# Talk:Stanford Fleet Street Singers


#### March 2018
On 6 March, @Chrissymad: added an Overly Detailed tag. Of particular note is the principle that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
Some list-like information featured on this page, such as the [section] has precedent in similar pages such as Out of the Blue (British band), Stanford Mendicants, or SoCal Vocals. Further, there exists secondary source commentary and research on this section such as found in work by the [A Cappella Review Board]. (Although this is not cited on the page; the section currently remains without references to these sources)
However, some other information, including the [of Short Films], seems like it might not be of importance to a general audience. I didn't personally find any external primary source/secondary source commentary on the subject. What might an editor provide to prove its notability/worthiness of inclusion? What is a reasonable timeline to remove this content if such references does not surface?
Liam M (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your first line, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. As far as the rest, it was overly detailed with either no sources, unreliable sources or strictly primary sources. I've been working on cleaning the notable list up as it's largely sourced to linkedin and doesn't actually establish that most of the entries are notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

On the record sleeve of Fleet Street's 1984 Songs of the Stanford Red, the directors wrote,

Can anyone else find secondary sources on any of these older performances to assess their notability? Especially the Special Olympics performance. My first google search didn't turn up any results, so I'm sharing this print-only quote here just in case someone else has an idea for a verified source on the subject. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: I found a newspaper record of the 1990 Special Olympics performance. It's unclear that this is the main Special Olympics event—the article specifies the event as the "14th annual Stanford Special Olympics," which sounds like an ancillary event. I won't add it to the article at this time. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Update: I found another newspaper record of Fleet Street performing at the Stanford Special Olympics, this time in 1989. It appears these are locally-organized Special Olympics-sponsored/affiliated events—not the main event.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinkydinks (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! To any and all interested: I've proposed a WikiProject dedicated to a cappella. This would be a group of editors interested in improving the quality of articles related to a cappella. If you're passionate about a cappella—ranging from the Pentatonix to collegiate a cappella groups like Fleet Street, or perhaps pop culture representations like Pitch Perfect and The Sing-Off—please check out the proposal and share your feedback!
Here's a link to the proposal for WikiProject A Cappella.
If you could see yourself contributing to an article related to a cappella (like this one), please consider joining!

—Shrinkydinks (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thinking ahead about the completeness of this article, what are areas of tangential development (say, developing adjacent topics that aid understanding of this article) that would benefit this article? Perhaps...

Section: Legacy or Impact: How has this group's work impacted other groups? The industry as a whole? How does their first original album fit into the bigger picture? Did Fleet Street's album inspire other original collegiate albums, or is it the only one of its kind as of 2019?
 Resolved. The ideas relating to the original album are handled inside the since-created Fleet Street (album) article (discussed below). The other ideas may be mentioned alongside/in the critical commentary subsection proposed in peer review. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Article: Fleet Street (album). The claim that this is the first original collegiate a cappella album might indicate significance in a bigger picture. Perhaps there exists more writing about this album on its own? (not 100% sure; worth exploring).
 Done. 11 December 2019, 12:45pm GMT — I did this! Pretty substantial article, structured/modeled after certified good articles about albums. Used the sources here as a jumping off point and went from there! May nominate it for WP:DYK. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Article: 50-Minute Fun Break. The album was a breakthrough for a cappella recording, mixing and mastering (winning a specially-created category at the Contemporary A Cappella Recording Awards for best mixing & mastering), and it landed engineer Bill Hare on the map (he would go on to win a few Grammy Awards). This might merit expansion (not 100% sure; worth exploring). —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment 3 January 2020: I haven't found enough third-party coverage for this album to merit its own article. So far, it has the awards and some robust critical commentary, but no significant coverage beyond the critical reviews related to its significance. Will leave this red-linked for now. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done. 14 January 2020, 10:15pm GMT — In the course of writing the Bill Hare article, I found enough relevant discussion to merit writing an article fo this album, so I made it a couple days ago! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Article: Bill Hare, apparently a long-time collaborator of the group, he has producing credits on most important collegiate a cappella albums. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Article: List of Stanford University a cappella groups. What was previously a category is now a list article, as this allows for the inclusion of relatively substantial prose as well as red-linked articles for the 2-3 groups currently without articles.
