Wikipedia:Peer review/Travis Tritt/archive1

Travis Tritt edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA. His autobiography, despite being from 1994, has been really helpful in building up the article, and I'd like to know what else it might need before I take it to GAN.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak

Hi, I will look over the article as if I'm reviewing it at GAN, although not all of my suggestions will be directly applicable to the GA criteria. I will try to make it clear which ones are.

Lead

First of all, the lead needs some expansion per WP:LEAD, to adequately summarise the article. It's often easier to do this when you've finished working on all the other bits. Th article goes into quite a bit of detail about his albums, so some more detail would be appreciated in the lead. Also, his early years, personal life and musical stye aren't really covered in the lead. Adhering to WP:LEAD is a GA requirement.

Fixed.

I would recommend a copyedit from someone uninvolved with the article. The prose is not bad, and I think it would be ok for GA, certainly if you want to develop it further the prose can be tightened up. One example that jumps out at me (throughout, not just the lead) is the repetition of certain words or phrases like "he also". "He also" really caught my eye as it kept coming up and often, the use of the word also was not needed at all. I think it disrupts the flow a little, sounding a bit like a list: "he did this, then he did this, he also did this..." I'm sorry if I'm not getting across exactly what I mean, but I do think it would benefit from a copyedit. This can be one of the most difficult parts of article-building if writing is not your best skill (it's certainly not mine!)

I can't think of anything else to make it flow better.

I think punctuation should be outside of quotes, eg. for song titles. So, and "Best of Intentions". not and "Best of Intentions." and for "The Whiskey Ain't Workin'", not for "The Whiskey Ain't Workin',". The only bit I can find in the manual of style is WP:LQ, which I assume applies to using quotes for titles too. I may be wrong.

Bleah. I always get that wrong.

Biography

I'd consider a different header title. Although some editors don't like to use "Biography" at all, saying that the whole article is a biography, I actually disagree with that and think it can be ok as a header. However, I'd argue here that several of the other sections would also be classified as "Biography", so it might be better to retitle it as "Early life" or something else.

Retitled "Early Life."

"He lived with his mom after she and his dad divorced" - mom and dad is a bit informal, I'd prefer mother and father

Fixed — what was I thinking?

"they re-married when he was eighteen" - this might be a silly question, but: did they remarry each other? Or did they both marry other people when he was 18? Either is possible, as people sometimes use "remarry" to say that someone has married again (a different person). It's a bit confusing so I would specify either "they both re-married" or "they re-married each other" (or a less awkward way of you can think of one!)

"Re-married each other."

"He worked at an air conditioning company while playing in clubs, but gave up the air conditioning job at the suggestion of one of his bandmates.^[12] His father thought that Tritt would not find success as a musician, while his mother thought that he should perform Christian music instead of country." - this is perfectly fine for GA the way it's written, but I wonder if it could be improved. His parents' opinions coming after the air conditioning job seems a bit random, so I'm wondering if it would benefit from a sentence or part-sentence inserted in between, to introduce the fact that neither of his parents were too pleased with what he was doing. Just a thought.
"Through Davenport's assistance, Tritt signed with Warner Bros. in 1989." - is there any more detail on how Davenport helped him to sign with WB?

Added a little bit of detail.

1989 – 1991

The first sentence could possibly be split into two (where the semicolon is) to make it a bit more manageable

Fixed.

I notice that you use a mixture of Number One and, for example, #2. I realise that number one is kind of a special place in the chart, but I've not seen this mix before (compare Madonna (entertainer) for example)
In addition to the comment above, per MOS:NUMBERSIGN, the # symbol shouldn't be used, rather number 2 or No. 2

Spelled them out.

Who is Alanna Nash? (ie. state that she's a critic, or say what publication/organisation she's from)

Clarified that she's from Entertainment Weekly.

1991 – 1992

Is there any info on what the Horizon Award is for?

Clarified.

"The album would go on to become his best-selling..." - this sounds a little awkward. Does it need to be in this tense? Or could it be "The album went on to become his best-selling..."

Fixed.

"All four of its singles reached Top Five..." - Should this have italics (I'm not familiar with the country charts)? Also, should it be "All four of its singles reached the Top Five..."?

Fixed.

"He and Stuart charted a second duet..." - I think it's safe to assume here that he means Tritt, but personally I don't think it would hurt to say "Tritt and Stuart" here.

Fixed.

This section doesn't seem to be about A Travis Tritt Christmas (referenced in the section header); that album seems to be covered in the next section.

Oops. Fixed.

1992 – 1993

"Tritt and Stuart began a "No Hats Tour" in 1992.^[24] In August of that same year, he released the album T-R-O-U-B-L-E. " - again, although it's an article about Tritt, grammatically he could refer to either Tritt or Stuart, both the subject of the previous sentence. Rather than repeat Tritt's name though, I would consider rearranging the prevcious sentence so it reads Tritt began a "No Hats Tour" with Stuart in 1992.^[24] In August of that same year, he released the album T-R-O-U-B-L-E."
"It was led off by "Lord Have Mercy on the Working Man,"" - I could be wrong here but "led off by" sounds very strange to me which makes me wonder if it's a colloquialism. Again here you have a comma inside quotes which I think should be outside.
"That song peaked at #4 as well, and its follow-up..." - I'm not sure what as well is referring to here, or if it's necessary.

Yeah, what was that doing there?

It's not clear who Stephen Thomas Erlewine is or why he's mentioned here (it's fine to have it, just needs context)

Clarified that he writes for Allmusic.

"followed too closely in the formula of" - in doesn't need to be here: followed too closely the formula of
Having explained who Nash is earlier, it wouldn't hurt to give her first name here and the next time. As I was reading it, I was thinking "Who's Nash?" The names that will stick in the reader's head are the subject of the article and the other people who are part of his career, names of critics aren't likely to stick.
I think it would be could to clarify what the Grand Ole Opry is as not all of your readers will have heard of it. I know a little about country music (not much!) and I've heard of it, but I wasn't sure what it was. Of course, people can click through to find out more, but it helps just to clarify what it actually is here.

Clarified.

1994 – 1995

"The album reached platinum certification in December of that year, and would later go on to become..." - I'm not sure if "reach[ing] ... certification" is great grammatically. Can you reach certification? Isn't it something usually given or granted? Or certified? I know it' spretty much the same thing but doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, any reason to have "would later go on to become" rather than "later went on to become"?

Fixed.

Again, at this point I've completely forgotten who Mansfield is. I'm not saying you have to repeat that he's from Allmusic, but maybe give his first name

Fixed.

Linking "greatest hits album" is possibly not necessary, especially as it comes directly after the link to his greatest hits album, which has the link to "greatest hits album" if readers need it

Fixed.

1996 – 1997

"peaked at #29 country" - I'm unfamiliar - is that the conventional way of wording it? It sounds odd.

Fixed.

2002 – 2005

Should it be Crossroads or CMT Crossroads as it is in that article?

According to the article name it's just Crossroads, but I clarified that it's on CMT.

What exactly do you mean by a special program?

Oops, leftovers from the crappy old revision. Refined.

"all of which peaked below Top 20" - this wording sounds a bit strange. Perhaps in the Top 20?

Fixed.

Musical styles

This section is a really good addition to the article. It would be even better if there was a bit more outside opinion from critics or whoever about Tritt's style, to go with his own thoughts.

Added some.

Personal life

"the former Karen Ryon" - I assume you mean that was her name until she married? If so, there's no need to say "former". "He married Karen Ryon" is fine. At the point of marrying him, that was her name. (Assuming that's what you mean by former). Likewise his third wife.

Fixed.

"By the time he was 21, he married a woman..." - Was he 21 when he married her? Or did it happen at an unspecified time up to then? If so, perhaps By the time he was 21, he had married a woman

Clarified.

"He divorced her shortly after signing with Warner Bros..." - would be nice to have either a date or age here to give context, just so I don't have to scroll up the page again to see

Fixed.

I'm unfamiliar with what "rehabilitative support " means. Do we have a relevant article to link to? Is it a kind of alimony?

Sounds like alimony; I just used his words there.

References

The date formats are inconsistent. Pick either Day Month Year or Month Day, Year. Given that this is a US-related article, I'd go with the latter, although that'll be more work!
Rather than listing the book under "Further Reading", I'd call the section "Sources" or something, as "FUrther Reading" sections tend to be used for books etc not actually used in the article. I would also consider listing the other books in that section to keep the books separate from the footnotes.

Put the footnotes under "Notes" and the book under "References."

I don't think About.com is usually considered reliable unless the author of the article is considered reliable themselves.

According to its article, its content is written by experts on the subjects. I've seen it used in GA and FA without question.

From what I've seen, it really depends on whether you can show that the actual article you're using is written by an expert as some stuff on about.com is not considered reliable. Looking through these search results [1] [2] may give some more definitive answers.--Beloved Freak 09:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the precedent is that About.com is acceptable. It'd probably have to suffice here anyway, since I can't find any other source that verifies the children's DOB. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments help, please let me know if you have any questions. I enjoyed reading it and think it's not far from GA at all. Good luck with further developing it.--Beloved Freak 14:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed most of the issues. Will get to the rest. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]