Talk:National Intercollegiate Band/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. It's my practice to fill out the template, and then, if necessary, make comments afterwards. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Small but interesting article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I have a few issues with the prose; see below. It should be easy to address.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Looks good; lists look fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Simple enough.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   See below for a source review; the references need some work. I see that most of the sources are user-generated (from the fraternities) and some are from college newspapers, which aren't always the most reliable. I'll AGF, though, that you've exhausted all the sources about the topic, and that they're the most reliable possible.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I'm not sure this article is comprehensive enough. I'm not sure that you integrate your sources enough; see below for a more detailed explanation.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Little editing history since its creation early this year.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Just one image, which is appropriate for the article's size. It's too bad that there aren't more, though. I think it's a little small, and you should move it over to the left-hand side, so that it's emphasized more. Right now, it's easily lost under the large logo and the infobox.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Address my comments, and it should be an easy pass.

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Pending Thank you for the review and comments. Finals are this week, I'll get working on this early next week! Sycamore (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll continue and put it on hold for a week. Of course, if you need more time, let me know and I'll extend it. Good luck with finals! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Early steps

• I love the section title; it's so creative! I know that it's not a typical title, but with the subject matter, I'm okay with it. Sometimes we need creativity here, doncha know. ;)
  • Well thank you!
• You don't explain the purpose for intercollegiate bands, and you don't link anything to it. I see that ref 2 does explain their purpose--to give student musicians experience with established conductors and composers, so I think you could include it. This gets to my issue with the sources, which I'll discuss more in length later.
  • Ref 2 does not explicitly say that this is their purpose. The lede does say that the NIB has performed under established composers and that it is the resident ensemble of the Commissioning Program. I feel like this is as much as I can say without crossing the line into WP:OR.

Actually, I respectfully disagree. The very first paragraph on page 51, the final sentence, is very explicit about the NIB's purpose.

• I assume that the capitalization in the Baton quote follows the source. I suggest adding (sic) to the first instance of it.
  • Would you put (sic) after "As Music..." or after "National Intercollegiate Band Contest"? I think "Kappa Kappa Psi Fraternity" is appropriate as a proper name, but the same could be argued of "National Intercollegiate Band Contest". I'll defer to your judgment. I've placed it after "As Music" for now.
• Why was there no movement on actually establishing the Band for so many years? Is there any source that can tell us?
  • I'm not sure. None of the sources I have explain this, and few sources even mention the push in the Baton to establish the NIB. I will poke around and see if I can discover anything.

Mostly it was curiosity. If you're unable to find anything, don't sweat it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

NIB established

• Bowling is mentioned earlier, so you don't have to spell out his entire name again here.
  • Fixed.
• The plan was endorsed by the delegation to be executed at the next national convention in Stillwater in 1943, which was to be a silver jubilee of the fraternity. This is picky, but I suggest that you fix this passive voice and tighten up the sentence a bit. How about: "The delegation endorsed the plan, which was due to be established at the next national convention in Stillwater in 1943, the fraternity's silver jubilee." I also suggest that you change "silver jubilee" to 25th anniversary, to avoid unencyclopedic language.
  • Fixed. I left "silver jubilee" as this is how the fraternity referred to it and because 1943 was its 24th anniversary, not 25th (though they were going to celebrate it as the 25th because of the biennial nature of conventions), which leads into...
• The conventions were held every two years? I know it seems obvious, but you need to clarify that because it's confusing and could cause readers to wonder what happened to the intervening years.
  • Fixed! And the lede does mention "every two years" so hopefully it is more clear now.

Nice. It helps that you linked "silver jubilee". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm okay with the redlinks; sometimes they can be helpful in the creation of new articles. Something for you to do this summer! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hah! Maybe for a few, but don't hold me to it!

Source review

• As I state above, I have issues with your integration of sources. Ref 2, for example, has some information that should be added to this article, which could make it longer and more comprehensive. I've already talked about Ref 2 talks about explaining the purpose of intercollegiate bands. Ref 2 also mentions that the Band was open to musicians whether or not they were members of the sorority and fraternity or not. You should include that. Ref 4, on page 51, has a list of the recipients of an award for participation in The Band; you should at least include the existence of such an award. I won't go through all the sources, but I'm sure you get what I'm talking about. I suggest that you go through all your sources and make sure that you incorporate all the information you can. This would make this article more comprehensive. This may be what changes my mind about this article's eligibility to be a GA. I'm not sure that it's comprehensive enough. If I see that you make a good effort to better incorporate your sources, I'll pass it.
  • Refs 2 and 4 were pretty much duplicates, so I consolidated them both to a single ref, ref 2. Open membership and the participation award added from this ref.
• I also see that, as per the comments above, that page 31 of ref 4 calls the conferences "biennial". There's my answer, and your source for it.
  • Done.
• Ref 3: Putting the page number after the ref # isn't my personal style, but I wonder why you did it here, since it's the only time the source is used. Couldn't you have just put the page number in with the ref?
  • Changed.
• Ref 4, 15, 16: This is the time when you'd use the above format. Or you could put the source in a "Sources cited", even though it's only one source, and use "Kappa Kappa Psi, p. --" as inline refs.
  • I see what you mean, but I've used it this way because I'm using a print copy of the source, and the different sections are treated almost like different chapters in a book.

Or like different articles in a book. I'm fine with how you do it here, since the reference section is short. FYI, if you were to ever manage an article with a more complicated reference section, I suggest that you handle a source like that in this way: [1] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm also AGF for the off-line sources, since they're often necessary for comprehensiveness.

That's all for now. I'll put this on hold for a week to give you time to address my comments; let me know if you need more time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anything else that is needed.Sycamore (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Whassup regarding the one small image, as I ask above? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Moved it to the left and enlarged it a bit. Sycamore (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Much improved; I'll go and pass this now, since all the issues have been addressed. Congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)