# Talk:Sylvester (singer)

Did the Cockettes call themselves "transvestites"? Otherwise, it is not appropriate to describe them so. The term is not synonymous with drag, and is in fact considered by many to be insulting. Another, more neutral term would be "crossdressing".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.18.109 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 

The term originates from the French "coquette" (pronounced "cockett"). It is the feminine form of the adjective "coquet" (pronounced "cockay"). It describes a person very concerned with their looks and always seeking to look their best by carefully choosing their clothes, hairdo, etc.. It also applies to houses and apartments, where it takes the sense of "charming", "well-kept", "fashionable", etc...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.109.124 (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I tidied up the reference list, added the code for a reference list, added an external link to QCC. I may go in and add some more references using all the good external links. --Utilizer (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sylvesterportrait.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 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 04:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of idolatry and messy writing here, it reads like it's lifted from a fan's biography. -- K.C.R  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.52.44 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 

Image:Sylvester - You Make Me Feel (Mighty Real) excerpt.ogg 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Sylvester With Patrick Cowley - Do You Wanna Funk excerpt.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Excessive use of Gamson (2005) should probably be addressed. It is pretty unusual for an article to rely so heavily on a single source.  Semitransgenic talk. 21:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a fair point, but Gamson is the only biographical account of Sylvester's life yet published, hence explaining why this article relies so heavily on it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It may be the most complete biographical account, but there are probably a lot of bits and pieces that could be sourced individually through Google book/news searches.  It will most likely be more difficult than researching other subjects since Sylvester went by just one name that isn't particularly unique, but, when combined with other keywords (such as "singer", "transgender", etc), it may very well be doable.  I'm not familiar with the subject, so I wouldn't be the best person to do this, but I'm just guessing that it most likely could be done. - 209.49.229.160 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The final paragraph states "In August 2014, an Off-Broadway musical titled Mighty Real: A Fabulous Sylvester Musical, is scheduled to begin in New York City.[115]". Did this happen, and could someone (who knows) update the page please? MarpoHarks (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've updated this particular section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sylvester (singer)/CommentsTalk:Sylvester (singer)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 01:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
Substituted at 07:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The article has been substantially reworked and expanded since that point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sylvester (singer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zppix (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


### GA Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
 Could use some more in lead... however I will  leave 24 hours  for nom to fix
Personally I prefer to avoid adding sources into the lead. Certainly, there is no requirement to do so as per the MOS, so long as all of the information in the lead represents a summary of the information in the rest of the article (where it should, and in this case is, fully referenced). Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You're entitled to your own opinion and so am I. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Reviewing again per request on my talk.Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Please fix aforementioned issues to be passed or failed. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Zppix, Midnightblueowl does not have to add cited sources in this way, as they are already obeying Wikipedia policies and procedure for the lead. This is not a matter of opinion. As a reviewer, you are expected to know Wikipedia policy and procedure and the GA criteria. I am offering to assist you with, or take over, this review; would you like me to? All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 16:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


### Comments from other editorsPer my offer of assistance on the reviewer's talk page, I'm adding some points and comments below. This will take me some time to complete—I'm not a fast reviewer. Some of the deeper elements—2B, 2C, and 2D in the checklist, for example—will have to wait until last, when I have more time.
The article appears comprehensive and generally well written, with only occasional prose hiccoughs that should be smoothed out to reach GA level.
There is overly frequent use of the construction "Xing on Y, Z happened". Please use more declarative past-tense statements throughout.
I did notice that you keep punctuation inside quotes, which is generally against the Wikipedia Manual of Style (see WP:LQ); it would be good to fix this all through the article.


