Talk:James Brown/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments. There's some good stuff here, though I did notice a number of statements that looked in need of citing - "the group was in danger of being dropped by King Records." "Several former members of Little Richard's backup band joined Brown's group as a consequence of Richard's exit from the pop music scene." ""The Famous Flames" was a vocal group, not a backing band contrary to popular belief." "At the time it was mentioned "Brown has also branched out into real estate and music publishing in recent months"." etc. Also, the lead section could do with a more detailed summary of Brown's history. SilkTork *^YES! 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is generally sound. At places it is very clear and confident and very readable, but in other places it needs attention - "Although Brown was to be named after his father, his name was reversed mistakenly on the birth certificate" is not clear. "James Brown is of Native American specifically Apache descent through his father, and of African American and Asian ancestry. He was given up for foster care at a young age." The second sentence doesn't follow the first. "As an adult, Brown legally changed his name to remove the "Jr." designation" appears two paragraphs after the paragraph dealing with his name. "Brown moves on a continuum of blues and gospel-based forms and styles to a profoundly Africanised approach to music making" is not clear. "After a chance meeting in Lusaka, James Brown invited Scobie Ryder, a Glaswegian singer songwriter, to sing and perform alongside him live on stage" is a single sentence paragraph. The article could do with copyediting. If the editors are unable to manage this themselves, they could approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.

B. MoS compliance:
James Brown is a major topic. The lead section needs to explain clearly his notability. At the moment it is a little light. His death is not mentioned, yet there is a major section with four subsections on his death.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Lots of cites

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
But not all statements are sourced, and there's a cite needed tag.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Major recordings and performances are not adequately covered. Live at the Apollo is a landmark recording, yet is dealt with in a couple of sentences hidden within the Early and mid-1960s section. There could be a section dealing with major recordings, and another one dealing just with Live at the Apollo - a couple of paragraphs, linking to the main Live at the Apollo article. A critical section would also be useful.

B. Focused:
The Death section appears to be quite long compared with the rest of the article. Honors, awards and dedications needs trimming to remove the trivial.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
There has been a fair degree of vandalism, and also a number of edit reverts.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
The one captioned "Brown greets fans after a concert in Tampa, Jan. 29, 1972" is poor quality and adds little to the article.

I am gloing to try to neutralize that caption now. Would also like to comment about the main photo at the top of the page, which I feel is very bad as a representative portrait of Brown and out of the question as such for a good article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
At the moment this would be a fail. Attention is needed to the prose, the lead, to reducing the Death and the Honours sections, and to adding sections on significant recordings, especially live at the Apollo, and a section on Critical reception and appreciation.

Having given this a closer look (and I haven't got that close yet) it looks as though there is a considerable amount of work to be done. I am a little concerned that the nomination was not done by any of the major contributors, and that of the major contributors, only two have edited this year, and the last edit was over a month ago. My experience suggests that there is at least a months work here - perhaps more. But it is not impossible with dedication and effort to get it done within a week, so I will put this on hold for 7 days. I don't wish this to be a long drawn out GA Review - so if insufficient work has been by August 24 I will close as Fail. The article can always be resubmitted later. I have notified the five major contributors in addition to the nominator that a review is taking place. SilkTork *^YES! 11:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there has been little progress. It would be welcoming to see improvements to this article. SilkTork *^YES! 07:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no progress on the issues raised. The article does not meet GA criteria for reasons given above, so this is a fail. SilkTork *^YES! 08:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]