Wikipedia:Peer review/Stanford Fleet Street Singers/archive1

Stanford Fleet Street Singers

Hello and thank you to whoever picks this up! This is my first time through peer review. I've listed this article for peer review because it doesn't see a lot of page views, so not tons of diverse editors; I think it would benefit from third party perspectives! This is the first article I've ever shepherded out of personal interest, so I'm learning a lot about Wikipedia policies, guides, and MOS along the way.

I would love any and all feedback.

A couple questions to give you a concrete starting point, if you'd like:

1. What do you think of the flow of the "Notable performances and works" section? I'm worried it tends toward trivia. How could I improve it? Maybe...
1. Reorganize it by theme (radio, competition, studio albums, etc.)?
2. Fold it into "History"
2. What do you think of the alumni section?
1. The inclusion criteria for the "List of notable alumni" right now are sort of "award-winning artist or major executive of an important company", but that feels un-concrete and not very "Wikipedian" to me. If it were a standalone list, we would just apply WP:N to each list element (and so only include alumni with articles of their own)... but as a list in this bigger article, sort of like the discography, I think the reader might benefit from seeing more than just the two alumni who currently have their own articles? At present, the list includes alumni covered by independent press (with more than just passing mentions). I've also done my best to also find references to album notes for each alumnus mentioned so we have a reference documenting their participation in the group, not just for who they are/what they do. Would love ideas on this section!

Thank you so much for your time! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Liz

Hi @Shrinkydinks:

Thanks for pinging me about this article, which I've seen you also nominated as a GA. Good work on the article. Here's my comments after a quick read..

The lead section is a bit short. Is that all could be said for a group that's been around since 1981? Try bringing some of the origins and history to the front. See MOS: Lead for more info.

Assuming you don't add a lot more information to the article, then it's possible you can merge the "Notable performances and works" with the "History" section by creating sub-headings. You could then divide the history into time periods, eg. Early years, Later years, 2004—present. I think it will give the article an all-in-one historical narrative by merging the two sections together. Just curious, do we know the former and present musical director(s)? Perhaps under different directors, this may have changed and/or influenced the group in some way?

The Alumni section is appropriate, judging by the nature of the article. It crosses between a school and a musical group. Therefore it's probably the best way to list the alumni, especially those who are not notable. Please remember to keep bullet lists short as per MOS: Lists. You may want to consider mentioning the alumni in the "History" and this could help reduce the amount of the detail in the alumni section.

The Discography and Awards look great and well-referenced. In order to be a Good Article, it doesn't need to be long—although the more broad and comprehensive—the better. Keep it in consistent paragraphs. I've also noticed that one of the sentences in History has 4 sources attached to it ("[4][18][8][11]"). I'd avoid doing that, especially in large articles, which make reading and editing hard. That's all for now! Thanks, Just Lizzy^(talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply to peer review

@Lizzy150: Thank you so much for your thoughtful review!

• Organization: I've folded the Notable Performances section into History and added subheadings, per your recommendation. I think it flows better in the big picture, but I'll give it more attention in the next couple weeks to make sure it flows well on a sentence-by-sentence level, too. I believe the music director switches every year (in contrast to many choirs or symphonies, which have music directors for a decade at a time), so I don't think we can organize it in that way (but great idea!). I've chosen subheadings relating to "eras" a reader can reasonably identify (as you did—I used your exact recommendations).
• 4 sources: I checked all the sources for that sentence that had four of them, and removed the least important/helpful one, which (you probably surmised) didn't contribute much.
• Alumni section: I like it at the bottom because I think it's the least important section currently in the article. I'll take a look at eliminating any unnecessary detail to keep it short and focused.
• Lead: I reviewed MOS:LEAD and beefed this up, but it needs more attention still. Will work on this.

Again, thank you for your comments! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by paul2520

Hi Shrinkydinks, and thanks for all your effort on this article. I think the notable works section works (no pun intended) quite well. It's chronological, with oldest appearing first, which matches the layout of other articles I've seen. You might remove "notable" and just call it "Performances and works".

