Talk:Big Star/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

OK, beginning a review now. I often make simple copyedits as I go, but please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shortly before the album's release, a second member of Big Star, Hummel, quit the band for good - do we know why? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - to finish his studies and live a normal life. Now updated. PL290 (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * some web references need to be formatted per CITE, I will have a look.
 * Not sure if any remain; I'll check this now the other points have been addressed. PL290 (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Covers and references section I think would work best in a prose format of a couple of paragraphs. This is often tricky but try to collect common themes together.
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately this section will need referencing. Not too fussed for GA, but would be great to get this to FAC and will definitely be needed then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. I too think it would be a good article to get to FAC. I see no reason to hold off any improvements that can be made at this point. Each statement in that section is (I believe) supported by its wikilinked article, but I'll set about adding what direct references I can too. PL290 (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Would be nice to embellish the  Influence section as that seems to be their main claim to fame. I am still thinking about best layout as it seems to be split a bit.
 * Done: I've resequenced/combined some post-breakup material for better emphasis. Much of the critical acclaim cites influence so is now in the same section as other material citing influence on later bands. PL290 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I should perhaps say that my main input to the article has been to rework/expand the early stage (3 records and breakup) and Lead. The later stage (influence/legacy) has been updated per your comment but more could be added if it's thought appropriate; emphasizing such things without reducing the article to fancruft is a skill I'm still working on, so I'll welcome specific suggestions if any need to be made. I'll now be away for a day or two; going to fry on the beach in this UK heatwave. I know others are busy with other things too but I'll check back here in a couple of days anyway in case there's been any movement with the review. Thanks for the help so far. PL290 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is frustrating that the original author is not noted in the Rolling Stone webpage, as there are many quotes on their influence that would be best attributed rather than just 'critics say...'
 * To help with this, more quotes now added from a named critic. PL290 (talk)


 * If it can be found and sourced, some embellishment of the style of music they play and influences they cite. Also creative issues, who wrote most stuff etc.
 * Done: musical style section added. PL290 (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall, the prose is neutral and good, and there is nothing obvious missing. I am not familiar with the subject matter and might ask someone else to take a look as we go. I think it will get to GA without too much work :) So not far off Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's enouraging. Thanks for your time spent on this. I'll start to look at the points raised here. I plan to start by checking some source material to put together a little "Musical style" section or suchlike. PL290 (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The major issue here is over reliance on a single source ie Jovanovi, but that should not be too difficult to fix, considering that so much has been written about this band, espically in the last 10 years (so it should be mostly available on line). The samples are well chosen (but no Holocaus!?). Looking forward anyway to seeing this article develop further. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input and editing tweaks. I'll start to look for some other sources online and update citations accordingly to give more variation as you suggest. PL290 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - many other sources now added (and Holocaust, and Thank You Friends!). PL290 (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, but not enough I'm afraid, the majority of the article is still referenced to this one book. Also, while I'm delighted you added Holocaust (!), you now have too many samples, and would be unlikely to get through FAC without shedding a few. Its grey tbh, I'm not sure how many is the acceptable amount, but its less than what you have. Rather than just removing though, we can spin them out to the individual album or song articles. Ceoil (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Samples: OK, will move some out. Sources: OK, will keep working to replace more inline citations with others than Jovanovic; I'm not very quick though at finding them online, so unless I discover something new it will take me a long time; will greatly welcome it if anyone reading this joins in and adds some! PL290 (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Shaping up nicely - need to watch overuse of certain words like 'influence', so utilising a thesaurus and thinking about some different words would be good (this bit is often tricky :)).
 * Distribution is also over used! Ceoil (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also:


 * Big Star's influence on acts such as Game Theory, Matthew Sweet, and Velvet Crush is unmistakable.[59] - unmistakeable comes across as a wee bit subjective, I think it'd be prudent to rephrase this somehow...

I am pushing as I do think the article could not be too far off FAC with a bit of work...and it would be nice to see on the mainpage :))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it would. It's nice to find others thinking along the same lines and taking an interest in the article. Let's see what can be done then... PL290 (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Citations: I see you are mixing citation formations - hand coded for books, templates for web refs. This gives inconsistent results, eg hand coded gives the pub. date after the publisher, while the template places it after the author. Can you standardise, whith my strong preference being for the hand coded (better result, and less messy html which might make the text difficult to edit). Ceoil (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Points noted on word variation and citation format. PL290 (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Word variation and citation format now addressed, numerous further citations now added, and some other wording improvements made including the addition of a quote from another named writer in the influences section. How does the article look now, for GA and beyond? Let me know if anything more's needed at this point. PL290 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I think we're over the line GA-wise now. The next issue is how to "take it to the next level" i.e. FAC, which I think we can do on the talk page proper as a post mortem. One issue is Fair Use criteria, which dictates that a Fair Use image (such as an album cover) is only used on one article, in this case likely to be the individual album articles. The up-side of this is more slots for sounds :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all involved in what's been a helpful review. When I first found the article, I had the impression it had been started and then left languishing; I'm pleased it's got to this point and optimistic it can go further. It's always struck me as having that potential, and perhaps it's now gathered sufficient momentum for that to happen. PL290 (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, now let's not post on this page anymore and move it to a post mortem pre-FAC segment of the talk page proper. Maybe some new eyes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)