Good articleThe Shirelles has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 28, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
November 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 4, 2019Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 25, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Shirelles, described as having a "naive schoolgirl sound", are credited with starting the girl band genre?
Current status: Good article

Early discussion

[edit]

I changed some references to Doris Kenner Jackson to "Doris Coley"; I think the best idea is to include "now Doris Kenner" where it would fit chronologically, but I wasn't sure when her marriages took place. If anyone knows, please add it. 130.101.20.153 19:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is on her bio page. Speaking of bio pages, these pages should be merged as one page; the bio pages are way too short. The bio pages can be deleted then. What do you all think?-BlueAmethyst .:*:. 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes good sense to me. 72.52.156.92 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft sadly prevails - hence the POV tag. For example -"The Shirelles were the first major female vocal group of the rock and roll era, defining the so-called girl group sound with their soft, sweet harmonies and yearning innocence." - etc. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not etc. Thank you,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has the time to go through this and remove everything copied and pasted from allmusic [1], that would be very helpful. --99.253.224.234 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I was notified on my talk page that this article needs to be cleaned of copyright problems. It contains content duplicated and closely paraphrasing the AllMusic biography. This content was entered into the article here on 24 August 2006. Interested contributors are more than welcome to please help salvage the article by rewriting it in the temporary space linked to from the article's face (there are more instructions in the template). This version seems to be untainted, if it is necessary to restore to it as a base for building. My sympathy to those who work on this subject. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

The Shirelles

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to GA status and would like feedback as to what needs to be improved.

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1 This is a pretty good piece of work. As it stands, it would be a fairly clear GA if I were reviewing and I think it is nicely on its way to FA. I've reviewed with FAC in mind, but I would suggest taking it to GAN before you do this. I've done some light copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything you are not happy with. NB: I have not looked at sourcing at all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Initial career and success
Later career
Style
Stage musical


Reply
  • Generally looks OK. "after several months of avoiding her" sounds a little clumsy and "sounding like something from white-people's music" sounds a little odd. For the latter, I might suggest something like "and string section influenced by music popular among [white audiences may sound better here than "white people"]." And "and insisted they only sang for fun" I assume refers to the group, so it may be better to say "as they only wanted to sing for fun" or "they did not want to sing professionally/seriously". My only other suggestion is to watch out for close repetition of "group" or "girls". Nothing specific, but I think these may be (perhaps unavoidably) over-used. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Certainly a very good shout for GA as it stands. My only remaining quibble (not a GA issue at all) is the first sentence which was changed to "The Shirelles were an African-American girl group that achieved popularity in the early 1960s, consisting of schoolmates Shirley Owens, Doris Coley, Addie "Micki" Harris, and Beverly Lee." Now, the "consisting of" clause could refer to "the early 1960s". It obviously doesn't, but this is the sort of thing that gets picked up at FAC. The only problem with switching it around is that you end up with comma overload because of the list of names. A possible solution would be to return it to two sentences. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ghmyrtle

[edit]

As an outsider with no particular experience of WP:GA criteria, my main comment is that I don't like the style of the opening paragraph. It's too long, and goes into too much obscure detail. It doesn't present a very clear overview of the group's career and influence - it picks out certain points and, in my view, gives them undue prominence. If I were writing it, I'd have a short introductory paragraph something along the lines of:

The Shirelles were an African-American girl group that achieved popularity in the early 1960s. They were the first such group to top the Billboard Hot 100, with the song [not "their" song, in the sense that they didn't write it] "Will You Love Me Tomorrow." The original group [not "band" - they didn't play any instruments] consisted of schoolmates Shirley Owens, Doris Coley, Addie "Micki" Harris, and Beverly Lee.

