Talk:Ain't We Got Fun/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. I will list my initial impressions below and may add to them later.

• The article has too many quotations and many of them are too long. All the real information is in quotes. You have put almost no information in your own words.

• The relatively large quotes from Orwell are especially dubious. "Ain't We Got Fun?" was written in 1921, but The Road to Wigan Pier was written 16 years later, in 1937. It is not clear that there is any special importance in the fact that Orwell quoted a couple of lines from a popular Tin Pan Alley song. The song needs to be presented in the context of the economic background at the time the song was written, not during the 1930's depression. If an actual book source was consulted (rather than an online source), perhaps you could present a clearer description of the context of Orwell's quotation and demonstrate that this specific song was especially significant and relevant to one of Orwell's overall theses in his book.

• There is another relatively long, hypothetical statement, a quote by Larry Portis, describing Orwell's beliefs about the song from a book published in 2002 that seems to be presenting a general, sociological viewpoint. The inclusion of this quote seems like WP:SYN. The reference to "endless cups of tea" sounds like it refers more to Tea For Two. It ends with a statement about the English Industrial Revolution. There is not enough context presented to show that "Ain't We Got Fun?" has an important connection or relevance to the English Industrial Revolution.

• The two Orwell-related quotes take up a significant portion of the article, giving and relevance of Orwell to the song undue weight.

• Missing from the article are the songs context in vaudeville, its orchestration, instrumentation, whether it it an instrumental or dance tune,information about its circulation and popularity, cover versions, etc.—information that articles about songs usually have. And there is no description or appreciation of the context in which the song was actually written, that is the early 1920's, or its Tin Pan Alley connections. Who produced Satires of 1920 and what was the song's role in it? Was it a Broadway show, a touring vaudeville show, or both? How important was the song to the career of Richard A. Whiting and at what point in his career did he write it. Was the song difficult to write or was it a throw-a-way for a vaudeville scene and a surprise success? What is the story behind the lyrics? How did the lyricists come up with them? There is much information actually relevant to the song that potentially could be included.

• Considering that almost nothing is written about the song, according to the content of your references to the article, there are too many redundant reference citations. If you look at the online ones, the same paltry information (almost nothing) is repeated over and over in the various reference sources. It is as if you googled and then used every reference, whether it added new information or not. For example, under Composition the first three (short) sentences (containing two quotes) have a total of five references.

• The overall impression is that you are trying to write an article on a song about which you have found little to say. However, if you had consulted a wider range of sources you would have been able, I am confident, to have provided more information relevant to the song itself, and its place in the history of songwriting, vaudeville, the 1920s, and perhaps Broadway (whether Satires of 1920 was on Broadway is not addressed).

• Although you say the song appears in works of literature by Fitzgerald and Parker, you do not explain the relevance of the song to these works, for example, the song's effect or role in a particular scene, or anything about the specific effect of the song in the work's context. Was it along the lines of the Orwell quotations? This is important, as these works took place in settings more relevant than Orwell's perspective to the song's genesis and era of popularity.

• Billy Jones and I'll See You in My Dreams need to be disambiguated.

• Although you use cite book, the references are formatted erratically. One has "page 76" and another has p.; most have a single number or page ranges without the required p. or pp.

• Why is satirical and jaunty rejoinder in italics?

• Altogether, this article fail the GA review.

Summary of GA review (see here for criteria)

Please see bulletted points above this summary.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): There are too many quotes in the article and several quotes are too long. Little is written in the editors' own words. The quotes are among the longest paragraphs. There are many short paragraphs. The result is a choppy article. b (MoS): No obvious Mos problems

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): The combination of some references appears to result in WP:SYN (See description above this Summary of GA review.) b (citations to reliable sources): The sources appear reliable c (OR): Some of the article appears to be OR. (See description above this Summary of GA review.)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):Does not provide enough context for the era in which the song was written. b (focused): Neglects some relevant material and focuses excessively on material that appears only peripherally related to the subject of the article at best.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Focuses on the 1930s and relates the song to the British Industrial Revolution which castes the song in a certain light that is not justified by the references.

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:

This article requires a major overhaul. I will put the article on hold if you want to try to address the issues. Sorry! Good luck if you attempt to work the problems out. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)