 Done. 27 December 2019, 23:30am GMT — I made this article! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Section: Musical and comedic style: how the group has moved through barbershop, jazz standards, and more pop (typical of collegiate a cappella) and into original music, generally without beat boxing (atypical of collegiate a cappella). Could also discuss comedic style, as covered a few times in articles by The Stanford Daily. Could potentially also fold into the "Iconography" section idea from peer review, below. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I might put this article up for peer review to ask for help on organization. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: peer reviews were kindly completed on 20 December 2019 by both Lizzy150 and paul2520! Find it here. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Update: Additional peer review begun by Ruhrfisch! Available at the same peer review archive. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Here are the major topics discussed in the peer review:

Organization of the "Notable performances and works" section:
 Done. Per advice from Liz, it was folded into "History," which was itself broken down into eras for clarity.
Alumni section: Its inclusion and, if kept, its inclusion criteria. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 Resolved. Per reasoning and perspective from Liz and Paul, this section is being kept (primarily because this collegiate group functions in many ways like a university and thus alumni are appropriate) and decently-notable non-blue linked alumni may be included. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Context for the reader: Ruhrfisch asked for background on a capella music groups at Stanford, both at the time of [Fleet Street's] founding and today.
 Done in a limited way with the See Also section recommended by Ruhrfisch. I don't believe significant additional context is merited beyond the current mention of the Mendicants in the History paragraph, but this is a good thing to keep in mind as editors work on this prose. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Album references: Currently, all album references are to the physical liner notes documents. Ruhrfisch asked for secondary sources, but I believe these only exist for some albums (There are critic reviews for each album post 1992, not including 1999). Paul asked about references for the last two, but I can't find liner notes for these anywhere. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment/Not done. I believe these remain the best references for the album titles and years themselves, as they are the only type of reference that exists for (nearly) all albums. Open to adding critical reviews for all the albums that have them (7 of 11); open to second opinion. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Added the critical reviews a couple days ago. I think it adds to the article. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Critical reviews of Fleet Street's performances/albums/works. Ruhrfisch pointed out the article lacks this relative to other music group articles. Further, asked, "is there anything on the decision to make an album, or on sales figures?"
Comment: Synthesis of the most interesting reviews (say, a couple short prose paragraphs) could make a great transition between the Discography section and the Awards section. Reports of comments by group members (or directors) on why they made some albums could justify some prose wrapper on the Discography list. Will look for those. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done-ish: I couldn't find any style guides to guide this (checked WikiProject Musicians' Article guidelines and WikiProject Opera's Article guidelines and styles and formats). But I added mention of Fleet Street's first album (1984's Songs of the Stanford Red) and their consequential 1992 album 50-Minute Fun Break in-line in the "History" section, the latter of which generated significant critical commentary, which I summarized. I think this critical discussion, alongside the significant critical reception of 2004's Fleet Street comprise sufficient incorporation of critical discussion to mark this done-ish (and avoid straying too far into the weeds; these are the two most important albums, as far as I can tell). ... The group's decision to make an album or sales figures could still be worth adding; will explore for sources on these topics. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Iconography: Ruhrfisch pointed to a preponderance penguin images in the group's main website and asked if this could be mentioned. I mention this here because I believe, if it's going anywhere, it could be worked into whichever future body section gets the collection of group-related info currently in the lead and nowhere else (bowties, black vests, Sweeney Todd, 12–16 members).
 Done: Added a cohesive section discussing these things titled "Group identity." Found very few mentions (and no non-passing mentions) of the penguins, so included that only minimally in an unsourced but verifiable way. Now just the lead to do. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Lead: everything in it should be reflected in the article, and everything in the article should be reflected in it.
Comment: Situation is improved but not complete. Still needs doing. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Also removed links per Ruhrfisch's MOS recommendation. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not participate in GA (rather FA), but having missed this when it was at peer review, can make a list of things to work on here. When reviewing an article, I usually start at the bottom, leaving prose refinements to others once basics are in place.  You might also entice Figureskatingfan to have a look.

