Talk:The Concert in Central Park/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am a slow reviewer, so if there is a desire to have the review done soon, then let me know and I'll withdraw now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements rather than make long lists, though sometimes I will make a general comment, especially if there is a lot of work needed. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back, SilkTork! :) The Concert in Central Park is a great album, and if you haven't listened to this album before then I suggest you make good for it in future :)--GoPTCN 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

Pass
  • Stable. Query about audience size appears to have been settled. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MoS: Layout and language are fine. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broad coverage. Yes. Pretty comprehensive coverage. Very informative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is clear, readable and informative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has appropriate inline citations which lead to reliable sources. It's frustrating that the two main texts though on Google Books are not readily available to read - one is in German, the other does not have the relevant pages scanned, but all other facts checked are fine. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately there are no comprehensive English sources, and that German book describes this concert very concisely.
Yes, fully accepted; I was just making a personal comment that I found some of that information difficult to check. No worries - the sourcing meets GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query
  • Images. Copyright tags are OK, but I am not sure the Ed Koch and the two concert images are appropriate as they are not contemporaneous, and are anyway not needed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they have copyright tags and are illustrative and encyclopedic, I don't see how it damages the article.
Because a) some of the images are slightly misleading in that they are not of the concert but are of a concert and b) they are not needed so they are not adding information to the article, but are taking up attention. GA criteria for images says "images are relevant to the topic", and there is room for interpretation in the word "relevant" - would a picture of the HBO logo be relevant, because they broadcast the show? A picture of Central Park? New York City? Ron Delsener? Michael Doret? Woodstock? Diana Ross? Etc. It appears to me that a picture of the mayor of New York is very incidental, and when that picture is not actually connected to the concert, and is not even taken in the same year, then that seems to be pushing relevant too far. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the pictures--GoPTCN 11:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query how much of the background regarding the state of the park is needed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is a comprehensive account of the background.
Adding details about the founding of the Central Park in 1857 would make it more comprehensive, but would that also be needed? The question here is how relevant the material is to the article, which is about a Simon & Garfunkel concert. The information in the background section is not needed for a general encyclopedia entry on the concert - it is more suited for an in depth book on the topic. This: By the 1970s, Central Park, an oasis in the city that functions as New York's "green liver", had deteriorated. Only sparsely tended due to lack of money, the lawns of this former showpiece became rundown, cluttered with trash or were destroyed through vandalism. As the park was not well policed, the crime rate increased. The drug trade flourished, and due to the high rate of violent crime, walks in the park were regarded as inviting a mugging—or worse.[1][2] At the start of the 1980s the city lacked the financial resources to spend an estimated US$3,000,000 to restore the park,[1] or even to maintain it, with closure of the park a serious consideration.[3] In 1980, the Central Park Conservancy a nonprofit, was founded to fundraise for park renovation. Wealthy individuals donated money, and artists took a stand for Central Park.[4] can be compressed to the important details and inserted into the first sentence of the next section, thus: In the early 1980s, Gordon Davis, who as Parks Commissioner was responsible for the New York City's green areas, and Ron Delsener, one of the city's most influential concert promoters, developed the idea of a free open-air concert in Central Park, which, due to a high crime rate, was then in serious decline and in need of financial assistance to restore it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The background section is needed and is common in albums articles. The reader wants to know why they make a concert and the background of the park. The section is detailed and interesting.--GoPTCN 11:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened it.--GoPTCN 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
  • Lead needs building up to cover the concert itself, per WP:Lead. The lead should be a summary of each of the major sections in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead a bit.
I've played with it some too to perhaps tweak it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of the background, perhaps a little expansion of the later preservation portion of the article, that discusses what the money went to or mentions some way in which the concert led to greater public awareness of the problems with Central Park, it would balance that out.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added two paragraphs, one about Ross's performance, the other about the funds by preservationists. --GoPTCN 15:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GOP!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead opens by saying that "The Concert in Central Park" was the name of the concert as well as the album. Is there a source for that, as I just took a look and found one of the posters (which I will load up shortly), and that poster says "Paul Simon Art Garfunkel Free Concert Central Park". If a source cannot be found, perhaps it could say: The Concert in Central Park is an 1982 album by the folk rock duo Simon & Garfunkel recorded at a free concert in Central Park, New York City in September 1981. - the actual day is too specific for the lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Any idea if the poster was registered for copyright, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming it was copyrighted so I have loaded it as non-free media and tagged it as such. If it is later found to be in the public domain it can be moved to Commons. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--GoPTCN 11:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

This is a well written, well presented, informative, pretty comprehensive and well sourced article which meets GA criteria. I have a quibble about some of the images, and feel the lead could be more informative about the concert itself and the preparations for it. On hold for seven days for this to be addressed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And query if the background information is needed in such detail. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass[edit]

This is a very useful and informative article. Well done to everyone involved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and Wehwalt plus other users who cleaned up the article! :)--GoPTCN 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And to GOP for gathering editors together to do good work and never forgetting that leadership among writers means being foremost in the work.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Concert_in_Central_Park/GA1&oldid=1140124003"