Talk:Scott Joplin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 22:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: two found and fixed.[1]

I aim to post a substantive review within 48 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for starting this so promptly! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The prose is not reasonably well written. It needs some serious copy-editing. Some examples from the first few sections below:

   Joplin was given a rudimentary musical education by his musical family, Florence playing the banjo and singing, and Giles playing and teaching the violin to Scott, Robert and William; at the age of seven he was allowed to play piano in both a neighbor's house and at the home of an attorney while his mother worked Over complex sentence, also "musical - "musical" - poor word choice.

   sometimes playing the classics for him along with describing the great composers. Clumsy and ungrammatical.

   it is possible he played his own compositions; biographer Curtis describes an eye-witness, Zenobia Campbell, recalling him playing his own compositions; clumsy.

   In the late 1880s, having performed at various local events as a teenager, Joplin chose to give up his only steady employment as a laborer with the railroad and left Texarkana to work as traveling musician. again very clumsy.

   He was soon to discover that there were few opportunities for black pianists, however; besides the church, brothels were one of the few options for obtaining steady work. Again rather clumsy.

   The March was described by one of Joplin's biographers as a "special... early essay in ragtime" "March" should not be capitalized here.

   The College records were destroyed in a fire in 1925 again capitalization.

   Inconsistency in spelling: US English would have "traveled" not "travelled"

   Similar problems abound throughout.

   The lead does not fully summarize the article, no mention of marriages, no summary of his legacy. Please check out WP:LEAD and apply.

   Please get this copy-edited throughout. Articles should not be nominated until they meet the GA criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References such as #45[2] need author attribution.

   Although the World's Fair was "not congenial to African Americans," needs direct attribution and citation, as do all quotations.

   References appear to be RS. I assume good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   His grave at Saint Michaels Cemetery in East Elmhurst was finally honored in 1974. How was "it honored"? Also needs a citation.

   I think the section on Treemonisha could be covered better in a summary style. The Revival section also seems some-what over detailed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears stable

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):

   File:Scott Joplin, Garden City, KS, Museum IMG 5894.JPG has the wrong license. Other images check out. Audio files check out.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Having re-read the article several times, I feel that the prose problems prevent it from reaching GA status at this time. It really needs a thorough copy-edit and some application of summary style. This will take longer than a week. After that has been done I would suggest getting it peer reviewed before renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)