Wow, a shout-out from SG to me?!  Is it because of the work I did on MemChu or because of the Rudy Galindo mention here? ;) Happy to help, as always; just ask and I'll either review it for GA or I'll take a look at it when you bring it to FAC, whatever's needed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Citation formatting and sourcing

Inconsistent citation formatting on author names, and no accessdate:  ^ Deke Sharon and Rob Dietz (23 May 2019). "Episode 10: Bill Hare Mixes it Up". Counterpoint with Deke and Dietz
 Done. This is a weird one because it’s a podcast. Updated the host field to be formatted like authors across the rest of the references! On mobile it’s displaying its access date:
Sharon, Deke; Dietz, Rob (23 May 2019). "Episode 10: Bill Hare Mixes it Up". Counterpoint with Deke and Dietz (Podcast). Event occurs at 11:16. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
I’ll check again later when I’m at my computer in case there’s a display issue and we need to not use that particular citation template! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
No publisher, inconsistent date formatting:  "Official Results for the ICCA, 1996". 2015-08-12. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
 Done
Another missing publisher:  R. Galindo - 1996 World Figure Skating Championships - Exhibition. 17–24 March 1996. Retrieved 20 January 2020
How is this a reliable source? https://www.plover.com/rainbowice/flavor1299.html
What makes this source reliable? I can find no About Us page, or anything to indicate our standard measure of reliability: https://www.goldenskate.com/pro-am-figure-skating-results/ice-wars-world-ice-figure-skating-challenge/
OK, I will stop there on citations and sources, having looked at only about the first quarter of citations, but those are the kinds of things that would be looked at at FAC.  Review throughout, samples only.

MOS
Review MOS:CAPTIONS; three are sentence fragments that have ending punctuation.
 Done.
WP:ACCESSIBILITY do not place images at the bottom of sections
 Done.
On the chart in Awards and nominations, please review colors per Accessibility
Comment: All colors pass guidelines for high contrast with black text. Still searching for the best tool/method to review colors against each other (eg. Legibility of the red vs the green for colorblind users). If I can’t find anything soon I may just use pre-approved colors from the Wikipedia Style Guide. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I thoroughly read MOS:COLOR and have completed this to the best of my ability. Here's my work:
Color is not the only method used to convey important information—Each result is also specified in plain text: Either "Won", "Nominated", "Runner Up", or "Pending".
There are no links combined with colored backgrounds.
The colors all exceed the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 AAA contrast standard of 7:1 by a significant margin. The colors are: Won/Green (AFFBA3), Nominated/Red (FADEDE), Runner up/Yellow (F4F1B7), and Pending/"light yellow" (FFFEE0). Paired with black text, the have contrast ratios of 17, 16.5, 18, and 20.5, respectively.
I believe this standard use of the awards table template does not qualify as color overuse.
Possible additional work: Additional time could be taken to craft a nonstandard color palette that would further separate red and green to aid color blind viewers. However, I'm not sure how to go about doing this at this time (which tools to use). Long term, I will keep looking to see if Wikipedia's standard awards table templates are sufficiently inclusive, or might be updated to be more inclusive. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
See MOS:LQ:  On the other hand, some critics criticized the studio work, calling it "intrusive," "unnatural," and "strange."  Sample only, review throughout.
 Done.
WP:MOSNUM, spell out one to ten, otherwise digits: released 13 full-length albums Sample only, review throughout.
 Done. MOSNUM seems to say that two-word numbers between 10-100 can be either spelt out or written in numbers; I've left two "dozen"s and two "eleven"s, but made everything 13 and up a number! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Good use of NBSP and AS OF templates !!!  But A side and B side should be joined with NBSPs, review for similar throughout-- it's not only numbers, but things that shouldn't break across lines.
 Done. @SandyGeorgia: I'm a little confused about just how many of these nbsp's I should use. The MOS seems to say it goes between numbers and their unit of measure... But does "15 original albums" get two, one, or zero? In the case of "class of 1993", "class of " seems to be the unit of measure for the year..? Do compound nouns get nbsp's? My assumption for the last one, at least, is no. Just a couple of questions! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Think about where it would look weird if something was left hanging on a page break, and use common sense.  In the first case,  I would use one nbsp, after the 15; it's ok if the word "album" wraps to the next line. I would also use one only to connect the of with the 1993.  When you have a longer construct that needs to stay together, it is better to use {{nowrap}} for the whole thing.  Compound nouns, no. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Thank you for the additional insight! Updated the article to reflect these uses :) —Shrinkydinks (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Prose
Notable alumni is listy, and could be converted to prose in a way that will help prevent it turning into a typical WP:TRIVIA section. For example, paragraphs could be grouped by era, or by what industry the alumni eventually became notable in, or any other grouping that will avoid listiness.  For example, paragraphs might be grouped as in the lead (Alumni of the group include technology executives, academics, Broadway actors and comedy writers.) Also, if all of those alumni meet notability, they should be WP:RED.