The notable alumni makes a lot of sense to me as-is. I like how the list is more "prose and list" than some lists. I might suggest having the paragraph at the bottom of the section at the top of the section, and say "Other notable alumni include:" or "Other notable former members include:". I agree with your comments & this is much more interesting than just linking to "notable" folks who have articles already. I think the non-bluelinked people listed do a lot to tell the story of where this group's members have gone after graduation.

I think you've done a great job on the referencing. Nice work.

I am surprised that Through The Roof (2010) and Cold Fury (2017) don't have references, whereas all the previous albums do. Can you find refs for these?

Otherwise, I am quite pleased with how this article looks. This is my first peer review, so let me know if you have further specific components of the article you'd like reviewed. = paul2520 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply to peer review

@Paul2520: Thank you for your thoughtful comments, and thank you for your first peer review!

• Alumni section: Thank you for your perspective here.
• Album references: Great catch. I can't find liner notes anywhere for these. It's not clear these albums were ever produced physically—I can only find digital distributions, which are unaccompanied by liner notes of any kind. It would be great to have these. Will keep looking.
• References: Thank you!
• Notable Works/History: Thank you for your perspective! I folded them into one bigger History section per Liz's advice, which I think flows, but still needs some sentence-level polishing for flow.

Again, thank you for your feedback! Thank you for taking the time. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

Hi Shrinkydinks, this is a good start, especially for not having worked on many articles before. Thanks for all you've done here. I will make comments on how to improve the article with an eye to getting to WP:GA or even someday to WP:FA. Please ask if you have questions.

• The first two images need to have better permissions on Commons, and are currently marked for deletion there unless this is fixed. It is not enough to say you re uploading the images on behalf of the group - there has to be an official permission email sent to Commons. See OTRS on Commons.

• The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article, and since it is a summary, in theory everything in the lead should be repeated in the article. SInce it repeats what is in the article, the lead doesn't really need references except for direct quotations - see WP:LEAD.
  • In the current lead, there are things that are not repeated in the article (auditioning to be a member, the bow ties and vests).
  • I look at the headers and subheaders and try to make sure each is mentioned in the lead. however, I do not see a mention of notable alumni in the current lead.

• References have some issues. There is a strong reliance on Stanford sources, which may be an issue if you try for Featured Article (need more sources independent of Stanford).
  • Ref 7 is from The Stanford Daily but does not say this (make sure all relevant information is included for all references)
  • Make sure to get all useful information from the refs - I looked at Ref 1 and it says in 1990 auditions included singing and telling a joke, which is interesting, but not included.
  • The RUdy Galindo video link does not work (says it is a private video).
  • Ref 69 is for alumni Adam Cole, and while it confirms that he works for NPR and on Skunk Bear, it makes no mention of him being a Stanford alum, let alone a former member of Fleet Street. GA or FA will check that the refs back up things like this. Also, looking at his Twitter account, Adam Cole is now freelance (no longer with NPR, and has also done things for Netflix since NPR).

• For an article on a musical group, there is not a lot of critical review of their performances. The article on their album Fleet Street has some of this and may be useful here.

• I notice almost all of the album refs are to the albums themselves. It is much better to have independent sources for these (articles in the Stanford Daily?). Some of their albums and singles are available on iTunes here. Probably worth a mention. Is there anything on the decision to make an album, or on sales figures?

• Looking at their web site, there are a lot of penguin images - could this be mentioned?

• I think that providing context to the reader is really a useful concept. Here there could be background on a capella music groups at Stanford (both at the time of their founding and today - I was surprised to see there are so many singing groups on campus). Even a "See also" link to the article List of Stanford University a cappella groups would help.

• The subheaders in History are not super clear - there is no mention of "patronage" in the text of the first section, nor of "influence" in the text of the second section, and years only appear in the third subheader (might be useful to list years in all three).

• A model article is useful to have - not sure what would work here. Perhaps the article on English National Opera (which is an FA) would work as a model?

Thanks again for an interesting article, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply to peer review

@Ruhrfisch: Thank you for your in-depth review so far!

• File permissions: Looks like these were tagged 12 hours ago (got these notifications alongside notice of your review). Definitely a problem. I'll investigate and see what can be done about obtaining proper rights documentation or replacing with free images.
• Lead: Definitely still needs work. I read through MOS:LEAD after Liz's review, but I really appreciate your specific advice on how to improve it! Will work on comprehensiveness, making sure the article reflects the lead and vice versa.
• References: Thank you for your in-depth look!
  • All useful information: Thank you for identifying! Will do a pass through the references to find things like this. One thing I want to make sure of is not giving undue weight to anything (such as the 1997 animated short film, which got its own article entirely but doesn't seem to be so important to the group)... any advice on how to separate interesting info from too much detail?
  • Independence of Stanford: Definitely important. The Stanford Daily is the paper of record for Stanford University and the surrounding area (and therefore contains the most coverage of a regionally-important group like Fleet Street), but separate coverage would benefit the article. I've done my best to include nearly everything I've found external to Stanford (such as the Fringe Festival programme, critic reviews, or the Today Show appearance), but I'll certainly keep looking.
  • Adam Cole: Keen eye! I looked but couldn't find reliable secondary sources for both notability and ties to the group, as I've been able to find for the others. Removed.
  • Newspaper omitted in reference: Fixed, thank you for catching! One inconsistency right now in the references is some include a location when they probably shouldn't (I believe it's only necessary when it's printed at the beginning of hte article?), and some could include the volume and issue numbers, but don't. I'll do a pass to try and fix these.

Thank you again for your close look. Will work on what I said above needs work (lead, photo rights and reference documentation) as well as anything else you find. Thank you! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch replies I see the photos have an "email received" notice on Commons, so that should take care of the OTRS issues. I just re-read the lead and it seems a much improved summary of the article (I also did a light copy edit there - feel free to revert). My rule of thumb is to get the article as near done as possible, read just the body of the article, then re-read the lead and see if it summarizes everything. Another idea that is helpful is to imagine only the lead is available - is there anything that needs to be in there that is not (yet)?

As for the references, I was just trying to see if things were consistent (do all refs to The Stanford Daily have the same format and information?) and looking at non-Stanford refs (how I spotted the Adam Cole gap). Things that are beyond Stanford (like appearing on national TV or radio or as music for Rudy Galindo) should generally have refs which are also beyond Stanford (as well as local refs).

My general rule is that if someone or something is notable, then it is fine to mention them in the article. So if you can find refs to link Adam Cole to Fleet Street, he seems to meet WP:N to me. The sentence on the animated film seems fine. If there is information available on this, it might help to mention the music directors over the years - are these students or university employees who help out? Also if there is information, what kind of administrative structure does the group have (the animated film article mentions a business manager who is a student). If the group has a regular performance schedule (beyond the annual spring show mentioned) that would be useful to mention (with refs). Hope this helps, and nice job! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Shrinkydinks replies: @Ruhrfisch: I did my best to address all of your comments above! I tracked progress of the main categories on the article talk page, here, just to increase visibility into the major changes undertaken as a result of peer review. The five major categories of changes relating to your review were:

1. Context for the reader. For context, I added a "See also" section for the List of Stanford University a cappella groups.
2. Album references. For album references, unfortunately, I was unable to find reports on sales figures. Streaming links exist for 4 of the albums, but I'm disinclined to use external links like those. Critical reviews exist for 6/13 albums, but I'm disinclined to use those because they exist for only the minority of the albums (but I suppose I could add them in addition to the current liner notes references?). As I couldn't find any others, I've left the liner note citations for the time being.
3. Critical commentary.
4. Iconography. I created a new section called "Group identity" and was able to mention the penguins there (good find!).
5. The lead. Fixed this up to make sure everything in the lead is discussed in the article and vice versa, as you saw earlier. The "Group identity" section helped with this!

Where you had questions that didn't fit into any of those categories, I still tried to incorporate solutions! I reworked the "Stanford patronage" section, adjusted the section names, resolved the images' copyright statuses, clarified group directors are all students, and more. Thank you for finding a model article! I would have loved to organize this one by eras broken down by music directors, but it seems music directors change nearly every year as a result of them being students.

Thank you so much for your keen eye and the depth with which you approached this review! Your advice has been instrumental in the quality of the article as it stands. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)