Talk:Songbird Sings Legrand/GA1

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 08:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Copyvio check - only one non-zero result found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and those matches are song titles, an attributed quote etc. I had no concerns about close paraphrasing after reading several of the sources.

Image - a fair use rationale is provided, but I note under "Licensing" that "It is believed that the use of scaled-down, low-resolution images of posters to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration ... qualifies as fair use". I'm not sure that this criterion is met, so would like to know the argument for retaining the image.

Thank you for taking up this review BennyOnTheLoose. My understanding of the note under licensing that you've highlighted is that, in addition to purposes of identification or illustration, the image is believed to be used for purposes of commentary on the film or event. I think whether a commentary is provided or not in prose, the use of the non-free image primarily as an identification or illustration of said event meets the criteria IMO, which is supported by the non-free rationale. This seems to be the case with FAs or GAs relating to events (i.e. Zoo TV Tour or Bruno Mars at The Chelsea, Las Vegas), as well as films such as Saving Private Ryan, where the poster(s) are used primarily for identification of said work. Alternatively, this license also exists Template:Non-free promotional, but doesn't seem to be widely used. Let me know your thoughts. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's really helpful to have examples of precedent. Seems fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Genrally, all seem reputable, and suitable for this kind of article. However, I'm a bit concerned about whether the use of the Songbird Sings Legrand (Television special) itself is suitable according to WP:V. Happy to be pointed to policy or precedent for this, and I'll look around too. Even if the material supported by that source awasremoved, althought it would be unfortunate, it would not be fatal to the article's chances of attaining GA status.

Thanks for raising this one. The source being the referenced media itself per Cite AV media notes, is generally used for credits/personnel, concert booklets/programs/setlist, or in plot and setting sections of films/tv series. Similar examples for events include [1] [2] [3]. I believe this is also similar to film articles using MOS:PLOT or WP:PLOTCITE where it does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary

Salterio, Leah (February 14, 2003). "Regine sings paeans to Michel Legrand" is missing the source name.

Source name added

Page numbers are missing from newspaper citations. Not too big a deal, as they are all linked, but perhaps worth adding.

Page numbers added to newspaper sources via Google Books

Background and development

Spot check on In February 2002, Michel Legrand staged his first show in Manila at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) Plenary Hall with singer Kuh Ledesma - I'm not seeing where it confirms it was Legrand's first show in Manila. The Bunoan source does, however, confirm that.

Thanks for pointing that out, I have added the Bunoan source in the sentence.

Spot check on "After she sang the first note, I told myself, that's for me! Let's get married. Musically of course!" - punctuation is different from the source, otherwise fine.

Corrected. (I think). I'm not the best at MOS:QWQ, but I think it should now conform to it.

in Pasay - consider moving this to the first mention of the venue.

Done

with Dove as its sponsor. - source mentions others, but I guess they may be subsidiary. Maybe "as a sponsor" instead? Any reason not to include "Facial Foam"?

Correct, Dove is the major sponsor. I usually tend to use the brand name (as opposed to the specific product). I did update to hygiene brand Dove as its major sponsor. Let me know if that works.

Bunoan manetions that Ledesma and first Velasquez shows both took place on Valentine's Day. No need to mention this, but if that was a deliberate choice from the organisers then perhaps it could be added in.

I have indicated Valentine's Day and linked on the lead sentence, as Velasquez's dates include Valentine's Day plus 2 extra dates, which are in date ranges.

Synopsis and reception

Spot check on [T]here were no sexy dancers or fancy lighting to jazz up the musical numbers - no issues.
Spot check on the first act featured Legrand and the San Miguel Philharmonic Orchestra playing overtures of the composer's notable works - I haven't seen the show, but I am not sure the source justifies the use of "notable"; later in the article there is a mention of the exclusion of Legrand's widely popular works; whilst popular and notable aren't exactly the same thing, I believe they are related.

Agreed. I have removed notable to avoid ambiguity.

In UK English, I think I'm right in saying, "enormity" has a rather negative connotation, rather than just meaning "huge", but perhaps this isn't the case in Philippine English.

Tweaked it as suggested.

I don't think it was only overtures, which I took the current wording to indicate.

Removed mention of only

"What Are You Doing the Rest of Your Life?" has a duplicated link

Removed duplicate link

Set list and Personnel

See comment above about the programme of the show itself as a source.

Same as rationale provided above

Spot check on aired as a two-part television special on May 11 and 18, 2003 - no issues.

Infobox and lead

See comments above about whether the first section was only overtures; and "enormity"

Same as above, removed only and use of enormity

thanks for your work on the article, Pseud 14. I'm a bit concerned about the programme as a source, but that's not insurmountable, and all the other points are pretty minor. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review BennyOnTheLoose. I have actioned all your comments and provided my responses, including the concern you have regarding programme. Let me know if they have been addressed to your satisfaction or if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: All looks good, thanks for your positive replies. I made a minor copyedit (relating to the "enormity" point) but do feel completely free to revert or rework that. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.