Wikipedia:Peer review/The Shirelles/archive1

The Shirelles
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to GA status and would like feedback as to what needs to be improved.

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if possible I'd like some ideas about taking this to FA. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1 This is a pretty good piece of work. As it stands, it would be a fairly clear GA if I were reviewing and I think it is nicely on its way to FA. I've reviewed with FAC in mind, but I would suggest taking it to GAN before you do this. I've done some light copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything you are not happy with. NB: I have not looked at sourcing at all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "the first to have a number one single on the Billboard Hot 100": Aside from the fact that is is not quite clear of what they were the first, this fact is repeated later in the lead in what I think is a more logical place.
 * "after several months of courtship." A little imprecise: I'm not too fond of "courtship" and also it is not clear who was "courting": the company or the group.
 * Instances of close repetition in the lead: "girls … girls", "group … group".
 * "they were unable to keep their previous popularity": maybe "maintain" rather than "keep".
 * "due to the numerous girl bands…": Maybe "due to the success of numerous girl bands…"
 * "while several of their hits used strings and baião-style music": Not sure about using "while" here as there is no obvious connection with the previous part of the sentence. A simple "and" would be enough, unless there is a connection with these styles and their "sexual themes".
 * "They have been credited": By who?
 * "with much of their music reflecting its essence": Unclear what this means. Reflecting the essence of what? Does this mean that the "girl group genre" came to embody/contain/reflect many of the Shirelles "themes" (for want of a better word). Also, "with … music reflecting" is not great construction (noun-verbing): suggest "and much of their music reflected".
 * "Their multi-racial popular acceptance predates Motown…": I know what you mean here, but "multi-racial popular acceptance" is slightly ambiguous. It's not a big deal (and sounds quite elegant) but could it be pinned down slightly more?
 * "which has been noted as reflecting the early success of the African-American Civil Rights Movement.": Again, not too clear. Are you saying that the Shirelles were successful as part of the early Civil Rights success, or (as it reads to me at the moment) that Motown reflects this success? Also, for the uninitiated (and there might be some, somewhere!!) who don't know what Motown is, perhaps "predates the success of Motown music".
 * "They have received numerous honors, including receiving the Pioneer Award from the Rhythm and Blues Foundation, being accepted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1996, and being selected as one of the 100 best acts of all time by Rolling Stone in 2004." Perhaps put this into a better tense. I would favour past tense, but at the very least "being selected" could be replaced with "were selected". Also, "received…receiving".


 * Initial career and success
 * "Shirley Owens Alston Reeves": I appreciate why her name is given like this, but why not "Shirley Owens (at that time Shirley Reeves)" or "Shirley Reeves (later Shirley Owens)" to make it easier to follow?
 * I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of them avoiding Greenberg without a little more explanation. Did they not want to join a record label, or did they want to sign for someone else. It just needs a bit more here.
 * Also (and just a personal thing), I really don't like lines like "The song combined doo-wop with pop melodies" in music articles; for the general reader, "pop melodies" is meaningless and I never like the use of "combined" like this. At the very least (and I still am not too struck) I think "The song was influenced by [the] doo-wop [genre?] but included [more populist?] pop melodies". But feel free to ignore this one.
 * "Flopped" does not sound completely encyclopaedic, but I think more precision would be better. Failed to chart? Reached only number 99?
 * "the low rating has been attributed to poor distribution": Who attributes it.?
 * "Greenberg made an agreement with songwriter Luther Dixon": Presumably to write for them? It needs to say so as the sentence is left hanging.
 * "booked to perform with several major artists" It would be nice to say who, where and when.
 * "it went on to become either the first Billboard Number One Hit by an African-American girl band[11] or the first Number One Hit by any girl band.": Why is there an either-or? Surely it either was or wasn't and if there is debate, the debate should be explained and spelt out.
 * "In 1963 Dixon left Scepter, which preceded a decrease in The Shirelles' charting ability...": In other words, they had less chart success? I think keep this simple.
 * "They did not, however, give up": Tabloidese? Maybe "However, they carried on performing/recording".
 * "and has been theorized as having been a blow to their creativity": Theorized by who? And to be honest, it sounds a bit wishy-washy anyway.
 * "In a 1981 interview with Bruce Pollock, Owens said that Greenberg has put on a "mother routine", which she and her bandmates had "fall[en] for ... completely"." Don't quite get this; what is she saying? Was Greenberg responsible for the non-existent trust, did the group blame her? This sentence needs to link to the previous stuff a little better.


 * Later career
 * Could we say when the contract expired with Scepter?


 * Style
 * "has been described": By who?
 * All the quotes in this section need in text attribution (i.e. XXX said that "blah blah blah")
 * "The other members, on background...": Maybe "as backing singers"?
 * "with numerous instances of syncopation.": I'm no music expert, but this sentence implies that syncopation is an exclusive feature of Brazilian baião, which is not the case.
 * "in their acceptance by Whites": Not sure about capitalisation here, and it sounds uncomfortable. What about "across racial demographics"? And again, there was other music that crossed the "divide" before this, I believe.
 * "and strings sounding White": Again not sure about either "white" or "White" here, and how on earth can strings sound white?
 * "She noted that "the people who love[d them] and [they] loved [were] right [there]."" The parentheses make this uncomfortable reading; why not just quote it as it was said?


 * Stage musical
 * Any comment on how well it was received? --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * I've done most of it. The source does not state which artists, although I remember seeing a biography of one of their chaperones that may have the information. The sources say different things, but its not really a debate. Both sources seem equally reliable, so I'm not comfortable choosing one. I'd appreciate a bit of feedback regarding the changes thus far. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the remaining two issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally looks OK. "after several months of avoiding her" sounds a little clumsy and "sounding like something from white-people's music" sounds a little odd. For the latter, I might suggest something like "and string section influenced by music popular among [white audiences may sound better here than "white people"]." And "and insisted they only sang for fun" I assume refers to the group, so it may be better to say "as they only wanted to sing for fun" or "they did not want to sing professionally/seriously". My only other suggestion is to watch out for close repetition of "group" or "girls". Nothing specific, but I think these may be (perhaps unavoidably) over-used. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How's this? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Certainly a very good shout for GA as it stands. My only remaining quibble (not a GA issue at all) is the first sentence which was changed to "The Shirelles were an African-American girl group that achieved popularity in the early 1960s, consisting of schoolmates Shirley Owens, Doris Coley, Addie "Micki" Harris, and Beverly Lee." Now, the "consisting of" clause could refer to "the early 1960s". It obviously doesn't, but this is the sort of thing that gets picked up at FAC. The only problem with switching it around is that you end up with comma overload because of the list of names. A possible solution would be to return it to two sentences. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll touch that up. Thanks for the review. GAN, here it comes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Ghmyrtle
As an outsider with no particular experience of WP:GA criteria, my main comment is that I don't like the style of the opening paragraph. It's too long, and goes into too much obscure detail. It doesn't present a very clear overview of the group's career and influence - it picks out certain points and, in my view, gives them undue prominence. If I were writing it, I'd have a short introductory paragraph something along the lines of:"The Shirelles were an African-American girl group that achieved popularity in the early 1960s. They were the first such group to top the Billboard Hot 100, with the song [not 'their' song, in the sense that they didn't write it] 'Will You Love Me Tomorrow.' The original group [not 'band' - they didn't play any instruments] consisted of schoolmates Shirley Owens, Doris Coley, Addie 'Micki' Harris, and Beverly Lee." The second paragraph would then summarise the key points of their career, but not go into unnecessary detail. The sentence, "The Shirelles were unable to maintain their previous popularity due to the numerous successful girl bands following their lead and ongoing British Invasion" seems to me particularly redundant - words like "due to" are often a sign of WP:OR and the wording in the Allmusic bio doesn't use that terminology. For example:"'Formed in 1957 for a high school talent show, they were signed by Florence Greenberg of Tiara Records and their first single was released the following year. After a brief and unsuccessful period with Decca, they went with Greenberg to her newly-formed company Scepter Records where, working with Luther Dixon, the group had their first hit with 'Tonight's the Night'. In all, the group had seven top twenty hits in the US between 1960 and 1963. Their popularity diminished after the British Invasion, although The Beatles were among those to cover their songs." This shouldn't be taken in any way as criticism of all the excellent work done on this article - just a commentary on the style of the opening section which, in my opinion, doesn't really succeed in meeting WP:LEAD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Copied from talk page to keep it all in one place. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'd expect "Will You Love Me Tomorrow" to be in the lead as it was their first number 1 (and the first number one by a [African-American?] girl group), so it is important enough. I like your suggestion to change band to group, so I will implement that. Regarding the influence of the other girl groups, Wadhams et al. write "...competition from hundreds of girl groups following The Shirelles' lead simply overwhelmed them..." (page 62), so I don't think it should be left out willy-nilly. Perhaps the "Last Minute Miracle" bit could be cut? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that their original name, and the reason they left Scepter, are too detailed for the lead - but the lead should state that they had several major US hits (I'd suggest seven top 20, or 25 Hot 100). My objection re the declining popularity is mainly to the words "due to" - that idea of causation isn't really supported by the sources.  If they'd changed their style or had better material they may have stayed popular.  The Supremes, for example, didn't have a decline of popularity "due to" the "British Invasion" (a wholly US-centric term that I often object to, by the way!) - it was changing tastes that were the factor.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How's this? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it into my preferred style, which you can either agree or disagree with! I don't think the bit about avoiding Greenberg is necessary to the lead - it's basically anecdotal trivia - and I think describing Motown as a "powerhouse" is unencyclopedic and WP:PEACOCK.  I'm uncertain about the term "Hot 20" - as a Brit it's not a term I know or use, as we would use "Top 20" or "Hot 100" (for the Billboard chart), but there seem to be a lot of Google hits for it.  My view on the opening paragraphs is simply that the maximum amount of information should be conveyed in the opening two or three sentences, and the later paras of the lead should develop those - hence my suggestion to separate out the essential facts into a short first paragraph.  In my opinion that style accords with WP:MOSBEGIN.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm as much to blame as anyone, but the article should be consistent as to whether "The Shirelles" takes a singular or plural verb. "The Shirelles was a group...." or "The Shirelles were a group...."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a another copy-edit. I prefer my earlier formatting of the lead, but this way is okay too. I have no problem with your rewording of the information in the lead. Regarding the singular/plural divide, it seems to all be plural. I have not seen anything like "The Shirelles has..." or "The Shirelles is..." in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Shirelles were...... It consisted of....." I know that they "were" a group, and the group "was...", but it seems slightly odd to me to move from plural to singular in that way.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. How's my wording now? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking good to me. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward
I feel that the recent copy edits have improved the article to the point where it is now worth nominating for Good article status. Any remaining 'issues' that exercise unearths, can then be addressed. I think this is a logical step forward, and then any further 'tweaks' would leave the path clear towards potential FA. At present, the article does not seem to have any quality rating. This appears to be an easy omission to rectify, whichever way the nomination process deliberates.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe tomorrow; I'd like to have feedback from Sarastro1 first, and it appears that time zones work against us. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I do not mean to suggest it had to be done yesterday. Patience is a virtue, as my granny used to say, dipping into another bowl of sherry trifle.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)