Talk:Elayne Jones/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: CurryTime7-24 (talk · contribs) 19:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin my review of this GA nomination Tuesday (PDT). —CurryTime7-24 (talk)19:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Occasionally, there are inconsistencies in style of English. For example, "color" and "colour" are both used in the article. There are also inconsistencies in the use of capitals and lowercase (e.g. "Black" and "black"). There are also some minor typos (see below).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pages are needed for the citations from books.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Explanation in full below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Some passages need to be revised (explained further below in the final assessment).
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this article provides a good overview of a very fascinating figure in classical music. However, I am unsure whether the sources provided are enough to give the in-depth detail of Jones' life and work that I would expect in a GA. A few points: The article lead provides a brief description of Jones and her work, but does not summarize the contents of the article. Her induction into the PAS Hall of Fame appears in the lead, but is not mentioned or cited in the article body itself. The inductions of Goodman and Goldenburg into the PAS are mentioned. These should be cut as they are not directly relevant to Jones. Most of this article's sources come from obituaries. It would be interesting to know whether there are any reports from the period of her career that discuss her, her profession, her impact upon it, and her general attitudes to music. Heuwell Tircuit, who is quoted from the NYT obituary, was the longtime critic of the San Francisco Chronicle. It is possible he may have written more reports about Jones and may have even interviewed or quoted her. If so, these would be invaluable in filling out her career. Jones' memoirs are also cited. Is it possible they can also provide more information for this article? Were there also any mentions of her in the NYC press during the 1940s to the 1960s? Her teaching career is briefly mentioned, although it seems that it was an important part of her life. Did she have any notable students? Are there descriptions of her pedagogy? Was she part of the faculty at any institution? According to the lead and sources, Jones was the first documented African American to play with the New York Philharmonic. This needs to be mentioned and cited in the body of the article as well. Did she play multiple times with the NYPO? Were there any articles or reviews that mentioned performances she participated in? When exactly did Jones join, then leave the San Francisco Opera? What happened after she left the San Francisco Symphony? Did she continue playing freelance, teaching, or retire? "She chose a path that is majorly for men and the white people": "Majorly" sounds a bit like MOS:PEACOCK. Also, that may have been the case in the mid-20th century, but the phrasing here implies this is still the case. Several passages in this article need to be revised per WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SUBJECTIVE, MOS:EUPHEMISM, MOS:WEASEL, and MOS:CLICHE. For example, the lead states that "broke the color barrier". Instead, the lead should simply state she was the first African American woman to be appointed principle of a major American symphony orchestra, which speaks for itself. Other passages that need revision are: "Jones suffered racial and gender segregation": WP:SUBJECTIVE "Her greatest contributions have been the changes she made to the narrative": MOS:CLICHE; needs to precisely explain what she accomplished "She confirmed that she suffered racial abuse then gender discrimination": WP:SUBJECTIVE "She became popular in San Francisco": MOS:WEASEL; how was she popular, who was she popular with, and according to who? Conclusion: As mentioned earlier, I think this article as it stands lacks the detailed biography and summary of Jones' career that are expected in a GA. Nonetheless, improvements can be done. I will give nominator until August 22 to respond and address concerns in article. If the article can be improved further according to my review, then I will follow up the GA review with some spot-checks and further commentary. Thank you for nominating this article! Unfortunately, I have no choice but to fail this GA nomination. This was difficult. The subject clearly is of great interest, but unfortunately the material currently in this article simply is not sufficient for a GA. Nominator has neither been able to address any of the concerns in my review, nor respond to my latest comments and follow-up ping. However, I encourage them to renominate this article. If they are prepared to improve this article, I believe it can make it to GA.

—~~CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)~~ CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibjaja055 Checking in to see whether you were still interested in getting this GA review off the ground. Although my deadline for you to respond was August 22, I waited three more weeks just in case. However, if I don't hear a reply by September 17 (PDT), I'll have no choice but to close this review as failed. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the recommended corrections. Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24 Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Give me until tomorrow, please. Been busier than I expected. Thank you for your patience! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24 pls, I am still waiting for the feedback. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I'm very sorry. Tomorrow for sure I will begin to work with you. This last week proved to be busy. On top of that, I had a DYK and GA nomination to attend to. Please don't think I've forgotten you. Thank you for your patience. I truly appreciate it. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time. @CurryTime7-24 Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. Looking over the article, I see that many of the concerns in my review remain. Among those that I find most pressing are the need to add further details regarding her career and teaching. As it stands, the article only skims through most of Jones' career. The years 1949 to 1972, for example, are summed up in 3/4 of a paragraph; her years in San Francisco, the most important of her life, take up less than that. Because of her activism and her groundbreaking career, a reader may wonder whether Jones was politically active or connected at all. Was she? There are more points above in my GA review from August. If you haven't yet done so, please take a moment to read through it. If you need further clarification on these, please feel free to ping me. I'll be more available this week. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ibjaja055 as a courtesy. Hoping to wrap up this GA review soon. Thanks! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I am still interested and I hope to meet the requirements before the deadline. Thank you @CurryTime7-24 Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear! I'll reply more in depth to you tomorrow. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.