Talk:The Forester Sisters/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 19:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
the sisters were nominated by the for Vocal Group of the Year in both 1985 and 1986 - aside from the ungrammatical phraseology, they were nominated for Vocal Group of the Year by whom exactly?
Weird, I swear I put that in. Must have deleted it by mistake. Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the two split production duties with Barry Beckett, James Stroud, and Emory Gordy Jr. - does this refer to the song or the album? (I have edited it on the assumption that it refers only to the song, but am not sure if this is correct).
Clarified. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

savvy for a couple tunes of to easily cross over to other formats - is this an accurate quote? Because it appears ungrammatical.
That is exactly how it's written in the source. Should I add a [sic]? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give a fuller quote on this page? Because I'm struggling to even understand what it means.
Oh, I see what you mean. It was the "of to" part. I didn't catch that. Fixed now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it makes sense now, thanks :)

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Okay, here's a minor issue albeit one that I think needs addressing. In some of the cite web templates for Allmusic, you have "Allmusic" placed in the "work=" field, and for others in the "publisher=" field. The difference is that the "work" field italicizes its contents and the "publisher" field does not, so you have inconsistent formatting in the references. IMO all the "Allmusic" strings should be in the "publisher" field, as Allmusic isn't really a "work", it's a website, and the "work=" field isn't a standard field in "cite web" anyhow.
Done Fixed, they should all say "publisher" now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer, I'm pretty happy with the shape of this article now, but I'm thinking that perhaps the lead is a little short. How would you feel about expanding it a bit? Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
The discography section is unsourced.
It doesn't need to be, since it's just summarizing points raised elsewhere in the article and/or on the page The Forester Sisters discography. Compare Eddy Raven#Discography, Steve Wariner#Discography, and Cam (singer)#Discography which are all formatted the same way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think it does need to be sourced. Even at DYK it's a requirement, and GA is supposedly a higher standard than DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it's already sourced elsewhere in the article. It's just linking to the articles. Do you really need a source to prove that the article exists? Do you really need to cite a given fact every single time it comes up? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you appear to have sourced it now, so the discussion is redundant. For the record though, lists have to be fully cited.

There is another issue though, which is that you only have eight albums listed and Allmusic lists thirteen.
Fixed. I included the Christian and compilation albums. You Again is listed twice on Allmusic, and there's also a non-notable budget line repackaging that I didn't feel was worth noting. I have found literally no mention of "Sunday Meetin'" anywhere in any contemporary news articles or trade publications, so I felt no need to include it in the body of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
TenPoundHammer, please check my edits to ensure they are acceptable to you. Other than that, I think this article is probably not far from promotion at this point, it's generally well written and with no evident major problems. I will probably return to wrap this up tomorrow if no further issues become apparent. Gatoclass (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: All of your edits look good. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer, I made a few additional tweaks, please look them over and let me know if they are okay with you. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: Everything looks good. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's late where I live, so I'll come back to give this the once-over before promoting it. Apologies for the delay in getting back to this over the last few days BTW, something came up off-wiki and I've simply been too busy to return to wikipedia until today. Gatoclass (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well written article that only required a few tweaks and corrections to get it up to speed. It does get a little repetitive with the repeated references to albums, singles released, producers and so on, but this is an issue with pretty much all articles about musicians and something that seems almost unavoidable if you want to give comprehensive coverage. In the case of this particular article, the repetition is alleviated by the review quotes leavened throughout, which help maintain interest. Certainly, as somebody with little interest in country music, the article was sufficiently engaging to make me want to go and listen to some of their music! Overall, a worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]