Talk:Blues/GA1

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

Since I've edited this article (several eons ago, I wrote a large portion of the article that became featured, then was apparently de-featured at some point, though I doubt any of my contributions remain), I can't actually pass it, but I otherwise would, as it looks like a pretty good article. The prose is reasonably well-written, my only suggestion being to try and lighten up the "Form" section, which seems really dense and could use some more gentle explanations. The "lyricism" section could also expansion - there's barely any mention of the oft-perceived focus of the blues on sadness and personal tragedy, for example. But overall, a solid article that meets all the criteria, I think. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I signed up to review the article. Love Blues, can't read music. Best of both worlds. I'll be going through the article over the next several days and will leave comments here. --Moni3 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First round: Sources and citations--

Before I pore over prose I wanted to list some concerns. It seems the cite system is inconsistent. All book sources should have page numbers (The History of the Blues). Sometimes the book sources have last name and title. Some of the titles are not capitalized. Web sources do not have publishers, authors, or dates. Sometimes the authors have their first names listed first instead of last names. I don't understand why some materials are separated into the References section. The format I have usually seen is a Bibliography of book-length materials from which multiple cites are attributed, listed in the Citations section. But in this article there are several newspaper or journal articles.

I have some questions about the validity of some of the sources. Is Piero Scaruffi an expert on the Blues? I could understand European roots...anyway...convince me. Who runs this site? . This is a blog. IMDb is used as a source. This is a fansite. That's just several instances of going through the sources. I did not click on them all.

What are your thoughts? Do you think you could amend these issues within a couple days? If it might take you a few weeks to replace the questionable sources, do you want to to continue with the GA review or renominate in the near future. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I have no time right now to work this out. I guess I'll need some days maybe a week.  However my aim is to improve this article.  So if you see other things which should be done on this article, please let me know.  If you like blues please be bold and edit this article too. Thanks Vb (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I edit it, I won't be able to review it for GA. At first glance, the cites look like an amalgamation of dozens of editors, with multiple cite styles. Perhaps you added some or most of these. Whatever the case, make sure you are familiar with all the sources used. Ask yourself if the source in question is the absolute best you can find, or if there must be a more comprehensive, authoritative source. Many sources added to articles are simply the product of a top 10 Google search.


 * Searching my library I find the following:
 * The Cambridge companion to blues and gospel music edited by Allan Moore. (used only once in this article)
 * The bluesmen; the story and the music of the men who made the blues by Samuel Charters.
 * The music, reflections on jazz and blues Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones) and Amina Baraka.
 * The new blue music : changes in rhythm & blues, 1950-1999 Richard J. Ripani.
 * Blues people; Negro music in white America. Baraka, Imamu Amiri
 * Black women and music : more than the blues edited by Eileen M. Hayes and Linda F. Williams
 * The Devil's music : a history of the blues Giles Oakley
 * Spirituality, sensuality, literality : blues, jazz, and rap as music and poetry Brian Dorsey.
 * Highway 61 revisited : the tangled roots of American jazz, blues, folk, rock, & country music Gene Santoro.
 * Chasin' that devil music : searching for the blues by Gayle Dean Wardlow ; edited with an introduction by Edward Komara.
 * Louisiana music : a journey from R&B to zydeco, jazz to country, blues to gospel, Cajun music to swamp pop to carnival music and beyond Rick Koster.
 * Development Arrested: Race, Power, and the Blues in the Mississippi Delta by Clyde Woods


 * There appear to be a few articles in JSTOR that also address blues music. My library has access to music databases and African American history databases. I can help by sending you JSTOR articles and others that I can copy and paste or attach to email, but you'll have to read the books.


 * Blues is a legitimate area of academic study, so there are very good books about its inception and influence. You've chosen quite a wide topic that has a lot of literature written about it. I do not intend to overwhelm you or keep you from pursuing this. Working on such large topics is a daunting task, and I am well-known to say that you really have to love the topic to write a very comprehensive article about it. Not only will you have to spend a lot of time reading and writing, but that love will also help you have patience to fix all the tiny formatting problems, prose issues, and countless other things that occur in its review and promotion. Not to mention the talk page banter that criticizes the article. Consider this very brief introduction to the Blues via Bill Cosby an analogy to what constructing an article would be: a dog under the house begging to come in from snow and cold.


 * It's quite possible to write this article well and be the best available, most accessible, and free encyclopedic article about the Blues. I absolutely encourage you to take it on. If an article changes you, bringing you far away from where you started when you began writing it, you will be much prouder of yourself.


 * Do you want to postpone the GA review? That's perfectly fine. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking back here to see your thoughts on this issue. The article does not meet the quick-fail criteria. My choices now are to place this article on hold and wait 7 days for the problems to get fixed: if it's not ready in 7 days it will have to be failed. Or you can choose to remove the nomination and renominate it in the future when the sourcing has been worked out. What would you like to do? If no one answers within 48 hours, I'll place the article on hold and start the 7-day count. --Moni3 (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I think it's better to withdraw the nomination. I will check the references along the lines you propose.  However I think the blues article will never claim to be a review article providing an up-to-date review of the scientific litterature in the field.  This field is much to broad for this.  I think this article should be an overview of what the blues used to be and still is.  It should prove all its statements when needed, i.e. when they represent a POV or a contreversial issue.  I.e. it should provide reliable sources to support them.  However, it must not cite all the existing literature!  I have not read and will never read all the books at your library.  If you believe a JSTOR article might be useful please send it to me.  I don't want to publish my email here but you can contact me via Facebook my name there is Vincent Brems.  Thanks for your help. Vb (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to think along the lines of FA in constructing an article. The list above was just a suggestion to supplant what is there to address the questions about the validity of some of the sources used. It would be quite a job to keep this article up to date, as you say, but it is not unreasonable to replace blogs, fansites, and websites of unknown authorship with authoritative print sources. I certainly encourage you to pursue this as you are able. It would be a fascinating article when it's fully complete. I will go ahead and remove the nomination, but please don't give up on it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. However, since I also have other things to do, it might take a while... User:Vb 07:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.243.199 (talk)