Talk:Karen Carpenter/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Crikey, I think it was ages ago I improved this, and I don't have the book sources to hand any more. If anything relating to criteria 2 crops up, hopefully I'll be able to find alternatives. Still, a month ago I was booked to do a band rehearsal, and there was a woman having a drum lesson beforehand, who came out and, in conversation, said that (in her view) Karen Carpenter was the best female drummer ever, which means this is probably a good target for Women in Green. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything happening with this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, I'm not sure if you are aware that The Rambling Man had a family crisis. Hopefully he'll be able to get back on this when things calm. SusunW (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chasing stalled reviews. Sorry about the family issues. I can take over if you both wish. AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, I promised Ritchie I'd take this up, so I'll be bold and crack on with this, and if Aircorn wants to chase after me and pick up what I missed, I'm fine with that, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. I have a backlog of reviews to clear of my own so am happy for you to take this one. If you want a second opinion on anything feel free to ask though. AIRcorn (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC) ping me though as I am going to take this off my watchlist[reply]
      • @Aircorn: Indeed, there's one of mine waiting, I'm done with your comments there ;) Vanamonde (Talk) 04:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know. I had a lot of spare time, and then things got a bit messy. I blame some dodgy food at the cricket. You are on my list (might get to it tonight if things go well). AIRcorn (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: I'm done with the prose here; a fine effort, as always. I'll get to the pictures and sources later, but feel free to chip away at my nitpicks in the meantime. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the thorough and detailed review Vanamonde - I don't have any of the book sources I used in the original expansion anymore, but hopefully I can get hold of stuff if I need to. Or I think Megalibrarygirl and SusunW might have access. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Turns out I have access to the Schmidt source. I'm not very happy both rewriting and reviewing, but I'm happy to look stuff up for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see there is a Google Books preview, so I might be alright. I haven't found any for Ray Coleman's book (the official documentary from the Carpenter's POV) though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 Coleman's book is at archive.org,[1] but someone has it checked out. You might try joining the wait list. SusunW (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    All issues have been addressed
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    No MOS issues I can see.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    A few formatting issues fixed
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    All comments addressed
    C. It contains no original research:
    All comments addressed; spotchecks were clear.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig's tool flags only quotes, Websites copying from Wikipedia, common phrases, and album/song names. Spotchecks are clear.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    No major aspects have been ignored.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No extraneous material.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No issues with neutrality.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No stability issues, disruption by anons does not count.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Image licenses check out to the best of my abilities.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Caption comments addressed
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    All done, passing shortly.

Comments[edit]

