Talk:Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 10:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy to review this article, I'll get onto it asap.
- Many thanks, very happy to wait till the time is best for you. ~ BOD ~ TALK 10:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Review
[edit]Links
|
|---|
More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
That's the links done. I'll cross out text if a comment has been addressed, and add a cross (
|
Excessive detail
[edit]Reading through the text, it lacks the conciseness required for an encyclopaedia article, a key criteria for GA status. Most sections contain too many trivia-like details which should be omitted to make the article more concise. I've made particular points about the lead section, and more general ones after that.
Lead section
|
|---|
|
1.1 Formation / 1.2 International tours.../1.3 Online performances...
|
|---|
|
2.3 Substitutes / 2.4 Independence / 3 Repertoire and artistic style
[edit]2.3 is unneeded- Removed
The quotes here and elsewhere could be paraphrased, e.g. Hinchcliffe explained to the Yorkshire Post the idea of the UOGB was to have bit of fun "where we’re not having the agents and the managers and the record companies dictating terms." could be paraphrased to 'The orchestra’s original intention was to perform without “agents and the managers and the record companies dictating terms."'- I prefer Hinchcliffe's voice here, it has been more than original intention, as the UOGB have apart from a couple of records always been independent
- Understood, but please be aware of MOS:QUOTE, which says "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement." Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- As far as i got. It maybe Thursday when i can do more
- The detailed lists of songs and genres should be omitted. The long quotes could be paraphrased to describe the orchestra’s style, without citing so may examples.
Not yet done. AM
- Reduced detail and paraphrased most of the quotes, however it is the mix of genres and songs that is one the most unique identifying and most notable artistic features of UOGB and I feel the variety of which ought to be suitably illustrated with adequate available verified examples. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
4 Critical reception and legacy
[edit]- The text includes little legacy information, and the title could be shorted to Reception to reflect this.
Again, I don’t see any problem with paraphrasing the quotes and praise in this section.
- I have made an attempt to trim and paraphrase a good number of the quotes in this section, maybe I need to do more, will revisit.
I do think the orchestra has had a big part in the rise of both the popularity of the instrument, their style of playing the instrument and rise in Ukulele orchestras all point to a Legacy ...few artists can claim that, but maybe (I am speaking here with ignorance) that is a wrong type of legacy?
- @Bodney: It might work if the legacy aspects here were moved into a new section, everything from The Independent pointed out onwards would fit into this. Thoughts? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I happy with that, should it be called something else? ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Bodney: OK, how about simply 'Reception' and 'Legacy'? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks nice and simple, I am leaving the Repertoire and artistic style section to later in the week when i might feel brighter:) ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Bodney: OK, how about simply 'Reception' and 'Legacy'? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I happy with that, should it be called something else? ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
6 Legal dispute
|
|---|
|
7 Discography
|
|---|
|
8 Notes
|
|---|
|
@Bodney: All these comments need to be addressed before others (e.g. about overciting, verifying the text, etc.) are made. Please let me know if if feel the job is too big to continue with, and we can stop there, but I definitely think it's worth getting to GA if possible. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Amitchell125: Thank you for your advice so far, I will happy to implement most of your recommendations to definitely improve the article. I do however disagree with many of others. I will make a first round of changes over the next few days (I need to stop now) and see how it goes, but to be honest maybe the change is too great. Even if the article fails to reach GA status, I will definitely implement the majority of the recommendations you have made. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, I'll wait for you to let me know when you are done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Amitchell125: FYI Little update, I have been struggling with a non Wikipedia project which is time sensitive. I am beginning to make progress but it is taking more time than i realised, plus i have had extra ideas. (Its an art project that will exhibited in a posh city gallery, which is a feat way way above my artistic ability). I hope to get back to implementing your recommendations before the end of the weekend. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Bodney: That's OK, I'm really busy too so let me know when you're ready for me to take another look and I will. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be keeping up admirably, so I'll push on. I'm crossing out comments that are sorted, and will be adding a red cross () if work still needs to be done on a comment. Thanks for everything you've done so far. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yep I have been happily doing a variety of fairly random edits as I spot things, apologies for it being a bit unmethodical. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be keeping up admirably, so I'll push on. I'm crossing out comments that are sorted, and will be adding a red cross (
- @Bodney: That's OK, I'm really busy too so let me know when you're ready for me to take another look and I will. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Lead section (Spelling and grammar, redundant words, and copy editing issues follow from here onwards)
[edit]- but have spent - 'but has spent'; Also, but has spent should be the beginning of a new sentence (the current one links two unconnected ideas)
- exclusively is redundant
- Consider amending From the beginning the UOGB has received to something like 'The UOGB has consistently received'
- comma after various sizes; also after a complete genre twist, also after music stands
- Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain (the orchestra) – you’ve introduced the abbreviation, and it (or 'the orchestra') should be used here
- All the singers’ names need to be given in full the first time they are mentioned in the lead. They are referred to by surname only after this.
- I would omit Lead vocals varies with every song, with each member taking up the role, when their vocals are suited as being excessively detailed for a lead section.
