Talk:Eddy Raven

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eddy Raven/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shrinkydinks (talk · contribs) 22:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

7 December 2019, 10:30pm GMT: Hi there! I'm Shrinkydinks, and I'll be reviewing this Good Article nomination! This is my first GA review, so I expect to call on a GA mentor or two to review my work. I welcome a dialog. As recommended, I plan to complete this review within the next seven days (although hopefully much sooner). I can see this article has been waiting since 25 May 2019 (6 months and 12 days!) so I hope to deliver a high quality review, well-earned for the nominator's patience.

8 December 2019, 12:45am GMT: I have completed a total review of this article for each good article criterion. It is currently passing on every dimension except 1a (clear prose) and 2b (reliable sources)—criteria on which it is close to being a good article and just needs some attention from its nominator! Great work to @TenPoundHammer: for their hard work on this article over the last 7 months, as well as for their patience in waiting for this article to be GA reviewed (6 months 12 days on the wait list).

Status: Close to GA pass! Needs attention from nominator in outlined areas. (I've left a notice on their talk page). I've given a lot of comments here on prose for clarity and readability. These may feel like a burden (really sorry—you've done great work so far), but I'll feel GREAT about this as a good article once they're addressed!

9 December 2019, 6:45pm GMT: I've received advice from the two GA mentors I reached out to:

• MarioSoulTruthFan
• Ritchie333

Both are quite experienced editors. They're both optimistic the review is on track and that the article should pass once the below comments are addressed! The only new thing I've added is as a result of MarioSoulTruthFan's advice on the scope of discography (should perhaps limit in the artist article and move more info to the discography article). —Shrinkydinks (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

10 December 2019, 8:30am GMT: TenPoundHammer did some great work incorporating feedback from the GA into the article. I reviewed their additions and noted just 3-4 things left doing in-line below, with bold labels "Update 2" for easier viewing. Catch discussion on this GA at the bottom of the review, in the section "More discussion". —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Status: 3-4 small edits away from GA status! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinkydinks (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

11 December 2019, 1:00am GMT: Fully passed! Meets GA requirements and is now an approved Good Article.

Status: Completely passed. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Scan for immediate failures

1. Long way from any of the 6 WP:GA criteria? Nope! pass.
2. Copyright violations?
   1. I used Earwig's Copyvio Detector and found nothing to arouse suspicion.
   2. Photos are all tagged with photographers and copyright statuses (although I've not yet verified them).
3. Cleanup banners: None found; no issues needing cleanup banners found.
4. Stability: No edit warring here; same steward contributor since at least May.

PASS: This article need not be auto-failed.

—Shrinkydinks (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

GA Review Summary

The summary of the review is here. I've broken out my comments on individual criteria below.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1: Reasonably Well-Written

This article is close to meeting the GA requirements for prose clarity. I've outlined my detailed thoughts on how it could attain that status here!

Reviewer reader perspective statement: I have familiarity with the music industry in general but I am unfamiliar with country music, its history and its artists. I will try to approach readability from a general-to-knowledgable reader perspective.

Lead

• "number-one singles on Hot Country Songs" — Clarify that it's the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart?

Biography

• This level 2 section title seems to be a bit of a misnomer, because it's really more about his childhood/pre-music industry days. Rename?
• "Influenced by Cajun music, the country music sounds from popular radio broadcasts such as the Louisiana Hayride, New Orleans blues, and the new sounds of rock and roll, Futch first played in a band at age thirteen" is a bit confusing because we get to the main topic only after three supporting statements. Recommend reword, perhaps splitting the two ideas of influence and starting at age 13?
• "When his family moved back to Louisiana" — This sentence was surprising to me because it wasn't clear that his family had moved away from Louisiana in the first place. Perhaps mention that to contextualize his move to the radio station in Georgia, if that's the right place for it?

