Jump to content

Talk:Earl Hines/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Tolesi (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 9 April 2016 (GA Review: Opinion added!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 02:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman 02:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few major concerns with this article. The lead needs to be expanded, and some of the references use way too large a quote. Any quotes-in-refs over a sentence or two should be removed. While the prose is good in some parts, in others it gets oddly tangential, such as in "Charlie Parker, famously unreliable,[85] found learning that self-discipline and organization difficult. Fellow-saxophone player Scoops Carry reminded Parker, "Bird, it's still the best band in show business and the most modern". To which Parker supposedly replied, "It's a jail".[86]" - I don't see what that has to do with Hines.

Worst of all is that the article is way, way too quote-heavy. Even though everything's attributed, when you have a third of the article at least as quotations, then that becomes a concern in and itself. The article should be in one's own words rather than in everyone else's. For example, in style, we have four quotes, one particularly large. For someone's playing style there's no need for any quotations.

Lead and reference issues I could work around, as I could with prose, but the quotation issue essentially means that the article has to be redone from top to bottom to become GA quality. I have no doubt that 90% of the quotes in the article can be replaced with someone's own words noting part of the guy's career and nothing would be lost in doing so. Wizardman 03:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

==

This seems a VERY weird view to me! I'd say it was a quite unusually good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.45.163 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird? I'd say totally DAFT! Surely it's already a pretty good and certainly VERY well researched & attributed article?"Tolesi (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]