Talk:Sturgill Simpson

Is it worth adding Merle Haggard's, may he rest in peace, opinion of Sturgill to his profile?[1] Joel S Bateman (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

While I love the Hag #RIP I don't think this is something that should be on Simpson's page.... - Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I removed the section on band members as I know this has changed throughout the years. I started to put it into the history section showing the changes but became too confusing. I removed the entire section for now as I am not sure it really adds to the page, but would love some feedback if anyone disagrees.--DoubleuWW (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey @DoubleuWW: I saw you added a lot of content to the page but deleted also some content like this. I am going to add the band thing back because that was from his current lineup so I think it should be in there. Also, why delete the Nirvana song? Also, your citations are sort of a mess. Are you using the visual editor or building them from scratch? There are easier ways and they would be easier to reuse if you use a different naming convention like I was using previously. Also the article honestly has WAY too many citations. If you are going to pull content from all these citations it's one thing, but also Simpson hasn't had the kind of career to warrant 60 citations, some of which are not from great sources. I may try to clean up these things but it's sort of a lot what you've done to the page. Also, it would be good if you wrote a sentence about yourself on your user page so your user name isn't red anymore. It's better if it's blue so people will not scrutinize your edits too much. Overall I understand you are doing a lot of work here, but I'd love to help you a bit and maybe work collaboratively so that you aren't completely re-doing pages that sort of don't need the work. There are loads of other pages that need help but this one was in good shape -- didn't need so much. I mean this all in the most friendly way. Please write back! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @BrillLyle:. You know, I actually debated on whether to remove the members or try to introduce it into the history. In the end, I removed it, but left a note here so people would see what I was doing. I really didn't see a difference either way so no harm no foul. For the references, I used as many as I could to show diversity. Thought it would help to support the edits since some of the information is talked about in multiple sources. Again, I guess its a style preference but I will keep it in mind. I am not sure about Nirvana as I don't recall removing it. Could have been from copy and pasting when I was constructing the edits. I don't normally look for pages that need worked on - although sometimes I do - I like to work on music pages that interest me which is what led me here. If there is a list of pages that need worked on, let me know where to find it and I will see if I am familiar with any of the artists/songs/albums and do some work on them. I also build the references from scratch but I guess I need to check out the visual editor - sorry. For the userpage, I kind of like the red link, but feel free to mark it up if you think it would be better. Either way is fine with me. Thanks for reaching out and hopefully we can collaborate together in the future. --DoubleuWW (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok updating july 9th. I'm gonna go ahead and edit the page, delete the line in personal life about him being sober. Unless somebody convinces me not to. Sorry I don't know how to do wikipedia so well. 104.230.61.204 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Jeremy Bailey, Cleveland OHReply

I read the NPR piece cited as source for Sturg being sober "since he was 28". I don't think this is accurate. NPR states that he found sobriety "for the first time" at that age. I think it is wrong to infer that he has been sober ever since. Going by "Turtles" lyrics, I find it unlikely in fact. Just my two cents... -JEremy Bailey, Cleveland OH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.230.61.204 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

If Simpson is speaking about his sobriety in multiple press outlets, it seems like it is okay to put into the article. I would argue to include it. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 03:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  

   he and his family reside in the Smoky Mountain area - the claim doesn't appear to be in the source.

   Fixed. I have not been able to find a source confirming Sarah's maiden name, however. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

   It says in the lead and the table that he got a Grammy for Metamodern Sounds, but I see no mention of that in the relevant section.

   Fixed.

   Thank you. Now a couple of questions about the tables. One is called "Accolades". I'm not sure what tables of this type are commonly named, but "Accolades" seems a bit odd to me. Wouldn't it be better to just call it "Awards and nominations"? With regard to another of the tables, what is a "featured single"?

   I changed it to "awards and nominations". "Featured singles" means a single where the artist is a guest artist; i.e. "Artist X featuring Sturgill Simpson". The term is used widely in featured articles such as Taylor Swift discography so it should be fine here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

   Another issue: some of the fields in the tables look to be unsourced.

   I have added sources for the singles. I couldn't find anything verifying that "Life Ain't Fair..." was ever a single. Working on the videography now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

   @Gatoclass: I think I sourced the entire discography/videography now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

   TenPoundHammer, so far as I can tell, "Resentment" (Featured single) isn't sourced, "The Promise" (Music videos) isn't sourced, and "The Hunt" (Filmography) isn't sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

   "Resentment" has an article, so wouldn't sourcing its existence be redundant, since its own article verifies it as a single? I've added a source anyway, and I think I've addressed the other sources here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

   "Simpson also created the record with a focus on sequencing, and recorded tracks live". Can't see any mention of sequencing in the supplied source. TenPoundHammer? Gatoclass (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

     Done Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

   Cite 66 is unformatted and cite 67 is just a forum post. Also, although I won't fail it for this, some of the cites have the accessdate field filled but many others do not - you may want to tidy that up for consistency at some point.

   I removed the forum post and YouTube link. Most of the info being cited to these seemed superfluous. I removed the section on his band because I couldn't find any reliable sources verifying the members. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

2. 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:  

   As I found a couple of broken links in the references section, I thought I'd better do a thorough check, so here is a list of all the broken links that need repair (by # of ref, name of ref):

   19 Lexington Herald-Leader.

   25 loosemusic.com

   27 American Songwriter

   34 Paste Magazine.

   36 American Songwriter

   37 new york times

   39 American Songwriter

   46 Austin City Limits

   76 indiewire

   97 all access - no mention of Simpson?

   101 indiewire

   103 msn.com

   Also, a duplicated link:

   35 and 96 lizard aliens

   I think I've successfully Wayback'd all the dead urls, except for one that wasn't in Wayback. I saw no reason to keep the Loose Music links since the label that distributes him internationally has little bearing on his career. The All Access link, as archived, does list Sturgill's "The Promise" about two pages down. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

   TenPoundHammer, you appear to have missed a few. To make them easier to find, I will list them by their titles instead of (or with) their source names:

   101 indiewire 96 railroad of sin

   103 msm.com msn.com the promise

   "Sturgill Simpson: Man Of The Hour"

   "Mystic Mind: A Q&A with Sturgill Simpson"

   Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

   Got all of these. I had to replace the Indiewire and MSN sources (which is odd, since I just added them a month ago!) because they weren't anywhere on archive.org. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

   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:  

   Comment: I pre-emptively removed citations to Saving Country Music, a personal blog which I know not to be a RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

   "Simpson has also stated he tries to base his career around that of Dwight Yoakam". Nothing about Yoakam in the nearest two cited sources.

     Done

   C. It contains no original research:  

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  

   There is nothing in the article about his acting career. I think the article will need a section on that for the sake of completion, which you could put between the "Musical style" and "Personal life" sections. Since his acting credits are at this point fairly minor, a single paragraph would probably suffice, but it's up to you.

     Done added a paragraph on his acting career in the body. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

   Thank you TenPound, but didn't you see the other comments I made above? You haven't responded to them. Gatoclass (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

   Sorry for delay in response. There was a major power outage in my town, and even after the outage I had no internet for two days afterward. I'll address the other issues today or tomorrow. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:  

   I hate to do this to you this late in the review, TenPoundHammer, but in reviewing the images, it looks like the latter two have invalid licences as I found copyright versions of them on the web. I don't know how I missed this earlier as I was sure that I'd done a thorough check on the images, but it seems for some reason that I missed these. I think they will need to be removed - is there any chance you might be able to find a valid substitute or two? Gatoclass (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

   I think the length of the article really only needs one picture of him. I have substituted with another topically relevant pic.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  

   Once again, apologies for the slowness of this review. As I think I said to you previously, I was unexpectedly extremely busy in real life from mid-May right up until the end of June, and had no time for editing Wikipedia in that period. Then just as I was ready to return to editing, I suffered a recurrence in early July of a herniated disc injury to my lower back, which has made it very difficult to sit in front of the computer for any length of time and from which I am still recovering. So basically, I've had to advance this GAN review in fits and starts. But thank goodness, we're there at last! So thanks once again for your patience, which is much appreciated. Gatoclass (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have been removing the newly added bluegrass genre because Simpson is not being called a bluegrass artist by the media. He recently released one bluegrass album after lots of country albums, and the media have not decided that he is now a bluegrass artist. If there is a respected published source saying "bluegrass musician Simpson" or "Simpson the bluegrass guy" then I'll reverse my reversions.

Other musical artists have released albums of a genre different than their core genres. For instance, Willie Nelson released Stardust in 1978, and Somewhere Over the Rainbow in 1981, both of which are albums of pop standards. Barbra Streisand released a classical music album, Classical Barbra, in 1976. But nobody is calling Willie a pop singer, or Barbra a classical singer. Same with Sturgill. He's only going to be a bluegrass artist when the media start calling him that. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I tried multiple times to add Bluegrass to the genres on the Sturgill Simpson page and quite unreasonably had my ip blocked for a year for this based on the false claim that I added unsourced information. None of the other genres are sourced and now there are two Bluegrass albums attributed to this artist. Here is a quote from the email announcing the newest album proclaiming himself in his own words that Sturgill Simpson is indeed a Bluegrass songwriter.

“But as a benefit of the musicians all getting to know each other and feeling more comfortable, we took more chances and felt more like a band. That gave me the confidence to come in with songs that I was a little more worried how they would translate to bluegrass—but weirdly, it just underscored that, in the end, I guess I’m just a bluegrass songwriter.”

Please take the action of unblocking me. I cannot think of any other sources that would be necessary but I will gladly dig deeper into interviews and reviews. But the fact that the artist considers himself a Bluegrass songwriter is certainly more important than what media has called him. Verity43 (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

If your IP range on the outskirts of Portland, Oregon, was blocked for repeatedly adding the bluegrass genre without a reference to support it, then if you do the same thing with your new username, you will be in violation of WP:MULTIPLE and your new username will be blocked, too. So don't get in trouble that way.

Regarding Simpson's own opinion of his music, Wikipedia takes interest in such things, relaying the information to the reader, but a musician's own thoughts about their musical genre are not what we use to define them. Rather, the topic is defined by WP:SECONDARY sources such as music critics and musicologists. Simpson talking about his genre is a primary source. When secondary sources start saying "Simpson the bluegrass songwriter" then we can add bluegrass to the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Makes very little sense that a secondary source is regarded over a primary source but so it goes. Verity43 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply