Talk:Pittsburgh Town

Pittsburgh Town has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 22, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 16, 2013.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that environmentalist critics have argued that Woody Guthrie's song "Pittsburgh Town", recorded by Pete Seeger, was a commentary on the city's pollution problem at the time?

Roots music Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Pittsburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pittsburgh Town/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

If I had realized this was about a Woody Guthrie song, I would have taken it months ago. Anyway, it looks well-written and researched despite its brevity; it's clear there's just not a lot out there on this topic. Thanks for your work on it.

I made a few tweaks; please revert any with which you disagree.
Two spots where the lead could use a bit more context: clarifying that the Almanac Singers was Guthrie and Seeger's band, and clarifying that Pittsburgh is in Pennsylvania, US.
"the folk song Crawdad Hole" -- as a song title, "Crawdad Hole" should probably be in quotation marks.
"Environmentalist critics claim" -- "state" or "say" would be better than "claim" here per WP:WTA.
"ends with the claim " -- how about "statement" per the above?
In the quote box--"Pittsburgh town is a smoky ol' town/Solid iron from McKeesport down" -- why is one line italicized and the second not?
Is it possible to say any more about the version Seeger recorded on Songs of Struggle and Protest, 1930–50--was it just him and a guitar, or a full band? (Followup: Looks like him and a banjo [1]). Where else has the song been recorded since? I'm not sure any of this information is necessarily required for GA status, but it seems worthwhile to add if possible.

Followup on the cover question--looks like it's almost never been covered: "Guthrie's song has been covered by Pete Seeger, and more recently by local folk band The NewLanders. "[2] The NewLanders don't really seem worth a mention. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know your thoughts on the above. Since this is clearly close already, I'll begin the final checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~But see picky point about "Crawdad Hole" above~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~See minor point above about "claimed". The lead could use just a touch more context for non-US/Guthrie-fan readers.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is brief but appears to cover main aspects.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA