Talk:Train Kept A-Rollin'/GA1

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

Reviewer: Christine (talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. As per my practice, I fill out the template and then do conduct a prose and source review afterwards. Warning: I tend to be thorough, but I believe that I give good and useful feedback. Note: This review is a part of the GA Recruitment Centre, for User:BrandonWu, so there'll be more explanations included. Thanks, should be fun; I love Aerosmith!. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Very interesting article about a truly great song; I'm listening to it on Spotify as I fill out this template. Very close to GA-status, but needs some work.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Prose is good, but needs tweaking in places. See below for a more thorough review.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * I'll AGF if the layout is like other similar songs that have been recorded by several artists and groups, but it looks good. I think it's a very attractive-looking article.  Although the lead is long enough for the size of this article, I think it could be a little longer.  Currently, it doesn't summarize the article enough, so a few more lines could be added.  Again, see below for more details.
 * Most of the song articles I've come across focus on one version, with sections for lyrics, composition, recording, releases, charts, and a legacy/influence/covers section, which is reflected in WP:Songs (although not a policy or guideline). Since most sources treat the Bradshaw, Burnette, Yardbirds, and Aerosmith renditions more-or-less equally, that seems to be the better way to approach the layout. Will add to the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This explanation makes so much sense to me! I actually looked for a similar article about a song that many artists have recorded, but couldn't.  This could be an excellent model for the future. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * There are some issues with the references, which need to be addressed before this article is promoted to GA status. See below for a separate source review.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No edit wars.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * No images.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * I think that the infoboxes do a good job of breaking up the text, but I wonder if it would improve things if you added a few images, perhaps of Tiny Bradshaw or of Aerosmith. I also wonder if you could include song clips, perhaps one from the Bradshaw version at least, and perhaps others of the Aerosmith and Yardbirds versions.  These are just suggestions, and unnecessary for this article to pass to GAC, but I do think adding images and sound clips would improve this article a lot.
 * Agree — I'll see what PD/free images are available. I haven't been able to add song clips, but will explore. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the images you added a lot. I don't think that sound clips are required for a GA, and I suspect that it's too short to ever become a FA, so I won't count not having them here against you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked through some GAs of older songs with multiple renditions; some have song clips and some don't (I'm still unable to add): "Dust My Broom", "Good Shepherd", "Heartbreak Hotel", "I Heard It Through the Grapevine", "My Back Pages", "Rain", "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", "You Don't Love Me (No, No, No)", and "Your Cheatin' Heart". The FA "What'd I Say" does. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * I think that the infoboxes do a good job of breaking up the text, but I wonder if it would improve things if you added a few images, perhaps of Tiny Bradshaw or of Aerosmith. I also wonder if you could include song clips, perhaps one from the Bradshaw version at least, and perhaps others of the Aerosmith and Yardbirds versions.  These are just suggestions, and unnecessary for this article to pass to GAC, but I do think adding images and sound clips would improve this article a lot.
 * Agree — I'll see what PD/free images are available. I haven't been able to add song clips, but will explore. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the images you added a lot. I don't think that sound clips are required for a GA, and I suspect that it's too short to ever become a FA, so I won't count not having them here against you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked through some GAs of older songs with multiple renditions; some have song clips and some don't (I'm still unable to add): "Dust My Broom", "Good Shepherd", "Heartbreak Hotel", "I Heard It Through the Grapevine", "My Back Pages", "Rain", "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", "You Don't Love Me (No, No, No)", and "Your Cheatin' Heart". The FA "What'd I Say" does. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the articles. It looks like most of them have sound clips; I don't think a sound clip is necessary for a GA, but if you were to take this article further, I suspect that reviewers will request that you at least try to provide them. I think they'd be good for illustration purposes. "Dust My Broom" seems to be the best example of using infoboxes like you have here, but you do it better. "My Back Pages" is a good model of using sound clips to illustrate different versions. "What'd I Say" is a kick-butt article, IMO. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * See below for a prose and source review. Good luck!
 * Thanks for taking this on. I don't see any problem working within a 7 day time frame. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Prose review
Lead
 * As I state above, I think that the lead isn't a "summary of its most important aspects" (see WP:MOSINTRO). Although it's long enough to fulfill the GA criteria, I also think that it needs to be slightly longer.

Original song
 * It has been described as a "jump opus" and "a vibrant mid-tempo song with a boogie-woogie bass line and a shuffling drumbeat". This isn't a requirement, but I think that these statements would be stronger if you named the sources in-line.  For example: "Music expert [or another such identifier] Peter Grendysa has described it as a "jump opus", and rock historian Larry Birnbaum called it "a vibrant mid-tempo song with a boogie-woogie bass line and a shuffling drumbeat."  Actually, if you explained what Grendysa meant by a jump opus, that would also strengthen the statement.  If you did that, you should separate the two thoughts.
 * Named sources. Grendsya doesn't elaborate, but I assume he is thinking magnum opus. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The recording session took place on October 6, 1951 in Cincinnati, Ohio with... I suggest that you introduce this list better, like this: "The recording session took place on October 6, 1951 in Cincinnati, Ohio.  The musicians who performed on the record were: [and then list everyone, with semi-colons separating them]..."
 * Changed. — Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Billboard quote: Are the spellings as they appear in the review? You use "thru" but you explain the word "ork" in square brackets.  If the piece uses "thru", you should put "[sic]" after the word.  I also think that you should explain if the wording is characteristic of Billboard reviews.
 * Original spellings used. Added "[sic]" and note on parlance. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * However, it failed to reach the national R&B chart. Please explain what you mean, even though you link it, since not everyone is going to familiar with it.  Something like: "However, it did not appear on the charts of the nation's most popular R&B songs."
 * Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Burnette rendition
 * The Trio's guitarist, Paul Burlison, explained that he noticed the sound after accidentally dropping his amplifier, which dislodged a power tube (blues/R&B guitarist Willie Kizart's distorted guitar sound for the 1951 Jackie Brenston/Ike Turner hit "Rocket 88" also has been attributed to damage to his guitar amplifier). I'm not sure the parenthetical really adds to what being said here.  Perhaps you can put it in a note.  (This is just a suggestion; it's up to you if you want to follow it or not.)
 * It makes more sense in the amp dispute section. Added it there as a footnote. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The Yardbirds versions
 * Author Annette Carson added "the Yardbirds propulsive,... I'm asking the following because I can't access the source: Does Carson begin her sentence here or do you pick up the quote in the middle of a sentence.  If it's the former, you need to correct it this way: "Author Annette Carson added, "The..."  If it's the former, you should insert the word "that" before "the".  Also, is "Yardbirds" correct?  There should be an apostrophe after the S, unless that's how it's spelled in the source; if so, you need "[sic]" again.
 * No longer have the book, so I started the quote later. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * On October 3–5, 1966, the Yardbirds recorded a hard rock version with Beck and Jimmy Page on dual lead guitars to be used for their appearance in the 1966 film Blowup. Director Michelangelo Antonioni requested that they perform the song, but permission from the song publisher was not forthcoming.  So singer Keith Relf wrote new lyrics to the band's new arrangement and called it "Stroll On", with credits to the five band members.  These sentences could be tighter; how about: "On October 3–5, 1966, the Yardbirds recorded a hard rock version, with Beck and Jimmy Page on dual lead guitars, which director Michelangelo Antonioni wanted to use for their appearance in the 1966 film Blowup.  They were unable to get the song released from the song's publisher, so singer Keith Relf wrote new lyrics to the band's new arrangement, re-named it "Stroll On", and included credits to the five band members."
 * Agree, used yours. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For the film, the song is edited to increase its length for the story line. Although not technically grammatically incorrect, it's my personal opinion that starting a sentence with a preposition isn't formal enough for an encyclopedia.  How about: "The song as performed in the film is edited to increase its length for the story line."
 * Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin performances
 * Shortly after Keith Relf and Jim McCarty left the Yardbirds in mid-1968, Jimmy Page went about finding new musicians for a successor band. "Went about finding" is too informal; how about replacing the phrase with "searched for".
 * Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to John Paul Jones, the room "exploded" when they kicked it off, and they knew they had something. Again, too informal.  I just looked at the source, and I see that it's a source utilization issue, which I'll address in my source review below.
 * Used quotes from When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The original quote is from an interview conducted by Steve Rosen for Guitar Player magazine in 1977. The reference to that was removed by Ojorojo and replaced with Mick Wall's book. Mick Wall's book is a poor reference as he does not indicate where the quotes came from. Blues246 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite knowledgeable for a brand new editor, so I assume you know the difference between original research and verifiablity. In his book, Wall spends seven pages (pp. 469–475) detailing his notes and sources, which includes the 1977 Page interview in Guitar Player (p. 471).  What are your reliable sources? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mick Wall's book does not footnote where the source of his quote came from. He could name drop a zillion magazines at the back of the book but that still does not verify where exactly the quote came from. The reader is left to guess, which is hardly verifiable. The original Jones quote where he talks about the room exploding, is on page 31 of Guitar Player magazine. The title of the article is "John Paul Jones: A talk with 'Led Zeppelin's' phenomenal bassist", the issue is July 1977, Volume 11, Number 7, pages 30-31. Blues246 (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The song was included in their early performances as "the New Yardbirds" and during Led Zeppelin's 1968 and 1969 tours, usually being featured as their opening number and included on several bootleg albums (see Led Zeppelin bootleg recordings). Could be tighter; how about: "The song was included in their early performances as "the New Yardbirds" and was featured as their opening number in Led Zeppelin's 1968 and 1969 tours, and was included on several bootleg albums."  I also personally don't think that you need the parenthetical comment; you can just link it (as I've done).
 * Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Though a studio version was never recorded by Led Zeppelin, during his solo Outrider sessions in 1988, Page recorded a version similar to that performed by Led Zeppelin in 1980. Could be tighter; how about: "Though a studio version was never recorded by Led Zeppelin, as a solo artist Page recorded, during his Outrider sessions in 1988, a version similar to the Led Zeppelin 1980 version.
 * Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Aerosmith version
 * A 3:15 edited version of the song without the audience sounds was released as a single, but it did not appear on the record charts. Is there a different way to say "without the audience sounds"?  Could you say that the noises the audience made were edited out?  You know more about music than I do, so I leave it up to you, if it's possible.  I dunno, that may be the best way to put it.
 * Changed to "without the added audience noises". It is probably the second part of the album version w/o the noise (the length is about right), but I haven't been able to find a source. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Recognition and legacy
 * The song has been performed and/or recorded by numerous musicians during the last several decades and "practically all of the many covers of 'The Train Kept A-Rollin' ' are modeled on the Yardbirds' version". "Last several decades" is too ambiguous; I'd just omit it, since the song's been covered numerous times since it was first recorded, anyway.  I also think that you could (again, not mandatory) cite who made the quote, again to strengthen the assertion.
 * Changed. The "practically..." quote has a ref or do you mean something else? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To illustrate their variety, some examples of notable artists include:... Another preposition; I also think that the list makes it obvious that a variety of types of artists have recorded it; remember, your readers are smart and don't need everything spelled out for them.  I think you could just say: "Artists that have recorded the song include:..."
 * Changed. This was originally added because some editors deleted these listings as arbitrary, random, and incomplete (which as examples they are, of course). Suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about this, along with the above issue about reliable sources, in the source review. Which I will do now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been very fun! I will stop here for now, and come back to do the afore-promised source review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review

 * Ref 2: I don't think that you need to relegate this source to the References section; instead, since it's a webpage and is only used twice, you should change it into an inline ref and put it with the rest of your Notes.
 * Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 3: This source demonstrates one of my biggest issues with this article: how the sources are utilized, or rather in this case, how they're underutilized. Much of the Birnbaum book is accessible through Google books, so I saw lots of information that's simply not used here.  For example, at the bottom of page 29, there's some insightful commentary about the Yardbirds' version that you really should use.  A few paragraphs later, at the top of page 30, it states that twin-guitar part is influenced by Chuck Barry.  The end of chapter 2, after page 50 (Google Books doesn't allow access to the entire chapter), discusses at length the song's later versions.  I could go on, but I'm sure you can see my point.  You could use this information to expand the article more.  It could be argued that partly due to the fact that this source isn't utilized as well as it could be, this article doesn't fulfill the broadness criteria, which states that a GA "addresses the main aspects of the topic".  I understand that GAs don't have to be comprehensive like FAs, and the current version contains the most important aspects, so I can't mark it against you.  However, I strongly suggest that you go through this source (all of them, actually) and see what else you can glean from them to add to the article.  You might be able to expand it to the point that it has the potential for FAC.  Thanks, I'll be back tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, on further review, there is more material from Birnbaum, especially about the Yardbirds, that can be incorporated. It was left out the first time around so as not to rely too heavily on one source (Birnbaum is already cited 15 times).  However, further review of the other sources, which at best have one or two paragraphs about one version, shows that they have been utilized as much as practicable.  I've included some representative GAs in the image discussion above; they may have some ideas about handling the song's later versions. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that was the reason for not using Birnbaum more, but it makes sense. I agree; I think adding more content from it wouldn't make it depend too much on the one source, so I recommend that you add more from it, especially if you can't find the same information in other sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at a few more sources, and things are much better than I thought they would be. I'll take your word for it that you've effectively used your sources, mostly because of how well you've used the Marcus source.

This is very close to passing to GA. All that remains is that the lead needs to be lengthened and do a better job at summarizing the article. Once you do that, I will pass it. The other pending comments (sound clips, adding more from Birnbaum) are just suggestions. I think that if you add more from Birnbaum, it might lengthen the article enough that you might have a potential FA. Thanks, it was fun learning about this great song. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. The Yardbirds' section has been expanded and I plan to wrap it up with the new lead and some minor fixes in the next day or two. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That about takes care of everything, ready for another run through. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I like everything you've done, but now the lead is too long. I suggest that you cut the Birnbaum quote and put it in the "Legacy" section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All looks good. Will go pass to GA now.  What a fun article.  Congrats, and good luck in your future endeavors here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your input — it's a better article for it. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)