  • I imagine "sandlot games" refers to informal games played on the street, but I think it would be clearer rephrased.
Trimmed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carpenters' official softball team" You mean the family had an "official" team?
Well, it was more of a celebrity all-star team, so clarified as such Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the last sentence of paragraph 2 would flow better with the next paragraph
Agreed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds at the moment like Frankie Chavez was a fellow student; is this true?
Can't remember, it's probably true but I'd need to check the book Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked; he is described by Schmidt as a classmate.
Hokay, done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began to teach her drums" sounds to me like it should be "teach her the drums, but I'm unsure if this is an ENGVAR thing.
Changed to "began to teach her how to play" - we already know what instrument she's learning from the previous sentence Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • sentence beginning "She was always enthusiastic..." is a bit run-on.
Tweaked a bit Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band rehearsed daily and ..." another run-on.
Tweaked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard was immediately impressed..." this is weird; surely he had known of her skills for a long time?
No, he knew she was learning the drums, but it didn't really strike home exactly how good she was until he heard her. Before that, it was just "aww look, my kid sister's playing an instrument, how cute". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an interesting enough factoid to be worth mentioning; if source access prevents this, it's no big deal.
  • Any info on when the RCA contract was signed, or why the albums weren't released? Not mandatory for GA, I'm just immediately curious upon reading that.
    Striking for now, not necessary for GA. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a good link for "demo tape" and "multitrack tape"? The latter redirects to Multitrack recording, which has big orange tags on it...
There's demo (music), but that has tags. On the day I can go to any WP article and be confident it won't have tags or need them, I can then safely retire. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, "wrote ten out of the album's thirteen songs and sang five of them" is less jarring than "wrote 10 out of the album's 13 songs and sang 5 of them", but I won't press you.
It should be consistent with other numerals elsewhere in the prose though, so fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link snare and bass drums?
Sure Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carpenter started out as both the group's drummer and lead singer" seems a bit contrary to the previous paragraph, which says Richard sang at least 5, and possibly 7, of the 13 songs on the first album.
Reorganised this bit Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite this, she did not drum on every Carpenters' track. She was the only drummer on Ticket to Ride and on Now & Then except for "Jambalaya"." A slightly odd juxtaposition; might I suggest switching this around, as she seems to have moved away from being the only drummer?
I've copyedited this, but the basic gist here is - if Karen thought of herself as primarily a drummer, why did she give it up? Although Keith Moon and John Bonham could sing a bit, you'd never suggest for a minute that either of them ever left the drum kit! (possibly in Moon's case, you'd beg him not to have a vocal mic, anyway I'm going off-topic.....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, I've added a comma.
  • "Though she was a competent drummer,..." I think that point has been made; the sentence could start easily with "The duo were happy..."
Okay Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a two-week break in her anorexia therapy" This is the first mention of her anorexia. Though it's covered in detail later, I think it's worth adding "which she had been suffering from for some years" or some such.
I've removed it - I think the career and health sections are best kept separate, and there is still a "Richard was concerned about her health" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might "Solo career" be a better title for that subsection?
For "Solo"? Hmm, have any other GAs got that title, I wonder? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well to me "solo" sounds like it's referring to a single performance, and then I'm confused when I read the section; this isn't a big deal, though.
  • Is "up-tempo" linkable?
It's a redirect to Glossary of musical terminology, but I won't hurt to add it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<snark>I'm glad you're not hurting, my reviews aren't meant to be painful...</snark>
  • "more explicit lyrics" this sounds like a euphemism for sexually explicit lyrics, but I don't think that's what you're trying to imply?
Changed to "mature". I think she was fed up of being perceived as a wholesome conservative apple-pie girl, and wanted to be portrayed as a woman with proper thoughts and feelings. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why the duo was charged for Karen's solo experiment?
It's probably in Coleman's biography, but I don't have it to hand.
  • The material about early 1970s baseball might fit better in the personal life section where similar stuff is; she's also 20+ in the 1970s.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carpenter revised her will" do we know what was different about the original?
It added her husband as a beneficiary - previously it was her brother and parents. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence beginning "She was 5 feet 4 inches..." is overly long and complex; unless the source explicitly says she stayed the same weight until 1973, perhaps that bit of it can be dropped?
  • "a high carbohydrate, low calorie diet" Biologically, that's weird; are you sure it's not high protein?
    Just checked the source myself, and carbohydrate is what it says. Still bizarre, but I don't see what we can do about it, so let it go for now.
Okay. I think "it's verifiable but is it actually true?" is the hallmark of a good editor :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah yes. Verifiable but untrue statements are regrettably common when writing about politics, and they bug me no end. I've thought some more about this: why not simply say "a new diet" or equivalent?
Okay, let's go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she then weighed" when?
Removed (see below) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need her weight in kg, lb, and st?
Yes, because Europeans use kilograms, Americans use pounds, and Brits use stone. Saves problems with drive-by nationalists saying "my unit of measurement is better than yours" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Alright.
  • "Anorexia had driven her to use thyroid replacement" again, this is odd unless you've said above that she was diagnosed with Anorexia.
Copyedited to make things clearer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in general we could do with a couple fewer specific weights here; it's the fact that she had drastic weight losses and gains that's important, and that's being conveyed.
Yes, also without appropriate medical sources, having all those weights is a bit worrying about exactly how accurate they are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple of duplicate links in the funeral paragraph.
Got em Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had started shortly after..." it's not completely clear what the "which" refers to.
Copyedited, to clarify it's opinion, not fact
  • "The movie helped reverse criticism of the Carpenters' music as being "soft" or "nice"" To a person unacquainted with the Carpenters, this doesn't sound like a criticism, and so this is confusing.
I've copyedited this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you didn't have the best experience at FAC with The Carpenters, but were you to take this article there, I think it wouldn't hurt to have a little more material about how her work in the duo was received. Not a requirement at this level.
    Striking, not a GA requirement. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It avoided previous biographies" I'm not entirely sure what this means.
Copyedited Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if you could copy over sources for the discography into this article: I know it's uncontroversial, and is probably verifiable in the linked articles, but it would be lot neater if this GA status didn't depend on stuff elsewhere.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to minimize whitespace, I wonder if you could make the discography a two-column list; again, just a suggestion, not a GA requirement.
I would if I knew how to, let me look into this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Div col would do the job, would it not?
I was thinking more of what parameters to pass in, but I've sorted that out now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did she never graduate college?
Good question. Schmidt's book doesn't say; given the Carpenters were signed to A&M 18 months after she started college, I suspect she dropped out to go professional. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contemporary musicians and peers" this is redundant, isn't it? Could we say "critics and fellow musicians" or something like that instead?
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might it be worth mentioning her solo efforts in the first sentence?
She's not really known for her solo career; having it in the second paragraph suffices, in my opinion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
  • "the Carpenters were signed" I'd add which company signed them.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was little known at the time" this isn't in the body, and it would be a valuable addition, I think.
What's the best source to use for this?
The biography has some material on how poorly the family and those around her understood Anorexia; see pages in the 120s and 230s. See also this source, which has material that might be worth adding anyway. Also this piece. Between them, I think you can add a sentence saying Anorexia was poorly known, and another saying that her death helped raise awareness of it.
Okay, I've done that, but using a different source that mentions all of Karen, anorexia and a lack of awareness together. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image licenses check out to the best of my abilities. I'd prefer slightly more detailed captions: along the lines of "A promotional photograph of Carpenter from YYYY" or similar. The current ones are very terse.
Done, though I think somebody's been in and made these terse deliberately. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source nitpick: "made a final return to playing drums on the song" is sourced to the album notes, but if the sentence is suggesting, as I think it is, that this was her final recording as a drummer, then I think we need a secondary source. If it's just for the album, perhaps simplify it to "returned to playing the drums on..."
Sounds more compact just saying "played drums" anyway Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few instances of what is essentially web-source formatting being used for journals, even though you've used the journal template. I've fixed one; would you take care of the others? Archival methods keep changing, so I think it's helpful to make use of the common parameters.
I haven't the foggiest what to do here - I have used "cite journal" with "work" as a parameter, but then somebody else comes in and changes it, so I never know what's correct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that "work" is necessarily a problem, though I prefer "journal" as it's explicit; it was more the redundant "publisher" and the missing "volume" and "issue". Anyhow, I've fixed it up.
  • What sort of a source is revistatodoenbondi.com? I'm not acquainted with it. Also, many of the common arguments are blank.
An unreliable one added by somebody else when I wasn't looking (or left it to avoid an edit war then forgot about). Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Petrucelli footnote has no page information: at the moment, it's citing the entire book...
D'uuh, fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If none of the secondary sources mention it, I'm not sure we need the primary-sourced info about their apartment purchases, do we? I also do not think the "as a financial investment." can be taken from the primary source.
I don't think this is particularly important to mention, so removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other sources seem reliable. I have spot-checked citations 10, 11, 44, 70, and 97, and found no issues with paraphrasing or OR (not that I expected to find any, but the checks must be done...)
  • Comment Regarding the note about ipecac syrup production, although there has been a sea change in the use of ipecac[1] and many have called for its OTC status in the US to be rescinded[2][3] ipecac is still manufactured[4] where its use as a veterinary drug continues.[5] The link to ASHSP as it now stands in the article is deprecated, as it rolls over to another unrelated page. The Wikipedia ipecac article is vague in what it says, but to its credit it does not definatively state that the product is no longer manufactured. IMHO unless the note wants to get into the nitty gritty of the politics around ipecac OTC status, the claim should just stick to the facts by stating that ipecac's use is no longer promoted by poison control authorities and leave out claims over its manufactering. Regards,  Spintendo  19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references