#### LeadPlease either add a comma after "Los Angeles" or rephrase to something like "the Watts district of Los Angeles" that's used in the body (not sure if "neighborhood" would be appropriate)Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Please add a "the" before "avante-garde drag troupe"Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)"un-amicably": either drop the word—it's not very direct and doesn't add anything useful—or do something else entirely, like replacing it with the phrase "and winning a suit against them for unpaid royalties" (yes, he only received a fraction of what was owed, but he did win).I've removed the word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
#### ChildhoodPlease add a comma after "Arkansas"; generally, if you have "city, state", you also need to have a comma after the state.Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)I've never seen "Euro-American" used before like this. Is it common, encyclopedic usage? (It recurs once later in the article, yet "white" is also used, and more frequently.)I'm not sure how common it is in encyclopaedias, to be honest. However, we regularly use "African-American" so I don't see why "Euro-American" (which is used in quite a few books and such like) wouldn't be acceptable here. We have an article on European Americans, for example. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
#### Sylvester and his Hot Bandthird sentence: "heterosexual white males"—was this deliberate on Sylvester's part, both the heterosexual and the white parts (I imagine the "male" part was) or did he pick them only with regard to their playing ability?I'm not really sure to be honest. I don't think that it specifies this in the sources (although I could be wrong). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)paragraph 1, final sentence: I'm not sure how the source reads or the entirety of Bowie's quote, but the only part I'd quote is "They've got Sylvester" to avoid the tense shift and make the wording smoother. Also, "the people of San Francisco" is not the sort of locution I'd expect in encyclopedic prose.I've made some prose edits accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)paragraph 2, sentence four: rather than start this sentence with the album title that wasn't used, just start it with "The album"Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)final paragraph: who is Shapiro and why does his opinion matter?Ah, I see the problem here. I introduce Shapiro later in the article but only mention him here. I've made some alterations so that Shapiro is described at the first mention of his name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)resulting in Krasnow cancelling his recording contract: please rephrase; something like "after which Krasnow cancelled his recording contract".Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)final sentence: again, I'd recommend deleting "un-amicably"; "broke down" is sufficient, and what would be notable would be if it were a friendly splitRemoved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
#### Two Tons O' FunAfter a brief sojourn to England: I'd make this "in England"Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)The phrase "his backing singers" appears twice in two sentences. Please vary.Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Employing Brent Thomson as his new manager, she suggested: a few things here. First, when did Sylvester fire his previous manager? Also, make the new manager a declarative statement, and if Brent is indeed a she, you'll want to explain this further.Unfortunately I'm not sure what happened to Sylvester's previous manager. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)with Sylvester being enamored with one of those auditioning, Again, make it a new sentence: "Sylvester was enamored with one of those who auditioned", though "enamored" carries the literal meaning of "in love with", so you might want to choose a different word.
I've gone with "captivated", which I think is an improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)his-then guitarist: should be "his then-guitarist", or better, "his guitarist"; it's the guitarist who played that show (and others, obviously). When did Wirrick start playing with Sylvester, anyway? After Dunstan and Reich? Before?I'm unsure when Wirrick joined the group, although have changed the prose to "his then-guitarist". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


#### Initial summationThat's all I have time for now; I'll continue at a later date. There is some work to be done, but nothing should be difficult. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments, BlueMoonset. It's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, Midnightblueowl. Rather than continue, I'll leave the reviewing to Prhartcom, who will be doing a complete review now that Zppix has withdrawn from GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Hi Midnightblueowl, see the last point at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA reviews and approvals in under ten minutes from new reviewer; it looks like we're going to work together again, are you willing?  :-) — Prhartcom♥ 19:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer Prhartcom; I'm happy to hear your input in the article, although given the problematic nature of Zppix's recent actions, I would suggest that BlueMoonset take on full control of this particular GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I misunderstood. I thought that the message indicated that you were going to guide Zppix in re-reviewing this (which I wasn't too enthusiastic about); now I see that you are actually going to take on their position as a reviewer, which I am more than happy with! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)I'm happy as well; I am quite fond of you, Midnightblueowl, and it's wonderful working with you again; it's been too long. Now, as you correctly pointed out, BlueMoonset has done an impressive job above, starting this review. Let us build on that. I see you have already improved the article according to their suggestions; that's great. Please allow me a few days, and then I will provide my review on a GA2 page. All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Prhartcom, there's no need to open a new review page; you could simply start your review in a new level-3 section below. It's typically (but not always) done that way, and I'm happy to update this page to show you as the primary reviewer if you'd like. (If you'd prefer the new page, though, that's fine, too.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you; it's just procedural, Just to allow the statistics to show that I am performing another review. Midnightblueowl, please place the nomination template on the article talk page again. Thanks again. —Prhartcom♥ 16:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the proper procedure when a reviewer withdraws is either to continue with the original review or to place it back into the pool of nominations while retaining the seniority of the original nomination: up the page number of the GA nominee template by one, and remove the value from the status field. I've done that, Prhartcom, so all that needs to be done is for you to open the review; Midnightblueowl doesn't need to do anything. I'll add a note that you'll be taking this on so that no one slips in before you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Easy. Thanks BlueMoonset; I am always learning from you, it seems; many thanks. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 01:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sylvester (singer)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I'll be happy to take on this review. — Prhartcom♥ 01:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Prhartcom! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
For the most part, this article clearly already meets the GA criteria. The review notes below is a discussion for even further improvement.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


#### Review notesLead
Perhaps we need Joshua Gamson's name, with one of his actual or paraphrased quotes, mentioned in the lead, since he is so well-represented in the body and in the body's quote boxes.Personally I'd advice against mentioning Gamson in the lede. His biography is already mentioned in the final paragraph of the lede, although we don't mention that he was the author; do you think that this would really add anything? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I'd say go with your own instinct. I see what you mean; the biography is mentioned, the musical is mentioned—these are both equally important and are given appropriate lead coverage.
In that case, I'll leave it out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)As well, we need a little clean-up with the mention of Gamson's name throughout the article: Currently he is not mentioned in the lead, then the body mentions "biographer Joshua Gamson" the first five times (that's fine), followed by a single "Gamson" and then two more "biographer Joshua Gamson" (that's fine) and then, for the first time, "sociologist Joshua Gamson". You see the problem with the sudden occupation label change, and I also think that the single "Gamson" may possibly need to be "biographer Joshua Gamson" like the others. You may have a better idea.Good point. I've standardised all mentioned of Gamson in the main body, so that he is introduced as a biographer on his first mention and then merely cited as "Gamson" after that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree, but ... There's still a remaining stray "biographer" and there's still the "sociologist" needing to be changed to "biographer" further down, so you haven't finished. If I may, please bear with me: Let us first acknowledge that the full name and occupation "Biographer Joshua Gamson" is credited in the many quote boxes throughout the article body, and I agree that is certainly appropriate. Not counting those, what are the other mentions of Gamson in the article body? He is mentioned first in the Emerging solo career section, then not again until the Personal life section (a couple of times). In that case, by any chance, would you agree to completely remove mentioning Gamson by name in the Emerging solo career section, and therefore not burden the reader with any mention of Gamson until the article is nearly at its end, in the Personal life section. There, he will be mentioned twice now that we're getting personal: the first time as "Biographer Joshua Gamson" and the second time, of course, as "Gamson". Then of course he will be repeatedly mentioned in the Biographies section. Throughts?
I think that there's been some mistake here; I removed the "sociologist Gamson" element the other day... No matter. I think that the second point you raise is very valid so will edit the page accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This looks good now, I'm glad you liked that idea. Sorry about being mistaken about the other thing; not sure now how I saw that yesterday.The references to Gamson 2005 source check out; I was able to access some of it online. Every web article that I checked on also looks good and I verified that the article is accurately citing it. I tried looking up "isbn:9780957305892" Davis, Sharon (2015). Mighty Real, but it doesn't seem to exist.Still looking for the correct isbn here.
I've checked both the source's listing online and a hard copy of the book; both specify that that is indeed the correct ISBN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right; I do see it on Lookup by ISBN (an Amazon resource) but earlier I had simply clicked on the ISBN from the bibliography and then clicked "Find this book" on both Google Books and on Open Library, and for those sources it is not found (try it yourself), which is the method our readers are going to try. But clicking the third "Find this book" link (for Amazon) does find it. It looks like the Google and Open Library resources are missing this book for some reason. Nothing we can do about it. By the way, if you are interested in properly formatting the ISBN numbers, here is a good resource: ISBN converter.Early life
"raised near to": Suggest changing to either "raised near" or "raised close to".Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"and so Gertha's sister" → "so Gertha's sister"Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)The Early life section opens with a sentence about Sylvester's birth, then warps us back in time for about five sentences before returning to the topic: "Their first child, named Sylvester ..." It doesn't work when Sylvester's birth sentence is juxtaposed with the phrase "care for her child" but we realize these are two different children. Instead of opening the paragraph with Sylvester's birth, try closing the paragraph with it instead (after opening with the sentences about Sylvester's mother). This will also help the timeline: We go from farmland to the Great Migration to Watts.I can see what you mean, although this structure (i.e. one on which an individual's birth is mentioned before their parents are described) is one that appears in a number of GA-rated biographical articles. If you think that it is essential then it can be changed, but personally I think that it works okay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Which ones? I'm curious. I'm not overly impressed in this particular case, but I won't insist on fixing it, as the article has already achieved the GA criteria.
Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Muammar Gaddafi, Ken Livingstone, Aleister Crowley... (okay, these are all articles that I brought to GA, so I'm a little biased here!). However, as you can see, I really quite like the effect of mentioning the birth and then delving into an individual's parentage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Ha, I thought so! That's fine; you sound confident, as if you know what you're doing. I was a little confused while reading it, which isn't a good thing, so you might bounce this idea of others, but I won't argue. :-)"his son later lambasted him as": Does "his son" refer to Sylvester? (Because three sons are being mentioned.)Yes it does. I've made this clearer in the actual prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"taken to services there; here,": Perhaps there is an alternative to the "there; here," i.e. "taken to services, where".I've carved this lengthy sentence into two, and the problem has now been remedied. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Perhaps near the first mention of "a gang", since any gang is so closely associated with its city, perhaps remind us of the name of the district/city where the gang is (does the grandmother live in Watts)?I'm unsure if the Disquotays were united by their geographical location, more by their shared identity as a group of cross-dressers and transwomen. I think it best if I replace "gang" with "group" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"His boyfriend during the": I assume this is Sylvester?Correct, and I've changed the prose to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"collecting money at" → "cashier at"Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"Palace Theater": It appeared suddenly; what is this theatre? Somehow, it helped Sylvester be an actor in an actual short film; therefore it sounds important. It may need to be better explained.I've found a link to an article that discusses the Palace Theater in one of its sections; I've also added an image of the theatre to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The image is a nice addition to the article. We still have not addressed the minor prose issue, which is: We're starting a paragraph with "Meanwhile, the Palace Theater's manager" and it is confusing to the reader, as it sounds (especially with the "meanwhile") like we have already discussed the Palace Theater. I think instead something like "Meanwhile, Sylvester became connected with the Palace Theater, whose manager invited him to appear".
I've changed the prose to "At the invite of the manager of the Palace Theater, Sylvester appeared in a spoof film," which I think works here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, that's an improvement.I see that in the Cockettes article, "in 1971, The Cockettes created the short film Tricia's Wedding"; this is information that could be added to this article.Still looking for something that clarifies that (apparently) it was The Cockettes that produced the film.
Hmm... I've double checked, and the Gamson biography doesn't mention the idea that The Cockettes produced the film. I suggest leaving the prose as is, at least for now. Ideally, one day we'll have an actual article on Tricia's Wedding itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I only now noticed that The Cockettes article doesn't cite a reliable source.Emerging solo career
"whom he named "The Hot Band."": I think we can drop the quote marks around this first mention of "The Hot Band". Compare to a later paragraph that includes a similar first-mention: "referred to them simply as "the girls," Wash and Rhodes named themselves the Two Tons O' Fun" (with no quote marks around Two Tons O' Fun").Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"the girls,": I'm not going to insist on it, and I see that BlueMoonset said the same thing, but I actually thought MOS:LQ says that the comma should be on the outside of the quote marks. If so, I see this misuse in many occasions throughout the article that would each need to be fixed. Better not tell Curly Turkey about this. ;-) 
Oh, don't tell Curly Turkey, or he'll edit your illogical hiney. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"Sylvester had assembled", "Sylvester set himself up with a new band": Details? Do these adequately communicate that Sylvester himself handled the auditions and management (if those are the factual details)? The text does not say. Later, it reads, "assembled three young drag queens" and still later, finally, stating his management clearly: "he eventually fired [them]".From what I gather, Sylvester had a fair bit of control over the choosing of his backing singers and band; I could go back to Gamson and try to find more details but I'm not sure whether that would really bring much benefit to the article itself. I wouldn't want it to be overburdened with detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I would, yes, suggest going back to Gamson to see if it puts forth the fact that Sylvester did these jobs himself in those days and state this and cite it if you find it (as this would be important), otherwise if it does not, your prose is fine.