The second paragraph would then summarise the key points of their career, but not go into unnecessary detail. The sentence, "The Shirelles were unable to maintain their previous popularity due to the numerous successful girl bands following their lead and ongoing British Invasion" seems to me particularly redundant - words like "due to" are often a sign of WP:OR and the wording in the Allmusic bio doesn't use that terminology. For example:

"Formed in 1957 for a high school talent show, they were signed by Florence Greenberg of Tiara Records and their first single was released the following year. After a brief and unsuccessful period with Decca, they went with Greenberg to her newly-formed company Scepter Records where, working with Luther Dixon, the group had their first hit with "Tonight's the Night". In all, the group had seven top twenty hits in the US between 1960 and 1963. Their popularity diminished after the British Invasion, although The Beatles were among those to cover their songs.

This shouldn't be taken in any way as criticism of all the excellent work done on this article - just a commentary on the style of the opening section which, in my opinion, doesn't really succeed in meeting WP:LEAD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... I'd expect "Will You Love Me Tomorrow" to be in the lead as it was their first number 1 (and the first number one by a [African-American?] girl group), so it is important enough. I like your suggestion to change band to group, so I will implement that. Regarding the influence of the other girl groups, Wadhams et al. write "...competition from hundreds of girl groups following The Shirelles' lead simply overwhelmed them..." (page 62), so I don't think it should be left out willy-nilly. Perhaps the "Last Minute Miracle" bit could be cut? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that their original name, and the reason they left Scepter, are too detailed for the lead - but the lead should state that they had several major US hits (I'd suggest seven top 20, or 25 Hot 100). My objection re the declining popularity is mainly to the words "due to" - that idea of causation isn't really supported by the sources. If they'd changed their style or had better material they may have stayed popular. The Supremes, for example, didn't have a decline of popularity "due to" the "British Invasion" (a wholly US-centric term that I often object to, by the way!) - it was changing tastes that were the factor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked it into my preferred style, which you can either agree or disagree with! I don't think the bit about avoiding Greenberg is necessary to the lead - it's basically anecdotal trivia - and I think describing Motown as a "powerhouse" is unencyclopedic and WP:PEACOCK. I'm uncertain about the term "Hot 20" - as a Brit it's not a term I know or use, as we would use "Top 20" or "Hot 100" (for the Billboard chart), but there seem to be a lot of Google hits for it. My view on the opening paragraphs is simply that the maximum amount of information should be conveyed in the opening two or three sentences, and the later paras of the lead should develop those - hence my suggestion to separate out the essential facts into a short first paragraph. In my opinion that style accords with WP:MOSBEGIN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm as much to blame as anyone, but the article should be consistent as to whether "The Shirelles" takes a singular or plural verb. "The Shirelles was a group...." or "The Shirelles were a group...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a another copy-edit. I prefer my earlier formatting of the lead, but this way is okay too. I have no problem with your rewording of the information in the lead. Regarding the singular/plural divide, it seems to all be plural. I have not seen anything like "The Shirelles has..." or "The Shirelles is..." in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Shirelles were...... It consisted of....." I know that they "were" a group, and the group "was...", but it seems slightly odd to me to move from plural to singular in that way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

[edit]

I feel that the recent copy edits have improved the article to the point where it is now worth nominating for Good article status. Any remaining 'issues' that exercise unearths, can then be addressed. I think this is a logical step forward, and then any further 'tweaks' would leave the path clear towards potential FA. At present, the article does not seem to have any quality rating. This appears to be an easy omission to rectify, whichever way the nomination process deliberates.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I do not mean to suggest it had to be done yesterday. Patience is a virtue, as my granny used to say, dipping into another bowl of sherry trifle.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Shirelles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Will review this over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Opening Remarks

[edit]