Beginnings

• "Raven's record was heard by Jimmy C. Newman" → "Raven's first record" to relate it more firmly to the previous paragraph
• "sign to a publishing contract" feels a bit clunky, but may be correct for the music industry (I'm not sure). Recommend reword (eg. rm "sign to" in favor of just "sign a publishing contract with...") but open to hearing an argument that "sign to" is an important, more specific version of the verb.
• Intro for Jimmy C. Newman, Gibson, Smith, Riley, Cornor, etc. As a lay reader, I wasn't sure who Jimmy Newman was/is. A 1-2 word descriptive title for him (and others) could help, eg. "Country musician Jimmy Newman" or "Country music artists Gibson, Smith, etc." OK to disregard this if it's contrary to a standing WP style recommendation of which I'm unaware.
• "Raven charted seven more singles for the label between" perhaps reword for clarity to "Seven more singles Raven wrote for the label charted between..."
  • Raven did not write the singles in question, so this wording should be fine.
    • Round 2: Just the way the flow of thoughts go, it seems to follow from "Raven began recording for ABC Records..." so I'm led to believe that these are songs he recorded himself. Perhaps just reword as, "Songs Raven wrote for the label charted seven more times between..."? Flexible on the implementation, just would be good to clarify. It seems he had two great careers in the music industry—one as a recording artist, and another as a songwriter; would be great for that to come through! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me; just realized I misread your comment. Disregard above. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• "One of his ABC releases, "Ain't She Somethin' Else", was later covered in 1984 by Conway Twitty" — why is this the right place for this tidbit?
  • Because it was one of the charted singles in this timespan, and it shows that the song later had success by another artist.
• "Raven left ABC in 1976 when Gant also departed the label." Is there a causality relationship here? If not, OK to leave as is. If there is, would be good to clarify.
  • Not that I was aware.
• "made the lower regions of Hot Country Songs" — I like what you're doing here to avoid specification for an insignificant charting event, but this wording is a bit strange (have never heard this before). Is there a different way to say this?
• "with additional production from Don Gant's brother Ronnie Gant" — the relationships are getting a bit confusing here, with so many people mentioned. I had forgotten who Gant was. A small-scale solution could be to label some of these people as newspaper writers do sometimes, after they've discussed quotes from multiple people: eg. something along the lines of "Don Gant, the original record producer..." A larger-scale solution could be to separate all of these producing credits and put them in the Discography section, potentially in prose if they don't fit well in the list. This would significantly aid clarity in these Music career paragraphs.
  • I don't usually see production credits in the discography. They're on the album pages if they exist. The album's cover itself verifies Ronnie Gant as a producer (I own the LP) and the other sources confirm that he is Don's brother. I feel that this should be noted as is.
    • Round 2: Ok! I understand why you'd like to include it. I think the wording in this sentence could benefit from some attention for clarity but it's not the end of the world as-is. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• "The album accounted for five singles" — this sounds unusual; don't albums usually only have ~2 leading singles? Is that something that could be worth a mention with a clause, or is that not worth spending time on? I'm open to either solution, just curious to hear why. Maybe I'm confused between leading singles and just... charting singles. But wouldn't they be charting "songs" if part of an album and not the leading singles?
  • I was not easily able to find an exact release date for the album, so it's not super clear to me if any of the
• "Merle Haggard later covered the song on his 1981 live album Rainbow Stew Live at Anaheim Stadium" — this is another awkward inclusion for me because it jumps around on the timeline. Recommend solution (to also help with the last one): Create a level 2 section called "Influence" where you identify the most important ways he influenced other artists, influenced the Country Music scene, or had artists notably engaging with his work.
  • I tried moving this around a bit better.
    • Round 2: I really like what you've done with the "Influence on other artists" section!
• "due to its lyrics not resolving the situation" — what situation?
• "Record World wrote of the album that Raven's 'commercial potential has not yet been reached' " is confusing because you've discussed The Oak Ridge Boys immediately prior. Probably move the mention of the Oak Ridge Boys to after the end of this paragraph, or into a new, separate "Influence" (or similarly-themed) section.
  • Moved.
• "Due to management issues, he left Elektra after only one album" — this is interesting; could "management issues" be elaborated upon with a sentence? Also, would be great to add a year for his departure if we have one, eg.: "left Elektra in 1983 after only one album."
  • None of the sources I found specified exactly why he left Elektra.
• "he had a single on the charts titled..." — I'm a bit confused again about the use of the word "single" here. It appears to actually refer to a lead single? Or a standalone single? Clarity between charting songs (on albums) and actual standalone or lead singles could aid my understanding!
  • Rewrote this a bit more clearly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

1984-88: RCA Records

• "Also in 1984, MCA Records (which acquired ABC Records in 1979) repackaged many of Raven's ABC recordings into a compilation album titled Thank God for Kids." I think we're struggling a bit in this article to straddle the main storyline of Raven's career with the other things happening in chronological order. This sentence feels important for the article in general, but feels a little bit awkwardly-appended to this particular paragraph. Two ideas that would alleviate this: (1) reduce the detail of attention paid to the individual songs on each album Raven produces (I'm not a fan of this idea), or (2) increase the attention to the overall/more holistic storyline. Is there anything else we can say about these different parts of Raven's life outside each song he published in chronological order? Expanding on things like that struggle with "management issues" mentioned earlier in the article could breathe life into this story and could reduce the "wave of song and producer names" that it feels a bit like right now.
  • I moved this.
• "Cash Box reviewed the album positively, stating that it was "another exhibition of his fine vocal range and his valuable songwriting ability."" — It feels like this is the third time in a row that Cash Box is the one being quoted. Is it just that Cash Box is one of the few magazines dedicated to covering this industry? This section might be stronger for just removing the Cash Box quote leaving only the Billboard quote? (Perhaps leaving its points in some type of "it was generally well-received" statement, including the reference still.) Open to thoughts here.
• "In 1985, Raven was nominated for the Horizon Award (now known as..." — now we're getting somewhere to break up the monotony of song names, charting numbers and producer names!
• The paragraph beginning with "Right Hand Man..." is a great paragraph.
• "After this album, Raven exited RCA due to dissatisfaction with poor record sales." — Perhaps another opportunity for expansion. Any chance we could get a quote from Raven with his claims? Perhaps this is a [better source] situation?
  • Added a bit more for both this and the Elektra departure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Round 2: this bit is a great addition to the article. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

1988-1991: Universal and Capitol

• "In 1988, he switched to Universal Records, an independent label founded by Bowen" — I've forgotten who Bowen is.
• "At Bowen's request, Beckett also served as producer on this album" — Beckett seems to be the most recent record producer also. Could we rephrase this sentence to clarify the continuity? Eg. something along the lines of, "At Bowens' request, Beckett stayed on as a producer for Raven..."
• "In addition to these, the album featured a cover of .38 Special's "Little Sheba"." — Why do we care/why is this important/more than just trivia? It feels a bit unfocused on the main subject of the article, Eddy Raven. It feels like this might be the kind of detail better left to Discography or the album's main page? I'm not set against this sentence's inclusion; just feel its removal might benefit the article to reduce the amount of it spent in a slog through song names. Open to discussion.
• "Jason Ankeny of Allmusic called the album a "mixed bag", referring to "Island" as a "moody ballad" but calling..." — great to see a balance of commentary. This continues your effective use of well-placed quotes (in my view & understanding).
• "The Ottawa Citizen writer Susan Beyer reviewed the album with favor..." seems at odds with "Following the album's poor performance..." Was it a critical success but a commercial failure? Or are there other critiques that viewed it less favorably? Either clarify with a statement in the spirit of "Despite relative critical success, it was a commercial failure," or balance with a more representative critical comment.
  • Taken care of the issues here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