Reading through Gamson, it appears that his manager Dennis Lopez was involved in forming the Hot Band, so I've incorporated that information into the article at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, good."gay and counter-cultural haven; arriving in the city": Another run-on, needs full stop after Haven.Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"his show caught the attention of Nancy Pitts, wife of Motown producer Harvey Fuqua, and Fuqua subsequently signed": Should this story of Sylvester and Nancy Pitts be explained? She is never mentioned again.It just reflects that it was Pitts who first took an interest in Sylvester's performances, and introduced her husband Fuqua to him. This isn't terribly important, so if you think that it is unnecessary or confusing, then it could be removed? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it should be removed; good call.
Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Later life
"Following the example of the Two Tons, Sylvester ...": I'm honestly in the dark what this passage is implying. Has a portion of the article been excised?I've reworded this section in order to make the situation in question clearer. Both Sylvester and the Two Tons felt that they were being fleeced by Fuqua. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Much clearer now.Isn't it just "Two Tons" and not "the Two Tons"? (Yes, I see that sometimes just "the Tons" is verified by the sources.)Well, the band was "Two Tons o' Fun", but the two members are sometimes referred to as "the Tons" or "the Two Tons" in the source... do you think that this requires a change in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No, never mind, as you just confirmed for me that the source really does say that they named themselves the Two Tons O' Fun."nothing worse than a fallen star" who still has "illusions" of their continuing fame; rather than ...": Suggest starting a new sentence at "Rather than", as the preceding phrase was a "chord" that reads better with a full stop.Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"recently discovered HIV/AIDS virus ... at the time still referred to as GRID ...": Consider reversing these two subjects ("GRID ... later known as HIV/AIDS"), first call it what they called it, for more impact.I disagree on this point, if that's okay. I think that the current wording works well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. My suggestion is offered but never insisted upon."Sylvester insisted that he include several ballads on the album, which featured cover art": Avoid run-on sentences; the second part there has nothing to do with the first part, so put a full stop after "ballads on the album".With respect, I also disagree on this one. I think that the current sentence reads fairly well; conversely, if the sentence were split into two then I don't think that it would work so well (for instance "Sylvester insisted that he include several ballads on the album. It featured cover art by Mark Amerika depicting Sylvester in ancient Egyptian garb"). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You have convinced me, actually."Sylvester later related that that particular song": It would be great if the always awkward "that that" could be avoided. Perhaps: "Four songs from the album were released as singles; "Trouble in Paradise", which entered the top 20 of the U.S. dance charts, became Sylvester's "AIDS message to San Francisco.""I've changed "that that particular song" with "that the song". I think that that deals with the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Legacy
We never place an external link in inline prose. The FabulousSylvester.com external link needs to be removed from the section and added as a reference or placed in the external links section.Good point. I don't think that that was an addition of mine, so I shall remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
That's what I assumed as well.Other thoughts
Not a GA criteria, but I don't understand the preference for typing out the more complicated "&ndash;" over the simpler "–" (that's the actual ndash character, which Wikipedia provides in the Insert menu immediately below the edit window).I'm afraid that this is just a force of habit that I have picked up. I should really get used to using "–" instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)While including the phrase "the latter" in a sentence may make the sentence easier to write, I believe it makes it more awkward to read. All uses of "the latter" in this article could be said other, clearer ways, for example: "left his wife and children when the latter were still young" → "left his wife and children when the boys were still young". "Largely avoiding disco after the latter": same advice. "With the latter moving to Hawaii" is a closing sentence; an unexciting one. "the latter of whom also performed": This one is fine.
