Talk:Trout Fishing in America (duo)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trout Fishing in America (duo)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 11:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, TenPoundHammer. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox image you uploaded has realistic metadata, so I'll assume that you are actually the copyright holder of the photo. The caption is fine, but there shouldn't be a period after it because it's not a full sentence (per WP:CAPFRAG). The alt text is appreaciated. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• and their music has been played on Dr. Demento's radio show - Is this worth including in the lead? The body doesn't really reflect its importance to the subject. I'd suggest removing this.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bassist Keith Grimwood. a native of Alabama, - Replace period with comma
• The songs from their first four albums remained out of print for many years - This is not verified in the source.
• thus giving the duo further exposure - This isn't verified in the source. It might seem obvious that someone gets more exposure after being included on radio, but I'd still recommend finding a source that verifies this information

ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• and other personnel who would appear on their later projects - This seems like original research. Maybe remove this
• the latter of whom - I'd recommend against using the word "latter" and "former" because they obscure the underlying information. Maybe try something like: "The album included several session musicians, such as drummer Mitch Marine and keyboardist/guitarist Carl Finch. Production was provided by Finch."
• The two also wrote most of the album by themselves except for "Sing It One More Time Like That", also a cover of David Egan. Also by this point, the duo relocated to Arkansas - The word "also" appears three times in these two sentences. I'd suggest varying the wording.
• Fitch and Marine - Fitch? I thought his name was Finch
• the defunct Gavin Report - It probably wasn't defunct at the time. Is this worth including?
• into a special children's show - Which? If it isn't notable enough to include the name of, then you could probably remove the word "special" as well.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be better to replace the primary Grammy reference if there are other reliable sources out there for the information it references.
• which at the time was available exclusively through their website or at concerts - Is it available elsewhere now? Then you should include a reference for that.
• At WP:RSP, AllMusic is described as having questionable accuracy when it comes to biographical details. The one in the section is rather benign (i.e. album release years), so it's not a big issue, but I would prefer another source to reference the release of Big Round World.
• The duo promoted this album - I'd just write "the album" instead.
• 2010's Lookin' at Lucky - Shouldn't this be in the 2010s section?

ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ArcticSeeress: I think I've addressed all issues to this point. Anything else? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, there's some more to come. The heat was just killing my brain so I took a little break. I'll get back to my computer in a bit. ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about their children's books has some primary sources, but the section is fine regardless. I've archived a dead link in a reference. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I don't have access to Newspapers.com, I can't verify their heights beside AllMusic. As I discussed earlier, it might not be that accurate for biographical information. Do the other sources include this information? The quote in the sentence after is fine because it is attested to an author.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to comment on. All of their releases are verified in the other sections (beside Safe House, which I pointed out above). I'll get to checking some of your edits shortly. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed I forgot to include a section about the 2010s. I had that in a notepad document before I wrote new comments in there. Hold on a minute. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot to add this section, so I'm putting it here. I've also struck a comment that I fixed myself.

• home studio - The source just says "recording studio". There is no mention of "home" in the article
• Texas and Louisiana - I couldn't find any mentions of Louisiana in the source.

With that, I think it might be everything. I'll check one more time before putting the article on hold (lest I forget something else). ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ArcticSeeress: Think I got everything now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll make a few small changes to things I just noticed myself before I check the article fully against the GA criteria. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer. Do the sources for their heights actually verify their specific heights? I don't have access to Newspapers.com, so I'd like a quote or two to verify this. Thanks. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I missed that. Here you go: [1] [2] Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find those the first time accessing the links. Thanks for (indirectly) informing about how to better navigate that website. Anyway, the article in the Salina Journal says 5 feet 5 inches. The Philadelphia Inquirer states "a foot and a half shorter" than 6-foot-9. I'd reckon the first one is more accurate to Grimwood's actual height (at least in 2003 when the article was released). I'll go ahead and change that. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is well-written and complies with the manual of style

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The article is cited to reliable sources. Potentially unreliable sources are cited with attribution. The YouTube link is a primary source, but still relevant to the article. The article doesn't contain any original research, and there are no copyright violations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is broad in its coverage and stays focused on the subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is written with a neutral point of view

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The only image in the article has appropriate licencing and is relevant to the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, well-written article that meets all the criteria for GA.

I've made another quick check to the article and have come to the conlcusion that it meets all GA criteria. I'll pass the article. Good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]