1994-present: Independent

• "His next album, Wild Eyed and Crazy, was released on Intersound Records in 1994" — how did he get to Intersound Records? I'm left wanting a bit in part because you've been good to explain all of his record label changes before this point. Eg. his manager moved to the new label/Intersound Records specializes in publishing for unsigned artists.
  • I was unable to find any information on the change to Intersound. Billboard never even acknowledged the album at any point.
    • Round 2: Huh! No problem then. Thanks for taking a look. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• "Stephen Thomas Erlewine called it..." → "Music critic Stephen Thomas..." — why do I care what Stephen said about it? A title for him might help the lay reader.
• "Capitol issued a compilation album in 1997" — perhaps a clarifying statement such as, "Even as an independent artist, Raven's old labels continued to republish his recordings:"?
• "many stations dropped the former song..." — the former song is "Somebody's Tearin' the Flag." Do you mean the latter song, "Johnny's Got a Gun"?
• "found himself unable to finish for many years after Gant's death" — Gant's death in 1987? Gant's death later that year? A little clarification on this could benefit the reader who didn't remember the exact time Gant died from earlier in the article (actually undated above).
  • Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Musical styles

• I like this; it feels comprehensive based on what I've read above in the article, and it attributes artistic opinions to specific critics. It could benefit from a bit of sentence reorganization and a bit more contextualizing prose (perhaps helping to organize the quotes into themes?), which would reduce its currently feeling like a list of quotes.
  • Round 2: I identified why it feels a little jumbled to me: It begins with some contextualization about how he "drew influence from the prominence of Cajun music in his native Louisiana," and then it diverts for a note about "emotive vocals and musical as well as lyrical hooks" before talking about Cajun for 4-5 more sentences. Could we perhaps just move the sentence "An uncredited 1984 article in The Tenneseean stated that Raven's style at the time was 'characterized by his emotive vocals and musical as well as lyrical hooks.'" to the end of the paragraph? That might help the bit "According to Raven..." better set up and flow into the rest of the paragraph. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

General comments on prose

• I love the way you use well-placed quotes from reviewers to give the reader context and insights into artistic details without editorializing this article! One standout example in my view: "Cash Box described the title track as "an upbeat tune stressing Raven’s clear, distinct vocals.""
• Clarify "singles" vs "songs"?
• Some sections feel like a monotony of song names, producing credits and charting trivia. Not all of that is a problem, but I believe opportunities to break that up could benefit the readability of the article.

2: Verifiable with no original research

2b: Reliable sources

• Oldies.com Eddy Raven biography states its content source: "The Encyclopedia of Popular Music by Colin Larkin. Licensed from Muze." This source should be replaced with the actual/non-intermediary.
  • Round 2: This still needs to be fixed —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Paywalled sources? I found all 16 newspaper article on newspapers.com to be paywalled (The Tennesseean, The Jackson Sun. The Palm Beach Post, The Ottawa Citizen). I would appreciate input from a GA review advisor on how to handle this. @TenPoundHammer: Are there any alternative sources, or non-paywalled access ways to read these newspaper articles? If newspapers.com is the standard approach to linking newspaper articles on Wikipedia, then I'll understand! As a first-time GA reviewer, I'm not sure what the policy is on newspapers.com.
  • Update 8 December 2019, 8:45AM: Found a relevant WP policy: WP:NEWSPAPERS (even relates specifically to newspapers.com). Suggests a subscriber-editor can create a free access link to articles in particular. @TenPoundHammer: Assuming you have access to newspapers.com, could you please do this? Then we can review them! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Clippings don't seem to be mandatory, and have not been held against me in other GAs. As a compromise I've added {{subscription required}} templates.
      • Round 2: Ok! Good article mentor User:MarioSoulTruthFan agreed in his advice to me. Perhaps a comment on the talk page could help encourage an editor with free time (and a subscription) one day to generate the clippings! Will not require for GA status. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• One specific in-line citation comment: "Both of these songs were subject to minor controversies ... concerns over political correctness." Both of these sentences are interesting, but challengeable and appear unsourced. Perhaps it's because they're supported by the newspaper article "Flags and guns breed trouble for outspoken Raven"? I looked to the last source in the paragraph, but that's about something else. Just because these are more challengeable than the average statement in this article, it could be good to put the citation (currently #49) one of the earlier sentences and not just after the final, third sentence on the subject. Open to thoughts if there is a WP style guideline on this I'm missing.
  • I rewrote this part a bit.
    • Round 2: Thank you! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Note: I do not have access to the Whitburn text (Hot Country Songs 1944 to 2017, published by Record Research, Inc.). It's cited 25 times across the article. It's a cause of concern for me that I can't double check it, but it seems to be mostly cited in relation to records of chart positions and songwriter credits... Ideally, chart positions would be re-sourced to the relevant date search via the Billboard official website chart search, but I don't believe this is a requirement for GA review?
  • The Billboard.com URL tends to miss a lot of lower-charting material at times, particularly for songs that never appeared on albums and/or lesser-known artists. I find it more convenient and complete to use the Whitburn books when citing chart positions and composers of songs, as it's less likely that someone will slap a {{failed verification}} tag on it because Billboard's broken-ass website somehow missed a bunch of chart positions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Round 2: Ok, understood, that makes sense. I haven't personally tested the extremes of the Billboard website's thoroughness so I'll trust your judgment here! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

3: Broad in its coverage

I find this article both addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused not he topic without going into unnecessary detail. It works for me based on my intended reader approach.

• One thing that could change: The article might benefit from a level 2 section titled "Influence" or something similar, which, as mentioned above in the prose commentary, could help streamline the sections on Raven's career while also including important covers of his works.

Stays focused:

• With advice from my GA mentor MarioSoulTruthFan, I'll ask: Is there a reason why the list "Songs written by Eddy Raven" needs to be in this article rather than in the discography article? Maybe it would make sense to keep them in this article if they're well-known family favorites, but most don't seem too notable? Perhaps the most notable ones (The Oak Ridge Boys: "Thank God for Kids" and Connie Smith: "I Don't Wanna Talk It Over Anymore", (it would seem, based on which ones have articles of their own)) can be folded into a good influence section (I saw you tried to have the Oak Ridge Boys mention in the main history prose), but I believe this list is probably better off in his discography page. Open to your thoughts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinkydinks (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

4: NPOV

I find this article succeeds here. Although it discusses an arts topic (which can tend toward effusive), the article seems to be the result of hard work and serious research, and attributes aesthetic opinions to reputable, reference-able sources and succeeds by WP:AESTHETIC.

• One small thing that could change is discussed in my prose commentary: "The Ottawa Citizen writer Susan Beyer reviewed the album with favor..." seems at odds with "Following the album's poor performance..." It's possible this is the result of selective commentary selection, but I'm willing to believe it's just a prose issue. Would like to hear from the nominator about their fix for this (very small) issue (in the context of an, on the whole, very well-written article on an aesthetic subject).
  • Round 2: Thanks for clarifying this bit! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

5: Stable

This article is stable (is not the subject of edit warring). User:TenPoundHammer seems to have done very good work being a steward of this article in since April 2019.

6: Illustrated with relevant media

This article is suitably illustrated with media, all three of which is tagged with their photographers, valid copyright statuses (although I do not know if there's a way to verify the accuracy of the stated copyright statuses) and have suitable captions.

• While it is not a criterion necessary for passing GA review (and I won't hold up passing 6 for this reason), it would be great if the article could include alt text for the three images! These brief captions aid readers with visual impairments.

More discussion

• @Shrinkydinks: I'll take a look at these later tonight. I forgot to mention that I was at a convention over the weekend and just now got back. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• @TenPoundHammer: Ok, sounds good! I'm in a busy place with my work but I'm committed to seeing this nomination through! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Shrinkydinks: Thanks for the extensive review. I think I've addressed all your issues to the best of my ability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• @TenPoundHammer: Thank you for your thorough work in working in the comments! I really like your updates to the article. I think there are 3-4 things that still need doing (I've marked them with bold "Update 2" headers in-line above)—once these are taken care of, we'll be good to go for GA! Thanks for your hard work making this a good article! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Shrinkydinks: I think I got everything in the last go-round including fixing the oldies.com reference. Did I miss anything else? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• @TenPoundHammer: There was just one thing left, which was to actually fully replace the Oldies.com reference (website looks unreliable; ads plastered everywhere) with the original source from the Encyclopedia of Popular Music (4 ed.)/Oxford University Press. But per GA review instructions I just fixed that simple thing myself. I'll mark this article as GA approved. Congrats! Thank you for your hard work on Wikipedia! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)