Talk:Gillian Welch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I.M.S. (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I'll be reviewing this article, per Omarcheeseboro's request at WP:GAN. I've given the article a quick read-through, and I'll do a more thorough passing over in a minute. Please allow me some time - comments to come... - I.M.S. (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for taking time to review the article. I'm glad someone with eclectic music taste will be reviewing. Note, I tend to have quick replies and ask a lot of questions, but I'm patient.

Initial comments

• I would suggest cutting back on the use of the New Yorker ref - 30 times is a little much.

I agree there appears to be too much dependency on the one ref. However, it is a thirteen page article, and much longer than your typical newspaper or magazine feature. Simply put, it contains a lot of information. I will try to remove at least some of the refs. Just in case you would like to see it, I can provide the full copy of the article. I'm assuming that it would be inappropriate to have a copyvio link here. The New Yorker requires a paid subscription to access it online.

Update: I found 4 cases where it was paired with another ref that verified the same info, so I just removed the NY ref.

That's alright - citing a 13-page article 30+ times is perfectly acceptable - you could add the refs back, if you like. - I.M.S. (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Images should be arranged chronologically if possible.

Again, this is bit of having to work with what's available. I got all the images (except the existing one in the infobox) from CC images on Flickr, and most of them were taken in the past few years. It felt a little funny to put recent photos in sections about older albums, but I figure this is better than having a multi-image gallery at the bottom, or not using them at all. Let me know what you think.

Sure, it's no big problem - we can discuss it later on. - I.M.S. (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• 6 dab links should be fixed.

Fixed. I had no idea that this helpful page exists. Thanks.

Sure! It's a helpful little thing. I've provided a toolbox that you might find useful in the top right of this page. - I.M.S. (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Alt text looks good, but might require a little elaboration.

It was my first time doing alt text. I will look at the guideline again and see how I should expand. I'll post an update when I do it.

Update - I reviewed the guidelines and added more alt-text.

Good job! - I.M.S. (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I notice that the article switches between using one, two, and three spaces after every period. Which one do you prefer?

I prefer two. According to MOS:FULLSTOP, it is "not important". Do you recommend I still change it?

So far, the article looks good. Great job on it! More comments to come. -- I.M.S. (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

 Done - All issues resolved. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Welch and Rawlings have released four critically acclaimed albums. Their 1996 debut, Revival and the 2001 release Time (The Revelator) received nominations for the Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Folk Album. Their most recent album is the 2003 release Soul Journey, which introduces electric guitar, drums and a more upbeat sound to their body of work. --- I notice that HATY is not mentioned - given her relatively small body of studio work, I would suggest mentioning all four albums in the lead.

Funny, a friend I had read this mentioned the same thing. I understand the suggestion, especially since I mentioned "four critically albums". However, my challenge with this is that while a solid album, there's nothing particularly unique about HATY. It's basically the same style as Revivial, and besides the praise from critics, I'm not sure what to include. I could put that it reached #9 on the Top Heatseekers Billboard chart and/or her first album to chart. Please let know if you have any thoughts.

• with many notable contemporary --- Welch and Rawlings perform at many notable music festivals - remove redundancy of "many notable"

reworded

• a best seller platinum album --> a bestselling platinum album

done

 Done - All issues resolved. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

--I'll give you some time to address these issues. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Early life

• Looks good.

Career

• It never occurred to them to give themselves a name, so they simply played as "Gillian Welch". --> The duo never considered using a working name, so they were simply billed as "Gillian Welch".

Better, thanks... I inserted it into the article. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - All issues resolved. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Revival

• Just a note that I'll be cutting small amounts of trivia from the album subsections—while they are interesting, they're really more appropriate for the album articles themselves. Tell me if you don't agree, and we'll discuss it. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I know the article is a little long. Albums seem a good place to trim since they have separate articles. One thing I would appreciate an explanation of is the changing from present to past tense. I don't really have a firm grasp on that, can you explain or point to a page that does? I couldn't find anything on a wikipedia help/guideline page but I would think one exists. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - I meant switching to past tense - in a biography, this is generally the norm. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, it was my assumption that if a writer for a publication doesn't appear to be notable (ex. do they have their own wikipedia page?), attributing the quote/review to the publication alone is sufficient. I welcome your thoughts. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I usually attribute any author, but the guidelines at WP:QUOTE are rather vague. Whatever suits you best. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I was curious about this and looked at an article that was recently listed as wp:FA, Is This It. It seems to always list an author when available, so I will do the same. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Despite these contributions, Welch appreciates Burnett's focus on Welch and Rawlings as "the core". --- a little awkward. Would you support me removing it? - I.M.S. (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Question: Perhaps just remove "the core"? The ref says "But, as Welch is quick to point out, perhaps even more important than the presence of such luminaries was the way Burnett “always worked from the angle that he loved what he heard the first night — just Dave and myself. That was always the core." --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hell Among...

