Talk:The J's with Jamie/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 16:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll review this.  ceran  thor 16:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Prose

 * Lead
 * "The group's core members were married couple Jamie and Joe Silvia," - I'd move "married couple" to after since I think their names should come first. Thus, it would read as "The group's core members were Jamie and Joe Silvia, a married couple who played with a number of session musicians and other singers"


 * "They worked within the booming mid-20th century Chicago advertising industry, in both radio and television," - don't really need to offset "in both... television" with commas


 * "large consumer goods companies" - Not necessary to list all the company names in the lead, but "consumer goods" might be a bit too general
 * ✅? most that weren't part of the existing list were food companies, so just went with that.


 * "The couple declined invitations to go on tour," - a teensy bit more detail on this would be useful; maybe add "a number of invitations" or clarify that they were spread out over the years?
 * I don't have much more information about this, and re-reading it I wonder if it should just be removed. It's based on this quote from an interview:
 * "You were nominated for a Grammy for Best New Act in 1964. How much temptation was there to record more albums and go on tour?" "Opportunities did occur, but with two young daughters, I did not want to go on the road anymore."
 * I took "anymore" as referring to her tour with the Mellowlarks (or other groups), but that may require too much inference.
 * Might have just been me nitpicking. Reading it again, I think this clearly states that in your own words.  ceran  thor 12:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "At the 6th Annual Grammy Awards in 1964, The J's with Jamie were nominated in two categories: Best New Artist and Best Performance by a Vocal Group." - might be a nitpick; but maybe worth mentioning explicitly that they didn't win? Not sure though
 * My impression is that just saying "nominated" is standard when they didn't win, and it does specify who they lost to in the body of the article.
 * Got it. Should be fine.  ceran  thor 12:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The image contrasts a bit with the lead's description, since it makes it seem like those other two people are regular members, but they're not named. Might be remedied by clarifying in the caption that these are Jamie and Joe with two of the singers they collaborated with over the years?
 * ✅? It's a good point. Had to do a little digging to figure out who was who in the picture (apart from Jamie, of course). Specifying "the group" does make it seem like the core was those four. Since Joe is first and Jamie third, wording it proved difficult to set them apart. I rewrote it simply to say who's in the picture.


 * Formation
 * "The J's With Jamie" - capitalization isn't standard with article; should it be "with" or "With?"
 * ✅ - also noticed this page was created as a subpage of the wrong capitalization. Not sure how that happened, but moved now (and standardized in the article, with the exception of a source title).


 * "Jamie's background was as a dancer, but took up" - should add "she" between "but" and "took"


 * "The J's With Jamie was formed by husband and wife Joe and Jamie Silvia" - any idea when? 1950s perhaps? I see now that it's mentioned later as 1958... maybe change the lead sentence to "consisted of husband and wife..." rather than "formed by"
 * Not sure I follow. It was formed by the two of them, and they worked with several other singers (most often Shelton, but others, too).
 * Just nitpicking. Should be fine as is.  ceran  thor 12:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "The couple's break" - Assuming you mean this as "big break," it reads as an idiom and therefore I think should be rephrased. It could easily be confused for the couple separating or breaking up too. Maybe better as "The couple's first success within the industry" or something like that
 * ✅ Aha. True. "Big break" is more like "a first big opportunity to achieve success" rather than the success itself. Along with the next two bulletpoints, I rewrote this part.


 * "to record an album of Christmas songs in place of a more traditional Christmas card." - not sure what this sentence is trying to convey
 * In place of the tradition of sending out Christmas cards (which families often send to other family members and friends, often with a photo of the family), they decided instead to make an audio recording for the same purpose. Rewrote this part.


 * "The audio engineer shared the music with a decision-maker at Columbia" - decision-maker??
 * ✅ Clarified in this rewrite.


 * "most prominently Don Shelton, a tenor" - perhaps a nitpick, but might be worth linking to tenor or adding a note that you mean a tenor (singer) rather than tenor sax player


 * "Don Shelton, a tenor who was part of The Hi-Lo's, Marshall Gill, and Len Dressler, whose deep bass voice is best known for the Jolly Green Giant's "Ho! Ho! Ho!".[1][3]" - is there a way to better organize this material so it's a bit more readable? At present I had to read it over twice to make sure I understood it correctly.

More to come, but here's a start.  ceran  thor 19:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I've addressed most of the above and left questions/comments about others. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Jingles and recordings
 * "The commercial also went on to win a Clio Award.[6][7][4]" - "went on to" is a redundant phrase; why not just "also later won?" Also, I'd be interested in which year they won, if that info is available
 * Removed "also". Sufficiently address redundancy? "Went on to" seems right to me, given making a commercial, it runs, and later wins. The source I have just refers to a "1963 Clio-winning commercial". I presume that means that's when it was recorded/released, though. Surprisingly, I'm having trouble finding a full list of Clio winners from that year.
 * I just hate the construction "went on to X," but that's a personal nitpick. And darn - if you ever manage to find it, would suggest adding it.  ceran  thor 12:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "The couple declined invitations to go on tour," - from whom? How many times?
 * See comment about this in the lead.


 * "Shelton and Dresslar remained in Chicago and together formed" - don't think you need "together" here; it's redundant


 * Reception and legacy
 * "In addition to being successful from a marketing perspective, the musical quality of their songs," - you should restate the subject here, rather than just referring to them as "their."


 * "In addition to being successful from a marketing perspective, the musical quality of their songs, both commercial and noncommercial, was positively received. " - this sentence needs to be rewritten; it sounds like you're saying the musical quality was successful, rather than the band
 * ✅? Took a stab at rewriting.


 * ""one author [who wrote that The J's with Jamie] possessed diction 'that makes poets out of admen,' one of whom said, 'Their words seem to be coming from a foot outside of their mouths in a kind of bas-relief.'"[12] " - This sentence is convoluted! What are you trying to say here? And is this person describing another writer's account of the band? I'm quite lost.
 * Indeed. Largely taken directly from that source. Taking a moment to untangle the language and dig up the footnote in that book (which I didn't have access to before), I see it's referring to something I already have cited. Citing that directly now. I did some reworking of the reception section, too.


 * "A Variety review of Hey, Look Us Over noted that they sound young and "sprightly,"" - Again, "they" should be replaced with the band name

Images

 * File:The J's with Jamie.jpg - seems to be a solid argument for fair use, though I'm not by any means an expert in copyright law

Once the second round of comments is addressed, I'll go back to all of the replies and clarify.  ceran  thor 18:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * More or less done replying to the above. Mostly fixed, with a few comments. Thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)