Talk:Les Apaches/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 20:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll take on this article, it looks interesting!

Quick glance
Hello, on reading through the article, it seems as if it is at B-class level (see Content assessment for details of the classes), but I'm happy to help you push it up a notch, so to speak. Review to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):  (It looks as if a blog used some of the text from the article a month ago, but they copied you and not the other way around).
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):  These will be checked later.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Who were Maurice Ravel and Ricardo Viñes? These men need to be introduced in the text (e.g. ‘...the French novelist George Sand.’).
 * ... in the early years of the 20th century… - is vague. Is more specific information available about when it was formed?
 * The lead section needs to rewritten, so that it becomes a summary of its most important contents, and according to MOS:LEAD “...should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.” I would not change the lead much more until the main text of the article is roughly complete, as the lead needs to reflect what the article says.
 * It may be appropriate to list the main members of the group, but not in the lead section (see MOS:LISTBASICS). Also MOS:LEAD makes it clear that information of this kind cannot be included in the lead if it not covered elsewhere.
 * The list currently in the lead needs to be cited.

More to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

For GA level, this section needs to be rewritten using a consistent style. I would suggest creating a new section (named 'Sources') with which to include the books, websites and journals used to cite the text in the article. I found some of sources listed already in the References section, as well as others, all of which are listed below. I would consider using these sources, and including short citations (e.g. ).


 * ✅ Amitchell125 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Further comments:
 * It’s better to split Ref 1 (Pasler (1982); Nichols (1977) and Orenstein (2003, note corrected date)) into three separate citations.
 * Use to produce a correct format for Ref 2 (A Sociology of the Apaches).
 * Ref 5 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p01cc5pn) needs to be formatted corrected. ❌ A  template is needed here.
 * Ref 6 (http://musicweb.ucsd.edu/~jpasler/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Pasler-Apaches-2007.pdf) needs to be formatted corrected.
 * Ref 7 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01zh1kf) needs to be formatted corrected. ❌  A  template is needed here.
 * A page number needed for Ref 8 (Puri).
 * A page number needed for Ref 9 (Johnson).
 * Refs 5 and 11 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01cc5pn) are the same. (I would use ).
 * Ref 13 (Pasler) has no other information apart from a page number. It needs to be linked to Ref 2.
 * A page number is needed for Ref 14 (McAuliffe).
 * Ref 15 (Debussy: Music cannot be learned) needs to be identified.
 * A page number needed for Ref 16 (Orenstein).

Let me know if you need any more help with these comments. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The Maurice Ravel Frontispice link appears to lead to a self published source, and if so should be removed, (see WP:SPS).

'On hold' for a week
this article would under normal circumstances merit a 'quick fail' (WP:GAFAIL), but I'm willing to hold back from doing this for a week (until 20 September) to enable you to address the points listed above in the 'References'/'Further reading'/'See also' sections. Please note I've requested you check through any sources listed that are not yet used, adding relevant new information to the article if you find any. After that I'll proceed on the other sections. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - I'm very grateful to you for reviewing the page and helping to (hopefully) improve it. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's ok, I can continue with the review now. However, as the article is some way off being a GA, it might take too long to improve with using the Good Article nomination (GAN) process. It might be a better idea if I fail it now, and help you get it ready for either a GAN or a peer review. What do you think? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Further comments
(In my comments below, B (1996) stands for Borotra, Natalie Morel (1996). "Ravel et les groupes des Apaches", and P (1982) stands for Pasler, Jann (1982). "Stravinsky and the Apaches".)

Origins

 * P (1982) p.403 states 1902 for the date of their first meeting.
 * ..."attention! Les Apaches"… - you need to remove the link (see MOS:LWQ). I would always have the link outside the quote, and I’m sure it’s possible to do it here.
 * P (1982) p.403 says the opera Pelléas et Mélisande stimulated the formation of the group, but the article does not mention this.
 * P (1982) p.403 says they originally met in each other’s rooms in Montmartre, but this is not stated in the article.
 * The group acquired its name in 1904, according to B (1996) p.149.
 * No reference in the article the native Americans or to why the name appealed so much to Vines and the others. (See B (1996) pp.149-150 for more details.)
 * B says the name was used only in private (B (1996) p.150).
 * B (1996) p.150: The lack of any documents produced by the group as an example of its formality, could be mentioned.

Active years

 * The paragraph on Stravinsky’s links with the group and the effect they had on his life needs to be expanded, e.g. by using P (1982) pp.403-405.
 * You have taken away the list of members from the lead section, but they should be included somewhere in the main text of the article, probably in this section. I would use P (1982) p.403 as a source of information for this list. B (1996) could be used as a source for providing details about some of the more important members of Les Apaches.
 * The reason why they moved to Delage’s rented accommodation needs to be mentioned, see P (1982) p.403.
 * Vines’ journal is the main source of information about the meetings held by Les Apaches, according to P (1982) p.403.
 * The group’s visits to Bellet Russes rehearsals is not mentioned but it is in P (1982) p.404.
 * Although some of the members remained friends, the meetings petered out during World War I and eventually stopped altogether. - the reasons for this are given by Pasler in P (1982) p.407. Also, I would put the demise of the group in a new section, as it hardly fits within a section entitled ‘Active years’.
 * Most of the members were musicians – B (1996) p.152.
 * There was a ‘rival’ group that was attended by Déodat de Séverac—see B (1996) p.153.
 * B (1996) p.155 provides the addresses for where the group met.
 * The first 2 paragraphs are generally lacking in citations.

Stopping now
The above comments have arisen after having checked the article against only two sources, and it is clearly not close to GA level. I'm failing it, but would encourage you to address the issues I've raised, and then go through the remaining sources with a view to expanding the text, and then ensuring the lead section is completed to be a concise summary of the article. Thanks for what you've done so far. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I've taken so long to reply - I've been quite busy. I'll try and work on this over the next few weeks. Thank you again, you've been very helpful. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)