• In 1998's Hell Among the Yearlings, Welch and Rawlings continues their rustic and dark themes. There are songs about a female character killing a rapist, a mining accident, a murder ballad, and an ode to morphine before death.[16] Like Revival, Hell Among The Yearlings features a sparse sound focused on Rawlings and Welch's voices and guitars, produced by T-Bone Burnett.[16][17] --- switch to present tense, rearrange info --- 1998's Hell Among the Yearlings continued Welch and Rawlings' rustic and dark themes; the songs' subject matter varied from a female character killing a rapist, a mining accident, a murder ballad, and an ode to morphine before death.[16] Like Revival, Hell Among The Yearlings featured T-Bone Burnett's sparse production, focused on Rawlings and Welch's voices and guitars.[16][17]

I apologize in advance if there's something I'm misunderstanding here. The way I'm reading it now, you have T-Bone Burnett mentioned twice in the last sentence. Back to the tense issue, again I'm no expert on this but I really do believe that when you're talking about music, book, a piece of art, etc. you write that it "features" not "featured". Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot to clip of that part. And to your other question, I believe either way is acceptable. See here for examples:

• • • • • The album marked/marks a change in direction for ____, as they moved away from ... It features/featured production from ____

Which one do you prefer? Generally on Wikipedia, if an MoS guideline is not clearly defined (and editors are forced to take matters into their own hands), one should simply stay uniform and stick with one style throughout. Both make sense; I can't find any specific mention of it at WP:MOS (I'm confused as well!). Take a look at pages like Elvis Presley or The Beatles for pointers. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will stay with the present/active voice, as in "features" and not "featured" --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - just remember to keep the actual storytelling portion of her bio in past past tense. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the first sentence of Hell.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's my final verdict: I believe that it's acceptable to use historical present when describing a track or album ("Welch uses a distinct vocal effect on ___"), but that past tense should be used in the main narrative.

For quotes and critical opinions, both past and present tense are acceptable; what is important is that we stay absolutely consistent throughout. I vote that historical present (Welch writes/says/thinks) should be used. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. Thank You. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

O Brother...

•  Done - I think everything looks great up to this point. Comments on TTR next. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just made a few minor tweaks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Time (The Revelator)

• Does this sound better? After Universal Music Group purchased her home label, Almo Sounds, Welch began her own ... - I.M.S. (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"home label" doesn't sound right. How about "former label", or simply have it as "After Universal Music Group purchased Almo Sounds, Welch began her own..." It was stated earlier in the article that she was on Almo Sounds, and even if the reader has lost, or never had sight of this, I think saying that she started her own label makes it clear that she was on Almo.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• a historic recording studio in Nashville, where Elvis Presley, Chet Atkins and many other notable artists have recorded over 30,000 songs. - may I suggest removing that last part? Although it is very interesting, I imagine readers could find this out if they clicked on the link to the studio.

That's good, it could use a trim, especially with "historic" being left in.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of your comments. You should go ahead and make the changes to the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• named after the Acony Bell flower, which was a subject of a song on Revival --- I imagine this refers to the song "Acony Bell", no? I believe this would sound better: named after the Acony Bell flower, subject of the song "Acony Bell" on Revival'

Better, thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion area

Discussion about removals

I'm sorry but, I don't agree with this edit [1]. She didn't know anything about her birth-father except what she was told, and that was that he was a musician. Saying she "described" implies that she knew him.

Also, her speculating that her father was one of her favorite musicians when she was young is covered in two different references. Besides just being interesting, I think it says a lot about her attitude towards music as a youth.

I think it's interesting as well, but it is a rather abrupt statement by itself. I'll add it back - I.M.S. (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I can make it more clear, but besides being a musician, she knew that her father was in NYC at the time. This obviously fueled her speculation more.

I reworded/restored the speculation about her father. [2] ..As it was, the "described" as musician (which would make the reader wonder what she knew, as in, has she met him?) and then "later learned he was a drummer" doesn't flow. In addition to reasons already given, including her speculation shows that she knew really knew little about him (and obviously never met). --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as important, but given her relation with Appalachian music, the fact that the New Yorker wrote that her mother is possibly from Western North Carolina holds some value IMO. Especially if you're going to mention her father.