about a Star Wars themed computer-animated short film  ... Star Wars-themed needs hyphenations.  Which results in too many hyphens, so the sentence should probably be re-cast to avoid so much hyphenation.
Spell out UC Berkeley for those who don't know the full name of our rival, and to avoid informality in prose: University of California, Berkeley
 Done
which earned them renown within the community.[6][1]  Fix the ref order, 1 first, 6 next, and I wonder if an "according to" or some other qualifier is needed there, since the text is cited to the Daily.  Perhaps by attributing the statement and making it more specific, it can be clear to the reader that a (somewhat) impartial (Stanford) source is the holder of this opinion.
Question about reference order. @SandyGeorgia: Currently I have the whole article organized such that references are in order of importance/relevance for the content they’re supporting. My theory behind this was it would make content easier for readers to verify, as I would assume they’re most inclined to click on references in order. I would also be concerned that numerical order references quickly become messed up as editors edit the article (as they should!). On the other hand, I appreciate that ascending numerical order would be more aesthetically pleasing. I searched hard for an MOS on reference order last month and couldn’t find anything. Any advice? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
There may not be anything in MOS (not sure?), but reviewers will call this at FAC, because it looks awful. Theoretically, by the time an article comes to FAC, the text is stable enough that the ref order should not be moving around a lot. If you are still moving text around, it is something you can do last, before approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Thank you for the perspective! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Fleet Street broadened their repertoire, becoming well-known ... same problem as above.  This is cited only to Stanford Daily, so "becoming well known" is a bit of a stretch without more specificity and attribution.  Not sure why well-known is hyphenated there.
s part of the 1990s' repertoire expansion, Fleet Street also began writing and releasing, redundancy.  See all writing exercises at User:Tony1.
 Done
Why "however"?  release, however, its studio engineering polarized ... See discussion of "however" at User:SandyGeorgia.
 Not done. @SandyGeorgia: I took a look through the resources linked on your page—thank you so much! I've learned more about the use of the word and I've now tried a number alternatives, but I still believe "however" is the best word to use in this case. Here's a newly-educated sweet of reasoning on its use in this one particular case:
In this use case, "however" functions as a contrastive link: a conjunctive adverb that emphasizes a shift in what comes before and what comes after. The paragraph before discusses the album being generally well-received and, in the long view, featuring audio effects that would define the sound of recorded a cappella. But, the paragraph beginning with the sentence in question adopts a short view (in particular, considering only at the time of the album's release), and discusses how the engineering polarized critics in that time. It's positioned as recommended: just after what needs emphasis (the change in timeframe considered, or the shift from a long view to a view frozen in time after the album's release).
I checked it against the common errors outlined in the linked guides. It could not be replaced by a coordinating conjunction in the same place, so it hasn't been confused for one 1:1. It also isn't facilitating a comma splice. That said, I'm open to the idea that a coordinating conjunction might improve the sentence; here are five alternatives I tried, based on the coordinating or subordinating conjunctions Stan Carey argues "however" too often replaces (but, yet, still, though, and although)! I didn't like any of them better (hence my belief outlined above that "however" remains the best word), but I'm open to substituting one of them in if you feel it's an improvement!
But at the time of the album's release, its studio engineering polarized a cappella critics
Yet, at the time of the album's release, its studio engineering polarized a cappella critics.
Still, at the time of the album's release, its studio engineering polarized a cappella critics.
At the time of the album's release, though, its studio engineering polarized a cappella critics.
Although the album was generally well-received (and its studio effects would become standard for the industry in the years after its release), its studio engineering polarized a cappella critics at the time of its release.
