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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 12:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: User:GDuwen

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear and original.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MoS followed throughout
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sections on sources are great
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sourcing is excellent
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fully covers all points
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No longer a problem
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality problems
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images and sound files are valid
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Choice, placement, and captions are fine
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a 100% good article.

This article is close to GA status in a lot of ways, but there are also many improvements that will need to be made before GA status is reached. Let's roll up our sleeves! In all my suggestions below, if you think I'm wrong and my suggestions would not actually improve the article, just let me know. I'm not a "my way or the highway" reviewer. But I do want all suggestions to be considered and responded to in some way. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 6a: Most images are by Carol Highsmith, and are free (although these were tagged incorrectly -- Carol Highsmith is not a U.S. Government employee -- so I fixed this). The main image, however, is presumably non-free. However it does not have any information about its source or copyright holder, and so it does not pass our non-free content criteria. Either full information about the image needs to be provided, or else a different (well-sourced) image needs to be used in its place.

I added information in the description of Williams' portrait.--GDuwenTell me! 22:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The library of congress has this portrait available, but I'm not certain if the use it's free or not. I have been trying to locate free images of Hank Williams while I was working on the article but I was not successful. Alabama Mosaic offers as well some images of Williams, according to their permission to publish the only requirement for non-profit use is to credit them as the source.--GDuwenTell me! 00:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an e-mail to the archives of Alabama to see if they can clarify the copyright status of any of the pictures I posted in the previous link.--GDuwenTell me! 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to use a non-free image here, so long as you can provide some information about the image's source. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which I see you've done. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 6a: Unfortunately, that statue is from 1991 and is copyrighted. Therefore a photo, even a free photo, is a derivative work. I've nominated the image for deletion at Commons.

I didn't know that statues are now copyrighted. I replaced it by a historical marker.

--GDuwenTell me! 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 6b: Should it be "Williams's family house" or "The Williams's family house" or "Williams's family's house" or what? Anyway, the current caption isn't quite right.

Corrected.--GDuwenTell me! 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 6b: Captions for sound files should either be complete sentences (with full-stops) or fragments (without). A single caption should not contain both a sentence and a fragment. Also "The characteristic of the recordings is..." should probably be "One characteristic of this recording is..."

I modified the captions.--GDuwenTell me! 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied up some of these. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 6b: You seem to have 4 photos of the cemetery, gravesite, etc., which seems a little excessive. I think it would be best to use just two, perhaps in a ((Multiple image)) template (or not, your choice).

I used three different pictures of the grave for the artwork on it. The design might interest the reader to zoom the image. I understand that the article is not about Hank Williams' grave, but since I don't think that there is enough information for a separate article, and that it is a touristic attraction around the area three pictures are not quite exceeding (of course that is just an opinion). I replaced the gallery by a multiple image template.--GDuwenTell me! 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2a: There are inconsistencies in the references. Most footnotes use just the author and page number (which is appropriate), but the Hemphill ref is spelled out in the footnote and does not provide page numbers. (Do you still have access to this source?) Same with Escott.

Oh, my bad! The page numbers for Hemphill are now on the article. I messed up Escott, that information was actually from a book by Chet Flippo, so that is now corrected as well.--GDuwenTell me! 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2a: Books that are in the "Cited Texts" section should not also appear in the "Further reading" section.

Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 21:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Escott et al is still a problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--GDuwenTell me! 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2a: The "External links" section is a bit of a mess. The first is a dead link. Most others should be either used as sources or removed.

Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 21:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: Hank Williams is always referred to as "Williams", never "Hank", and that's appropriate. But Audrey Sheppard Williams is sometimes called "Audrey", and Billie Jean Jones Eshlimar is usually called "Billie Jean", which seems less professional. This should be more consistent.

I never realized about that, it is now fixed (I can't count the number of times I had replaced Hank by Williams the last months)--GDuwenTell me! 21:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b: I'm going to do the lede last, since the lede should summarize the body of the article, and I want to make sure the body is generally correct before checking if the lede summarizes it correctly. But right off the bat, the list of artists who covered Williams jumps out as trivial. It's noteworthy, in a brief summary, to say that a wide range of artists have covered his songs. It's not noteworthy to list each one; that belongs in the body.

Agree, that's gone. We'll be back here later.--GDuwenTell me! 21:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to review the lede! I only found two issues.

• 4: I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Williams "started taking alcohol as self-medication for his health problem". His health problem was a factor, but the sentence makes it sound like that was the only reason he drank, which is unlikely. I would personally reword it to "started drinking heavily", but I would accept other wordings.

"started drinking heavily" sounds good to me.--GDuwenTell me! 16:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b: "though he was unable to read or notate music to any significant degree". That's an interesting fact. It needs to be in the body, though, since the lede shouldn't give info that's not in the body. (It will also need to be sourced wherever it appears in the body.)

That's now on the body.--GDuwenTell me! 16:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, and good expansion as well! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: If his name was spelled "Hiriam" on his birth certificate, should his birth name be listed as "Hiram" or "Hiriam"? I can't see page 6 of the source, so I can't see enough context to know the answer to that.

His parents wanted to name him Hiram, but it was misspelled "Hiriam". (the source is now available for you to see).--GDuwenTell me! 21:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Hiram was named after a founder of the Masons. Was his family connected with the Masons in some way?

According to the source his father was a mason and her mother was a member of the Order of the Eastern Star. I will add that to the article.--GDuwenTell me! 21:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 3b: The article is about Hank Williams, not his parents. There is way too much detail about them, in ways that don't seem to relate to Hank directly. It's important to say who they were and say a little bit about them, for background. But Lon's ancestry, the name of the reverend who married them, Lon's various jobs, the fact that they cultivated strawberries rather than rhubarbs... this should all be cut out and briefly summarized here.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: It goes from 1934 to 1937 to 1935. Are some dates wrong, or does the narrative jump around a bit?

My bad. Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b: You claim that the pain from spinal bifida was a factor in his later alcohol and drug abuse. Such a claim should have a cite.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: I don't understand what this means: "With the help of U.S. Representative J. Lister Hill the family began collecting Elonzo's military disability pension." How did Hill help? Did he know this family personally? Or was it a bill he sponsored that made the difference? Why would a family need a U.S. Rep's help to collect a pension.

I was not able to find a specific reason, I only found in the sources that they were helped by Hill. Maybe this can help:

From "Sing a sad song: the life of Hank Williams" (Roger M. Williams; p.27): (Stated by Hank Williams) "He (Lister Hill) came through town one day, and I met him in a jewelry store while he was campaigning. 'My ma wants to see you very badly,' I told him. He went home with me and sat on our front porch talking to my mother. Then he got her a pension."

From "Lovesick Blues: The Life of Hank Williams" (Paul Hemphill; p.17): "And in due time, through the help of Lister Hill, a man embarking on a long career as an Alabama politician, she began collecting the departed Lon's full military disability pension."

Could we extract something from this?--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think using the Roger Williams information could make that more clear. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completed that a bit more.--GDuwenTell me! 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: Comic? What's a "comic", in the context of a country band?

Oops. Comedian.--GDuwenTell me! 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's still odd... but I guess Country music was more of a novelty thing back then. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: "Lillie Williams stepped up and became" does not sound encyclopedic to me.

Ok, now it is "became the Driftin' Cowboys manager"--GDuwenTell me! 21:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: The end of the section suddenly mentions Williams's "worsening" alcoholism, saying he "continued" to show up at work drunk. But there had been no previous mention of his alcoholism, or that he had previously showed up to work drunk. Perhaps it would work to have a sentence after "...hard times for Williams." saying something like "He began drinking more than before, even before [during?] his performances." (That assuming the sources back that statement up.)

I added a line about the tours in 1939 for that phrase to make sense.--GDuwenTell me! 23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: "Williams returned to Montgomery every weekday"... What does this mean? Did he go back each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday (meaning he must of left at least every Sunday, Mon, Tues, Wed, and Thurs, or he couldn't well "return")? Or does it mean he returned every Monday only? Or what?

The phrase means that he eventually returned to Montgomery, we could remove it if it causes confusion.--GDuwenTell me! 23:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would "every week" be accurate? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Meanwhile, between tour schedules, Williams returned to Montgomery to host his radio show." sound better?--GDuwenTell me! 20:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: "During his time in Alabama"... but wasn't he living in Alabama his whole life so far? Do you mean "During his time in Mobile"?

I replaced it for "During one of his concerts Williams met backstage his idol"--GDuwenTell me! 23:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: I don't think Georgia or Florida panhandle need links.

removed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b: The last paragraph, down to Acuff, is sourced to a single page from Cusic. That page covers much of the material in the paragraph, but not all. (Band members drafted, replacements refusing to play). These need cites.