I was thinking that as well, but I removed it due to the "probably" - I'll put it back and reword it, if you like - I.M.S. (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It was "possibly" not "probably". Does this affect your feelings on including Western North Carolina?

Also, regarding a previous edit, I put that her adoption was arranged before she was born because another reviewer asked when she was adopted. Many kids are adopted after they are born.

Thanks.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How does this sound: Welch was born on October 2, 1967 in New York City. She was fostered to Ken and Mitzie Welch in a pre-arranged adoption. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Thanks

Regarding your question "Does this affect your feelings on including Western North Carolina?" --- words such as "probably" and "possibly" should be avoided, as many will mistake the accompanying speculations as OR, even if they are well referenced. How is it phrased in the New Yorker article? - I.M.S. (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is from The New Yorker - "Her father was not from the South, so far as they knew, but he was a musician; in fact, he was a drummer. And, from an address they had been given, it appeared that her mother, the college student in New York, may have grown up in the mountains of North Carolina."

I originally considered including a blurb about how WNC is known for Appalachian Ballad singers, but didn't think it was necessary to add too much to a "may have". Which leads me to agree that it's best just to leave out. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. Here's my suggestion: ... from her adoptive parents that he was a drummer. Welch's mother was also from a musical background—Alec Wilkinson of The New Yorker states that "from an address they had been given, it appeared that her mother ... may have grown up in the mountains of North Carolina." --- Note the link to Music of North Carolina. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, thanks! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to take off the "Welch's mother was also from a musical background". A possibility of her being from WNC makes that a bit of a stretch. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blockquotes

I just noticed you changed the quote about her epiphany with the Stanley Brothers in Early life to blockquote. That's what I prefer, and had it like that. It's my understanding from WP:MOSQUOTE that blockquote should be used if the quote exceeds 4 lines. I changed to cquote because I really wanted to emphasize it, but was following the 4 line minimum guideline. Stylistically I prefer blockquote, so hopefully it's okay even though it's under 4 lines. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this. Thanks.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was considering this rule as well, but I agree with you on keeping it as is. I think it's alright. Remember, you can always turn it into a quotebox (see right) - I think it would consequently lose its emphasis, however.

I.M.S. (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was considering this rule as well, but I agree with you on keeping it as is. I think it's alright. Remember, you can always turn it into a quotebox (see right) - I think it would, however, lose its emphasis. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to use those templates. I might also employ some old friends of mine,  Not done and  Done. I'll go ahead and mark the issues that have been addressed... - I.M.S. (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tense

I know you mentioned that the historical present is okay as long as it's consistent, but I want to be consistent with other articles, not just internally. So -

I've looked at some other FAs, and I've come to the conclusion that for quotes from critics, it should be past tense. Mother's Milk is one I particularly paid attention to, because it had a fairly recent highly-scrutinized FA review. I will do the copyedits everywhere in this area (to be consistent) later today.

I will start with this and then again look at other FAs for more questions about tense (ex. does the album "features" or featured"... when Welch is talking about her style, is it "described" or "describes").

Please let me know if you have any thoughts. I will let you know when I completed copyediting for a particular area.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In my work, I prefer past tense. Again, both ways are acceptable—but, as you've pointed out, past tense appears to be the norm on Wikipedia. In general, I think that past tense flows better. Feel free to switch back. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have updated the quotes from critics to all be past tense

Now I want to work on another aspect. I have a lot of "Welch says..." in describing her style, etc. I'm going to change them to said.

I guess basically what I'm adhering to is that if it's an album or song, then it's "features" vs. "featured". All other is past tense.

I will begin to make these updates. Please confirm that I'm doing the right thing. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

While it's certainly possible I missed a couple, I believe I'm done with the tense. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:LQ

I notice several points throughout the article that do not follow this guideline. As I do not have access to some of the cited texts, please go through and make sure that all quotes conform to this. Not a major issue, but one that will certainly need to be addressed for this article to meet criterion 1b. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going by if a full sentence, then period inside, if not then period outside. Are you seeing inconsistencies there? Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you ever would like to see any part of cited text, let me know and I can provide. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's alright - I will AGF. Per MoS, if the quoted text includes the period, then the quot. mark is placed after the period. See below for an example; orig. text is show first. Quoted text in green:

She just doesn't have the voice, eye, or way with words to bring her simulation off. Unless you're ...

As it should appear in the article:

Robert Christgau echoed this, saying that Welch "just doesn't have the voice, eye, or way with words to bring her simulation off."

