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

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]

• Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Remarks

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

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

History

• The Shirelles were formed in 1957 by four teenage friends from Passaic, New Jersey,[1] under the name The Poquellos[2] (or The Pequellos[3]) They were not called the Shirelles at this stage so this opening is a little confusing. Maybe just open with "The Shirelles original lineup formed in 1957..."

• I changed it to something similar.

• After several months of avoiding Greenberg and telling her that they were not interested in singing professionally, they were booked to Tiara. This is a but abrupt. Why did they change their mind?

• Not in the sources why they relented.

• Greenberg stayed as the manager, securing performances for the group, including one at the Howard Theatre in Washington D.C.. Double period.

• Double checked the MOS. Removed the period.

• After two singles did poorly, including their first release of "Dedicated to the One I Love", a cover of The "5" Royales song of the same name with Coley as lead vocalist,[8] Decca returned them to Greenberg and gave up on them, considering them a one-hit act. This sentence is a little confusing. It reads like Coley was lead vocalist for The "5" Royales. The "and gave up on them" seems superfluous and too informal, returning them is saying the same thing (although if Greenberg went with them returning isn't the right word).

• How's the rewording?

• Greenberg formed a new label, Scepter Records, and brought them with her. This can surely be tied in with the other sentence better. It is in essence repeating some of the same information (given to Greenberg/Greenberg brought them with her).

• I think I've fixed it.

• the song went on to become either the first Billboard Number One Hit by an African-American girl group[12] or the first Number One Hit by any girl group. This is a bit vague. Was it both or does no one really know which one it was.

• I personally think one of the sources is just playing safe, but there seems to be no debate presented in the sources.

• they were also promoted by Dick Clark. This seems tacked on. There is a photo of him so it would suggest to me that he had more of a role than seven words. Otherwise the photo is really just decoration.

• Nuked

• In 1963 Dixon left Scepter, which preceded a large decrease in number of The Shirelles' songs to chart Grammar

• Added "the"

• In concert, Dionne Warwick replaced Owens and Coley, who took leave to be married, and the group continued to record material. What does in concert mean? Did Warwick replace both Owens and Coley? Did they marry each other or both get married separately?

• I hope the fix works better.

• However, later in 1963 they learned that the trust that they were supposed to receive on their 21st birthday did not exist Feel this needs more information. Where was the trust coming from?

• Added a bit more.

• In response, they left Scepter,[8] and later filed a breach of contract suit against the company which was met by a countersuit by Scepter; both suits were withdrawn in 1965 Maybe more information, why was a countersuit filed? Why was it dropped?

• Added a bit more.

• Split this sentence and tweaked slightly (used quiting). Feel free to revert or change. Didn't like the withdrawn - withdrawing combo. AIRcorn (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your wording looks fine.

• The knowledge of Scepter's dealings disappointed The Shirelles, who felt deceived. What dealings are we talking about? I am assuming that they were suppoesed to set up a trust fund for them, they didn't so The Shirelle's sued and they were disappointed by the whole thing. If that is correct it could be written a bit clearer. If that is wrong then it needs to be written a lot clearer.

• I've hopefully made it clearer.

• Coley returned as lead singer in 1975,[8] replacing Owens, who left that year Why did Owens leave?
• Afterwards the original members toured as different groups,[5] although the trademark was eventually acquired by Lee. The Shirelles trademark I assume? Not sure what as different groups means. Did they stay together and just change their name or did the each join different groups or something else?

• Clarified

Style

• Wadhams, Nathan, and Lindsay describe The Shirelles style in their early work as "tight, almost doo-wop harmony". Slightly ambiguous. This could be read as either W, N and L's earlier work or The Shirelles.

• Disambiguated

• Owens' vocals, described by Alwyn W. Turner as being "wonderfully expressive", were capable of sounding "almost, but not quite" out of tune, which led to Owens' sounding innocent in her songs,[21] as well as being able to intone desire and vulnerability. Whos is AWT, why does his opinion matter? If he is saying all this it needs to be tweaked to make that obvious. The last part is almost said in Wikipedias voice.

• I think I've fixed it.

Influence

• A few more people commenting whose importance is not specified.

• I only see one, fixed.

• Michael Campbell was the other. He appears first in style so giving him a title their will cover it. AIRcorn (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lee and Reeves accepted the award. I had to search back through to find out who Reaves was. Maybe you could use Owen and put (now Reeves) afterwards.

• Changed to Owens

Musical

• The show opened on Broadway at the Broadhurst Theatre, directed by Sheldon Epps and starring Beth Leavel as Florence. This is slightly ungrammatical.

• Fixed

• The use of their likenesses without permission led to Lee, as well as the estates of Coley and Harris, to sue Warner Bros. Are their any further updates over this.

• 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.

• it had "a tunestack only one quarter as imperishable" as Jersey Boys. Just a question, but what does this even mean?

• 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.

• Leavel was nominated for a both a Tony[35] and Drama Desk Award for best leading actress. This might need a better link as it goes from negative reviews to Tony awards.

• I've tried to fix it but I'm a little iffy on it.

• Reads fine to me. AIRcorn (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• They were the first African-American girl group to top the Billboard Hot 100, with the song "Will You Love Me Tomorrow". This was ambiguous in the body.

• Fixed.

• The Shirelles had a "naive schoolgirl sound" that contrasted with the sexual themes of many of their songs and several of their hits used strings and baião-style music. This probably needs to be taken out of Wikipedias voice. Simply saying "The Shirelles music has been described as having a "naive schoolgirl sound" ..." or something similar would be enough. Would also consider splitting out the last part of this sentence.

• Thanks for the in-depth review. I've touched up the article and images; hopefully it is enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the images are up for deletion at commons, should we remove them for now so that the GAN can continue? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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'll hide them for now; they don't reflect on the text, and I don't want this GAN to sit unfinished for 3 months while the FFD at commons runs its course. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 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]

• Thanks a lot. Before going for another peer review in preparation for FAC (fingers crossed) I will see if the majority of sources say first female group. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]