—Shrinkydinks (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll stop there; overall, an extremely good start, and you should do well at GA.  This is just to give you some ideas of things to work on, and things that would be looked at at FAC.  Good luck !  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


#### Reply
Thank you so much, SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), for your in-depth review! I'm blown away. Thank you so much for taking the time and for giving the article such a thorough look. I'll get right on these things in the next ~48 hours and I'll ping you when I have an update :) —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
No need to get back to me ... just things you can work on.  Unwatching now, ping me if there is anything you don’t understand.  Other than that, I hate that pingie-thingie!  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems Rudy Galindo's autobiography, Icebreaker: The Autobiography of Rudy Galindo (Google books) mentions "Fleet Street" and "Ave Maria" each once—according to the google books text search... although it doesn't offer snippet preview. My local library also doesn't have a copy, but I'll keep looking! If anyone has access to this book, I would love to hear from you! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanford Fleet Street Singers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I will review this article, at the request of the nominator.  I have a soft spot for Stanford, having a beloved sister-in-law who attended as an undergrad, and as the main editor of the FA Stanford Memorial Church.  Should be fun! I typically use a template for a general review, and then make more specific comments afterwards. Hope you don't mind, but I did some minor copyedits; I find that it's easier and takes less time than directing you to make insignificant grammar corrections.  Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

For the most part, this is an interesting and well-written article.  It has a few global issues that should be addressed before it's promoted to GA, though.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
There are some issues with the prose; see comments below.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
The format of this article is fine.  I especially like that you put notes at the end of your tables.  I never thought of doing that; I will probably steal it! ;)
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: 
There are access and source utilization issues.  See comments below for feedback regarding sources.
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: 
Is there any way to add more images?  Personally, I like to put in at least one image per section or subsection, if possible.  How about a sound file of one of your recordings?
Reply: Put out a call to members I know and managed to secure an image of the early years! Still working on a image for 1992-2003, but it's been slow finding people with any images at all, let alone sorting out the rights. Unfortunately I do not have the rights to publish any audio recordings in the public domain (although it was a great idea!). —Shrinkydinks (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm not surprised.  Maybe more will come in the future, but it's not a reason to not promote this article to GA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This article is pretty close to GA.  I'll happily promote it once you address my comments/feedback.  Good luck; I'll give you the customary 7 days.  It was fun reviewing this article, and learning yet another aspect about a school I never attended. ;)
Prose

Most of the paragraphs from the "1992–2003: Growing prominence" subsection are too small; for example, paragraph #4 is only one sentence, something that's frowned upon in WP, as per WP:Paragraphs.  I suggest re-working the paragraphs, perhaps by simply combining the paragraphs or by expanding the content.  One suggestion is to take some of the quotes you included in the reference section (for example, ref20), and rewording them.  For example, you could state: "Over the summer break in 1992, Fleet Street performed in a weeklong appearance at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, their first show outside North America.  The festival's program notes called Fleet Street "one of the U.S.'s. premiere a cappella groups", and praised them for their theatrical style, musicianship and "outlandish humour".
Reply: I love your solution for the Fringe Festival, and I'll look into that for both the Fringe Festival and the Daily Show appearance. I'll review these two and other opportunities to make sure short paragraphs aren't overly emphasizing their subjects! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done (Quote incorporation) for Festival Fringe. Great idea to include the quote! Unfortunately the Today show's program note seems more for internal use and doesn't provide a worthy quote. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 Partially done (Short paragraphs). I reviewed this whole section and fixed the most egregious paragraphs (thank you for your help)! I tried combining some different paragraphs to produce longer ones, but they're currently very thematically distinct and it read as unnatural to combine them. I have maintained separation of paragraphs by theme/topic for the time being. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The same issue appears in both the "2004–present: Original music" subsection and the "Group identity" section.
