Jump to content

Talk:Carolina in My Mind/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Starting review. I may do minor edits as I go; feel free to revert or comment. PL290 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to note points here while reviewing the article.

Article has now been looked through a second time after responses to initial review comments, and is looking very promising. Good work in gathering all those citations. It looks pretty close now to me. A few specific unresolved points inline below. See what you think of a few edits I've made in relation to these, and let me know further thoughts on the few remaining questions when ready. PL290 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work has gone into addressing the review points. All of the points have now been resolved and the article meets the GA criteria. I am happy to conclude the review with a pass. Good work. PL290 (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Green tickY"Carolina in My Mind" became a staple of Taylor's concert repertoire, appearing in the set list of virtually every Taylor tour. Do we have a citation for this? PL290 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been going to James Taylor concerts annually for the last 25 years, and I've kept a set list at every show I've seen (I'm that kind of person) and I've kept a running tally of the songs most frequently played, and "Carolina in My Mind" has been played at every show, not missed once. ("Steamroller" has also been at every one, while the others of the 'big five', "Sweet Baby James", "Fire and Rain" and "You've Got a Friend", have all missed exactly once.) Furthermore, at one concert a few years ago, Taylor said they'd tried leaving "Carolina" out of the set list at the start of a tour, but it just hadn't felt right and they'd put it back in after a couple of shows. Now, I know all this is the dreaded WP:OR. OR is a great rule for keeping the physics cranks out of the science articles, but it's a little self-defeating at times on popular culture articles. Nobody knowledgeable about JT is going to challenge the statement in question, because they also know it's true. But, I'm prepared to go through this Google News Archive search list and find one newspaper article for each calendar year that reviews a Taylor concert and mentions "Carolina" being played. We'll have a string of 25 footnotes after the statement in the article, but it won't be OR any more. It's up to you ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can quite understand your dedication to the artist and the topic, and your own careful records sound impressive, but without a WP:RS it remains WP:OR. It's an important and impressive fact: a reason to include it, well-sourced—and also an indicator that it's likely to have been published. If you can find a source, that will be simplest and best. Otherwise, your idea for the concert reviews would be another approach. PL290 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artists like U2, Phish, Springsteen have sites that do this kind of analysis, but Taylor doesn't. Newspapers it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two small suggestions to help with this: (a) omit appearing in the set list of virtually every Taylor tour; the point is made well (perhaps more strongly) by simply "Carolina in My Mind" became a staple of Taylor's concert repertoire; (b) having identified a suitable sample of concerts to demonstrate the point, list them in a table in a new section; each entry can then take an inline citation rather than a string of them after one word of prose. But those are only suggestions; as long as we end up with citations that support the (possibly revised) statement, there are no doubt various equally acceptable ways of presenting them. PL290 (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept the text unchanged (because there are 15 or so songs that are staples of Taylor's concert repertoire, but not all of them are played every tour), and have added a cite per year, going back to the early 1980s, for every year that he staged a significant tour (the footnote explains more). I've done it all in one big footnote. Hopefully this will satisfy your requirements. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickYThe audience cheers the song immediately upon hearing the first notes picked out on Taylor's acoustic guitar, and then cheers again on the first vocal line. - unnecessary detail and not notable PL290 (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree on this. One of the themes of this article is the strong popular appeal the song has gained despite never being a hit single, and this audience reaction is evidence of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is reasonable, and good grounds for retaining it; so I've made a suggested edit which uses a different stylistic approach to make your point more strongly. PL290 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me, but someone else could claim your addition is WP:OR or WP:SYN or something. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickYcontinuing a trend towards emphasizing the song's harmonies that had begun with the 1976 remake - this seems to blur two concepts, so needs fixing one way or the other. It's clear that greater emphasis was used on the 1976 remake than on the original, but do we mean:
  1. continuing a trend of emphasizing (continuing to perform it "the 1976 emphasized way"), or
  2. continuing a trend towards greater emphasis (using more and more emphasis as the years go by)?
I suspect it's the latter that's intended but please tweak the wording to clarify. PL290 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the above point does not seem supported by the cited website. PL290 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the wording to convey the former. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickYTheir part was especially strong in the concluding refrains, with a final i-i-i-i-in my mind stretched out. - statements like "especially strong" fall foul of WP:NPOV and WP:OR unless you can provide a citation from a music critic or suchlike. If this citation is problematic, you may wish to omit this sentence, as the preceding detail is sufficient to make the point about the stronger backing vocals. The second half of the sentence is probably an unnecessary detail in any case. PL290 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the 'especially strong' to 'especially prominent', to make it more of a description of the music than a value judgment. I disagree that it's an unnecessary detail; I'm trying to describe the musical aspects of the song here. Too many WP song articles just talk about the history of how the song came to be and what charts it appeared on and who later covered it. The core of the article should be on the musical and lyrical aspects of the song itself! Now writing about music is hard (the famous saying "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture"), but we have to try. I also don't believe that obvious descriptions of music ("'Stairway to Heaven' has a quiet beginning and adds instrumentation as it goes along") need citing; the recording is the source. Consider WP:MOSFILM#Plot: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. Exceptions to this rule may apply to films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the various interpretations should be cited to reliable sources." The analog for music is that the recording itself is the source, especially for obvious details like an elongated ending. However something that is not so easy to tell, such as the key of a song or what chords it used, definitely requires a source. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've again made a suggested edit which, like the one above, emphasizes the point subtly more, using a different stylistic approach. PL290 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickYAlthough Taylor never lived in South Carolina, it is popular there too, tying for first place on a South Carolina Information Highway's construction of a soundtrack regarding the state - the citation supports the last part of the sentence but not "never lived in South Carolina" which needs a supporting citation too. PL290 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very hard to prove a negative like this. Taylor's live has been written about a lot, and he has lived in Massachusetts, North Carolina, Massachusetts again, New York, back to North Carolina, London, back to New York, California, back to New York, back to Massachusetts ... I've read the full Timothy White bio which goes up to 2002, and I've read a lot of news stories about him, and never once have I read about him living in South Carolina. But no one's ever sat down and written "James Taylor has never lived in South Carolina", any more than they've written "James Taylor has never lived in Florida". So how should I cite this? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But no one's ever sat down and written "James Taylor has never lived in South Carolina"... then why start now! Again I've made a suggested edit to make the same point with a positive statement you've already supported. PL290 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's weaker, and in my opinion it's taking WP rules past the point of common sense, but I guess I can live with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickYThe second paragraph of the "Later appearances" section makes numerous statements, and they are important in establishing the song's notability, but they need to be supported by citations: The song has been included in a number of Taylor's concert video releases, including 1979–1982's James Taylor: In Concert at the Blossom Music Festival, 1988's James Taylor: In Concert at Boston's Colonial Theatre, and 2002's Pull Over. It was performed in collaboration with the Dixie Chicks in 2002 for the CMT Crossroads program; longtime Taylor admirer Natalie Maines mouthed the verse lyrics silently before she and the other Chicks joined the choruses. On the 2006 A Musicares Person of the Year Tribute Honoring James Taylor tribute show and video release, "Carolina in My Mind" was performed by Alison Krauss and Jerry Douglas. The song was then included in Taylor's 2006–2007 One Man Band Tour; accompanied only by Larry Goldings on various keyboard instruments, Taylor introduced the song with visual material and by relating its composition on Formentera and other locations. He talked about the Karin of the lyrics, whom he had known only briefly and never seen since, and related various humorous notions about how to find her again. One such performance was documented on the 2007 album and video release One Man Band. PL290 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cites for all of these have now been added
    • , except for the Maines bit, will have to keep looking on that. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As no citation has been forthcoming for the Maine, I've removed that part of the sentence for now but suggest adding it again once it can be sourced; it does add value as one of many small points that establish the song's popularity. PL290 (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickYThe Clef Hangers' Fall Concert 2007 performances of the song featured [...] handling the lead vocal on the closing part of the song [YouTube citation] - a YouTube performance is not a reliable source - can we produce a better source, as has been done for their memorial performance? PL290 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I know YouTube is generally not a reliable source, and I have thrown YouTube cites out of articles a number of times. However, the reasons for this exclusion – that YouTube uploads are subject to creation and modification and manipulation without professional editorial control or authentication – are sound for many high-profile articles (keeping out edited montages of politicians saying apparently contradictory statements, etc) but don't really apply in a case like this. There's no reasonable doubt that this video is what it says it is, a performance of the Clef Hangers. There's no doubt that Anoop Desai was a member of the Clef Hangers (see here and scroll down, for example), but other sources that have him singing a lead on "Carolina in My Mind" are personal blogs and fansites, and are less reliable. Furthermore, this video is valuable to the article in that it shows the mixture of reverence and collegiate humor that the song is approached with at UNC. Thus, I think WP:COMMON and if necessary WP:IAR should apply here, and the cite should stay in. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the value of including the YouTube link but I feel the statement itself needs a better source in addition to the YouTube link. PL290 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the cite I mentioned above that indicates Desai was in the Clef Hangers, but if it's another part of the statement you're questioning, let me know. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the whole statement! Including that the performance "featured Desai handling the lead vocal on the closing part of the song". This is a slightly grey area. You've argued a case for keeping the YouTube citation as support for the statement, and it helps that you've now added further citations which support the surrounding facts. I've concluded that this need not be a sticking-point for the GA review, or one which means we should obtain a second opinion as to the outcome: if the citation is challenged in later life by other editors, the article (once the last few points have been completed) meets the GA criteria anyway even with this sentence removed so it is not an issue from that point of view. However, I do suggest you continue trying to find a source that directly supports the statement. PL290 (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well written and, with the exception of criterion 2 (plus the sundry points also made above), it meets the GA criteria. I have placed the review on hold to allow time for the above points to be addressed. PL290 (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, and I'll start work on addressing the issues you raise. I'm going to be disagreeing with you on a couple of matters, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the time and thought you've put into your comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking very encouraging. When the time comes that you've finished addressing the points raised, please indicate this, and we can see what remains to be discussed. I haven't looked in detail at all the responses but from the earlier ones I had the impression that the matters of disagreement are minor and can be resolved with a little more work such that these important points can be made in a way that doesn't detract stylistically (and is therefore also more effective in emphasizing them). PL290 (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've now finished responding to all of your points. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Just want to say congrats. I don't know much about the whole Good Article process, but clearly you've put a lot of effort into this, and (most importantly, to me) I think this is a really good article! So congrats to Wasted Time R specifically and to the other contributors to the article (which includes me, but that's OK. B^) Nice work.Brettalan (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you're interested you can read more about the process at WP:GAN. In GA a lot depends upon the sole reviewer, and you can tell PL290 was one of the more thorough ones ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carolina_in_My_Mind/GA1&oldid=1140563259"