A book search for "Paul Butterfield" returns a substantial number of hits. It's not really a requirement to have a broad coverage of sources for GA, but based on what's in the article now, I've counted 14 sources for his entire career, most of which are the Allmusic biography. You might want to just skim through some of the other books to see if there's anything else that can expand on a certain aspect of the man's career.
Done Added sources. Most deal with the early days of the PB Blues Band with Bloomfield. There is little after 1967, except for album mentions. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
13:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)reply
The layout of the article is a little problematic, as most of it consists of one paragraph sections. See
MOS:PARAGRAPHS. In particular, you probably don't need a section for each album. Even
The Beatles doesn't have this.
The lead is a bit short. For an article of this size, you probably want about 3 paragraphs (see
WP:LEADLENGTH). I would suggest Woodstock, Mike Bloomfield and Bob Dylan are the most important aspects of his career. I don't understand why you removed his nomination for the
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame from the lead
"the racially mixed quartet began to create a stir" is a little bit of
original research synthesis. It implies the band were controversial because they had musicians of different races. Or does it just mean they were popular with audiences? You probably want to reword this bit.
Done Clarified (same source as Holzman footnote quote).
Newport Folk Festival and Bob Dylan
This section is largely unsourced. The only reference is to the AllMusic article, but that only states they appeared at the festival and that the band backed Dylan, and doesn't specifically mention that it was without Butterfield.
I used to have a VHS video (remember those?) of a 25th anniversary of Woodstock, based on a three-episode TV broadcast from 1994. It had one Butterfield track on it, unlike the 1970 film. Sorry I can't be a bit more helpful - I can't see it in a Google search easily.
Rather than ending the article on a sombre note, it might be nice to see if any of his contemporaries (eg: Dylan) said anything on hearing about his death, and put in a quote that sums up all he was notable for.
In terms of his actual personal life, there's very little of it mentioned in the article. Did Butterfield have any notable relationships or children? Not everyone did (
Rory Gallagher is notable for being "married to his work"), but if so, that's worth mentioning in itself.
This all needs sourcing - Allmusic should be able to tackle most of it
Done Added general Allmusic PB discography ref (covers all except compilations with various artists & as accompanist); advise if more is needed. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
17:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Summary
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
As it stands, I think you've got major problems with sourcing, and some other problems with your layout. I appreciate you've done a lot of work on this already, but unfortunately there's more required to get it up to the required level. I'm not going to quickfail it here and now, but I think you've got some serious work ahead of you to get this up to the GA standards. So instead, I'll put it on hold, which gives you a week to fix up everything. Despite what I've said, I'd be overjoyed if you rose to the challenge and got the referencing sorted out. As I said, there's a lot of information available via Google Books, so hopefully you shouldn't find it too taxing, though you might well find there's a significant amount of copyediting you need to do. Best of luck, anyhow.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I think all the actions are done, looking at it. It's looking much more like a GA from a cursory look, I just need to go back through and check all the cites support the information in the article. Watch this space.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Right, sorry for the delay in this - things are looking a lot better and it's close to passing. There are a few sentences still uncited - I've fixed most of them but the one point of contention remaining is the final paragraph in "Harmonica style" which is largely unsourced. Once that is copyedited and sourced correctly, I can pass the review.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Done Trimmed back to Erlewine, Rothchild, and Field refs. (Which was first? The Mad Dog harmonica style and discography material (not used) shows a date of May 2011 and is nearly identical to the WP Butterfield sections from 2008.) —
Ojorojo (
talk)
15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I've randomly searched for key phrases that a copyvio check would trip up, and copyedited one. Other than that, I think the article is now comprehensive and sufficiently sourced to meet the GA critiera, so I'm happy to say it's a pass. Well done.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)reply
A book search for "Paul Butterfield" returns a substantial number of hits. It's not really a requirement to have a broad coverage of sources for GA, but based on what's in the article now, I've counted 14 sources for his entire career, most of which are the Allmusic biography. You might want to just skim through some of the other books to see if there's anything else that can expand on a certain aspect of the man's career.
Done Added sources. Most deal with the early days of the PB Blues Band with Bloomfield. There is little after 1967, except for album mentions. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
13:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)reply
The layout of the article is a little problematic, as most of it consists of one paragraph sections. See
MOS:PARAGRAPHS. In particular, you probably don't need a section for each album. Even
The Beatles doesn't have this.
The lead is a bit short. For an article of this size, you probably want about 3 paragraphs (see
WP:LEADLENGTH). I would suggest Woodstock, Mike Bloomfield and Bob Dylan are the most important aspects of his career. I don't understand why you removed his nomination for the
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame from the lead
"the racially mixed quartet began to create a stir" is a little bit of
original research synthesis. It implies the band were controversial because they had musicians of different races. Or does it just mean they were popular with audiences? You probably want to reword this bit.
Done Clarified (same source as Holzman footnote quote).
Newport Folk Festival and Bob Dylan
This section is largely unsourced. The only reference is to the AllMusic article, but that only states they appeared at the festival and that the band backed Dylan, and doesn't specifically mention that it was without Butterfield.
I used to have a VHS video (remember those?) of a 25th anniversary of Woodstock, based on a three-episode TV broadcast from 1994. It had one Butterfield track on it, unlike the 1970 film. Sorry I can't be a bit more helpful - I can't see it in a Google search easily.
Rather than ending the article on a sombre note, it might be nice to see if any of his contemporaries (eg: Dylan) said anything on hearing about his death, and put in a quote that sums up all he was notable for.
In terms of his actual personal life, there's very little of it mentioned in the article. Did Butterfield have any notable relationships or children? Not everyone did (
Rory Gallagher is notable for being "married to his work"), but if so, that's worth mentioning in itself.
This all needs sourcing - Allmusic should be able to tackle most of it
Done Added general Allmusic PB discography ref (covers all except compilations with various artists & as accompanist); advise if more is needed. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
17:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Summary
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
As it stands, I think you've got major problems with sourcing, and some other problems with your layout. I appreciate you've done a lot of work on this already, but unfortunately there's more required to get it up to the required level. I'm not going to quickfail it here and now, but I think you've got some serious work ahead of you to get this up to the GA standards. So instead, I'll put it on hold, which gives you a week to fix up everything. Despite what I've said, I'd be overjoyed if you rose to the challenge and got the referencing sorted out. As I said, there's a lot of information available via Google Books, so hopefully you shouldn't find it too taxing, though you might well find there's a significant amount of copyediting you need to do. Best of luck, anyhow.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I think all the actions are done, looking at it. It's looking much more like a GA from a cursory look, I just need to go back through and check all the cites support the information in the article. Watch this space.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Right, sorry for the delay in this - things are looking a lot better and it's close to passing. There are a few sentences still uncited - I've fixed most of them but the one point of contention remaining is the final paragraph in "Harmonica style" which is largely unsourced. Once that is copyedited and sourced correctly, I can pass the review.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Done Trimmed back to Erlewine, Rothchild, and Field refs. (Which was first? The Mad Dog harmonica style and discography material (not used) shows a date of May 2011 and is nearly identical to the WP Butterfield sections from 2008.) —
Ojorojo (
talk)
15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I've randomly searched for key phrases that a copyvio check would trip up, and copyedited one. Other than that, I think the article is now comprehensive and sufficiently sourced to meet the GA critiera, so I'm happy to say it's a pass. Well done.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)reply