Talk:Red Headed Stranger

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red Headed Stranger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Red Headed Stranger has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 8, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Country music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

Perhaps someone should make note that the tracks "Bach Minuet in G" to "Bonaparte's Retreat" are all bonus tracks, not present on the original. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This was also made into a movie by the same name, starring Willie Nelson, with the brunt of the album played as a soundtrack. Levid37

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red Headed Stranger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Crisp article. Good job.

2nd opinion

The nominator requested I give a second opinion on the article. I'm looking it over now.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 13:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: User:GDuwen

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is excellent, and a pleasure to read.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Very good.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The References section is good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sourcing is excellent. Statements are verifiably backed up by the sources, and reliable sources were used (rather than blogs or self-published books). I detected no plagiarism.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Avoided due to excellent sourcing.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Very good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The selection of reviews helps this adhere to NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image is appropriate. The 3 samples are more that I would use, but are not outside of policy.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions on samples are very good.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations!

1a: The lead refers to "sparse arrangements, largely limited to Nelson's guitar, piano and drums", but the Background and Recording section refers to "arrangements of acoustic guitar, accompanied only by piano". But there were drums, and harmonica, 2nd guitar, bass, and mandolin as well. I think the way the lead puts it is accurate, but not the description in the body.

1b: The "Reissue (2000)" section lists all the same information as the previous section, including a link. I think it would be a more appropriate to list only the added tracks, as they do in featured articles Illinois (album) and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses).

1b: Nelson's review is quoted at length, using 152 words of a review that is only 761 words long (excluding quoted lyrics), meaning you have produced nearly 20% of the original parts of the review. That's too much; the length of the quote should be cut in half.

1b: Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize all sections of the article. There needs to be something in the lede about the movie and "in popular culture", even if it's a single sentence saying the album was the basis for a movie and has influenced popular culture.

1b: I don't think Category:Rock operas is really accurate.

1b and 2b: The lede claims the album "made Nelson one of the most recognized artists in country music", but this is not mentioned in the body and so is not sourced. If there is a source for it, it should be mentioned and sourced in the Reception section. (If not, the claim should be removed.) Similarly, the lead says "The title of the album would become a lasting nickname for Nelson", but this isn't mentioned in the body or sourced there.

3a: Is there any information on how this album influenced his subsequent albums? I think that would be important to mention. Also, I see from the Willie Nelson article that "The album included a cover of Fred Rose's 1945 song 'Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain', that had been released as a single previous to the album, and became Nelson's first number one hit as a singer." I'd say that was worth mentioning.

6a: The samples are of appropriate length and quality. My only concern is that there are three of them. Looking at many featured articles on albums, most have only one or two ogg files as samples. I don't know if this is a problem, but it's outside of the norm. Would two samples be sufficient?

Assessment

I have assessed the concerns previously remarked.

About the sound samples: I added particularly those three, because I think that the order provides the reader of a good example of the context of the story as well as the particularity of the raw sound that distinguishes the album. I decided to used three based on the GA Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music, which uses four sound samples.--GDuwenTell me! 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. This article passes all criteria, and is a fine example of what an album article should be. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History before 1975

A reader points out (via OTRS) this site: http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/willie-nelson.html

Which notes: The song 'Red-Headed Stranger' (1945) had been an old hit for Fred Rose, and Nelson had used it as part of a children's radio hour back in his days on the road. From there he put together the album and handed over a completed version to the record company. The rough-cut, sparse acoustical album sounded more like a demo than the final product. But with the final artistic decision in his hands Nelson was determined to release it in this form. The album, simplistic and honest, was a huge success putting Nelson and country music into the mainstream view.

The current article mentions that there was an earlier song, but just barely. Anyone interested in expanding the history of the song?--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, now that you mention an article about the song would be even better!--GDuwenTell me! 16:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Headed Stranger (song) Tell me what you think (still needs a little work).--GDuwenTell me! 21:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did not occur to me that there would be a separate article about the song as opposed to the overall album. However, I see that the song is linked so that's my fault for missing it.

However, the site I linked suggests the song goes back to 1945 and was a hit for Fred Rose who is featured prominently in the album article. The Wikipedia article on the song traces it to 1953 rather than 1945 and has no mention of Fred Rose. Which is correct?--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't miss a thing, I created the article about the song after I read your message (I was needing a new project anyway). About Fred Rose and 1945, the article from Biography.com confuses "Red Headed Stranger" with "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain". Rose published it through Acuff-Rose in 45', while Roy Acuff was the first to record it. Since its included on the Stranger album, its just merely a confusion.--GDuwenTell me! 23:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel better that I didn't miss something. Thanks for creating it. Sorry to see that Biography.com confused things, it sounded like a nice connection, but perhaps someone just mixed a couple things up.--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Red Headed Stranger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]