Talk:Sylvester (singer)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

, I'll be happy to take on this review. — Prhartcom ♥ 01:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prhartcom! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria For the most part, this article clearly already meets the GA criteria. The review notes below is a discussion for even further improvement.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Review notes
Lead
 * Perhaps we need Joshua Gamson's name, with one of his actual or paraphrased quotes, mentioned in the lead, since he is so well-represented in the body and in the body's quote boxes.
 * Personally I'd advice against mentioning Gamson in the lede. His biography is already mentioned in the final paragraph of the lede, although we don't mention that he was the author; do you think that this would really add anything? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd say go with your own instinct. I see what you mean; the biography is mentioned, the musical is mentioned—these are both equally important and are given appropriate lead coverage.
 * In that case, I'll leave it out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As well, we need a little clean-up with the mention of Gamson's name throughout the article: Currently he is not mentioned in the lead, then the body mentions "biographer Joshua Gamson" the first five times (that's fine), followed by a single "Gamson" and then two more "biographer Joshua Gamson" (that's fine) and then, for the first time, "sociologist Joshua Gamson". You see the problem with the sudden occupation label change, and I also think that the single "Gamson" may possibly need to be "biographer Joshua Gamson" like the others. You may have a better idea.
 * Good point. I've standardised all mentioned of Gamson in the main body, so that he is introduced as a biographer on his first mention and then merely cited as "Gamson" after that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree, but ... There's still a remaining stray "biographer" and there's still the "sociologist" needing to be changed to "biographer" further down, so you haven't finished. If I may, please bear with me: Let us first acknowledge that the full name and occupation "Biographer Joshua Gamson" is credited in the many quote boxes throughout the article body, and I agree that is certainly appropriate. Not counting those, what are the other mentions of Gamson in the article body? He is mentioned first in the Emerging solo career section, then not again until the Personal life section (a couple of times). In that case, by any chance, would you agree to completely remove mentioning Gamson by name in the Emerging solo career section, and therefore not burden the reader with any mention of Gamson until the article is nearly at its end, in the Personal life section. There, he will be mentioned twice now that we're getting personal: the first time as "Biographer Joshua Gamson" and the second time, of course, as "Gamson". Then of course he will be repeatedly mentioned in the Biographies section. Throughts?
 * I think that there's been some mistake here; I removed the "sociologist Gamson" element the other day... No matter. I think that the second point you raise is very valid so will edit the page accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks good now, I'm glad you liked that idea. Sorry about being mistaken about the other thing; not sure now how I saw that yesterday.


 * The references to Gamson 2005 source check out; I was able to access some of it online. Every web article that I checked on also looks good and I verified that the article is accurately citing it. I tried looking up "isbn:9780957305892" Davis, Sharon (2015). Mighty Real, but it doesn't seem to exist.
 * Still looking for the correct isbn here.
 * I've checked both the source's listing online and a hard copy of the book; both specify that that is indeed the correct ISBN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right; I do see it on Lookup by ISBN (an Amazon resource) but earlier I had simply clicked on the ISBN from the bibliography and then clicked "Find this book" on both Google Books and on Open Library, and for those sources it is not found (try it yourself), which is the method our readers are going to try. But clicking the third "Find this book" link (for Amazon) does find it. It looks like the Google and Open Library resources are missing this book for some reason. Nothing we can do about it. By the way, if you are interested in properly formatting the ISBN numbers, here is a good resource: ISBN converter.

Early life
 * "raised near to": Suggest changing to either "raised near" or "raised close to".
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "and so Gertha's sister" → "so Gertha's sister"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The Early life section opens with a sentence about Sylvester's birth, then warps us back in time for about five sentences before returning to the topic: "Their first child, named Sylvester ..." It doesn't work when Sylvester's birth sentence is juxtaposed with the phrase "care for her child" but we realize these are two different children. Instead of opening the paragraph with Sylvester's birth, try closing the paragraph with it instead (after opening with the sentences about Sylvester's mother). This will also help the timeline: We go from farmland to the Great Migration to Watts.
 * I can see what you mean, although this structure (i.e. one on which an individual's birth is mentioned before their parents are described) is one that appears in a number of GA-rated biographical articles. If you think that it is essential then it can be changed, but personally I think that it works okay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which ones? I'm curious. I'm not overly impressed in this particular case, but I won't insist on fixing it, as the article has already achieved the GA criteria.
 * Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Muammar Gaddafi, Ken Livingstone, Aleister Crowley... (okay, these are all articles that I brought to GA, so I'm a little biased here!). However, as you can see, I really quite like the effect of mentioning the birth and then delving into an individual's parentage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, I thought so! That's fine; you sound confident, as if you know what you're doing. I was a little confused while reading it, which isn't a good thing, so you might bounce this idea of others, but I won't argue. :-)


