Talk:Robert Johnson recordings/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 23:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this. I usually work a little at a time, so there is no time pressure. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio check: No issues found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. (There is one large match against a backwards-copy junk site.)

Images: Seem OK to use, positioning is fine. Consider including the alt text of the first image in the visible caption, something like "Label of Johnson's "Terraplane Blues" single on Vocvalion Records, his first and most successful single"

• Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be good to have the text in the visible caption, which is currently "Terraplane Blues", Johnson's first and most successful single.

• Redone. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Stability: No edit wars.

Lead

• At first glance, it seems like there is some significant information in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, e.g. "regarded as one of the most important figures in pre-World War II Delta blues." (MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.") I'll come back to this after a careful reading of the article.

• Some background was included in the first paragraph, mainly to address "Why care about some 80-year old recordings?" (I have sources for the points). I didn't feel that there was enough for a separate section, but am open to suggestions. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• My reading of MOS:LEAD is that the lead should be a summary of the article, not a general introduction. So I think Para 1 sentences 1 (dates; "most important figure" and 3 ("became blues standards") should be included in an intro section, or somewhere towards the end of the article. As you say, it would be a pretty short section to just repeat what's there now so there may be some other info that can be included without going too far off the specific article topic. Para 2 content is already included in the article body. Para 3 has some info not in the body that I think would be OK included in the Sessionography and/or Commercial performance section. The lead itself is good, and I don't have any changes to suggest for it.

• Removed for now; I'll come back to the lead later. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sessionography

• Conforth & Wardlow 2019, p. 153. - in the UK (Omnibus Press) edition, the info is from pages 152 to 153, but for this review I'll assume that there will be some discrepancies in page numbers due to differences between this edition and the edition used for the article.

• I'm using the Chicago Press Review first edition, now doubled checked (along with LaVere). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note [a] - "during his questionable arrest on Sunday" left me wanting to know more. Is it feasible to expand on this a little?

• LaVere's observation regarding the type of guitar is speculative and somewhat off-topic, so I removed the footnote altogether. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)"

Discography

• "After the successful release of "Terraplane Blues", - I suggest adding when that was.

• Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• and Conqueror Records - the only reference I could find for this was on p.186, early in Chapter 13, so may need an additional ref.

• Added. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• ands old through variety retailers or "dime stores" if the basis for this is "releases in dime and department store markets" then it might be a little before p.152.

• Good catch, p.151. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "List of albums with year, title, details, and references" - I know that The Complete Recordings was released on Cassette tape in the UK, as I had a well-worn copy. Why is only the CD format included? I have no idea whether there was an LP version. I'm not looking for all formats and nations to be covered in the table, just to understand the rationale.

• Added a RS (usually only listed at Disocgs.com or Amazon, etc.). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Commercial performance

• "Conforth and Wardlow" - I know who they are now, but consider a brief intro along the lines of "authors of a 2019 biography of Johnson"

• Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Moved to Sessionography section, where they now first appear. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• Happy to AGF on the Stephen LaVere booklets.

• He's used mostly for the nuts-and-bolts sessionography and discography details. As manager/curator of Johnson's recording legacy, he pretty much has the say on this. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Given the nature of the info supported, I'm happy with this and the use of primary sources (e.g. the cites of the singles notes) here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: pausing review for a day or two 'til I have Conforth & Wardlow 2019 to hand. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's a good read. If you see some familiar passages, see Talk:Cross Road Blues#Wardlow/Conforth similarity. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's useful to know. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of work to be done to ensure that all of the info from the lead is included in the body of the article and cited there; anything else is very minor. IMO the article is well structured and written. Happy to keep the review open and deal with it iteratively if that suits you, as I'm a big believer in WP:NODEADLINE. I'm also very open to discussion on anything I've suggested.

Some ramblin' thoughts: I was wondering whether there should be a bit more under legacy here, but I don't think it's a necessity. Is there a suitable place in the article to include a link to Robert_Johnson#Legacy? Also, if you can think of a suitable page description, that could be added in. I remember reading this article about whether the recordings had been released at the wrong speed, but reading around, it seems unlikely and there doesn't seem to be enough substance to the debate to include it.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought these up. I thought the playback speed and corner loading issues would be appropriate for a recordings article, but didn't get much reaction to the idea on the Johnson talk page.[1] There are also some major problems with the mostly unsourced Legacy section.[2] Let me consider these while I'm working on the rest of your points. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose: See what you think so far. And I've added a bit about the playback speed and corner loading, but haven't come up with how to treat Johnson's legacy appropriate for a recordings article. I wouldn't want to link the main article Legacy section until it is rewritten. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Good progress, I think, Ojorojo. Shouldn't be too difficult to find some sources for a brief summary of legacy, I reckon. Let me see if I get any ideas about a suitable way to accommodate one. I agree with your point that there should be something to answer "Why care about some 80-year old recordings?" but also that the article should not stray too far beyond the topic at hand. I didn't see any current good articles that look very close to the type of article here. Have you seen any other articles that ideas could be borrowed from or that have set a precedent? If not, that's fine, we'll make the precedent here! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Elmore James discography and Muddy Waters discography have a bit of background in the first paragraph. Also, List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix has a lot of song info in the lead that is not later discussed in the article, although it is arguably more on topic. On the other hand, maybe it isn't really needed. I'm starting to get used to the short version. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose: I've tried a couple of different ideas, but still think there isn't enough on-topic material for a separate section. And trying to squeeze general statements about his career and songs into the existing sections seems contrived. Unless you have something, the current lead should meet the MOS "gives the basics in a nutshell". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ojorojo thanks for this. Yes, I'm happy with the current version of the lead - I'd imagine that most visitors to this article will be coming from, or heading to, the main Robert Johnson article and be able to read more about him and his legacy there, so on balance probably best to keep this focused just to recordings. (Or go for FL instead of GA.) All looks fine for GA criteria now, so I'm happy to pass this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for your review and sticking to the MOS. I hope to redo the main article Legacy section that should better address Johnson's contributions. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)