Talk:Kristofferson (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 00:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to make a preliminary review of this GA nomination that focuses on criteria 3b, "Broad in its coverage: ... it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." I believe this article does not conform to this requirement as it stands now. The entire "Background" section, most of the "Move to Monument Records" section, and the parts of the lede that summarize them, don't have anything to do with this album. They are biographical background that belong in the main Kris Kristofferson article (and if any of this material isn't there already, it should be added). I would start the article with Foster signing Kristofferson to a recording contract and Kristofferson being surprised because he sounds like a frog, then Kristofferson starting to work on the album and Foster keeping some of the material with them.

For some comparisons to other debut album articles, Please Please Me, The Rolling Stones (album), and Song to a Seagull jump right into it with little or no background given. Waylon at JD's and ...And Then I Wrote give some background, but not as much as this article is giving. And what background they do give is music-focused, whereas the background given in this article is all over the place (education, military service, family, etc). The downside of repeating the same material here is that eventually it will fall out of synch with the main article, for instance corrections and improvedKristofferson (album) sources put in there won't make it to here. And if the reader just came from the main article, they get a repeat of what they have already read.

So before proceeding with the rest of the review, I would like to know your feelings about this issue. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: This article may also have some original research issues. The first Album ratings template says the reviews are "Favorable". However, per the previously mentioned template, do not include language like "Very favorable" or "(mixed)" in the template, as this would be original research. Additionally, the scores aren't accompanied by refs, as the template states they should be. Wetrorave (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Well, I kept in mind while writing the background section that it was maybe getting a bit extensive. But I did consider it relevant. Since it was his debut album, it gives us a basic idea as to where Kristofferson came from, where he acquired his "tools" as a songwriter, the consequences he faced for his choices and how all of that eventually took to this album being recorded and released.

I left the details that I considered more relevant to his biographical entry outside of this particular article. Now, I haven't read the article on Kristofferson himself, but I consider what I wrote here a basic summary of what brought him to be a recording artist. I haven't thought of really editing his biography (may at some point) but I can guarantee there is plenty of details I left out for being irrelevant to the Kristofferson album.

@Wetrorave: About the original research, the publications named on the the table are sourced on the body of the subsection. I only omitted repeating the citation. And about the use of "Favorable" or "Negative" for the reviews when there is no available score, I wasn't aware that it changed in the last few years. I can point citations to the same content described on the body of the article next to "favorable" or "negative", and by reading the reviews, one can basically confirm if it had a negative or a positive reception in my estimation.--GDuwenHoller! 18:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers GDuwen. I'm still not entirely happy with not showing refs near the scores, since that would be the quickest way for the reviewer to verify the ratings, but it is acceptable.

Regarding the "positive"/"negative" use, I don't know. After looking further into it, there seems to be no consensus on this. So I don't know. Wetrorave (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

However, I do agree with Wasted Time R. Especially given that this is a debut album, there should be no need for the Background section to have four paragraphs. Even with music that was released very late in an artist's career, the Background section is still small. Examples include this album about death, this album about dementia, this underrated MJ album, this other underrated MJ album, this recent FA, etc etc. The list goes on.
The Move to Monument Records section is really all that is necessary for the reader to understand this album properly. Wetrorave (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Some prose issues, see below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See comment below about album ratings verdicts.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments above regarding excess background material that does not belong in this article. See also a couple of suggestions below for things that could be added.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   See comment below re fair use detail.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A well-done article other than the excessive background issue.

Regarding 1a:

Somewhere in the lede it should be mentioned that this album is in the country music genre, more or less.

Well, I added that his songs were recorded by country music singers. That, and the fact that he was in Nashville should suffice in my opinion.--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, and pitched them to singers in Nashville during his free time is a little mysterious to readers who don't know what Nashville is. Maybe link 'singers in Nashville' to Music Row?

 Done--GDuwenHoller! 15:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In the lede, the album was reissued as Me and Bobby McGee – need a comma before this phrase and the title part should be bold as well as italic, since it is an alternate title for the article and the subject of a redirect.

Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The director of Monument Records Bob Beckham invited Kristofferson ... – most people would put commas around 'Bob Beckham'.

Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

which references the negative perception of the Rolling Stones of the older generations. – it isn't clear from this wording who has a negative perception of whom. Also, 'the' should be including in the link.

I rephrased it. Does it look better now?--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

then until the woman leaves the man – Since this song is famously treated as gender neutral, this might be reworded as 'then until Bobby leaves the singer' or something like that.