Reply: Definitely agree in the case of the "2004–present" section. In the case of the "Group identity" section, I was already having trouble trying to avoid combining ideas that were too disparate (that section covers (1) being atypical, (2) being student-led and having student officers, (3) having 12–16 members, (4) selecting members via audition, (5) auditions involving a joke, which was a detail a peer reviewer liked in the source, (6) traditional uniform, (7) Penguin iconography, and (8) The group's name being a reference). Let me review these sections and do my best to make sure paragraphs aren't too short; I'll ask a question here if I'm still struggling with weaving together disparate ideas after I've tried harder, within the next few days. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Reply (update): Just re-saw your advice on this section immediately below here. Will consider, incorporate and revisit in the next few days! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Fixed small paragraphs "2004–present: Original music" —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Addressed small paragraphs in "Group identity" (below)
"Group identity" section: I wonder if you could restructure the paragraphs.  Here's how I would do it; you can take or leave as much of it as you like:
Fleet Street is a student-led organization; the group's music director, business manager, and singers are always Stanford students.[6][13][46] The group consists of a rotating set of 12–16 members, with new members selected each September through two rounds of auditions. At auditions, students are asked to bring a joke, and are assessed on how well the blend with the group vocally.[1][2][47]  The group wears a uniform of black tuxedo vests and red bowties, a staple of the group since its founding.[4][33] Penguins also feature heavily in the group's visual identity, appearing on eight of their eleven albums' covers. The name "Fleet Street" is a reference to the musical Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, itself a nod to the group's musical roots in barbershop music.[1][2][3]
In a 2010 interview, music director Julian Kusnadi said, "We're not very concerned about being typical!"[36] That perspective has run in the group for decades: "This is not something that singing groups normally do," said singer Rob Morris when interviewed about a Star Wars-themed computer-animated short film the group made in 1997, at a cost of 1,000 hours and $2,500.[43] In 2010, The Stanford Daily described Fleet Street as "characterized by its creativity and off-the-wall silliness."[36] In 2011, The Daily reported on Fleet Street's May show, calling it, "filled with the silly, goofball antics the tuxedoed singers are known for."[45]
 Not done. Thank you for this suggestion! This is a challenging section because of the raw number of different ideas. After spending some time working on different ways to reduce the number of paragraphs, I fear they all involve, in one way or another, combining too many ideas into one paragraph for it to make sense. I propose keeping three paragraphs (though they may be short), to express three succinct ideas: (1) identity of their work (atypical/creative), (2) identity of the organization (student-related), and (3) visual identity. Happy to revisit if you'd like me to! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with all the above.  I still think some of the paragraphs are too short, but I'm willing to let it go because it's a picky point and shouldn't get in the way of this article's promotion.  I still think, though, that you can combine the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the 1992-2003 section because they're both about the recording of the album.  I also think you can combine the 4th and 5th paragraphs because they're both about the group performing at festivals.  But that's just my opinion; I leave you with the choice to follow my ideas or not. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Thank you for highlighting these ways to do it in particular! I combined them, re-read, and agree they can afford to be combined. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Rudy Galindo paragraph: I'm focusing attention on that 'cause I was asked to by the nominator.
"In March 1996, World Champion figure skater Rudy Galindo skated to Fleet Street's recording of Franz Biebl's "Ave Maria" at the World Figure Skating Championships."  I'm not sure if the sources you use support this statement.  As I've already stated on my talk page, using YouTube clips (ref23) isn't encouraged.  I suggest that you either put it in a note or in the "External links" section.  Additionally, the commentator wrongly attributes "Ave Maria" to Schubert, another reason you shouldn't use it as a reference.  I don't have access to the Stanford Daily reference (ref24, see my comment below), so I don't know if it supports that Biebl was the composer.  Ref25 only supports that Galindo used the music for his short program in 1996, so you should add the info about his short program. I suggest that you use this source [1]; technically, it's a self-published source (see WP:SPS), but I'd use it anyway for comprehensiveness sake.  If the Stanford Daily source doesn't support the info about the composer, you should remove it.
 Done. Thank you for your detailed help here! I revamped this first part of the paragraph with your suggestions, both relating to sources and the specificity of the information they support. I removed the video source, added the autobiography and incorporated a quote from it to better tell the story of Galindo's selection. My initial thought on including mention of the composer (Biebl) was that it might be important to note that Fleet Street didn't use the far more famous arrangement by Schubert (which would be the default assumption). The album liner notes support this explicitly and might provide a good source for the composer's name, but perhaps that level of detail is not necessary... I've removed mention of the composer and just ensured the blue link is to the correct arrangement. The Stanford Daily source remains (see discussion on source access below). —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
"Following that performance, Galindo commissioned Fleet Street for a new song: a cover of Bette Midler's "The Rose". Galindo performed to that recording in late 1999 at both Ice Wars and at the World Professional Figure Skating Championship."  Ref26 states that "The Rose" was "specially recorded for Galindo", not that he commissioned them for it.  That's important because most music used for figure skating is re-recorded, so that the pieces fit into the allotted time for their programs and for other reasons.  This illustrates why we avoid blogs.  You should use it, though, for comprehensiveness, but state something like: "Following that performance, Galindo used Fleet Street's cover of Bette Midler's "The Rose" in late 1999 at both Ice Wars and at the World Professional Figure Skating Championship."  I know I'm being picky, but it illustrates a point, which I'll make below in my discussion about your references.