Looks good at first glance, a bit shorter than I expected but that could be a good thing (and certainly makes reviewing a lot easier). I view this as a collaborative process, so if you disagree with a comment feel free to tell me why. I know virtually nothing about The Shirelles, which I believe is an advantage as a good article should be accessible to everyone. While I will review this against the criteria some of my comments will most likely go beyond into areas I think could improve the article, while others will most likely be questions to satisfy my curiosity. Being unable to clarify or fix these particular concerns will not result in a failed article, but a response here explaining your reasoning would be appreciated. AIRcorn (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
More details of specific issues with the criteria can be found under comments.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Nicely set out and generally well written. A few issues with some of the sentences, but they are all minor. Lead was excellent. Some of the names are inconsistent. I know there names changed but maybe there is a way to keep their maiden names and just put in brackets their married names when needed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Will check these later
    Happy with the sources used and they reflect them well from the few that I spot checked.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Nothing major appeared to be missing. A few points could be expanded on though. The focus was a nice change from some other music reviews I have done recently.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No red flags here
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Talk page and History suggest no instability
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I am still learning a lot about copyright so want to check a few things before I comment too much on this criteria. However the fair use rational for File:The-shirelles.jpg could be a lot better and I can't access the source for File:The Shirelles - Tonight's the Night.png.
    Suspect images hidden until the deletion debate is decided.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]
History
  • I changed it to something similar.
  • Not in the sources why they relented.
  • Double checked the MOS. Removed the period.
  • How's the rewording?
  • I think I've fixed it.
  • I personally think one of the sources is just playing safe, but there seems to be no debate presented in the sources.
  • Nuked
  • Added "the"
  • I hope the fix works better.
  • Added a bit more.
  • Added a bit more.
  • Your wording looks fine.
  • I've hopefully made it clearer.
  • Clarified
Style
  • Disambiguated
  • I think I've fixed it.
Influence
  • I only see one, fixed.
  • Changed to Owens
Musical
  • Fixed
  • Nothing yet that I could find. Owens performed afterwards once or twice, but she's not party to the lawsuit, and I didn't think it was major enough to keep in the article.
  • To put it in plain English (as I interpret the comment), The Shirelle's songs didn't age as well as the ones used in Jersey Boys.
  • I've tried to fix it but I'm a little iffy on it.
Lead
  • Fixed.
  • Opened up more than I meant to with that question. Still if they survive deletion it will go a long way to confirming their validity. Obviously I can't pass an article while images are up for deletion so we can either wait for the discussion to end, remove them or even just hide them until it is sorted out. Up to you. AIRcorn (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy that this now passes the GA criteria. If the images survive deletion then feel free to put them back in. As far as any further improvements go I think it would be nice to sought out the the song went on to become either the first Billboard Number One Hit by an African-American girl group or the first Number One Hit by any girl group sentence. I couldn't access the references so can't help interpret them. This says they had the first number by any girl group, plus has mentions us. Not sure how reliable it is but there must be something out there you can use. PersonallyI think you will get away with saying that just the the first Number One Hit by any girl group as that covers the other claim in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Shirelles - I Met Him on A Sunday 1966.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:The Shirelles - I Met Him on A Sunday 1966.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Shirelles - Last Minute Miracle.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:The Shirelles - Last Minute Miracle.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Shirelles - Will You Love Me Tomorrow.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:The Shirelles - Will You Love Me Tomorrow.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Shirelles - Tonight's the Night.png Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:The Shirelles - Tonight's the Night.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of lede reference to "African American girl group"

[edit]

I have deleted the reference in the first sentence of the lede to "African American"--specifically, in the phrase "The Shirelles were an African American girl group." Their race is extraneous in this context, for the same reason that race would be extraneous if someone described the Chordettes as a "white girl group" or a "European American girl group." Their race is described later in the paragraph in the discussion of "Will You Love Me Tomorrow" being potentially the first chart-topping song by an African American girl group. I left in this reference because there is at least arguably a point to mentioning their race in that context (as it adds some information to the discussion and is not gratuitous). ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment, but their nationality should be mentioned in the opening sentence. Not everyone in the world will know they were American. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Shirelles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Shirelles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addie

[edit]

Why do sources state her real name as "Michelle Harris", and "Addie Harris McFadden"? TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This book states that Micki was living in San Diego and married to Vernon McFadden at the time of her death. She was cremated on June 11, 1982 in Stone Mountain, Georgia and her ashes were picked up the next day. Is it okay if I try to revive her article?TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what i found, and it states she was born in Guilford, NC as Addie Elizabeth Harris. [redacted] This could be changed, but may still be reverted Never mind, High Point is in Guilford. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories