Talk:Anthology of American Folk Music

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anthology of American Folk Music/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Review closed as not listed. SilkTork (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer (the GA Bot doesn't notify nominators when I start a review because of this) - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting an independent copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.

Nominators and interested users are free to response however they wish - inserting responses directly under each point I make is probably the best way, but please do whatever suits you. The thing that can get problematic is if someone other than me ticks off my query points as done and/or crosses out my text. If you have done something, please say so under my query, but allow me to check and make the decision as to if it is done or not - that way I know what I have checked and what I haven't. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

</noinclude>

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?

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

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

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Article is stable with no evidence of recent edit warring. SilkTork (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Article is not overly detailed in any section. The longest section is Legacy (and there are some details in the Release and reception section which could belong in Legacy section and vice versa, so that should be looked at), and that is appropriate as its legacy is the most important aspect of the topic. I feel it is more likely that the other sections are not detailed enough that might be more of a fault than that the Legacy section is itself too detailed. SilkTork (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Appears to be no copyvio. Concerns raised by Earwig's tool have been checked, and they are either the result of too much quoting, or simply repeating the lists of album tracks: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Query

• Without adequate sourcing it is not clear if the information in the article in based on reliable sources or is original research; also it is difficult to detect bias. Are the statements accurate or exaggerated? If the article remains inappropriately sourced these aspects will contribute toward the article not meeting GA criertia. SilkTork (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Why does File:AAFM-Smiths Liner Note Example 57.jpg qualify as being so trivial that it can't be copyrighted, when it contains original work by the author? SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• There are two different non-free images of the cover. Under fair use, we usually only use one image, unless there is a particular reason for using the second, which is explained on the image page and in the article. I am not seeing an appropriate explanation for the use of the second image. SilkTork (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• File:CooCooBird.ogg - why is this regarded as free to use when the template states that it was published in 1929 and "Recordings that were first published between 1923 and 1946 are copyrighted for a period of 100 years after first publication."? SilkTork (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Prose is mostly OK, but could so with a copyedit for flow. SilkTork (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fail

• A fair bit of the article remains unsourced - including an entire section. This is unusual for a Good Article nomination, and can be grounds for a quick fail: WP:GAFAIL SilkTork (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

General comments

*I'm away for a few days and may not have time to work on this review, but if I do, it'll be under the account SilkTorkAway. SilkTork (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC) *"he developed a hobby of collecting" - Did he develop a hobby or did he start a collection? SilkTork (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC) I've adjusted the comment. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• In Skinner's paper she mentions that the album cost $11.90 on release - this is equivalent to around $115 in todays money, which may account for it not appearing in best selling lists. ([2]) It would be worth including such information in the article. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail

• This article contains some information on the topic, though it requires a fair amount of work, especially considering the importance of the album. The article is close to quick fail because of the lack of sufficient inline cites. It also needs better organisation, and a good copy edit. I have not done deep research, but it is likely that there is more to say about this album than appears here. This article is based on text snippets such as a paragraph or two from an encyclopedia, while detailed texts, such as Harry Smith's Anthology of American Folk Music: America Changed Through Music, has only been cited once, and Harry Smith: The Avant-garde in the American Vernacular has not been cited at all. I prefer not to quick fail, as I think that is discouraging, and it is sometimes possible, with enthusiastic editors, to overcome even big obstacles. SO, I'll put this on hold for now to see what the nominator wishes to do. SilkTork (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• User:The helper5667 - I note that you have made a few edits in the past few days. Well done. What is your intention now? This requires a fair bit of work, and I'm willing to help out a bit, but looking at what needs doing, and looking at the pace so far, the improvements needed would likely take several months. I am a patient reviewer, and have kept reviews open for long periods while improvements have been attempted, but those were always where there was significant work being done or, at least, some communication from the nominator to explain delay.

The more I look at this article the more concerns I have. I am considering the contrasting statement of "This release is generally thought to have been massively influential..." with "On the other hand, sociologist Katherine Skinner notes a discrepancy between how the Anthology was received in 1952 and how it was viewed by 1997, the year of the reissue..." There is a confrontational nature in the wording of our article's discussion of Skinner's paper which seems to want to argue that the album was not influential, even though it is not unknown for an event which gathered little media attention or material sales to have been significantly influential (such as the debut release of The Velvet Underground -The Velvet Underground & Nico, or the Sex Pistols gig at the Free Trade Hall, Manchester), and the placing of comments regarding copyright in this same section is giving an impression of WP:UNDUE negativity. The issues raised in that section need to be explored more fully and more neutrally.

I will keep this review open for another three days (unless you ask me to close it sooner), though will close it as not listed after that time unless User:The helper5667 (or someone else) lets me know that they are willing to do the work, and give me a reasonable time span, such as two weeks (or less). SilkTork (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Review closed as not listed. SilkTork (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)