to discussing my points. Good work!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: thanks for your suggestions and comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reference format changes

Hartcanyon: Hello. I see that you made several changes to the reference sections of this[1] and some other Hendrix articles, but didn't explain why. WP:CITEVAR (part of a guideline) includes "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." The style that was replaced was fine for the GA reviews and it appears that the changes only reflect your personal preference. Is there some other reason? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]