Incorrect:

Robert Christgau echoed this, saying that Welch "just doesn't have the voice, eye, or way with words to bring her simulation off".

Now, here's a different case (orig. text first):

I really don't like that, it gives me the chills quite a lot. Goodbye ...

As it should be quoted:

Person A did not agree with it, as it "gives me the chills".

-- I.M.S. (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I misinterpreted what's below from the MOS. I took the bold part to mean that you simply determine if it's a complete sentence or not. If not a complete sentence, then the period goes outside the quote. However, the part in italics seems to suggest that is incorrect. (I think the MOS can explain this better, but oh well). Anyhow, I will go by your Christgau example and make the updates.

"When quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence."

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You raise a very valid point. I am not sure what is more proper; note that MoS says "some judgment is required"—as you are the article writer, you should chose which one is your preference. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just received this e-mail from a friend who is a journalist. If you want to remove it from this page after reading, that's fine with me. I thought you might like to see as a FYI

Periods or commas never go outside an end quotation mark. Never. The lesson even poses the choice as 1) period placed inside or 2) period is omitted. The option in the incorrect sentence is 3) period outside quotes. That one is always wrong.

As the guideline noted, you don't always need any punctuation at the end of quoted matter, as in...

Christgau said that Welch "in no way, shape or form" has the voice for the simulation.

There the fragment is incomplete, so no punctuation needed at all. But if the quoted matter comes to a grammatic conclusion, that is, what would be the end of a sentence, like the correct example above, it takes a period and the period goes inside the quotation mark. You shouldn't have any sentence in which quoted matter that doesn't really end is placed at the end of the sentence.

Punctuation outside a quotation mark can be like this:

Why would anyone go out with "a skanky ho"?

The question is in the entire sentence, not the quoted matter, so the question mark goes outside.

But...

His friend demanded, "Why would anyone go out with a skanky ho?"

In that case, the quoted matter contained the question, so the question mark goes inside.

I agree with your friend's comments - I follow these same rules offline. However Ruhrfisch explained to me the other day how it should be followed per MoS: Quotations need to follow logical quotation, basically punctuation goes outside the quote unless it is a full sentence. This will not be hard to fix; I'll go through the article right now. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm very busy at the moment, but will have more time to devote tomorrow and this weekend. I'll generate the checklist soon, and pass or fail the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I.M.S. (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of Soul Journey

I'm sorry if it was unclear before, but I would like to go over your edit here [3]. Here's the "before" text:

There are two songs on Soul Journey that are original compositions based against traditional songs (one of which is "Make Me a Pallet on the Floor"), a biographical song about Welch's birth parents ("No One Knows My Name"), and a "rambling, mysterious tale set to a ramshackle arrangement that, at long last, almost qualifies as rocking out" ("Wrecking Ball").

Soul Journey has two songs based on traditionals. One is Make Me a Pallet, the other is unmentioned. All the other songs are original. The way you currently have the last sentence, it's unclear what you're referring to as based on traditionals.

Also I think including "utilized original compositions" is wrong because all of their previous albums are original compositions. (Note I changed utilized to features, see edit summary)

If you want me to rearrange back and go from there, let me know. Or you can change it how you want. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about my edit - it did confuse matters slightly. However, I found its "before" state also extremely confusing. I hope you agree with these changes. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you found it extremely confusing, but it is still not accurate.

There are two songs on the album based on traditionals. One is Make Me a Pallet on the Floor. The other was never named. If you look at my before text, whatever comes after the first parenthesis and comma are completely original songs. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh - I'm afraid I completely misunderstood you. I was stupidly interpreting "the other is unmentioned" to refer to it not being mentioned within the article. Very sorry (I should have known this, as I own all of Welch's records. Lapse of memory). Please correct my mistakes as you see fit. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I actually didn't know that "No One Knows My Name" borrows from a Carter Family tune until looking into this more. Anyway, I rewrote the paragraph. I changed around the content based on re-reading the refs and trimmed a bit. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): / b (MoS):

   Prose is mostly well-written, but some rough spots do remain - nothing major. Some issues on MoS were raised during the review, but most have been addressed. It might benefit the article to ask a copyeditor to give it a quick run-through.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is well researched and referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very comprehensive.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Portraying someone as commonly criticized and yet widely respected and praised at the same time as Welch is no easy task; this article does a fine job representing both points of view on her.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is very stable - almost no vandalism and no edit wars that I can see.

6. 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):

   Many high-quality images are on the page; my only problem was with chronology. As the writer showed, this cannot easily be resolved—the article is fine as is.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: