Talk:Paul Butterfield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review.

General

There was one disambig reported on Template:Woodstock. I've boldly fixed it
Two images, copyrights okay on both
No dead links reported
A book search for "Paul Butterfield" returns a substantial number of hits. It's not really a requirement to have a broad coverage of sources for GA, but based on what's in the article now, I've counted 14 sources for his entire career, most of which are the Allmusic biography. You might want to just skim through some of the other books to see if there's anything else that can expand on a certain aspect of the man's career.

Most seem to mention Butterfield in passing or his appearance at Newport. I'll continue to look for sources. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added sources. Most deal with the early days of the PB Blues Band with Bloomfield. There is little after 1967, except for album mentions. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of the article is a little problematic, as most of it consists of one paragraph sections. See MOS:PARAGRAPHS. In particular, you probably don't need a section for each album. Even The Beatles doesn't have this.

The layout is looking much better now. Well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of subsections to break it up. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead is a bit short. For an article of this size, you probably want about 3 paragraphs (see WP:LEADLENGTH). I would suggest Woodstock, Mike Bloomfield and Bob Dylan are the most important aspects of his career. I don't understand why you removed his nomination for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame from the lead

Done —Ojorojo (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a direct cite for his full name and date of birth

Done Sources added to infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Career

"serious woodshedding" - a quote needs a specific source

Done Rephrased, source added. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Butterfield (vocals and harmonica)" and other instances of "Musician (instrument)" would sit better as prose

Done —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the racially mixed quartet began to create a stir" is a little bit of original research synthesis. It implies the band were controversial because they had musicians of different races. Or does it just mean they were popular with audiences? You probably want to reword this bit.

Done Rephrased. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfield Blues Band

Last sentence in this paragraph is unsourced.

Done Clarified (same source as Holzman footnote quote).

Newport Folk Festival and Bob Dylan

This section is largely unsourced. The only reference is to the AllMusic article, but that only states they appeared at the festival and that the band backed Dylan, and doesn't specifically mention that it was without Butterfield.

Done Sources added. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East-West

The first paragraph is largely unsourced. The single reference is just to a page of chart positions

Done Source added. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"jam bands" can wikilink to jam band - the term is notable

Done —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph is unsourced

Please clarify (Tamarkin & Houghton quoted and listed as sources). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Mayall's Bluesbreakers with Paul Butterfield

This section is unsourced

Done Source added. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Resurrection of Pigboy Crabshaw

Do we know why Bloomfield, Arnold and Davenport left the band?

Done Bloomfield reason added with source; no reasons found for Arnold and Davenport. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this section is unsourced, aside from the chart position

Done Source added. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In My Own Dream/Keep On Moving

"both albums sold reasonably well" - worth adding the chart positions

Done —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a VHS video (remember those?) of a 25th anniversary of Woodstock, based on a three-episode TV broadcast from 1994. It had one Butterfield track on it, unlike the 1970 film. Sorry I can't be a bit more helpful - I can't see it in a Google search easily.

Done Added inclusion in the Woodstock 40th Anniversary Edition video and album. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fathers and Sons

This section looks a little muddled. We've just talked about Woodstock (August 1969), now the narrative jumps back to April.

Done Reordered. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"were recorded and released on his Fathers and Sons on August 18, 1969" - how can he be recording when he was busy at Woodstock at the time?

Done Clarified (removed release date, coincidence that it was the same day as his Woodstock performance). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live/Sometimes I Just Feel Like Smilin'

Part of this section is unsourced

Done Source added. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better Days

Aside from chart positions, this is unsourced

Done Sources added. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solo

First paragraph is unsourced

Done Sources added. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph is partially unsourced

Done Source added. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonica

Two paragraphs are completely unsourced

Done Sources added with additional material. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

This section should be titled "Death".

Done —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the peculiar circumstances" - what exactly was peculiar about them?

Done Removed (not encyclopedic). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than ending the article on a sombre note, it might be nice to see if any of his contemporaries (eg: Dylan) said anything on hearing about his death, and put in a quote that sums up all he was notable for.

Done Added Muldaur quote. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of his actual personal life, there's very little of it mentioned in the article. Did Butterfield have any notable relationships or children? Not everyone did (Rory Gallagher is notable for being "married to his work"), but if so, that's worth mentioning in itself.

Done Added Personal life section with quotes and refs. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

This all needs sourcing - Allmusic should be able to tackle most of it

Done Added general Allmusic PB discography ref (covers all except compilations with various artists & as accompanist); advise if more is needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

As it stands, I think you've got major problems with sourcing, and some other problems with your layout. I appreciate you've done a lot of work on this already, but unfortunately there's more required to get it up to the required level. I'm not going to quickfail it here and now, but I think you've got some serious work ahead of you to get this up to the GA standards. So instead, I'll put it on hold, which gives you a week to fix up everything. Despite what I've said, I'd be overjoyed if you rose to the challenge and got the referencing sorted out. As I said, there's a lot of information available via Google Books, so hopefully you shouldn't find it too taxing, though you might well find there's a significant amount of copyediting you need to do. Best of luck, anyhow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the actions are done, looking at it. It's looking much more like a GA from a cursory look, I just need to go back through and check all the cites support the information in the article. Watch this space. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it for now. Thanks for the input. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry for the delay in this - things are looking a lot better and it's close to passing. There are a few sentences still uncited - I've fixed most of them but the one point of contention remaining is the final paragraph in "Harmonica style" which is largely unsourced. Once that is copyedited and sourced correctly, I can pass the review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Trimmed back to Erlewine, Rothchild, and Field refs. (Which was first? The Mad Dog harmonica style and discography material (not used) shows a date of May 2011 and is nearly identical to the WP Butterfield sections from 2008.) —Ojorojo (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've randomly searched for key phrases that a copyvio check would trip up, and copyedited one. Other than that, I think the article is now comprehensive and sufficiently sourced to meet the GA critiera, so I'm happy to say it's a pass. Well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful comments and edits, a good review and a positive experience. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]