Talk:Texas A&M Singing Cadets/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this. Please be patient as comments are being prepared. –Whitehorse1 11:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oldag07 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Overview of GA Review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (no original research):
  3. It is broad in its coverage
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (copyright tagged and captioned): b (appropriate use; lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


Thank you for nominating the article for GA. Your prose style gives a nice, easy read. There are some issues, which I'll explain below.

Well written requirement[edit]

Some of the writing is wordy or hard to follow. I've given examples, but you should please copyedit and massage the prose throughout.

  • "to participate in a massed four hundred member chorus" 'a massed' - rephrase.  Done
    • The source says about the same thing. I am just removed the "massed" term. It still reads well. Oldag07 (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had been organized for a special occasion" What special occasion?  Done
  • "After enduring several more restructuring efforts and directors" Makes both sound painful/arduous.  Done
  • "This started a period in which the Cadets would accompany" Maybe 'a tradition' would be better? You never actually say how long this period lasted; later in the article you refer to the practice having 'previously stopped'. Try to avoid vague references.  Done
  • Flow. You skip around a bit in the 2nd paragraph of the History section, going from 1937 to 40, back to 39.  Done
  • "were directed by Richard Jenkins, who had a vision of making the organization regionally acclaimed". As-is, it sounds weak and anti-climactic; regional is an ambiguous term, which can mean a village/hamlet or two up to, say, statewide.  Done
  • slightly different take on it. take a lookOldag07 (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cycling through a pair of directors" Suggests they alternated back & forth through two directors, or briskly and deliberately got away from them.  Done
  • "Another major event in 1942 was the participation of the group in providing choral music for the film We've Never Been Licked."
Avoid inserting peacock terms when phrasing. The event may, subjectively, be or have been major for the group; it may have been only significant to the group that year. It probably isn't a 'major event in 1942' – compare with (WWII) Japanese forces invading Burma; Thailand declaring war on the US/UK; President FDR signing an order directing internment of Japanese Americans and seizure of their property. Also, the sentence is somewhat wordy. You could recast the sentence to make it livelier.  Done
Done Oldag07 (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose needs massaging for flow, redundant words, etc. Further examples:
    • "though they also made"  Done
    • "The group continued to"  Done
    • "While the Cadets had previously stopped accompanying the" (also, v. long sentence)  Done
    • "In 2004, the Singing Cadets made their first trip to Australia, giving performances there." The last part of that sentence is obvious or already implied.  Done
    • "Presently, the Singing Cadets continue to perform mostly in Texas." Wordy.  Done
    • "mostly in" Slang.  Done


  • "The Singing Cadets took their first trip abroad in 1974 when they journeyed to Romania" Isn't Mexico "abroad"?  Done
  • "In 2006-2007, they... Also in May 2006 was..."

The 'also' part doesn't really follow on from the general year range.  Done

  • "Besides live performances, the group has also recorded". Omit needless words.  Done
  • "as well as Texas A&M school songs" And 'fight songs' (or are they included in that)?  Done
  • I was never in the Singing cadets, but I do know there are three songs that aggies can sing at a football game. Duirng the concerts that I have attended they have song them. I think it is fine.Oldag07 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Currently, seven recordings produced by the Singing Cadets are available." Two paragraphs previously you say "the group has also recorded a number of albums, with ten currently".  Done
  • Troublesome ten sentence removed.Oldag07 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all seven listed titles on the album in the photo? I think tweaking the caption so it has extra info. could be useful for readers.  Done
i don't know much about this album. but I made it clear that the photo only talked about one album.Oldag07 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The group is typically accompanied by a pianist and conducted by a director, and regularly are accompanied by other instruments"

It sounds strange when you jump from accompanied by person & person followed with and … other instruments.  Done

Breadth and Focus[edit]

  • The subject of the article is Texas A&M Singing Cadets. Covering aspects like how the group have been compared and contrasted to other such groups would be useful. You discuss competitions they've entered, but not beyond that. Are you able to find any suitable comparitive material to add? There are many groups out there at least. E.g:
  1. USC Sirens
  2. The Brown Derbies, Brown University

Actually, those're both a cappella groups, but you get the idea.

  • Added stuff comparing on other choirs in the University. I personally am not too familiar with choirs in general, so maybe that is more of a long term goal to add a comparison. Oldag07 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure needs adjustment. The last part of the History section isn't historical information but recent. Parts of the Organization section, like the last sentence, aren't related to the organization of the group.
  • * You need to flesh out the Directors section. The bulleted names don't mean anything to people unfamiliar with the group (and, of course, the listed people).

Reading it, I first assumed it was the current Directors. (Later I remembered one of the names was mentioned earlier in the article.) Information like when they served, maybe any pivotal effects they had on the group, what they bring to the group - have they specialisation in music-oriented fields, are they purely general faculty members; aim for useful and interesting information.

Images[edit]

The only 'historic' image is the 1950s sweater patch, and that's a non-free logo image. For a group in continued operation for over 90 years, free-use images would be good. For example, pre-1923 (out of copyright) images of the group in its early days, in the History section. An image like that would also be a good contrast to the pic of the present-day group.

Other items[edit]

  • Separately wikilinking 'Christian hymns' and 'gospel music' is probably unnecessary. I think I see the distinction you mean, but they're largely a single thing; the gospel music article has an infobox linking to Christian hymns.  Done
  • You link the founding date, and dates in the references. Avoid overlinking. Months and days of the week generally should not be linked; years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.  Done
  • Some words are a bit peacock-y e.g: "Internationally renowned and known as". The article needs to be neutral in its point of view. The idea is somebody reading it would not be able to tell what the editor thought of the topic one way or the other.  Done
  • Done
  • The hyphenation on the See also items looks random. The last item should probably have a short description, for consistency.  Done
  • It's tangential to the article, but check apostrophe usage on one of the categories it's in ("Boys' and men's choirs") if you can.
  • Maybe some other time. . . . I am running out of time, and doing the Autowikibrowser thingy will take quite some timeOldag07 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing and sources[edit]

  • wishbonegraphics.com/adminnm/templates/pp-upfront.asp What makes this a reliable source? Also, is it a temporary page? (Established regional magazine.)  Done
  • It's implied links are HTML. You should only declare the format for something like PDF or XLS (spreadsheet), because they need special software besides the web browser being used to view the article.  Done
  • Done
  • References. Five are tamu.edu (primary source in other words). Twice-used thebatt.com is, as the Texas A&M students' newspaper, a primary source too. The alumni association newsletter page aggienetwork.com is a primary source as well.

All the references excluding the White House press release link (and, perhaps, the link discussed in the previous bulletpoint) are primary sources. A Good Article should use and reference reliable third-party secondary sources. I'd have thought a group with a long distinguished history must have had all sorts of different coverage through the years.  Done

  • I wasn't the original writer of the page, but I do know it has a fair amount of potential My life honestly is spinning out of control since i nominated this thing (economy). I feel guilty not pushing this all the way, but I improved 95 percent of the points you gave. this one will take time i currently don't have. best of luck. Oldag07 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

I have some serious concerns about the prose, MoS, referencing, and promotional tone (perhaps influenced by the choice of sources) of this article. For now, I am placing the article on hold to allow improvements to be made. Thank you,  –Whitehorse1 20:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

fail it. I did what i could, far more than i though it would, but like i said earlier, I just don't got the time for it.Oldag07 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least my objections are fixed. There's definite room for improvement, but I can't see why it can't be a good article. The decision is up with Whitehorse1. I think the major issues have been addressed satisfactorily. bibliomaniac15 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac15, thank you. –Whitehorse1 09:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article meets all GA criteria. There's an abundance of references from reliable sources. Oldag07, thank you for the improvements you've made to the article. I'm pleased to pass Texas A&M Singing Cadets as a Good Article. Whitehorse1 09:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for further improvement – post-GA[edit]

  • There's a small amount of proseline in the latter part of the "History" section.
  • Cover comparisons to other choirs in the school and elsewhere, from reliable sources.
  • The largest section—"History" makes up half of the article's paragraphs. The last paragraph covers the past 5 years, which, while in the past, aren't a neat fit with the turn of the 20th century to 1960s-ish events. To fix this, break up the section by inserting extra subsection-heading(s) – adding an introductory sentence for the new subsection if necessary. (Example headings from elsewhere, or TX-oriented articles: Origins; Pre-1950s, 1970s, 1980s; International; International activity and accolades; Early years, SoandSo years, SuchandSuch era, Modernization and expansion, Into a new millennium; Early years, Post-World War II; Beginning years, World Wars era, University era.)
  • Could expand Directors listing with the year range each was at the helm, and maybe their academic area (e.g. music-oriented field or not).
  • Could expand the "Organization" section to include a little on how the group was/is funded.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Texas_A%26M_Singing_Cadets/GA1&oldid=1114265717"