Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otis Redding/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 16:00, 26 May 2012 [1].

Otis Redding

[edit]

Otis Redding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GoPTCN 16:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following the first Catholic Church FA, I present you an article from an underrepresented area, namely Soul music. The article was nominated thrice at GAN and once at FAC, but it never passed the nomination. The reviewers of the last GAN opposed the promotion for minor reasons that I had already explained. Since the first FAC, the article was copyedited by many editors and two sections were added.GoPTCN 16:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments ~ Without a proper peer review, or succsessful GAN, I'm not sure this nom will last long, but I'll do my best to help out in the meantime. — GabeMc (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any need for those two cites in the lead? If this info is properly covered and cited to in the article body, then these can be removed from the lead (see WP:CITELEAD). Same with the cites in the infobox.
"[W]as an American soul singer-songwriter, record producer, arranger, and talent scout."[4] This could/should be integrated into the first few lines of his career section. "His open-throated singing", should be integrated into a style or legacy section, which the article will likely need to pass FA anyway. — GabeMc (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? --GoPTCN 07:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I mentioned that he was also a talent scout, producer and an arranger in the "Songwriting" section.--GoPTCN 09:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lead is intended to be a summary of the article body, so really, there should not be any information in the lead that is not covered in the article. — GabeMc (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, convtroversial statements can be mentioned in the lead only, see WP:LEAD.--GoPTCN 07:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think you may be misreading that. Controversial statements may sometimes need to be cited in the lead yes, but the lead should summarize the article, so if its not in the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. — GabeMc (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you are suggesting that the body should contain duplications of what is already in the lead, and which is cited there? --GoPTCN 09:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my suggestion, its how the lead is intended to be. You can have info in the article body that is not in the lead, but not the other way around. Again, this is not my opinion, its how it works here at wikipedia. See WP:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." — GabeMc (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-print sources should not be italicized, as in cites #50, 77, 90, 119, 120 (Allmusic, NME, Billboard.com/Rollingstone.com, whereas cites to actual Billboard, or Rollingstone issues should be italicized.), use the publisher field instead of the work field for non-print sources.
  • Locations are missing for some sources in the bibliography, this should be made consistant. — GabeMc (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rolling Stone Magazine Staff (1967). The Rolling stone record review. 1. Pocket Books." Needs isbn.
  • "MacDonald, Ian (2005). Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties (Second Revised ed.). London: Pimlico (Rand)." Per WP:ISBN, "Use 13-digit ISBNs, if available, as these are now standard as of January 1, 2007 and issued to new books." same with: "Appiah, Kwame Anthony; Gates, Henry Louis; Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. (2004). Africana: An A-to-Z Reference of Writers, Musicians, and Artists of the African American Experience. Philadelphia, Pa.: Running Press." Use 13-digit isbn. — GabeMc (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Spot checks:
    • Footnote 29 states "The Chitlin Circuit was a string of venues where black performers and audiences were welcome during the years of racial segregation in the mid-20th century." but the article states "These performance venues were safe for African-American musicians during the era of racial segregation which lasted into the early 1960s." which is subtly different - "lasted into the 1960s" is a bit different meaning than "during the years of racial segregation in the mid-20th century."
    • Footnote 27 is supported by its source and properly paraphrased.
    • Footnote 33 is supported by its source and properly paraphrased.
    • Footnote 37 uses http://allmusic.com/album/complete-unbelievable-the-otis-redding-dictionary-of-soul-r16348/charts-awards/billboard-single but that's just a bare listing of the chart positions. This does not support the information ""Try a Little Tenderness" was included on his next album, Complete & Unbelievable: The Otis Redding Dictionary of Soul. Although the song was commercially successful—it peaked at number 25 on Billboard's Hot 100 chart and at number 4 on R&B singles chart—the album was not." ... the part about the album not being successful isn't supported.
    • Footnote 68 ... http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=15622 I cannot find any mention in this source of the information it is supposedly supporting in the article : "In 2007, a memorial plaque was placed on the lakeside deck of the Madison convention center, Monona Terrace." Has something gotten lost in the various copyedits?
    • Footnote 123 http://www.exploregeorgia.org/Georgia/Attractions/Otis-Redding-Statue-at-Ocmulgee-Heritage-Trail-Gateway-Park/400580 ... I'm not seeing anything in this source from the Rhythm and Blues foundation at all??? Does not support the text "The Rhythm and Blues Foundation named Redding as the recipient of its 2006 Legacy Award."
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Definitely needs a full check of sourcing for problems. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Ling:
  • Oppose per 1a and 1c. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain your oppose. Why do you want more sources? Do they add significant content? Did you read the books or just copy-and-pasted the titles?--GoPTCN 08:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources I listed are mentioned more than once in other articles as being the definitive sources. It seems to me that perhaps they are at least as good as your, and perhaps better. And even if they are not, such heavy reliance on one source is ill-advised when others that are certainly no less notable are available...You have one and only one quote from Freeman (which, if you were my student, would make me think you copied someone who quoted Freeman), and none from the other two. The writing needs more than a little polishing, and in some sections may even merit a complete rewrite. Those are concrete and actionable Opposes. Beyond that, there is a less concrete and less actionable aspect: I just get the feeling that the topic has not been covered as well as it could have. This is in part due to the sourcing issues I just mentioned, and in part due to the fact that when I was done reading, I remembered a few blurbs praising Redding, but I didn't really have an understanding of the depth and breadth of his impact. Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians (Via HighBeam) describes Redding "the single most important and influential male soul artist of the 1960s". I really think that anyone who merits such high praise must have been analyzed at a deeper level by better sources than those on the Internet... The whole article, in general has the feel of something mashed together from subpar sources and without a lot of careful thought about the content. Please don't take any of this personally. You can always rework and renominate. Excellent writing and research are usually multi-step processes. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear LinkgNut, I don't know where you found that they are the definite sources, but I tell you that they are not very WP:RS. How can you tell they are reliable if his wife and Phil Walden even accused the author of one of the allegedly reliable source that he wrote hoaxes? Explain this to me. I don't think that if anything is mentioned many times is also reliable; I have a biography about Dostoyevsky and it has 6 pages of further reading material, and they weren't even peer reviewed! So tell me how that is possible. And you believe the prose is not "polished"; it was "polished" by many skilled writers. You did not name examples of bad prose, then how can I trust you? Furthermore, even if I buy or borrow this book (the latter is impossible here in Germany) then will you still oppose when I tell you that there were no important information? What will I need to do to prove that these books duplicated the information of Guralnick, Bowman and co? Guralnick's book received many awards, and Bowman's book about the history of Stax Records is the best book about this company and Soul music general.--GoPTCN 16:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have focused only on the sourcing issues, and not the substandard writing.... If I have time, i will try to track down the references I saw and post them here. Feel free to leave your nom open and see if a wave of support materializes from other reviewers. If that happens, then you will have been proven to be right. Cheers – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per Ling.Nut3. This article needs a proper peer review, then to pass GA before returning here. — GabeMc (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, but you did not review it properly. Elaborate why it needs a pr and gan? Several articles passed without. What will a peer review bring? What do the reviewers post there? And why not post issues here? If there are too much issues, then at least explain your position properly. I used the best sources about Redding. The mentioned books are jokes compared with the books listed in this article.--GoPTCN 08:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Noleander - I've read the article and I've read the comments above. I sympathize with the nominator because the issues mentioned above are not "smoking gun" problems (e.g. not all biographies are worthwhile sources); and the latter Oppose is short on details. On the other hand, the article has not had a Peer Review nor a successful GAN. The article looks decent, but upon reading it, I see some potential improvements, such as moving the "Another characteristic was his raw voice ..." material out of the "Legacy" section and into the 'Stage presence, ..." section. My recommendation to the nominator is to withdraw the nomination; have it go through a Peer Review, and then re-nominate it. I'd be happy to do a thorough Peer Review, if the nominator would like. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Otis_Redding/archive2&oldid=1036548422"