Talk:Simon & Garfunkel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). 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}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

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

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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Images are fair use, captioned and appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is stable, and appears not to suffer too much from IP vandalism. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Focus. I'm not seeing any section overly detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair and balanced. No bias detected. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is richly and helpfully cited. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Major aspects. The GA requirement is for major aspects rather than the comprehensive of FA. While I've been picking up some interesting info, such as Simon's interest in doo-wop and other forms of music, and Simon taking ideas from British folk artists while in England, I found nothing major missing. Most readers would find this a satisfying and helpful account of the duo. Some of the extra details can be looked into as part of the ongoing development of the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article remains close to sources. No evidence of original research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

*The citation style was changed in Sept 2014 without any apparent discussion counter to WP:CITEVAR. We currently have a mix of short and long citation styles. The short style looks neater and more academic, produces less clutter when editing, and tends to be the preferred style of a number of FA editors. The longer style is more helpful to readers and reviewers as the inline specific information can be read in one click, and the information regarding author, book and page number is provided in one place. The matter of which style to use, and if it should be consistently long or short (for GA it can be both, though for FA it should be one or other) needs to be discussed and agreed among the major contributors. My personal preference is for the long style, and that will make my job of reviewing the article easier; however, it's not my decision. As long as there is some agreement on which style to use, I will tick the citation criteria as passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will take much work, but currently the early part of the lead goes quickly into the duo's history before establishing why they are notable (that information is contained in the last paragraph). See WP:Lead for guidance on setting out the lead section. I haven't finished the review yet, and will return to the lead later to ensure it appropriately summarises the article, but felt it worth flagging this point early on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is mostly clear and readable, though there are phrases here and there which need attention. I don't think this is major, and I think it will be fairly easy to clean up during the review. I will make obvious corrections as I see them, and bring others here to discuss. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments

There are only four images in the article - two of which are from 1982, one from 2010, their last concert, and only one from the 60s when they were at their peak. The best image is used as the lead. The other three are of lesser quality. As part of ongoing progress it might be useful to seek out better quality images, especially from their peak period. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style and influences is a very short section. Any chance of either expanding this, or incorporating the information into another section? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather a lot of quotes in Recent years (2009–present). It would be worth reviewing the advice in Wikipedia:Quotations to see if all those quotes are appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the second-ever episode of Saturday Night Live" - Is it necessary to mention that it was the second episode? I'm not seeing the relevance to this topic. That he was the host, perhaps, though even then, surely the focus would be on the fact that Simon and Garfunkel are performing together. In 1975, Garfunkel joined Simon for a medley of three songs on Saturday Night Live which Simon was guest hosting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify "their breakup was almost certain pre-release" and "In 1975, they reconciled when they visited a recording session" - that statement comes straight after mentioning their 1972 reunion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Simon described as a guitarist/singer-songwriter in the lead? This is a non-conventional description - he is normally described as a singer-songwriter rather than a guitarist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify "Both Simon and Garfunkel became interested in the new counterculture movement and folk music separately." Did they separately become interested, or were they both interested but kept the movement and the music separate? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Both began smoking cannabis and discussing Simon's newer songs, and they began performing them at the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity house." This might be better as two sentences. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point: Should it be Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M. or Wednesday Morning, 3 AM? It helps to have consistency across Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is a clear, readable and helpful guide to Simon & Garfunkel. I don't see any significant reasons why this should not eventually be listed as a Good Article. There are some minor quibbles regarding some phrases, and the lead could be slightly developed, but these are fairly easy fixes. I'm going to do some background reading and check out the sources in order to finish the review with a focus on broad coverage, original research and reliable sources. In the meantime I'll put the review on hold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated per your suggestions.

Seeing as how I was the only huge contributor to the article in recent months I say long citation style.
I’d love to find higher-quality images (especially from the 1960s), but they don’t appear to usable unless I’m claiming fair use on something copyrighted, which isn’t really necessary for an article with four images. The 2010 one is definitely not the best quality, but I’m in favor of keeping it until they decide to reunite again (because as it stands, it could be their final performance).
Good call on Musical style section… I’ll work on that some more.
Online sources, from their official website to digital downloads, list the album as 3 A.M. I’ve updated that article accordingly (and all other obvious appearances of it).

Thanks! Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 3 A.M. is the more appropriate format. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working my way through sources now. The article, though mainly based on just two major sources, appears to broadly follow the main points others cover. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the short cites change from Eliot 2010 to Eliot 2007 - this appears to be a typo as there is no Eliot 2007 book, and the information cited is contained on the correct page of the Eliot 2010 book, so I will assume that Eliot 2010 is what was meant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify "began to commit their completed arrangements" - unfortunately the page used to cite that information is not available on the internet. What does it mean? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By writing "began to commit their completed arrangements," I meant recording their finalized songs. I suppose it's a little out-there and confusing, so I've updated it. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm hoping to get this wrapped up today - for a fairly straightforward review it's taken longer than I anticipated due to changing the short cites to long ones. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just running through the article a last time to deal with statements that are a little unclear. This one is puzzling me: In the article, after the Hey Schoolgirl single, they both return to their studies, with only Simon carrying on music in his spare time: "Garfunkel was not fond of the competitive music industry so returned to his studies. Simon, meanwhile, was taken by the experience, continuing to record with Prosen under the name "True Taylor"." This is sourced to page 24 of Eliot. Meanwhile, Fornatale says that Garfunkel continued recording - as a solo artist. Given that we have the evidence with songs such as "Private World", it looks like Fornatale is correct. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing

The clean up took a little longer than I thought it would, partly because of changing the short cites into long ones (I won't do that again!), and partly because it was more difficult than normal to get solid and useful information from sources to check on the unclear parts in the article - there appear to be several grey areas in their career, and sources conflict each other, or repeat errors - and it was at times really hard to track down the truth. Some sources say Garfunkel studied architecture, some said mathematics, some some art history - then it turns out he studied all three! So all sources were right in their way! There is some confusion regarding Garfunkel's studying dates, made more difficult because he re-enrolled after a year, and then went back to the same university to do a MA, and then to do a teaching qualification - and all this while Simon & Garfunkel were having their initial success. I suppose he was insecure after Tom & Jerry flopped after their first hit single, and then the record company bankrupt itself trying to get them a second hit, and at the same time he found his partner was trying for a solo career behind his back. Anyway. Listing the article. Well done to all contributors to the article, in particular Saginaw-hitchhiker who did some solid work in September last year. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]