# Talk:The Great Otis Redding Sings Soul Ballads

Image:Otisreddingsoulballads.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Great Otis Redding Sings Soul Ballads/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I'll start reviewing the article by next week. By Monday May 7, i think.--Hahc21 (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, this one seems not to have a lot of work to be done just like the other one. I'll start the review this Saturday. I'll contact major contributors to be in touch with the review process. --Hahc21 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Before starting the review process, i'll ask an assessment of the article. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
By tomorrow, even if the assessment hasn't been made, i'll start the first round of review. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The assessment has been made. The article was rated C-class. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


### Day 1
An overall analysis of the article. The first day, the article is read two or more times to identify:

Major issues which will immediately fail the nominee:
The article have many issues, but not enough to be failed yet. I'll be hanging 'round for a while to see if they can be resolved. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Recording
"The third track of side two, "Come to Me", possibly features Isaac Hayes as a debut pianist. It is unclear because prior to 1966, the Memphis Musicians Union kept little or no sessions documentation; Fantasy Records, who bought Stax in 1977, has none at all prior to 1966". The reference does not directly says it's "Come to Me", it mentions the song alongside "Security" as possible candidates. The statement says that "Come to Me" possibly features Hayes, while the reference says hayes possibly played on "Come to Me" or "Security" as a guess of the writer, but that doesn't mean it's true.--Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, possibly does not means it is true.--GoPTCN 07:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
"That Hayes did debut in 1964 with Redding is known; which song it was remains in question". I think it means "debuted", instead of did debut. "on which song remains in question" instead of "which song it was remains in question". Awkward prose.
This is not my English; it was copyedited when it was on DYK nom. Reworded.--GoPTCN 07:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
"possibly features Isaac Hayes as a debut pianist". it should say:"Isaac Hayes made his debut as a pianist with Otis Redding, possibly on songs "Come to Me" or "Security"."--Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Reworded
"It was inspired and written as a response...". It should be "It was inspired by and written as a response..." --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Done
Release
"with four of the songs from the album chosen to be released as singles." - that can be explained on the singles section, which needs to be created. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Not, not necessary.--GoPTCN 07:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This section needs to be expanded, if possible. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Not possible.--GoPTCN 07:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Reception
"The review by Lindsay Planer of Allmusic was itself mixed." - bad bad prose. It should be written this way: "Lindsay Planer from Allmusic gave a mixed review of the album." Actually, the entire section talking about the review from Allmusic needs to be rewritten. it is awful and unreadable. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, not my prose. I thought it was correct.--GoPTCN 07:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The review from the The Rolling Stone Album Guide needs a quotation. To say that it gave the album 5 stars is not enough. I've found this at RollingStone. Ok i've been searching and its impossible to find a quote. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I could not find this even on HighBeam.--GoPTCN 07:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, i've been searching and it's impossible. :(. --Hahc21 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Tracklisting
Perfect. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Personnel
Perfect. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Charts
References must be put inside the box, not below. Even they can be put besides Chart or peak position words. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I do that very often and I don't see any issues.--GoPTCN 07:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
No big issue, just that it is common to put references on the chart name. --Hahc21 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
What's missing?
Release history.
Singles section. (under Release and promotion).
Promotion, if possible. (under Release and promotion).
Certifications, if possible. (under Chart performance).
A music sample, or an image, if possible.
Commercial performance. (under Reception).
It is not a Mainstream Pop album, but rather an indie soul album. I am happy that I found so much information. It should be actually a stub.--GoPTCN 07:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you managed to find a great quantity of information for such an old release. I know it won't be as long as this or this, but it could be more structured.--Hahc21 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Final comment from Day 1:
I'll put the article on hold for 7 days until the issues are resolved. I'll contact the nominator ASAP to solve them. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments by AJona1992 If I may, the "charts" section (table) needs WP:ACCESS. Also its Billboard 200 not the way it currently is presented. Also there's no need for a "Singles" section this article is about the album not how individual singles performed on weekly charts, this could be expressed in their own section in this article. There are also common words such as "single" and "MP3". Hot 100 is wikilinked twice in the article, please refer Billboard R&B to Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (it's proper name). Additionally, the infobox "type" needs to be studio album and not album, "length" needs {{duration}}. Also please look at other model albums. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you may, and thanks for the comment. Only one little detail. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide recommends a "singles" sub-section explaining an overview of the singles released from the album. Also, as the singles weren't as successful and covered enough to carry out an article of their own, they must be included on their parent album. I'm glad somebody took a look to the review. I'd be happy if you stay in touch. I'll wait for the nominator to handle the issues to see if it's passed or not. Thanks again! --Hahc21 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Hahc's last comment, but I disagree to create a "Singles" section. I don't think linking "single" and "MP3" is overlinking; these words may be common for someone with music knowledge but not for other people. Billboard R&B is the former name of "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs". Also, the latter is for Contemporary R&B songs, not for classic R&B. Actually it should be "Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles" per the table. I can't see the reason to change the "album" to "studio album", can you elaborate please? The template itself states that "[it] can be used in:", so not necessary. Regards.--GoPTCN 07:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The issue is that writing the chart positions (for both album and singles) inside the "Recording" section is not correct. Chart performance should be separate from recording history. In recording section, only information regarding how the songs and the album was conceived should be written. Chart performance and critical response should be under the section "Reception". --Hahc21 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


### Comments by Lewismaster
If I may, I think that some work should be done on the article about accessibility. I'm not very familiar with Otis Redding and soul music, so I think that I can be assimilated to the casual reader who browses through the Otis Redding discography in order to learn about the author and his work. A Good Wikipedia article should be not only well-written, but also accessible to everybody and not only to experts of the matter treated, as stated in WP: WikiProject Albums/Assessment. At the same time, it should not be necessary to read articles in sequence to obtain the basic knowledge to decipher this one. 
In my opinion and following Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide,  improvements can be done on accessibility  and other issues:

Infobox
Recording information (if available) should be provided in the infobox, as specified in Template:Infobox album;
genre Deep soul redirects to Southern soul, so it should be deleted because the second is already listed;
Done
different genres should be delimited by a comma;
Done
to clarify singles and their dates of issue, the Template:Singles could be added to the infobox.
Lead
The lead is troubling me a lot. It appears to be too short and very user-unfriendly. Not being one of the initiated I can't understand what is a "Volt album", or who are "Stax members". It would be better to write "The album was one of the first issued by Volt Records, a sub-label  of Stax Records, and Redding's first on the new label." and "Like Redding's debut Pain in My Heart, The Great Otis Redding Sings Soul Ballads features both soul classics and originals written by Redding or other Stax Records recording artists."
Both done
The lead should summarize what is written in the rest of the article and catch the attention of the reader, but there is nothing about production, players and reception.
OK, I expanded it.
Background
A Background section is missing and I think that to grant accessibility to the article some news about the author, the label or the players before the period of recording should be provided. Was Otis Redding already a successful artist? What about his previous works? Did they chart? Where does Volt Records come from? Who are Booker T. & the M.G.'s? Information about these issues could be briefly addressed in this section and greatly enhance the article, even if they were mentioned in other articles about Redding's production.
I don't believe these points are important, and I already mention the success of his debut album.
Recording
The bulk of the article is concentrated in this section, but much info could be distributed in other sections (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide), leaving here only news about the recording process, such as producers, players and techniques.
Memphis, Tennesee.
Linked
Who is Steve Cropper? It would be better to write "Guitarist and staff musician Steve Cropper".
Clarified
Who is Jim Stewart? It would be better to write "Stax Records owner and producer Jim Stewart".
Clarified
I think that it should be mentioned that both Booker T. & the M.G.'s and the Memphis Horns were staff musicians for most Stax Records productions of the time.
I thought it would be interesting for non-Stax experts?
Musical style, writing, composition
Some of the info which is now in the Recording section could be transferred to this section or to one with a similar title.
Who are the authors of the songs? Which are the "soul classics" mentioned in the lead and who were the original singers? More info could be provided in this section.
The writers are below
Reception
This section is way too short and underdeveloped. Which was the reception to the album when it was released? Reviews done 40 years after the original release cannot give the idea of the impact of the album on the critics and the listeners of 1965. A review or a general opinion about the album at the time of issue would be greatly appreciated. Maybe some clues can be found in the ample bibliography provided for the Otis Redding article or in the Billboard journalist Paul Ackerman's presentation of album on the back cover of the LP.
Unfortunately no more reviews found
Charts
I agree that to be coherent with the style of the article, sources should be provided as inline citations.
It should be consistent with Pain in My Heart
I hope that my observations are helpful for the writer and the reviewer of the article and do not appear too harsh. Good luck and good work!   Lewismaster (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


### Comments
I'm back. I got my second opinion and i will continue with the review. First, little details that might make the article more vicually attractive (they're not on the GA criteria and are not required):

It'll be good if a {{quote box}} os on the recording section
A sample would also do very well. I can handle the sample by myself if asked.
Nothing else by now. I'll make some extra comments later =). --—Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Will you now decide whether it meets the GA criteria or not? Why does it take so long? --GoPTCN 09:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if i take too long. I'm spending most of my time coordinating the GAN drive. I expect to be finishing this on Sunday, since i'm going to J.Lo's concert and won't be avaiable until then. —Hahc21 13:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


### Verdict
—Hahc21 15:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)