I understand that the most famous recording of the song was made by Janis Joplin, but I don't see why to change it in this case since Kristofferson is the songwriter himself. Plus, we later mention the Barbara McKee story.--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Foster asked Kristofferson to write the song. Foster, who shared an office building with Felice and Boudleaux Bryant, visited the couple to discuss arrangements for a song. – Arrangements for this song, that became "Me and Bobby McGee", or some other song? And the first sentence here is kind of unnecessary, because it is soon stated again. "Oh, yea. Haven't you heard of me and Bobby Mckee?" – Presumably the 'k' should be capitalized? Moreover, was Barbara McKee's nickname 'Bobby'? It's not clear to me how the name 'Bobby' entered the picture. Finally, it should be added that Foster received co-writing credit for the song.

No particular song was mentioned on any source. Foster visited the couple to discuss an unrelated song when Boudleaux Bryant suggested that he used it as an excuse to see Barbara "Bobby" McKee. She was nicknamed "Bobby" at least by the Bryants. Foster didn't know her and he just went along with it. I rephrased it a little bit as to clarify.--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The text is better now, but it isn't clear whether Foster knew the secretary by sight and was attracted to her but didn't know her name, or whether Foster had no knowledge of/interest in the secretary at all and Bryant's remark came out of the blue.

Well, I have to say that I only added a comma now. Foster didn't even realize who Bryant was talking about, and upon the other guy's insistence, he just shot back the comeback about "Me and Bobby McKee". My opinion at least it that if the reader sees that Bryant accused him of going there to see her, he had no reception ("Foster failed to recognize the name, but upon Bryant's insistence about "Bobby McKee" he said; "Oh, yea. Haven't you heard of me and Bobby McKee?"), it should be self-evident that it was a humorous comeback. But then, I guess it's just hard to explain humor sometimes.--GDuwenHoller! 15:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Kristofferson protested Monument Records' decision to modify the song's lyrics – He didn't protest much if he ended up recording the modified lyric himself.

This was Nashville's studio system in 1969. What the studio decided on was done, no matter how much any singer protested. They would either throw the song or him out. Videos and recordings of the time have him singing the line as he originally intended. The so called "Outlaw Movement" got creative control around the mid-1970s thanks to their commercial success. From that point on, they pretty much could do whatever they wanted.--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The song's arrangements were the more orchestrated on the album and include a melody that in verses shifts from the predominant use of guitar and bass to violins in slower parts. – Do you mean 'most orchestrated'? And does the melody itself change, or just the instruments that play the melody and the tempo it is played at?

The source says that the melody changes. My personal opinion is pretty much that it is correct. The marked change goes beyond the instruments or tempo when it happens.--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

In November 1970 Kristofferson won Song of the Year at the Country Music Association Awards with "Sunday Mornin' Comin' Down". – It should be made clear that it was because of Johnny Cash's recording of it that the song won, not the recording on this album.

 Done--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

In January 1971, he ... - typo, should be 'the'

 Done--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

By June 1971, Kristofferson was reported to be "almost always sold out" - is this a reference to the original album or to the retitled reissue album? If the latter, Me and Bobby McGee should be used as the name.

For what I see, Kristofferson's albums (basically the same with a different name) were mostly all gone by then. Basically both and the same.--GDuwenHoller! 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It would help the narrative here to have the month in 1971 that the Me and Bobby McGee reissue came out. You can find complete Billboard Magazine issues on Google Books. This one from September 1971 has it included in a review of albums recently released (Imagine and Bark, the first two listed, both came out in September 1971). So that would suggest that it was only the original Kristofferson that was sold out in June 1971, and that the reissue was likely in response to that. But maybe you can find something even more precise in another Billboard issue, such as a release announcement. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I just shifted the book source to the end of the sentence. The piece written by Norton on the Miami News announced the re-release in that September 1971 article.--GDuwenHoller! 15:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The chronology is still disjointed – the text In January 1971, the Nashville Songwriters Association named Kristofferson Songwriter of the Year. By June 1971, Kristofferson was reported to be "almost always sold out".[46] needs to be moved to just before Following the momentum of Joplin's success ... Then the narrative flow will make sense.