 Done! Thank you for your advice. Given "The Rose" doesn't appear on any albums, I assumed it was commissioned-- but I appreciate your broader perspective from ice skating! I've reworded per your recommendation. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, this is really picky and has nothing to do with the article, but the two pieces by Schubert and Biebl are not the version of the same song; they're different settings (or tunes) to the famous Christian prayer, "Hail Mary".  Ave Maria is "Hail Mary" in Latin.  There are numerous settings of the prayer that have been composed over the centuries. My personal favorite is Schubert's. ;) But thanks for following my suggestions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Watch your commas.  Although I personally prefer the Oxford comma, your uses are up to you, but make sure that you keep them consistent, please.
 Done! I reviewed the entire article and it now uses the Oxford comma in all cases. Thanks for catching this! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
References

I only checked 6 The Stanford Daily links, which bring up an error message and state that payment is required.  (Ref36 works fine.)  Are there more accessible sources? I suspect that there is; you may have to hunt for them.  Many of your sources seem to be from The Stanford Daily; a university newspaper isn't as reliable as other sources, but sometimes it needs to be included for comprehensiveness sake.  For a GA, it's fine, but it may become an issue if you take it further to an FAC.  I'd like you to, however, assure me that these were the best sources you could find to support your content, and I'll assume good faith and take your word on it.
Reply (RE: Inclusion of The Daily): I've done a pretty comprehensive bit of searching about Fleet Street (across digital and print media) over the last two years and these Stanford Daily articles are pretty important. Their prevalence in this article (I believe they comprise ~25/100 sources) is indicative of their breadth of coverage of Fleet Street over the years (as it is the newspaper of record for the Stanford area). It fills holes in Fleet Street's history no other sources can quite fill. Where they are included, I believe they are among the best sources (if not the best sources available). Where they could use help, I've done my best to support or replace them with other sources such as critical reviews, program notes, official award notices, books, and more —Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Your explanation makes sense, so I'll accept it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Reply (RE: Paywall): I tried to replicate your problem with the link but wasn't able to replicate the paywall. There's a banner at the top that asks for a $5 donation but nothing else. I checked with a mobile connection, and checked references 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, and 14. I do know that the Stanford Daily Archives changed their website in the last few months, so I ought to go through and replace the links for every Stanford Daily Archive source. I will do this in the next few days! I will also try different system configurations to see if I can replicate the paywall, in which case I will work to either create article clippings available to all or I will indicate the paywall with a note in the references. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm good with this, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done. It seems they updated their website circa February 2020. I went through and replaced all 23 stanforddailyarchive.com links with correct and up-to-date links to archive.stanfordddaily.com, which should point directly do the correct article inside the archived newspaper issue. I tried a number of different systems (mobile, desktop, Safari, Firefox, and Chrome) and was still unable to reproduce the paywall, so I'll mark this done for now. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Ref23: I think it's okay if you use the YouTube clip, but not to support the statement, especially since it doesn't state that the song was recorded by Fleet Street.  I suggest that you either put it in a note or in the "External links" section.
 Done: Removed it. With the new Galindo book source added and the removal of the composer's name, it's unnecessary to support the information in the article. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Source utilization: I haven't gone through the entire article, but I found problems in how you use sources in this article.  It was most apparent in the information about Galindo as discussed above.  Your sources need to support your statements.  I suggest that you read WP:SOURCEMINE. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 Mostly done. Thanks for highlighting this for me! I fixed two issues in the Galindo paragraph with your above recommendations (thank you!). I reviewed the rest of the article, and, with the Daily sources, almost everything seems to me to be directly sourced.
