Talk:The Shaggs/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vladimir.copic (talk · contribs) 04:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey - I've had a preliminary read through and will do a full review. It's my first GA review so bear with me. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An initial item that needs fixing: The paragraph starting That year, The New Yorker ran a profile of the... needs some work. This is cited to that same New Yorker profile. We either need another source talking about the publication of the New Yorker piece or it needs to be reframed. In the current context, the New Yorker article is a primary source about the publication of the New Yorker article (hope this makes sense). Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The article is mentioned by another article. Popcornfud (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. As I said before, this is my first review so sorry for any missteps. Some of my points may have a reasonable explanation as to why things are the way they are which I will be happy to accept.


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

This is a really great and well research article. There are, however, a couple of things that need to be addressed before meeting GA criteria. 1
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * See below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See below.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * See below.
 * 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See below.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The use of the quote "accidental genius" in the lede and body of the article should have in-text attribution and be cited for the lede per MOS:QUOTE.
 * The journalist Irwin Chusid argued that it was unlikely Dreyer had stolen the records, as they were valueless at the time; many copies may have simply been disposed of. Is quite a confusing sentence. Who had disposed of the records? ✅
 * It's given in passive voice because we don't know. It just means "whoever ended up with copies of the album might have just thrown them out". It's not critical so can be trimmed from the sentence if you think that's better. Popcornfud (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * In 2018, The Hollywood Reporter reported that the film, a musical, would be directed by Ken Kwapis and that Elsie Fisher had been cast. This should be moved further down the article to the right place chronologically. ✅
 * Done. Popcornfud (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Reporter reported is kind of awkward - could this be changed? ✅
 * Trimmed. Popcornfud (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The tenses in the "Style" section need to be made uniform as it switches from past to present a lot eg Each word uses a different pitch. The Shaggs matched their vocal melodies note for note on guitar. (This sentence could probably be condensed into one.) ✅
 * I think those tenses are correct. The sisters, when recording, in the past, matched their melodies. The music, as it continues to exist, has different pitches for each word. The recording events and the music as it continues to exist are different points in time. But this might end up moot after I come to rewrite that section. Popcornfud (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I also find the "Style" section to be a slightly disjointed collection of opinions but this may just be a personal opinion. ✅
 * I agree with you. If I were reviewing this article, it would be the big flag I raised. Even after much iteration I couldn't find a great way to organise the information. I'll give it another shot later. Popcornfud (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

2
 * Some of the mid-sentence citations seem unnecessary as they are often not for controversial statements and disrupt readability, for example It developed a cult following,[10] with fans including Frank Zappa, Bonnie Raitt, Jonathan Richman and Carla Bley.[4]
 * The citations are attached to the given information. Per WP:VERIFY, I'm not going to tell the reader the album developed a cult following without giving them a source that specifically says the album developed a cult following. I don't think that's a WP:BLUESKY situation. If you can find cases where information can be covered in a single citation instead of two then I'm happy to trim those. Popcornfud (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My proposal would be to move all supporting citations to the end of the sentence (so in this case citation 10 would move to the end of the sentence with citation 4) rather than next to the specific clause within the sentence. To me this aids readability and I thought it had a basis in guidelines but I've had a reread through WP:CITE. It looks like this is just my personal preference so I'll strike this one. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The article relies very heavily on direct and lengthy quotations that I believe go against MOS:QUOTE. Many of these can probably either be shortened or summarised in our own words. There is a slightly better justification for lengthy quotations in the "Legacy" and "Style" section but not so much for the "History" section. For example One producer, Bobby Herne...", Dot recalled: "He took...", He described it years later: "It was unbelievable..., the engineer wrote: "As the day.... ✅
 * Yes, good call. I've paraphrased these. Popcornfud (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Certain phrases such as inappropriately intimate and parental abuse are directly taken from the source. These either should probably be altered or given in quotation marks. ✅
 * I was conscious of these when I was working on the article. I don't want to put quotation marks around "parental abuse" as this may come across as euphemistic scare quotes, when in fact I think it's a pretty plain and direct term. I've put quotes around "inappropriately intimate", though is trickier, as this is the journalist Susan Orlean's wording, not Helen's. Popcornfud (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

