Talk:British rhythm and blues/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this a go, since I'm familiar with the subject.

There's two things I'll have to pay close attention to. I notice from the last GA review that it failed on the article being a bit too short and not comprehensive enough (and it appears that's all it failed on). What might be a problem now is that the article is about 64K, while our recommended article size is about 30 - 50K, so it might have gone in the reverse direction.

The other issue is a topic like this, that covers a whole broadly defined musical genre, is rather easy to synthesize two or three sources together to reach some conclusion, at which point you're on a slippery slope towards original research. With this in mind, I'll be checking the references carefully. I notice there's quite a few book references in the article, so unless I can find extracts from Google Books online, I might just have to ask a few questions to confirm they look okay. Books have a nasty tendency to have errors (working on Ian Gillan's article to get it to GAN I found that his own autobiography got the recording dates for Made in Japan completely and utterly wrong), so just be careful and try and get a second opinion where you can!

More to follow....

Just a comment on the issue of article size issue. The article is actually only about 6,200 words of readable text, which is at the lower end of the 6,000 to 10,000 guideline. Measuring by bites does not account for the use of the table or the comprehensive footnoting.--SabreBD (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've been through the article and had a thorough look. You've obviously spent time on it and done your research since last time, which is good. The main comments I'll make are :

Lead

• There's no infobox. You'll probably want {{Infobox music genre}}.

I would rather not, as it is not really a genre.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the article is listed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force, and Pub rock (UK), Mod revival, New Orleans rhythm and blues, Northern soul and most obviously British blues, which has quite a few of the same pictures and has a direct link to this article with a {{main}} tag, all have them. It won't make much aesthetic difference to the article, but will make it consistent with related ones. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue that is bigger than this article. I doubt anyone is aware of the use of genre boxes on Wikipedia than I am and one of the major issues across Wikipedia is the use of the box to attempt to make movements appear more distinct and cohesive than they actually were, which tends to promote accusations of WP:Synth and WP:OR, so with my Wikiprojectgenres hat on, I remain reluctant to add this here. The project box appears on a lot of related articles that are not strictly speaking genres, whereas the box should be limited to actual genres. Pub rock (UK), Mod revival, New Orleans rhythm and blues each have a case to be distinct genres. If you read the talkpage for Northern Soul you will see my objection to a box there. British blues has a box, which I put there, because a key source argued that it had developed so much that it became a distinct genre. We do not have boxes on British rock, Mod (subculture), Electronic rock and New Romantics for very similar reasons to the case here, even though it has been hard to hold the line on those articles. If there were consensus on the talkpage of this article that it is a genre I would probably bow to that, but I really don't think it should be imposed as part of a review.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lead photo caption : "The Rolling Stones in 1965". The description probably needs to be expanded to just quickly say how they fit into British R&B and why they've been chosen for the picture on the lead. Even "The Rolling Stones, one of the most commercially successful examples of British Rhythm and Blues, 1965" would do, I guess.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "reaching a peak in the mid-1960s" probably wants to say "and reached a peak in the mid-1960s"

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "In the mid-late 1970s" should read "In the mid to late 1970s"

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Last sentence in the lead : "led to talk of a "R&B British invasion" probably wants to say "led to talk of another R&B British invasion". There have been several!

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is it worth the lead mentioning anything about rock'n'roll? The first sentence in "Origins" suggests it didn't really have much to do with it, but Chuck Berry's influence on Keith Richards is well known, so that might be worth having a think about. Probably outside the scope of this review, though.

I suppose that depends how you define Berry's music. I would probably want to have a talkpage discussion on that one.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Origins

• Second to last sentence "African American's" should read "African Americans"

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Skiffle - is "début" correct or do we do without the accent in English?

I think we can do either. The OED gives both.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of the scene

• the sentence ending "amplified blues performances" should have a full stop, not a comma

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Any particular reason Norwich is mentioned? Birmingham seems obvious, it's where we got The Move and The Moody Blues, but what famous groups came out of Norwich as a result of the R&B explosion? Still, if it's in a reliable source, you can't really complain.