 * "his son later lambasted him as": Does "his son" refer to Sylvester? (Because three sons are being mentioned.)
 * Yes it does. I've made this clearer in the actual prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "taken to services there; here,": Perhaps there is an alternative to the "there; here," i.e. "taken to services, where".
 * I've carved this lengthy sentence into two, and the problem has now been remedied. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps near the first mention of "a gang", since any gang is so closely associated with its city, perhaps remind us of the name of the district/city where the gang is (does the grandmother live in Watts)?
 * I'm unsure if the Disquotays were united by their geographical location, more by their shared identity as a group of cross-dressers and transwomen. I think it best if I replace "gang" with "group" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "His boyfriend during the": I assume this is Sylvester?
 * Correct, and I've changed the prose to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "collecting money at" → "cashier at"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Palace Theater": It appeared suddenly; what is this theatre? Somehow, it helped Sylvester be an actor in an actual short film; therefore it sounds important. It may need to be better explained.
 * I've found a link to an article that discusses the Palace Theater in one of its sections; I've also added an image of the theatre to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The image is a nice addition to the article. We still have not addressed the minor prose issue, which is: We're starting a paragraph with "Meanwhile, the Palace Theater's manager" and it is confusing to the reader, as it sounds (especially with the "meanwhile") like we have already discussed the Palace Theater. I think instead something like "Meanwhile, Sylvester became connected with the Palace Theater, whose manager invited him to appear".
 * I've changed the prose to "At the invite of the manager of the Palace Theater, Sylvester appeared in a spoof film," which I think works here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's an improvement.


 * I see that in the Cockettes article, "in 1971, The Cockettes created the short film Tricia's Wedding"; this is information that could be added to this article.
 * Still looking for something that clarifies that (apparently) it was The Cockettes that produced the film.
 * Hmm... I've double checked, and the Gamson biography doesn't mention the idea that The Cockettes produced the film. I suggest leaving the prose as is, at least for now. Ideally, one day we'll have an actual article on Tricia's Wedding itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I only now noticed that The Cockettes article doesn't cite a reliable source.

Emerging solo career
 * "whom he named "The Hot Band."": I think we can drop the quote marks around this first mention of "The Hot Band". Compare to a later paragraph that includes a similar first-mention: "referred to them simply as "the girls," Wash and Rhodes named themselves the Two Tons O' Fun" (with no quote marks around Two Tons O' Fun").
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "the girls,": I'm not going to insist on it, and I see that BlueMoonset said the same thing, but I actually thought MOS:LQ says that the comma should be on the outside of the quote marks. If so, I see this misuse in many occasions throughout the article that would each need to be fixed. Better not tell about this. ;-)
 * Oh, don't tell Curly Turkey, or he'll edit your illogical hiney. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Sylvester had assembled", "Sylvester set himself up with a new band": Details? Do these adequately communicate that Sylvester himself handled the auditions and management (if those are the factual details)? The text does not say. Later, it reads, "assembled three young drag queens" and still later, finally, stating his management clearly: "he eventually fired [them]".
 * From what I gather, Sylvester had a fair bit of control over the choosing of his backing singers and band; I could go back to Gamson and try to find more details but I'm not sure whether that would really bring much benefit to the article itself. I wouldn't want it to be overburdened with detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would, yes, suggest going back to Gamson to see if it puts forth the fact that Sylvester did these jobs himself in those days and state this and cite it if you find it (as this would be important), otherwise if it does not, your prose is fine.
 * Reading through Gamson, it appears that his manager Dennis Lopez was involved in forming the Hot Band, so I've incorporated that information into the article at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, good.


 * "gay and counter-cultural haven; arriving in the city": Another run-on, needs full stop after Haven.
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "his show caught the attention of Nancy Pitts, wife of Motown producer Harvey Fuqua, and Fuqua subsequently signed": Should this story of Sylvester and Nancy Pitts be explained? She is never mentioned again.
 * It just reflects that it was Pitts who first took an interest in Sylvester's performances, and introduced her husband Fuqua to him. This isn't terribly important, so if you think that it is unnecessary or confusing, then it could be removed? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it should be removed; good call.
 * Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Later life
 * "Following the example of the Two Tons, Sylvester ...": I'm honestly in the dark what this passage is implying. Has a portion of the article been excised?
 * I've reworded this section in order to make the situation in question clearer. Both Sylvester and the Two Tons felt that they were being fleeced by Fuqua. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Much clearer now.


 * Isn't it just "Two Tons" and not "the Two Tons"? (Yes, I see that sometimes just "the Tons" is verified by the sources.)
 * Well, the band was "Two Tons o' Fun", but the two members are sometimes referred to as "the Tons" or "the Two Tons" in the source... do you think that this requires a change in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, never mind, as you just confirmed for me that the source really does say that they named themselves the Two Tons O' Fun.