3
 * This may be a personal opinion, but the Style section seems a bit overlong. The paragraph starting The musician Cub Koda... could probably be greatly reduced or summarised. ✅
 * I think the rewriting of this section has addressed this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

4
 * He said the girls "smelled like cows. Right off the farm. Not a dirty smell — just smelled like cows." is UNDUE especially for a BLP and probably contravenes WP:BLPBALANCE. ✅
 * Breaks my heart to cut that one, as I personally found it the most affecting detail in the entire story of the Shaggs when I was researching it. It could be interpreted as simply a mean-spirited comment the guy threw into an interview, and it could certainly have been, but whatever the speaker's intent I think it says volumes about the state of this cult-like family run by their abusive, deluded father, and so I assign it quite a lot of weight.
 * ...Having said all that, I concede that what I just said amounts to a highly subjective personal interpretation, and it isn't critical detail from an encylopedic perspective. So I'll let it go. Bummer, though. Popcornfud (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to to do this. I just couldn't see a justification with it falling into BLP territory. I do think the article does makes clear in many other ways the father's abuses and family's general sad strangeness. I similarly did question the use of freak show in the sentence Palmer decided he was in danger of exploiting the Shaggs as a freak show and did not pursue them. Is this term a bit much or unencyclopedic in this context outside of a direct quotation? I can't remember how this comes through in the source. Ultimately I decided it was fine but what do you think? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm persuaded regarding the "cows" thing. Trimmed. Popcornfud (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As freak show is a specific concept with its own Wikipedia article I didn't see the need for scare quotes. "Freak show" is the actual term Palmer used, and it's the right term for that concept. Popcornfud (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