That's cited now.--GDuwenTell me! 15:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b: All of paragraphs 1 and 3 are referenced to Hemphill (without page numbers), which is not available online. These paragraphs have a lot of information. Can you confirm that every statement is covered in the book? Can you provide page numbers for this and other references to Hemphill.

All the page numbers are now provided.--GDuwenTell me! 21:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC) I can provide excerpts from the book for confirmation, when needed. I only don't know if I'm able to post it right on this page due that it is a copyrighted text. Other than that, I can provide them when needed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You state that it's in there. That's good enough for me. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b: The previous section also included 1940-1942. Perhaps the last paragraph of the previous section should be moved here? Or the organization should be changed, grouped into phases of his career (rather than decades)?

By now I'll leave the decades but I'll think about it as we make further corrections.--GDuwenTell me! 23:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: The grammar in that first sentence seems off, with two separate sentences pushed together (one in parentheses).

Is it better now?--GDuwenTell me! 23:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: "as his career was rising"... but it had just said his career was in "hard times". Last I'd read, his bandmates had left, he'd been fired, and he was working for a shipbuilding company. If his career was rising, introduce that at the beginning of the paragraph, and say something about why.

I have added more information to try to fill that gap in the timeline. Is it better now?--GDuwenTell me! 19:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very clear, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b and 4: "The recordings of "Never Again" and "Honky Tonkin'" were important successes." Why? There's no source for this statement. To single these two out as "important", you'll need a source that says so, and something about why they were important (or who thought so).

That's now sourced and their importance explained.--GDuwenTell me! 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: In 1945 he was in Montgomery. Then in 1947, you mention he joined a radio show broadcasting from Shreveport, LA. Was he living in Louisiana then? If not, how did he do that? And if so, when did he move, and why?

Is is not complete?--GDuwenTell me! 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You improvements helped answer my question, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b and 4: "Luke the Drifter was popular among black audiences primarily because of the song "The Funeral," in which..." The source does not say Luke the Drifter was popular among black audiences, and in fact the context (p 214) indicates the song was aimed at white audiences. Similarly, the sentence "The popularity of the song among black audiences was a response to the stereotypes of the characters depicted, inspired by Williams's teacher, Rufus Payne." doesn't make sense. If the characters were mere black stereotypes, why would black audiences like this? The source for this sentence specifically says it is unlikely that the song was popular among black audiences.

I misinterpreted the source. It seems that talk about the song without that background would be trivial, so I removed it.--GDuwenTell me! 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: "The songs of Luke the Drifter often depicted regional life and the philosophy of life." What philosophy of life? There are many.

In that case, let's stick to "Regional life", which makes it more general.--GDuwenTell me! 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: "The drifter moved around this region, narrating the stories of the characters." What region? Do you mean that Hank Williams moved around some region as "Luke the Drifter", narrating stories? Or that the fictional character Luke is described in the songs as moving around some region?

The fictional character moved around the region in the recordings. That's now clarified.--GDuwenTell me! 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: What's a tube organ? There is no tube organ article.

My bad, "Pipe organ".--GDuwenTell me! 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b and 4: "Allegedly, Williams created the alter ego also as a balance to his personality." Allegedly is a weasel word, and the source does not really allege this. She describes him using the name to separate the image of a preacher from the image of a bad-boy.

removed.--GDuwenTell me! 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: The first sentence of "Later career" needs rewording. (Too many commas.)

Is it OK now?--GDuwenTell me! 21:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's great now. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: I think his divorce and remarriage should be mentioned here, though without detail (since that is in the personal life section).