References

  1. ^ Gupta, Piyush (December 2017). "Public Knowledge of Ipecac Syrup in the Management of Accidental Poisonings". The Journal of Pediatrics. 191: 56. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.05.068.
  2. ^ Silber, Tomas J. (1 September 2005). "Ipecac syrup abuse, morbidity, and mortality: Isn't it time to repeal its over-the-counter status?". Journal of Adolescent Health. 37 (3): 256–260. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.08.022. ISSN 1054-139X.
  3. ^ Pomeranz, Jennifer L.; Taylor, Lisa M.; Austin, S. Bryn (February 2013). "Over-the-Counter and Out-of-Control: Legal Strategies to Protect Youths From Abusing Products for Weight Control". American Journal of Public Health. 103 (2): 220–225. doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.300962.
  4. ^ Kelly, Nancy R.; Sanchez, Sarai H. (2 July 2016). "Is Syrup of Ipecac Still for Sale? Comparison of Pharmacies in a Large Urban Area—2003 Versus 2005". Clinical Pediatrics. 46 (4): 320–324. doi:10.1177/0009922806294069.
  5. ^ Diamond, Antony W.; Fayad, V. C.; McKinley, Peter S. (2007). "Ipecac: an improved emetic for wild birds". Journal of Field Ornithology. 78 (4): 436–439. doi:10.1111/j.1557-9263.2007.00136.x. ISSN 1557-9263.
Update: A search of the NDC database under "ipecac" shows that 4 syrup product formulations (by one manufacturer) and 11 tablet/pellet formulations (by 5 different manufacturers) are currently approved by the FDA for manufacture, but are labeled as "Unapproved homeopathics".[a] This relegates its availability to research and veterinary settings. So perhaps a claim of "unavailability" is better than "production was discontinued".  Spintendo  20:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notelist

Notes

  1. ^ These are formulations manufactured for sale in the United States. It is not known how many manufacturers there are who sell outside of the US.
@Spintendo: Thanks for digging this up; since all that's required is a modification of the footnote in question, would you be willing to do this yourself? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done  Spintendo  20:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the attention to detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think the other issues are addressed, unless I've missed anything? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Almost: I've struck the others, just look at the unstruck ones, but especially the comment about how well anorexia was known. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've addressed two remaining points I can see. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep all done, passing momentarily. Nice work, I enjoyed reading it! Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karen_Carpenter/GA1&oldid=881602147"