5 Other
 * File:The Shaggs.JPG - Any image of The Shaggs (at low enough quality) would probably be justifiable under fair use. However this image is tagged as a promotional image and is sourced from a random Flickr account. I'm not able to find a definite source for this image. It looks like a crudely colourised version of this image which is a promotional picture provided by Light in the Attic records. It seems to me we should use a low quality version of the black and white image with Light in the Attic records as the source rather than the colourised version of unknown origins. ✅
 * File:The Shaggs - Who Are Parents.ogg - this audio sample is 29 seconds of a 2.58 minute song. This contravenes WP:SAMPLE which states that samples should generally be 10% of the length of the original song up to a maximum of 30 second. This sample needs to be shortened to 17 seconds or less. ✅
 * Well spotted. Updated both files. Popcornfud (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Scottish music executive Alan McGee wrote that they were "ground zero in the spurious world of outsider music" and "created possibilities" for unheard acts including Tiny Tim... Although it comes from the source, this does not make sense to me. Tiny Tim had released 3 albums on a major label, received a Grammy nomination and had a top 20 single by the time Philosophy of the World was released in '69 (on a tiny label with a tiny quantity pressed). ✅
 * Thanks - I don't know anything about Tiny Tim and didn't check that. Appears that it's a bit of a confusing claim without further clarity so I'll either trim or see if there's any extra context given in the source to make sense of this. Popcornfud (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed the Tiny Tim mention. Popcornfud (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is my first review. I'm tagging some GA mentors here if they would like to offer a second opinion Ritchie333 MarioSoulTruthFan Hahc21. Again, this is a really fantastic article and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this — will respond properly in the next few days. Popcornfud (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you check to see if the sources are reliable? SPIN Media LLC as an author? Unlikely, plus Spin should be the work, not the redirect link for the article. On every source either work or publisher or both, needs to be consistent not some with work and others with work and publisher. AllMusic is always publisher. Some dates and accessdates are missing. Source 28 missing at least work/publisher, not sure about source 29 and 30 website? Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I hadn't looked through the refs as thoroughly as I should - I only looked in depth at the ones with many cites. @Popcornfud the following refs needs to be fixed too:
 * The SPIN source is cited as a book. This should be cited as an article in Spin with the title of the article and author. ✅
 * That was in the article before I started working on it (as is the case for a few of the more dubious sources mentioned below, which I neglected to examine). I've just trimmed it since I don't think it's important to say the band was "proto-punk" in the infobox or whatever, we're only interested in primary genres. Popcornfud (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can add a link to the Jon Ronson radio show. A date on this source would be good too. ✅
 * Added the link, but could never find a date for this episode. The BBC has it uploaded in at least two different forms and I don't know when it was first broadcast. Popcornfud (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The VICE source is an interview with Dot and therefore some of the claims need to be treated carefully. The following needs to be changed to reflect that Dot said this rather than having it appear in wikivoice (or find a different source): He occasionally had the family hold seances in an attempt to communicate with his mother.
 * Added attribution. Popcornfud (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As above the Rolling Stone source, is an interview:
 * The assertion that Rachel, who attended high school, was bullied comes from Dot in an interview, so needs attribution, and I'm not sure is fully supported anyway by the text.
 * Added attribution. Popcornfud (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * [Helen] rejoined the band later comes from Dot in the interview. Is there a better source for this? ✅
 * Can't find one, but we know it's true because she was on the later recordings. Popcornfud (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Rolling Stones 1980 Rock & Roll Awards" - formatting (bolding) issues with this ref ✅
 * Appears to be a bug related to Visual Editor. Fixed. Popcornfud (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 28 27 - unclear what this is? Is this reliable? ✅
 * Source 29 28 - is for a funeral home? This does not look like an RS. Better just to remove the reference to the mother's death if no better source can be found. ✅
 * Source 28 and 29 were there before I started work on the article, and all look like crappy sources to me. All of this info about the family deaths will likely have to be removed as I don't think they were mentioned in the RSs I found on the band, but I'll double check. Popcornfud (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 30 29 is better but is there anything else that can be used? ✅
 * Source 30? The Pitchfork article? What's wrong with that? Popcornfud (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Got confused with source numbers. I've corrected this above and given links to be more specific. Apologies! I think you are right that the obits and the info they support can probably just be stripped from the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Found a mention of Helen's death in Rolling Stone, so that's handy. Popcornfud (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say I'm travelling at the moment and may not be able to give this my full attention for a few days or possibly a week or two. I will absolutely get to it, though. Popcornfud (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Another note to say I've responded to a few more things and made some adjustments, but I'm not done yet — I'm still travelling so will get to it when I can. Popcornfud (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vladimir.copic: Sorry for the delay. I gave the Style section a major trim to remove some elements that were making the whole thing harder to string together cohesively. I've also responded to your other comments as best I can, unless I missed something. Give it a look and see what you think. No rush on this. Popcornfud (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we are nearly there. I've ticked off what's been done and have put question marks against the three thing that do not appear to have been addressed. I just have questions about the use of quotation marks in the following two instances:
 * Following a performance at a local nursing home, where they received a "polite" response
 * Austin also had the girls do daily physical exercises to help them "stay in shape" for public appearances.
 * Are these scare quotes or direct quotations? If it's the former, do we really need them? If the latter, it should have in-text attribution most likely.
 * Don't worry about the delay. GA noms sit there for months. You can't expect people to put their lives on hold waiting for someone to pick it up. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Both are direct quotations. Removed the first line as it seems inessential. The second I've kept as a quote because it's WP:IDIOMatic language and I can't find a non-idiomatic way of expressing the same "in shape" idea. Accessing that source is kind of a pain, so I've just shortened it and inserted it earlier in the prose, cited to a different source.
 * I think I've addressed everything now — let me know if I missed stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome - it's all good to go now. I made a little change by removing the "accidental genius" direct quote. Per MOS:QUOTE quoted opinions should have in-text attribution but giving that would have messed up an otherwise good sentence. Well done! It's a great article! Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thank you for your rigorous and patient review. Popcornfud (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)