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There were two sentences in the Luke the Drifter section that I thought were still a little unwieldy, so I reworded. In order to prevent a one-sentence paragraph, I joined two paragraphs together. Then I noticed that the last paragraph of the Luke The Drifter section really didn't relate to Luke at all, but were about his other recordings at the same time. Because the Luke the Drifter section would have been extremely short after these changes, I went ahead and combined this with the Later Career subsection into a single, undivided 1950s section. (See this edit.) Since the combined section is still smaller than the 1940s section, I think it's a fine merge. If you object, though, feel free to separate these out somehow -- I don't want to step on any toes. But if they are reseparated, each subsection will need to be long enough on its own to count. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now.--GDuwenTell me! 15:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 3b: The "Death" section is longer than the three sections encompassing is entire career from 1943 on. It's full of trivia that isn't really relevant to understanding the subject, so I think some of the material can be removed. Examples include that Carr ordered two steaks, the name of the filling station owner, the fact that the autopsy doctor was an "immigrant who barely spoke English", the unrelated groin injury, the address of the boarding house, the fainting women at the funeral, the times for everything, etc.
  • It occurs to me that the death of Hank Williams is important enough to merit its own article. If you wanted to, one possibility would be to move the details to an article there, and have a smaller summary here. Then you could use the extra photos of the grave site there. So long as that new article had an introduction on who Hank Williams was and why he was important, and so long as it was properly sourced, you could even nominate it for DYK without too much extra effort. (I don't know if DYK is your thing or not.) Anyway, you don't have to do any of this, but it's just an idea. Regardless, the "death" section here will need a trimming. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, I wouldn't like to trim the information, or to remove pictures, so an article and a summarized version here would be fair.--GDuwenTell me! 21:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really well done. The summary here is excellent, and the Death of Hank Williams article is also very promising. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 3a: Many sources state that Dr. Marshall was a forger and not a real doctor, and that he disappeared after Williams's death. (e.g.) If you can source this, I think it's relevant and worth including.

Totally agree, that's now included and expanded as well.--GDuwenTell me! 21:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: What does "followed them" mean? Sang along? Or went somewhere with them?

sang along, it is now corrected.--GDuwenTell me! 22:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 4: "one of the more plausible theories" We really can't say that. We know he was alive in Knoxville, there is a (reliable?) witness of his speaking in Bristol, and he was clearly dead in Oak Hill. We'll probably never know any better than that. Personally, I think that the first three sentences of the paragraph that begins "The circumstances of Williams's death..." should be removed entirely as unimportant speculation, as the previous paragraph gives enough detail. The remaining two sentences of that paragraph should be incorporated into parts where the info is relevant.

I created an article about the Death of Hank Williams, so all of that not-so-relevant information to a main biographical article is now there. I tried to summarize the death, is it good enough?--GDuwenTell me! 22:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b: Overlinking: Alabama, Montgomery, "Your Cheatin Heart" (the second instance)

Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 22:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b: Overlinking: morphine (duplicate), painkiller, Nashville, Louisiana

Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 22:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b: There is still no reliable source for the claim that his spina bifida was a factor in his drug abuse.

Now it's sourced.--GDuwenTell me! 23:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 4: "It has been written that..." Yeah, everything in the article has been written. If it's just someone's speculation then it doesn't belong in the article. If there's evidence, word it better.

Removed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b: The source given does not support the assertion that "his new wife and friends tried to get him in rehabilitation".

Removed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 3b: There is way too much detail on "The Ballad of Hank Williams." It should have one or two sentences, like the rest of the songs have.

• 1b: And in my opinion, the entire fourth paragraph (except for the last sentence) belongs in the List of tributes to Hank Williams article, rather than here.

Entire paragraph moved.--GDuwenTell me! 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: "...that she indeed founded on a dumpster." Do you mean "found it in a dumpster"?

corrected--GDuwenTell me! 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Should "Awards" be a subsection of "Legacy"?

moved.--GDuwenTell me! 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: "...ruled Billie Jean's marriage was valid..." Since the previous sentence was about her marriage to Horton, this is confusing. I'm not sure the fact about Horton is needed in this biography anyway, since it has nothing to do with Hank Williams. Consider merging the first paragraph with the second and third paragraphs, which would each only be a single sentence.

Does it look better now?--GDuwenTell me! 23:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b: overlinking again: Nashville, Atlanta, Georgia. Please check throughout the article for this.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 23:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a: The last paragraph is confusing and kind of backwards, and could use a rewrite. (You end with the final decision, and then try to explain what each party had previously claimed.) I would start it with the fact that recordings existed, and that different parties wanted the rights to release them. Maybe simplify some of the labels' claims. And then say what the court decided, and what was released.

The last paragraph belongs to a dispute between the estate of Hank Williams and Poygram Records, but I added another sub-title to make a difference.--GDuwenTell me! 23:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b: I don't think the CMT ranking belongs in "Awards", unless all the other listings mentioned in the "Legacy" section are put there as well.

Removed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b: The music videos were all made at least 35 years after he died. They're not really his music videos in any real sense; they were made about him. I'd say those so in the tribute article, and not here.

Moved.--GDuwenTell me! 23:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]