Talk:Max Weinberg/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Initial impression

Great writing, a shoo in for FA class prose requirements. I was curious about who Weinberg replaced as drummer in the E Street Band, but maybe that is just my catty character.

• • No, that's a good point, since the article makes reference to Weinberg fixing the band's instability at that spot. I've added a brief recap of the year's events regarding drummers.

• There is one wikilink to the Seder disambiguation page. Can that link be more precise?
  • That's deliberate on my part, because Weinberg is referring to the general sense of seder that encompasses all of those specific instances. I know that linking to a disambig page is usually considered a no-no, but in this case I think it's justified.
    • Okay, that's quite alright. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• The short sentence "All of these were Steinman creations" is redundant regarding the Meatloaf songs. Perhaps that bit can be modified and linked back to the previous sentence like this: 'At a point in 1983, Weinberg was featured on the number one and number two songs on the Billboard Hot 100, Bonnie Tyler's "Total Eclipse of the Heart" and Air Supply's "Making Love Out of Nothing at All"[6]—these, too, were Steinman creations.'
  • Now reworded, see what you think.
    • Yes! Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• In 1974, he was 6 credits short of a degree, but in 1989 he was 21 shy. Why?
  • Good question. I would guess because he had been a film studies major the first time around and was now switching to communications, and so had extra core credits to make up. But that's just speculation on my part, I haven't seen any sources address this.

• When the Big Beat was republished, did Weinberg add anything?
  • Not that I know of.

• No need for the word 'first' in the link first inauguration of Bill Clinton; it interrupts reading flow. Pipe to avoid it.
  • Now fixed.

• Some curly quotes, curly apostrophes need to be straightened.
  • I fixed all the ones I could find, let me know if you see more.—

• "This posed a dilemma for Weinberg, whose first loyalty was to O'Brien and NBC." We-e-ll, Springsteen was his first loyalty; O'Brien was his greater loyalty at the time. Reword?
  • Good point, changed to "greater". Wasted Time R (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• By itself, this sentence is trivia. It needs expansion, perhaps with a Weinberg response, or an update of the situation: "In 2003, Weinberg's neighbors in Middletown Township, New Jersey were unhappy with his plans to subdivide his 65-acre property into lots for new homes." Followed by the next sentence about politics, the whole paragraph appears patchwork.
  • The subdivision controversy isn't trivia, it went on for quite a while and was covered by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and several county and local papers. I've strengthened the description and citing on this, to indicate the aspects that made it noteworthy. I found a 2008 update on it (lots put on sale), but couldn't find out if they've actually sold (in this market, it's quite possible they haven't). In doing the citing for this I found a good WSJ article that examines Weinberg's lifelong interest in real estate and homes, and I've added that thread to various places in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Trim by one word or reword: "...other members' contributions were then added subsequently."
  • Fixed.

• "Weinberg repeated in core role in recording Springsteen's Working on a Dream album." What?
  • Yikes. Fixed with rewording.

• The sentences about Weinberg's sisters could use sharp trimming. Too much about Nancy, and Abby's presence isn't merited. The phrase 'well known' may be stretching the truth about Nancy: "Weinberg's sister, Nancy Winston, became a professional pianist and singer who is well known in New York City for her regular appearances at the Cafe Pierre, the Plaza Hotel and other top piano rooms. Weinberg played drums on Winston's self-titled debut CD. His other sister, Abby, became a clinical social worker in the New England area." How about a reduction taking this form? "Weinberg played drums on the first album recorded by his sister Nancy Winston, a professional pianist and singer in New York City, known for her regular appearances at Cafe Pierre and the Plaza Hotel."
  • I've adopted your wording re Nancy and removed Abby. I've also strengthened the citing on the album appearance. I found many references to her playing Cafe Pierre but none to the Plaza Hotel, so I added citing on the former and removed the latter.

• Jay Weinberg shows up out of nowhere with drum chops, to replace Max with the E Street Band. Can we get a tiny sneak preview of some moment in time when Max bought him a drumset or Max taught him paradiddles or Max found him a teacher? Just a little foreshadow hint dropped chronologically to prepare the reader for later.
  • I've added Jay becoming a drummer in the 'family text' a couple of paragraphs earlier. Truth is, Max didn't do much other than to supply the DNA.

• Three types of sentence interruption are in the article: (incorrect) spaced hyphens, (correct) spaced en dashes and (correct) unspaced em dashes. Select one of the correct methods and change the others to be the same. Even direct quotes will get changed to match article style. See WP:DASH.
  • Were all supposed to be the second, fixed one occurrence of each of the others to match. Usually I catch things like this ...

• The parade float comedy bit was not the method Weinberg used to depart the Tonight Show, it was the method used to prepare the audience for his departure.
  • Fixed.

• The second appearance of Doc Severinsen could be wikilinked, as it is quite removed from the first.
  • The second occurrence is in a quote, and per WP:LINK#General points on linking style links shouldn't be done inside quotes (a guideline I agree with).

• "Weinberg flew back and was back..." Clunky.
  • Fixed.

• Does Weinberg endorse any drum equipment? If so, say so. If not, the mention of DW and Zildjian do not read well at the end of the article.
  • I'm not sure if he endorses them, but WP articles about musicians often include discussion of their gear (sometimes at great length, especially for guitarists), so I wanted to put in something. I agree it was poorly placed. I've moved the discussion to the early 1980s part, added a cite and his characterization for what he was using then, and indicated that he subsequently changed drums brand. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Some online refs are lacking access date.
  • This is deliberate on my part. I am strongly of the view that access dates make no sense for older news sources, such as New York Times articles. Those are stable, print stories that exist in archives and on microfilm and are dated by the paper they appeared in. The URL link to them is for convenience only; the source is just as good even if the online version gets moved or goes behind a paywall or disappears. There's been lots of discussion at Template talk:Cite news and elsewhere about how access dates are overused (they clutter up footnotes, add length to articles, and potentially confuse readers by presenting two dates instead of one). So I've been avoiding them as much as possible, and have gotten many articles to GA using this approach. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's cool. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's my first impression. I will dig in further in the next few days, but feel free to ask questions or begin addressing points. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, I will begin addressing the items raised. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial items are now all responded to. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I promised to dig in further, but shoot, man, we are done here. Congratulations on a fine article! Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)