Mainly to demonstrate the spread and, yes, because it is in the source.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if it's in the source, it can stay --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Other London Bands - Why mention Pink Floyd (other than the source says it) I'd argue that they're not notable for R&B at all - that phase happened before they turned pro and changed their musical style.

The point was that they began in this era. I guess they could go to the Decline section, but I need to think about how the stuff on their name and early activity might fit there.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry about it too much - the article does actually mention a bit more about their career at the bottom of this section. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Revivals

• Not sure if I'd describe Biddu (and related artists) as R&B. The source this part of the article relates to doesn't mention "rhythm and blues" or "R&B" either

Probably not. I have removed it. If there is a case for replacement we can discuss it on the talkpage.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is it worth saying something about The Blues Band in here, particularly as they have strong ties to early 60s British R&B?

Yes it is. I added them in.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

UK Chart Hits

• What about Shout? Or is Lulu's version more pop than R&B?

That is a difficult one. There is a problem, probably outside the scope of this article, that female R&B singers usually only performed and recorded, if they did so at all, as pop artists. So the issue many be one of definition. I will poke Ghmyrtle, who drew up the table, for an opinion.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a strong case for including "Shout" in the table - if the table is to remain. I'm a little ambivalent about including the table at all - it may be better if the contents, or the most notable chart hits at least, were included as text, mainly in the "Peak" section of the article. What does our collective wisdom suggest? I'll add "Shout" for the time being, while we think about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, one argument towards having the table is it gives a reader, who's unsure about exactly what "British Rhythm and Blues" is, an immediate point of reference with several known hits. At a glance, they can think "oh, it's that" and then start to digest the lead, followed by the rest of the article. The trouble is, by that logic, it's backwards. But you can't put it at the start of the article as it's got no context behind it. However, it's also a nice easy way to tell at a glance, with handy facts and figures, exactly how popular British R&B was, which isn't something you can easily do in words. Incidentally, The Who in their early "Maximum R&B" phase covered "Shout", which strengthens its case to go here even more. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

References

• The Times ones are behind a paywall. Not a problem, just a comment, so I'll have to assume these are correct

Yes. I have stopped using them since the paywall went up.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of references are Allmusic biographies. I can't remember if these are reliable or not - can you check?

Allmusic is generally considered reliable for biographies, but not form some other issues (genres or top artist for example).--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo copyrights

• The Leadbelly photograph has no info. How do we know it's out of copyright?

I switched it. Very sorry to lose the one with the 12-string though.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• The Kinks photograph is also ambiguous. It claims it's okay due to lapsed Swedish copyright, but there's no information asserting this (unlike Georgie Fame, which does)

Oh dear, its back to trying to understand Swedish copyright. I will see what I can do, or find an alternative.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the licence on commons (I think).--SabreBD (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• About the Led Zep photo - I'll accept what's written in the info, but you'd never get away with that when Peter Grant was alive, he'd find you and break your legs! ;-)

Grant may have broken the mics of bootleggers, but even he didn't claim ownership of all images of the band. Are you saying this picture is OK or not? I took the information in the upload in good faith. We do have more Zep pics, but I would rather have an early one.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've worked out the confusion here. I somehow had it in my head that it was a frame of a television broadcast, and that, combined with my knowledge that Italian copyrights are (or, at least pre Schengen, were) more lax than those in the UK and US, and that led-zeppelin.it looked like a fan site that had nothing to do with the official band, led me to believe somebody was pulling our leg telling us it was CC BY-SA 2.5. On a closer look, though, it seems to be a fan's photo which they've given permission to use, so I think it's actually fine. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

These photos are all fine for their own subjects' articles, as we can allow them under fair use, but not necessarily for another article. Worth checking before the copyvoi police come along and bash a good article!

Disambigs

• Only disambig is British rhythm and blues boom musicians in "See Also", which is a circular redirect

The link in that article keeps getting changed to a circular one. I have changed it back (again), which should resolve the issue.--SabreBD (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Final checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Taking the above comments into account, that gives us:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments on the lead above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   See comment about Allmusic

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):

   See above comments

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few minor things, overall really. I'll put this on hold. Complete the above actions and we've got a Good Article! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, having gone round again, the only point of contention now between what we have and a pass seems to be ..... the dreaded infobox. Go on, it won't hurt you! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)