I've replaced most of these examples. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)FYI, the following links are duplicated; you may decide you need to delete the second link from some of these: "Rolling Stone", "rock music", "New York City", "Disco Sucks", "Church of God in Christ", "falsetto", "Hi-NRG", "Aretha Franklin", "Joshua Gamson", "Pentecostal", "Christianity", and "Joshua Gamson".Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Great! And it is worth mentioning that it is perfectly fine if you had wanted to leave any of those as links if it had been a long time since the last link.In the cite templates, each URL parm needs an accompanying accessdate parm (today's date is fine). If providing an archive, the archiveurl and archivedate parms need the deadurl=yes or deadurl=no parm. If this last one is missing, it defaults to deadurl=yes and the reader is forced to open the archive instead of the more preferable original link that may still be alive. I have fixed one cite template to demonstrate.That's a really good idea; I'd never come across the "deadurl=yes/no" thing before but I will make an effort to ensure that I use it in my other articles from this point onward. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
So glad you like it. I usually place it just after the url parameter, the one that is/is not dead. All set for later when/if the original link goes dead, a quick parameter value change and you're set!Comment: Are you sure you want those {{nowrap}}s in the infobox?  It distorts the whole thing and squeezes text out of the lead. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)I'm not sure what happened to the infobox; another editor must have changed its shape. I've reverted it to its original state. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Just astoundingly good research and writing on this article. Your work has made even greater strides, I see. For this article, I read long passages with a critical eye but most often failed to find anything other than near-perfection; what I can see meets the GA criteria. I look forward to your responses to my review notes. All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 04:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll bet just one more round on your part and then I'm guessing we're nearly done! —Prhartcom♥ 04:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Congrats on another GA! I get the feeling this one must have been personal for you; if so, way to go! By the way, I have a GAN out there too if you're interested; just throwing it out there, feel free to ignore this sentence. All the best, dear Midnightblueowl, — Prhartcom♥ 21:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks Prhartcom! I wouldn't really regard this as a particularly personal article for me (I don't think I'd say that any of the articles that I edit are particularly personal... I just find myself taking an interest in something, wanting to learn everything about it, and the next thing you know I'm submitting an article to GAN!). In the case of Sylvester, I just quite liked a few of his disco hits, but more than that found his life to be really quite interesting (I find the whole disco phenomenon pretty fascinating). I'll try to undertake a GA review of Kim Davis later in the week; if someone beats me to it I'll add some additional comments anyway. Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add details about his funeral? I have information about that. Attendees included Sylvester's family, Jeanie Tracy, Martha Wash, Loretta Devine, Aretha Franklin. Izora Armstead, who was unable to attend, asked her sister to read a letter she had written. The funeral started with a scripture read from the Old Testament by Reverend Ronnie McFarland, followed by a scripture read from the New Testament by Reverend Carol King. Prayer was given by Reverend Earl Bostick. The Love Mass Center choir sang "I'll Fly Away" and "Going Up Yonder". Expressions were then given by Timmy McKenna and Jeanie Tracy. A musical tape of Sylvester was played. Additional Expressions were by Sylvester's mother Letha Weaver and Wanetta McGilberry. Jeanie Tracy sang "Never Grow Old". Martha Wash also sang a selection but I don't have a source that discloses what song she sang. The eulogy was given by Pastor Walter Hawkins.
Some of this information was also listed during his Unsung documentary. Horizonlove (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Might that not be a bit excessive, in terms of the level of detail? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: I agree and wasn't suggesting that every detail of the funeral be added. I just thought it should be noted when and where the funeral took place and its notable attendees. I also thought it would be nice add that Jeanie sang Sylvester's favorite song "Never Grow Old". Horizonlove (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
In that case, there's no objections from me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think its pretty dubious that you could view the family Sylvester came from as middle class. He grew up in Watts, his father was absent, his mother had a bunch of children by different fathers, they lived in the projects, etc. These were obviously not well educated people with means. I know Sylvester himself said "Lets just say I came from an upper middle class family" but he obviously wasn't being serious. I personally always preferred to see Sylvester as a kid from the wrong side of the tracks who overcame his background and  circumstances and did good for himself. 84.64.246.232 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Twice the article mentions "they moved into a new apartment in the hills"
San Francisco has 48 hills. So this statement is meaningless. 
Suggest "they moved to a new apartment outside of the Castro" aka Eureka Valley  Dean jp sf (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)