Jump to content

Talk:Wanda Jackson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I removed these lyrics as I believe they violate copyright laws. 

You can say I'm crazy 
Stone deaf and dumb
But I can cause destruction
Just like the atom bomb! 
'Cause I'm a Fujiyama Mama
And I'm just about to blow my top!

-- 12:14, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

OK. So, I guess those are supposed to be the "many references to the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima". I don't see it. Defenders? Steve Pastor 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a sound clip and an on line article with lines not in the link to lyrics, and also a sample h[1] Steve Pastor 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're well intentioned but they ould not violate copyright, a sample falls under fair use. Above all, when the lyrics are quoted to support or refute a political claim there are all sorts of special protections for political speech. You have to be able to support assertions, after all. Otherwise somebody could say, for instance, "Obama made bigoted remarks in his book" and never have to support the claim. "Can't tell you what he wrote. Copyright law, you know." Profhum (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to restore the quote, for the reason above, and some self described "gnome" pulled them out. I took them out again because I haven't time to give this self important person a course on copyright. I've been a member of the Council of Editors of Learned Journals and edited books and magazines, but Wikipedia is run by amateurs with LOTS of spare time. And it shows. I don't let my classes quote it anymore.Profhum (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First female rock n roll singer?

[edit]

that's a very absolutist way of putting it; especially since there were plenty of WAY earlier women in WAY earlier rock like sister rosetta tharpe (who actually played an instrument: one of the first women to play an electric guitar) who aren't getting mentioned here

Something different:
When exactly was 'Let's have a party' released? In the article, I found 1958, 1959 and 1960. Unfortunately, I have no sources myself to look it up.

According to the liner notes of the "Right Or Wrong" boxed set, the song was recorded in 1958, and released as a single in 1960.

Somebody should correct the discography, as the "albums" section is riddled with inaccuracies.

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Influence?

[edit]

Wanda Jackson was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as an "Early Influence." She certainly deserves to be in the Hall--- but (even though she was way ahead of her time) she's not all that early. She is only two or three years older than The Beatles, for example. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case for making B-class

[edit]

1. The article is suitably referenced. YES 2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. I don't think it has all the categories suggested by the Musician project. For the purposes of WPOK, I think it qualifies. 3. The article has a defined structure. YES 4. The article is reasonably well-written. YES 5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. YES 6. The article presents its content in an understandable way. YES

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wanda Jackson. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wanda Jackson. 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) 22:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Headed Woman

[edit]

A little rant here, from this particular hard headed woman. Wanda Jackson and Elvis were basically kids together and talents together, asking her father's permission to date and all that. She did the country rockabilly hits at least as well as he did. But Wikipedia's article on Hard Headed Woman is a real open and shut case of holding back the one for the wrong chromosomes. Not that getting the Elvis treatment was good for him of course. But even today here is Wikipedia saying that the song was basically an Elvis hit ( he didn't write it of course) and everybody else connected to the song like Wanda are incidental characters. When I was growing up, it's only the Wanda Jackson version of Hard Headed Woman that I heard about a million times playing on the radio, not the Elvis version. It's kind of funny IMO that the Hard Headed Woman Wikipedia article in almost 2023 is a perfect example of what Wanda faced in the late 1950's. I mean the pop culture significance of the Elvis version in terms of commercial success. In my ears, Wanda Jackson basically was the sister musically in every way of Jerry Lee, Little Richard and Elvis, and she had to be all that with minimal encouragement or positive guidance - although I'm sure you could make the same case for Little Richard - . But I think in terms of not being taken seriously....Wanda would have been taken by the industry as a bit of a freak show and not just as a person with a love for a certain art. The proof is in the listening.Harborsparrow (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently updated the Hard Headed Woman article. So far so good, it hasn't been vandalized. Elvis got a #1 hit out of it, but it's Wanda's version from about the same time that everybody remembers and that gets on diner playlists.Harborsparrow (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wanda Jackson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ezlev (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing this fascinating article! I've created two subsections below, one for {{GAProgress}} as an overview of the review's status and one for specific points to be raised and discussed. Any broader discussion can take place up here. Looking forward to working with you, ChrisTofu11961! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a preliminary review below, and I'll now put this on hold to await responses. Overall, this is looking good! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs)
@Ezlev: Hello! Thank you for your feedback. I went back and made changes based on your suggestions. See below. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done, ChrisTofu11961! I've added one new note to you about a verifiability issue, and then I've got some work to do – reading back through the article and that sort of thing. We're headed in the right direction! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ChrisTofu11961, just one minor question to resolve (at the bottom of the Prose list below) and then I believe this will meet the GA criteria! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ezlev: I think this should meet your needs now (see prose below). ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing! Great work, ChrisTofu11961, and congratulations! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ezlev: Thank you so much for reviewing! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

[edit]

Well written

[edit]

Prose: I've made some copyedits to the article, which has high-quality and clear prose overall. I'll make a final proofreading pass at some point. Notes:

  • References to Jackson's later recollections are sprinkled throughout the article, and in a number of cases it's not clear that she recalled these things later (i.e. in her autobiography) rather than at the time of the event being described. Clarifying these instances would be good.
    • Makes sense. I went back and clarified.
      •  Done
  • Note to self (reviewer): make another read-through
    •  Done
  • In the second paragraph of Early life: "While in the fifth grade, she started going by her first name, Wanda." This is confusing. What did she go by previously? Why is this significant? Can it be removed?
    • It doesn't make sense, you're right. I removed it.
      •  Done

MOS:

  • The lede is strong, but the first paragraph could stand to be broadened a bit with more details about her activity and prominence.
    • A fair point. I added more to this paragraph to clarify the types of music Jackson has been know for.
      •  Done
  • Citations in the lede, with the exception of the one supporting "The Queen of Rockabilly", should be moved into the body if possible. This should be simple since the content they support should also appear in the body.
  • Layout looks good!
  • There seem to be some charged terms used in the article, like (from the lede) "Jackson reverted to the country genre" and "re-discovering Christianity". These should be swapped for more neutral alternatives.
    • I changed these terms to make them more neutral and went through some more terms that I noticed. If there any I missed, please change them.
      •  Done
  • Lists look good!

Verifiable

[edit]

Reference style: A-OK Reliable sources:

  • I'm not very familiar with the reliability of AllMusic. Can you justify its extensive use here?
    • Sure. AllMusic is a website that provides comprehensive information about performers. Its reliable because the biography in which I took this from was written by a music historian, Kurt Wolff. Other biographies on this website are written by music journalists, writers and historians. Among the most popular is Stephen Thomas Erlewine. Many other "GA" articles on Wikipedia use AllMusic due to its reliability.
      • Ok, I'm satisfied with that.
  • Note to self (reviewer): double-check appropriate use of autobio per WP:BLPSELFPUB
    •  Done
  • In the lede, "She was among the first women to have a career in rock and roll" doesn't appear to have a source.
    • Never mind, found it in the body

No original research: Looks good! Free of copyvio: Song titles lead to high Earwig percentage, but looks alright

Broad

[edit]

Addresses main aspects: It sure does! Stays focused: Good as far as I'm concerned

Neutral

[edit]

Appears so, but I'll check in more detail later

  • After some wording tweaks, I believe it is!

Stable

[edit]

Absolutely!

Illustrated

[edit]

Beautiful selection of images. I'll admit to a bit of trepidation about the no-copyright-notice rationale because it can be difficult to verify, but all the images here appear legitimately free on the surface, and I verified a random selection. I'm willing to assume good fait that the information in Commons for the rest is truthful.

[edit]

wandajacksonmusic dot com is clearly no longer under Ms Jackson's control Thirdcareer (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing this. I have removed the usurped URL from the article, per the policy on dead links. NOLA1982 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wanda_Jackson&oldid=1252179314"