GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 10:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Over a month old and another review for the GAN backlog drive! --K. Peake 10:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice working with you again!--GDuwenHoller! 19:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same to you for sure! --K. Peake 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

  • The entire title is not detailed by the article source, but it appears on the B-side of the 7" single. Since the infobox is considered a citation in of itself, I wrote the entire title.
  • I've used the Cashbox review as a citation to clarify that the recording actually came out in May. The Cashbox review is from May 6, and there is also this Billboard piece from the exact same day that it details his touring to promote the single
Rest of the points also done.--GDuwenHoller! 20:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the B-side part and you are correct in stating the infobox itself can work as a source, also good job on the Cashbox ref; the Billboard piece can be added there as an additional citation. --K. Peake 09:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and original recording

I didn't include the year of the film because of its use at the beginning of the sentence, as it came out that same year (and it would read a little awkward, at least to me).
[4] is used to mention the part that they divorced, as well as the divorce being one of the reasons he wrote the song. In [3], his former wife mentions that she was suspicious that their relationship was part of the inspiration. So I would say one source completes the other to give us a more consistent picture.
The source refers to it just as "Washing Machine", but it appears on the record label with the full name. I could add it, but if so I would have to add another citation to the single itself or something along those lines.--GDuwenHoller! 19:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Campbell's recording and success

Well, I think the info about Presley's version is now enough to keep it. There's the Felton Jarvis connection (most likely why it was recorded, together with the success of Aretha Franklin's), and the fact that he lost his voice after that recording. Makes sense when you hear his version (and the fact that bibliography happens to comment on the fact that his voice sounded a little rougher, and that it contributed to give the song a bit of a special atmosphere). I don't think the latter part is too relevant for this article, as we can leave it to the reader and just stick to the facts.--GDuwenHoller! 21:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

 Done--GDuwenHoller! 21:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

 Done--GDuwenHoller! 21:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

John Hatford

 Done--GDuwenHoller! 21:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Campbell

I would in this case keep the distinction between the two years since one relates to the original release, while the second one of 68' was a re-release that was a consequence to the success of "By the Time I Get to Phoenix".--GDuwenHoller! 21:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other artists

Seems like I can't account for the chart. The source is gone, and I don't find it at the time on Billboard magazine archival issues. I'll remove it for the time being to restore it in case I can locate a proper source.--GDuwenHoller! 19:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Done--GDuwenHoller! 21:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links

 Done--GDuwenHoller! 21:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments and verdict

@Kyle Peake: Alright, it took a while longer for me to assess the points this time too. But that should do it.--GDuwenHoller! 21:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GDuwen Very good job but I have two concerns remaining: why is there no organization in brackets for the Australian chart and shouldn't you split the chart years for Campbell's version into two tables? --K. Peake 08:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: There you go. I didn't see any need to separate the Campbell charts in two tables, but anyhow, it doesn't do any harm either.--GDuwenHoller! 19:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GDuwen  Pass now, I made the charts suggestion because it is awkward having a chart twice in a table and users should be able to sort through the positions separately for the years, also I did fix the alignment since the chart names were centered too. --K. Peake 21:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: Thanks once again for a quick and objective review, much appreciated.--GDuwenHoller! 21:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]