Question: The most challenging section for me otherwise was the mention of the song "The Dirty Golden Bear". The source calls it a "classic Fleet Street tune" alongside "Masochism Tango" and the "Stanford Hymn Rap". This article's statement "They often subverted songs like these for humorous effect" refers to at least the Dirty Golden Bear and the Hymn Rap-- but the description of "The Dirty Golden Bear" ("They sang a parody of UC Berkeley's official fight song, with alternate lyrics lampooning the rival school's mascot") is not supported by the source. I suppose it's simply explanation of what "The Dirty Golden Bear" is (discoverable by listening to the song and by following links to the explanation on its own page. Is this type of prose permissible via WP:MINREF, or should I find a better, direct source for this?
I'm not generally supportive of much explanation, especially if there's a link to it.  Since there isn't in this case, I think that some explanation is acceptable.  The source doesn't call "Dirty Golden Bear" a parody of Cal's official fight song, though, so yeah, I think that you need to find a more direct source which supports your statement.  The source also doesn't support that the group subverted songs, so I think that unless you find a better source, you need to remove the statements. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Thank you for your advice! I did some digging into the history of the song and found some relatively substantial information (given the subject), which I used to expand the song's original article (Fight for California). I pulled the best couple new sources I found to support the statements in this article. I re-organized that initial section ("1981-1991: Stanford patronage") to better communicate and support the ideas expressed in it.
Replies / Timeline / Progress
17 March 2020: Thank you so much for your thoughtful review! I'm sorry for the delay on my end. COVID-19 reached my country and I had to move. I am reading through your comments and will work on them and reply one-by-one. I expect to have most of them replied-to and given a status, if not completed, within the next few days. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
7 May 2020: Thank you for your patience, Figureskatingfan! I've finished going through the article and your review, and I've done my best to improve the article per your recommendations. Three replies/questions worthy of your particular attention (all elaborated upon in-line above):

I replied to your question about inclusion of The Stanford Daily sources
I replied to your paywall concern
I would like your advice on an instance of source utilization in the section "1981–1991: Stanford patronage"
Let me know what else I can do, if anything, at this stage! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
8 May 2020: I think that this article is good enough--har har--to be a GA, so once you fix the one issue above, I'll go ahead and pass it.  However, I still think that you don't take advantage of your sources enough, especially in the above-mentioned section.  I don't think it's my place as a GA reviewer to take up this space to try and explain how you can better use your sources.  Instead, I'm willing to demonstrate it in draft-space, if you like, and you can decide if you want to use it.  I think that if you used your sources more effectively, the article can be expanded, which would improve this article even further.  If you like, we can discuss it further.  For now, what you include is adequate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed advice here! I've incorporated your latest round of recommendations into the article and replied in-line above.
Beyond that, I'd love to improve. When you mentioned WP:SOURCEMINE above, I went through to make sure statements were supported by their sources. But I see what you're saying (and what SOURCEMINE says) about there being additional information left on the table. I've often approached this article story-first, looking for sources that build out the story, instead of source-first, looking for information to go anywhere, so I would appreciate your guidance in that regard (if and/or when you have time). —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Great, I think that this article is fine for a promotion to GA, which I will do now.  Congrats on your first GAN!  I'll put this on my radar and perhaps will see if I can find more info to add.  You might be surprised about how far you can take this article.  Stanford Memorial Church was one of my first FACs; I learned a lot while working on it.  One of the most important lessons was that improving articles can take you to places you never imagined going.  I stumbled upon the MemChu article, correcting typos, grammar, and sourcing issues, and as I researched it, I found that there was enough information out there to eventually bring it to FA.  I also learned things about church architecture, two earthquakes, organs, the Stanford family, and of course the campus itself.  One of the biggest moments in my life was when I visited the campus and the church in 2012.  You never know; perhaps this article will surprise you, too.  Best of luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there some reason that the lead doesn't describe it as a MALE singing group? Or even mention the fact that its membership is guys, anywhere in the lead or article text, except for the list of prizes which are always for "best male singing group?" That seems to be to be enough of a defining characteristic to be at least worth mentioning. Especially if this is rated as a Good Article. (And congrats on that by the way.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In recent years Fleet Street began accepting female members. Robertakarobin (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)