 * "nothing worse than a fallen star" who still has "illusions" of their continuing fame; rather than ...": Suggest starting a new sentence at "Rather than", as the preceding phrase was a "chord" that reads better with a full stop.
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "recently discovered HIV/AIDS virus ... at the time still referred to as GRID ...": Consider reversing these two subjects ("GRID ... later known as HIV/AIDS"), first call it what they called it, for more impact.
 * I disagree on this point, if that's okay. I think that the current wording works well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. My suggestion is offered but never insisted upon.


 * "Sylvester insisted that he include several ballads on the album, which featured cover art": Avoid run-on sentences; the second part there has nothing to do with the first part, so put a full stop after "ballads on the album".
 * With respect, I also disagree on this one. I think that the current sentence reads fairly well; conversely, if the sentence were split into two then I don't think that it would work so well (for instance "Sylvester insisted that he include several ballads on the album. It featured cover art by Mark Amerika depicting Sylvester in ancient Egyptian garb"). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have convinced me, actually.


 * "Sylvester later related that that particular song": It would be great if the always awkward "that that" could be avoided. Perhaps: "Four songs from the album were released as singles; "Trouble in Paradise", which entered the top 20 of the U.S. dance charts, became Sylvester's "AIDS message to San Francisco.""
 * I've changed "that that particular song" with "that the song". I think that that deals with the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Legacy
 * We never place an external link in inline prose. The FabulousSylvester.com external link needs to be removed from the section and added as a reference or placed in the external links section.
 * Good point. I don't think that that was an addition of mine, so I shall remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I assumed as well.

Other thoughts
 * Not a GA criteria, but I don't understand the preference for typing out the more complicated "&amp;ndash;" over the simpler "–" (that's the actual ndash character, which Wikipedia provides in the Insert menu immediately below the edit window).
 * I'm afraid that this is just a force of habit that I have picked up. I should really get used to using "–" instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * While including the phrase "the latter" in a sentence may make the sentence easier to write, I believe it makes it more awkward to read. All uses of "the latter" in this article could be said other, clearer ways, for example: "left his wife and children when the latter were still young" → "left his wife and children when the boys were still young". "Largely avoiding disco after the latter": same advice. "With the latter moving to Hawaii" is a closing sentence; an unexciting one. "the latter of whom also performed": This one is fine.
 * I've replaced most of these examples. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, the following links are duplicated; you may decide you need to delete the second link from some of these: "Rolling Stone", "rock music", "New York City", "Disco Sucks", "Church of God in Christ", "falsetto", "Hi-NRG", "Aretha Franklin", "Joshua Gamson", "Pentecostal", "Christianity", and "Joshua Gamson".
 * Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! And it is worth mentioning that it is perfectly fine if you had wanted to leave any of those as links if it had been a long time since the last link.


 * In the cite templates, each URL parm needs an accompanying accessdate parm (today's date is fine). If providing an archive, the archiveurl and archivedate parms need the deadurl=yes or deadurl=no parm. If this last one is missing, it defaults to deadurl=yes and the reader is forced to open the archive instead of the more preferable original link that may still be alive. I have fixed one cite template to demonstrate.
 * That's a really good idea; I'd never come across the "deadurl=yes/no" thing before but I will make an effort to ensure that I use it in my other articles from this point onward. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So glad you like it. I usually place it just after the url parameter, the one that is/is not dead. All set for later when/if the original link goes dead, a quick parameter value change and you're set!


 * Comment: Are you sure you want those nowraps in the infobox? It distorts the whole thing and squeezes text out of the lead. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what happened to the infobox; another editor must have changed its shape. I've reverted it to its original state. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just astoundingly good research and writing on this article. Your work has made even greater strides, I see. For this article, I read long passages with a critical eye but most often failed to find anything other than near-perfection; what I can see meets the GA criteria. I look forward to your responses to my review notes. All the best, —Prhartcom ♥ 04:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll bet just one more round on your part and then I'm guessing we're nearly done! —Prhartcom ♥ 04:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats on another GA! I get the feeling this one must have been personal for you; if so, way to go! By the way, I have a GAN out there too if you're interested; just throwing it out there, feel free to ignore this sentence. All the best, dear Midnightblueowl, — Prhartcom ♥ 21:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Prhartcom! I wouldn't really regard this as a particularly personal article for me (I don't think I'd say that any of the articles that I edit are particularly personal... I just find myself taking an interest in something, wanting to learn everything about it, and the next thing you know I'm submitting an article to GAN!). In the case of Sylvester, I just quite liked a few of his disco hits, but more than that found his life to be really quite interesting (I find the whole disco phenomenon pretty fascinating). I'll try to undertake a GA review of Kim Davis later in the week; if someone beats me to it I'll add some additional comments anyway. Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)