 Fixed--GDuwenHoller! 15:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 2c:

Yes, the album ratings template does say that characterizing old reviews as "favorable" or whatever is OR. But I think that's hooey. It's pretty straightforward to read an old review and evaluate it a "(Favorable)", "(Mixed)", or "(Unfavorable)", and I've done it myself. I use parentheses as indicated because it helps convey that the review itself did not use those words. On the rare occasions where the sense of a review is difficult to capture, I've seen "not easily summarized" or some term like that used.

More than agree.--GDuwenHoller! 19:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 3a:

The album was remastered and re-released on Monument-Legacy in 2001. - maybe this could be a separate paragraph, with something added about the extra tracks including on it. Were they outtakes from the album sessions, or just other tracks from the era?

I added "previously unreleased" as it reads on the back of the album. No further reason was provided.--GDuwenHoller! 19:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The first retrospective review can come from the original 1979 edition of The Rolling Stone Record Guide, page 211. Stephen Holden gave Me and Bobby McGee two stars out of five, saying that even though the material is strong, "as a performer, he is a questionable talent" and that "his rough singing style - which is minimal, to put it charitably" soon wears thin.

Nice find, hilarious too (the way he got dragged was pretty funny to me at least). I added it to the section.--GDuwenHoller! 19:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this addition, the sentence Meanwhile, Holden remarked the material of the songs as "strong". does not seem grammatical to me. Did you mean 'characterized' rather than 'remarked'?

 Fixed--GDuwenHoller! 15:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 3b:

I have seen your response above, and I fully understand the point about editors working on some articles within a subject and not others. But I can't agree that "a basic summary of what brought him to be a recording artist" is relevant for this article. If it were, for example, the Please Please Me article would talk about John meeting Paul, the Quarrymen becoming the Beatles, failures to make much career progress, engagements in Hamburg, Brian Epstein finding them, failing the Decca audition, passing the Parlophone audition, replacing Pete Best with Ringo, etc etc etc. But it doesn't, nor should it.

See if we can compromise around what I left in the article. I cut off material that I'll add at the bio entry at some point. But I think from his move to Nashville and on it is pretty relevant to explain what was going on. He composed the songs of the album under those living conditions.--GDuwenHoller! 19:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 6a:

The fair use rationale at File:KristoffersonAlbumCover.jpg points back to the wrong article. The image is in danger of getting deleted by a bot when the two don't line up.

Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm putting this nomination on hold. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: I'll get to work on the points tomorrow and check each item with a tick (Y) as I progress. Regarding the background section: If necessary, I would just start from his move to Nashville because the two paragraphs deal with the circumstances in which some of the songs included on this album were written (namely, "Help Me Make It Through The Night"). I guess I could move the details covered on the first two paragraphs to his actual bio entry and fit them there somehow.--GDuwenHoller! 16:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

All done now.--GDuwenHoller! 19:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

On the background issue, the lede still has too much of it. For instance, it doesn't matter that his father disowned him (unless that is a theme of one of the songs, in which case it can be mentioned when that song is discussed). The lede should be about the album. It should mention at least "Help Me Make It Through the Night" and "Sunday Mornin' Comin' Down", a couple of very well-known songs, in addition to "Me and Bobby McGee". It should summarize the article's discussion of the themes of the songs and the arrangements that were used to record them. And the lede should more accurately reflect that retrospective critical opinion on the album is divided, with some critics believing that Kristofferson's poor singing voice undermines the whole effort.

On a separate matter, what is the source for and he used the time during flights to compose new songs? That sounds both unlikely and dangerous. From the Ron Thibodeaux piece, he wrote the songs during downtime while working in the Gulf. So did you mean to write "... in between flights ..."? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to trim that out of the lead, well spotted. I'll work to add your suggestions (which I find more than relevant, I've completely overseen adding some song examples!)

About the composition, of course he would put them down on paper in between flights (I can only assume, since he pretty much got fired for operating one of the units under the influence). But he used the trips out to the rigs to come up with ideas for the songs and he would come back with the concept. There is also a mention of him coming up with one of the lines for "Me and Bobby McGee" while driving to the airport. That's the creative process for plenty of song writers (something like Willie Nelson on his two-hour drives through Houston in which he wrote three of his most famous songs).--GDuwenHoller! 21:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: I finally got around re-working the lead. Let me know what you think (excuse me for being a bit slow in this particular review, but I have two others running at the moment, I suppose wiki decided to do something against the growing backlog of nominations!)--GDuwenHoller! 17:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

A couple more follow-ups above. Otherwise the changes you've made look good to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have now passed the nomination. Good job on it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful review of the article, much appreciated.--GDuwenHoller! 14:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)