- Amend In 2015 Kitty Lux's retired from touring with orchestra due to chronic ill health (she died in 2017). to something like ‘Lux died in 2017, two years after retiring from the orchestra because of ill health.'
- the UOGB has released – 'it has released' improves the prose imo
1.1 Formation
[edit]- The orchestra was formed - 'The Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain (UOGB) was formed' (as it's the beginning of the main text of the article)
- musical harmony – musical is redundant (and harmony can be linked)
- his friend Kitty Lux a ukulele for her birthday, after the post-punk singer - 'his friend the post-punk singer Kitty Lux a ukulele for her birthday, after'
- an "outsider instrument" with a "blank slate" that – should be paraphrased imo (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations)
- discount." - 'discount".'
- including is redundant
- The pair formed new project – 'They formed a new project'?
- "idea was for the orchestra to actually be the antidote to pomposity, egomania, cults of personality, rip-offs, music-business-standard-operational nonsense and prima donnas," the - idea “was for the orchestra to actually be the antidote to pomposity, egomania, cults of personality, rip-offs, music-business-standard-operational nonsense and prima donnas". The'
- George Hinchliffe (a multi instrumentalist and musicologist) – 'the multi-instrumentalist and musicologist George Hinchliffe'
- live on both – both is redundant
- and the ukulele – 'The ukulele'
- when "messing around" they played in two keys at the same time – why was this humorous?
- No comma in Houston Chronicle, that
- The 2nd paragraph has a lot of different bits of information, it might help if Their first gig was the start of a new paragraph.
- , it was a sell out sounds odd placed here
- Within three years – from what point, their first performance?
- After just one more performance the Orchestra was on national radio. - I’m unclear as to the connection here, were they invited to be on the radio after two performances?
1.2 International tours and success
[edit]- 'orchestra', not Orchestra
- classic – says who?
- The sentence beginning In 2005 doesn’t seem to belong to this subsection. Also, it is excessively long and needs to be split
- The image is not thumb-sized (see MOS:IMGSYN) for why I made this comment)
- collaborations have included – 'it has collaborated with'
- Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain – why use the full name here and throughout the rest of the article when UOGB or orchestra has already been introduced?
- Hester Goodman, Will Grove-White, Jonty Bankes, Peter Brooke Turner all joined the orchestra during the early 1990s. belongs to the previous section. Ditto Leisa Rea joined in 2003; Ben Rouse joined the UOGB in 2014.
- in Hyde Park – which one? (not all readers live in the UK)
- and in 2013 they should form the start of a new sentence.
- Looking again at the sentence beginning They have performed at diverse venues, the text here it seems excessively over-detailed for an encyclopaedia article. Artists and groups perform all over the place, the venues don’t need to be listed.
- Avoid in history (MOS:RELTIME)
- The performance was broadcast live on BBC Radio 3 and received critical acclaim. - this is excessive detail that can be deleted
- originals – 'original’s' (or better still, 'the epic composition of the original work')
- For most of its existence the orchestra has been on actively touring the world from – 'The orchestra has toured'?
- In 2015 Kitty Lux retired from touring with the orchestra due to chronic ill health and died in 2017.is duplicated information and should be deleted
- both in the UK and internationally - 'around the world'? (for most Wikipedia readers, the UK is a foreign country)
- the orchestra’s international fame – this is the first time you have mentioned that they are famous – but who says they are?
2 Line-up and Organisation
[edit]- Amend title to 'Line-up' (see comment below)
- All the text in the paragraph that begins this section is redundant imo, apart from the idea that the players use a range of ukuleles (something that should be mentioned nearer the beginning of the article). Similarly, the image and caption is not necessary in this article.
- inclduding – 'including'
2.1 Current members
[edit]- Retitle to 'Members (as of 2022)'
2.2 Past members
[edit]- Lux, band member and co-founder with George Hinchliffe, died on 16 July 2017, aged 59, after suffering from various chronic health issues. is already stated in the text
- Move link for polka dot to where it first appears
- Lux recovered from a kidney transplant only days before the Proms concert. She retired from public performances after suffering a stroke in 2015.- excessive detail.
Remaining sections, other issues
[edit]- Sections not checked for spelling and grammar, redundant words, and copy editing issues - 2.3 Substitutes; 2.4 Independence; 3 Repertoire and artistic style; 4 Critical reception and legacy; 5 Original works; 6 Legal dispute
- Multiple citations in most sections (see WP:TOOMANYREFS for help here)
- Formatting in the reference section (minor points), and checking the information in verified by the citations.
Stopping now, the task now well beyond GAN
[edit]I'm failing the article now, even though I'm in the middle of listing issues that need to be addressed. As you can see, the article needs an great deal of work for it to meet the criteria of being well-written, and it will take too much time for me to finish all the comments.
I would suggest if you want to re-nominate the article you first request that it is copy edited by someone from the Guild of Copy Editors. ]]. You would need to address the issues I have already listed. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Amitchell125 Many thanks for your help. I will implement your recommendations, one or two I had done before reading your long list of helpful advice (I am aware of my English shortcomings etc, so I am appreciative). In a way I mostly wanted the article to get beyond its start class rating and your advice will certainly help. What matters most is the article is improved ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)