Talk:Otis Redding/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 15:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this review soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article continues to have 5 problem citations in its 4th nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Damn!! I did not realize this had 8 prior reviews. This is going to take a minute or two.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding PR1 - I will have to look at the NFCC content, but four total FU items seems reasonable. There may be 5 pieces though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring PR2--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick glance suggests PR3 is resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GAC1 complained about the breadth of the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GAC2 seems to have failed the article mainly for its writing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GAC3 called in a 2nd opinion before failing for prose (largely concerns about the wife).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FAC1 failed largely for prose issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FAC2 failed for prose (WP:WIAFA 1a and 1c).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there is some expectation that this article be improved through a GAC and then a PR before attempting another FAC run. (PR3 came after FAC2, so maybe GAC4 is the last step before a serious FAC consideration.) I am not the best reviewer for the 1a concerns, but will do my best.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Months passed away and the official website is still under construction, and there are no archives. So it is better to wait. The one Stax museum reference has oddly disappeared (can't even find on web archives), but I also think we should wait. --GoP _T ^C _N 10:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

At 2012 characters of readable prose, I'd say it is still a little short for a 33355 KB article. I'd like to see the LEAD expanded to much closer to 3000KB.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what all I would like to see added to LEAD, but one is the The Dock of the Bay posthumous #1, which demonstrates his popularity outside of the US. In fact, I think the lead should mention the charts he was the first posthumous #1 on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will add this, but I am not sure why you say the lead requires 3000 characters. I would say the lead is a summary with no size limitations.--GoP_T^C_N 10:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no requirement. I am suggesting that to properly summarize a normal 33KB article, you usually come closer to 3KB LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I expanded the lead a bit by mentioning his posthumous album and induction into the Songwriters Hall of Fame..--GoP _T ^C _N 08:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I remain confused on one issue. "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" claims in its LEAD that it was the first posthumous #1 in both the US and UK. This article claims it was the first posthumous in the US. You don't state anything about this major fact in the LEAD and should. Can you get it straightened out and added to the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The song topped the US and UK charts, but the album only in the UK, which then became the first posthumous album to reach the #1.--GoP _T ^C _N 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        My issue is with the song. There is discrepant info on WP (as stated above).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I removed that piece of information that it was the first posthumous song to chart in the top of the UK charts. It actually charted on #3 there, while the album on #1.--GoP _T ^C _N 09:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        O.K. so you fixed "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" to match here. What about this LEAD? Shouldn't it mention whether this song was the first posthumous #1 single? Does that hold for both the hot 100 and the R&B chart?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I added that it was the first posthumous single to top the chart in the US.--GoP _T ^C _N 12:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Properly name and link the charts in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Billboard Hot 100 is also known as simply "pop", so I just linked the charts.--GoP _T ^C _N 10:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That is an odd choice. On first use, you are suppose to link a term. Later uses are suppose to be unlinked, but in this case the later uses will not be clearly related to the first use because of the piping choice. I would suggest that you unpipe the links and use the formal name here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific? --GoP _T ^C _N 15:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You are not suppose to link Billboard Hot 100 everytime it is used in the article. Your just suppose to link it the first time and assume the reader learned what he needed to. The same is true of other charts, song names, album names or any other links. Please spell this chart out correctly the first time and link it. Unlink subsequent uses. Do the same with other charts, song names, album names and any other links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Let me know if there are any overlinking problems. --GoP _T ^C _N 10:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you unlink even the first use of these charts and "Satisfaction"? Also, some of the changes make the grammar incorrect (e.g., "peaked at number 20 on Billboard Hot 100 and at number 85 on Hot R&B." or "former peaked at number 25 on Billboard Hot 100 chart and at number 4 on Hot R&B chart"). In addition, the names you delinked should only include the last name after first use (Franklin, Dunn, etc.).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done the first. I disagree to remove the first name as many won't understand who is meant even if one will read the whole article. It is better to keep it as is. --GoP_T^C_N 13:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to the first link for the album (dock of the bay)? Not so sure it should say of the same name, BTW.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Linked--GoP _T ^C _N 17:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The grammar is still off in LEAD and elsewhere. "which became the first posthumous number-one record on both Billboard Hot 100 and R&B charts after his death in a plane crash." needs a the in front of Billboard or a "'s".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added the throughout.--GoP_T^C_N 17:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Last thing: Billboard is suppose to be italicized whenever it is mentioned including places like Billboard Hot 100.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was told it was unnecessary since it is a proper noun and thus should be without italicface.--GoP _T ^C _N 17:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, done.--GoP _T ^C _N 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

~~Is Bellevue a town near Macon, a Macon neighborhood, a housing project or what?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A neighborhood in Macon. The housing project is Tindall. Done.--GoP _T ^C _N 10:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert all dollar amounts to modern day equivalents. As an example see Bobby Orr.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this necessary? I mean, to convert $5 or $25 is a little bit odd.--GoP_T^C_N 10:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I always suggest converting 20th century dollar amounts to help the reader understand what the presented text really means.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I find this unnecessary but I converted all amounts except the last two in the Wealth section.--GoP_T^C_N 17:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~If you know what year he acquired the ranch, this is an important one to correct.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I searched for the year but I could not find an exact date. I think it was in late 1965 or early 1966. Many sources state that he buyed it when his success grew.--GoP _T ^C _N 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Recheck the numbers in the "Apollo Theater and Otis Blue" section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, fixed.--GoP _T ^C _N 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is the year for the $6 in doubt?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I reverted Trekphiler's edit. --GoP _T ^C _N 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on with this edit? Also, that edit shows you were using the template incorrectly. Please set it up so that you don't have to update the current year annually (like the example I gave you) and get your coeditors onboard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will contact the editors.--GoP_T^C_N 09:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to Trekphiler:

“

♠I deleted the inflation template not because I find it inaccurate, but because I find it useless. Simple dollar value conversions don't account for changes in buying power or product quality, & as a result are very uninformative. IMO, a better standard is to use equivalents: say, a day's wages, or the price of a comparable item (for the T, a Curved-Dash or Gale A). Or how long it would take to afford it (the T, paid for with about 2mo pay; a Buick Park Avenue?). So $6 in 1960 might buy what $50 does today, but what it buys often couldn't be had for five times that in 1960, even if you could have bought it at all. Comparing against comparable items (as far as possible) eliminates that problem, without leaving what is, IMO, a very faulty impression.

”

— TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura, my talk page

I know all about price index problems, but the point is not run around inflating things for the component price change of the individual item. That is not a proper thing for an encyclopedia to task itself with doing. General price levels are indicative and certainly better than nothing. It might be better if we could find out what a person makes for doing the same job today, but that is not a tractable thing to do. General price levels do help the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted and adjusted the template--GoP_T^C_N 10:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need some sort of acknowledgement from Trekphiler so that there is not an edit war.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree with putting it in, & I'd be happier if the adjustment was left off, but I'm not inclined to edit war over it. If others are strongly enough in support, I'll leave it.
    - "the point is not run around inflating things for the component price change of the individual item" That leaves me really confused. As said, I'd far rather the comparison be to comparable things. Is there info on weekly/daily wages at the time? (I'd tend to think there is.) So, is there a strong objection to saying, "Redding earned $6 for the gig at Foo (equal to a day's pay for a janitor)"? Or whatever equivalent is apt? If it's not available, so be it; if it is... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even labor price indexes would have problems. Movie star salaries, Pro athlete salaries, Congressional salaries and musician salaries have all risen at different rates. A general index that equates general buying power is best.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYou are still not using the templates correctly. the 2012 in as of 2012 should use a template so it automatically updates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the magic word.--GoP _T ^C _N 13:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Theater and Otis Blue

~~Muhammed Ali (sp?)~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected--GoP _T ^C _N 07:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last studio album and Monterey

~~"their musical career,"-where they a group or should career be pluralized?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--GoP _T ^C _N 07:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Ten out of six "?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that... done--GoP _T ^C _N 07:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous releases and proposed recordings

~~"There was also a proposal by Redding to record an album featuring cut and rearranged songs..." - he is already dead?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the tense--GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There had been also a proposal" sounds ungrammatical. Try "Additionally, there had been a proposal" or simply "There had been a proposal".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--GoP _T ^C _N 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriting

"sometimes asked for the Stax member's opinion of the lyric's quality" - Who is the Stax member? A single song's lyrics even are plural as long as they are more than one word. I think it should be lyrics'.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~What does "Typical was his free improvisation during the song's end." mean?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was known to improvise in the last part of a song.--GoP _T ^C _N 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

either change to "His free improvisation during the song's end was typical" or "He was known to improvise in the last part of a song".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--GoP _T ^C _N 10:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Most of lyrics of his songs->Most of his songs' lyrics~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Mr. Pitiful" story is now redundant.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life and wealth

~~"One columnist said, "in one year ... he sold more records than Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin combined." - clarify the year.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important that he sold more in 2012.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I fixed the date (1967 now). He was very successful in the last year.--GoP _T ^C _N 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and honors

Songwriters Hall of Fame or Songwriter's Hall of Fame? Link on first instance. Consider adding to an expanded LEAD along with Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. If you want to link to the inductees article don't fool the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the first. --GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is linked twice here. It should be in the LEAD and linked there. At most once afterwards. However, you can link to the inductees article.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

~~Try to fill out the FUR for File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg like the main image.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Does File:Sitting on the Dock of the Bay.jpg constitute art requiring a FUR? Check with someone who would know. Is it permanent art?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hided the image for now.--GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can not say what the FAC folks will think, this article is very close to meeting WP:WIAGA. I am going to put it on hold. Please continute to respond to the concerns on the subsequent line.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I will try to expand the lead. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. This is very good GA work. Good luck with FA pursuits. I am now passing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. First I need the books listed in the further reading section to expand the sections if possible, then I will submit this to FAC :). Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 18:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]