- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Canadian play that deals with human trafficking in Thailand. Although this is the third featured article candidacy for this article, the previous FACs took place more than a year and a half ago and, since then, I have done further work on this article and I have also seen several other articles through successful FACs, so I believe that both the article and I are better prepared to see a new FAC through successfully. I have reviewed the concerns raised in the previous FACs and I believe that they have been addressed. Neelix (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:She_Has_a_Name.jpg: suggest filling in the "n.a." parameters in the FUR
- Several images have "evidence" listed in the Permission field - the licensing template already links to that statement, there's no need to relink it, and if it is kept it shouldn't be called evidence because it doesn't demonstrate that these files have that license
- File:She_Has_a_Name_2011_-_Death.jpg: what is the licensing status of the set? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have filled in the "n.a." parameters in the FUR of She_Has_a_Name.jpg. I removed the word "evidence" from all of the relevant images, although I left the rest of the content in these sections because I thought that leaving them blank might make it look like there were no permissions. If you feel that the content of these sections should be further altered, please let me know. I have e-mailed Stephen Waldschmidt about the licensing status of the set depicted in She_Has_a_Name_2011_-_Death.jpg. Hopefully, he will respond soon; he has been very responsive to previous inquiries. Neelix (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard back from Stephen Waldschmidt, and he was the one who painted the backdrop and designed the set. In retrospect, I should have known this already, as he is credited as the set designer already in the article. In any case, he was the one who released that image under the Creative Commons license, so there should be no issues with that image. Neelix (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cliftonian feedback[edit]
Support. I think the article now meets the FA criteria. Great work David, and good luck with the rest of this nomination. A fine effort indeed. — Cliftonian (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from — Cliftonian (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
| I don't know so much about the proper MOS etc for plays so excuse me if I raise non-issues. I'll go through the body of the article first then come back to the infobox and lead at the end.
Background
"Andrew Kooman first became aware of human trafficking while he was working for the nonprofit organization Youth With A Mission (YWAM) in southeast Malaysia". I suggest rewording to "Andrew Kooman, from Alberta, Canada, first became aware ...", We should make clear When we say Kooman "later realized that human trafficking also occurs in Canada" we should make it more obvious that we are talking about his home country. Perhaps reword to "Andrew Kooman, from Alberta, Canada, first became aware ..." or change "also occurs in Canada" to "also occurs in his own country, Canada. Or something like that"Kooman has spoken about cases where people have been trafficked into Calgary and Edmonton for prostitution, and said that sex workers may have been trafficked into Red Deer, his hometown, since it is also located along Alberta Highway 2." This is interesting but I'm not sure it's directly relevant to She Has a Name. Simply saying he realized human trafficking occurs in Canada is enough in my opinion.
In the second paragraph, perhaps move the last sentence "To further ground the play in reality, Kooman researched human trafficking and met with survivors" to the beginning, and mention the Ranong incident as a specific part of this research.Third paragraph: Perhaps the "background" section as a whole would be stronger and more focused if we started the section with this paragraph. If we do this I think it works better with the first sentence ("Kooman had written other literary works ...") at the end of the paragraph. So the body of the article would start bang on focus by saying "She Has a Name was Andrew Kooman's first full-length play", then branch out and explain some of the background.
- Maybe this is an WP:ENGVAR issue, but shouldn't theatres generally have "the" before them? "The Royal Opera House"? "The Old Vic"? "The London Palladium"?
Perhaps say the theatre's in Calgary. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]I would recommend trimming the fourth paragraph down a bit: specifically I would remove the part about it being at a justice conference in Michigan and trim down the passage with Waldschmidt to just say something like "Stephen Waldschmidt, one of [the?] Burnt Thicket Theatre's artistic associates, asked to read the script of She Has a Name and said he could not put it down. He was initially reluctant to attach himself to the play because of the immensity and ugliness of the issues therein, but ultimately worked with Kooman to expand it to a full-length play with an extra hour of material by the end of 2010. The result is a play that can be performed in anything from 90 minutes to two hours.""Waldschmidt directed the play's premiere, and Burnt Thicket Theatre served as the play's initial production company" You can change the second "the play's" to "its"
I'd trim the image caption to just "She Has a Name was Andrew Kooman's debut play" or even just "Andrew Kooman, who wrote the play"
More soon — Cliftonian (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Productions
Initial run
"The stage premiere of She Has a Name was directed by Stephen Waldschmidt" We've said this in the last section.
- Is it really necessary to say when auditions took place? Also the reference for this doesn't say the auditions actually happened then, it just says that's when they were scheduled for.
"Aaron Krogman was selected to portray Jason and the unnamed pimp, Sienna Howell-Holden to portray Mama, Glenda Warkentin to portray Marta, Denise Wong to portray Number 18, and Cari Russell to portray Ali" who are all of these characters? I would recommend moving the "Characters" and "Plot summary" sections up so they precede the "Productions" section. Otherwise it's kind of confusing to the uninitiated reader."Both Wong and Russell said they become more emotionally involved in the play than they had originally anticipated, Howell-Holden said that the play changed her life, and Warkentin found acting in the play an emotional challenge and said that she did not realize the depth of the problem of human trafficking" I would lose this to tighten up the prose.
- "The troupe rehearsed for three weeks in Strathmore before the premiere" I'm not sure it's really necessary to mention this—it's kind of taken for granted that actors in a play rehearse
"Performances ran on the centre's Motel stage between February 23 and March 5" The same problem as above—the source is a schedule from beforehand, not a confirmation afterwards that it actually happened. You can easily get around this by saying something like "Performances were scheduled for February 23 to March 5""and people wanting to buy tickets at the door, sometimes numbering 20 or 30, had to be turned away" I would trim this. It is enough in my opinion just to say the performances were sold out.
"where the play was performed until March 12" again, the same temporal problem with the refrencing."The play drew an emotional reaction from the audience.[28][29] The most common audience responses were sadness and gratitude.[30]" In my opinion one of these two sentences would do—we don't need both.
- "Kooman was told that many of the audience members at the initial performances later responded to the play by talking with others about human trafficking, writing letters to their Members of Parliament, and doing other creative things on the subject." Was told by whom? Who could be aware of how "many" of the audience members reacted? Did they all know each other?
"They also contacted Waldschmidt, sometimes up to a year later, with stories about how the play had continued to affect their lives" I find it strange that we should make seemingly hagiographic statements about audience reactions when, as the article stands, we haven't even talked about the play yet."In order to finance" "In order" is almost always unnecessary—"To finance" means the same thing
2012 tour
"directed by Stephen Waldschmidt" we've already mentioned him a few times so we can just say Waldschmidt
- "Warkentin returned to portray Marta, and Howell-Holden returned to portray Mama" how about "and Warkentin and Howell-Holden returned as Marta and Mama"
"Despite the fact that She Has a Name is set in Southeast Asia, the producers deliberately cast actors who were not of Asian descent to avoid giving the impression that human trafficking is limited to Asia" Perhaps "To avoid giving the impression that human trafficking is limited to Asia, the producers deliberately cast actors who were not of Asian appearance." (it is possible for one to be of a certain ancestry without looking it, and the appearance is what's relevant here)Perhaps split this long paragraph after this sentence
- I would recommend making clear that the "London" we mention is London, ON and not England.
- "partway through the tour" you can contract this to "mid-tour" without loss of meaning
- "Red Dear"—typo
- Is it necessary to say exactly which theatre the production went to in each town? We already have the FA on the 2012 tour that discusses this.
"non-audience members" You mean the cast, crew etc?"The purpose of these discussions was to raise awareness about human trafficking in Canada and elsewhere." I think you could easily incorporate this information into the previous sentence to tighten up the prose.
- I think it is going into too much detail to mention everybody who chaired and took part in these discussions. I recommend trimming it down a bit. We have the 2012 tour article so this information wouldn't be lost.
I'd reword the second image caption here to mention the church at the beginning."Cynthia Foster attended one of the performances during the tour, and she later went on to produce and direct the first school production of She Has a Name" perhaps "Cynthia Foster, who attended one of the performance during the tour, went to produce and direct the first school production" (it is obvious from context of what)
Performances in the United States
"She and her sister had become passionate about the issue of human trafficking after having gotten involved with the organization Run for Courage," perhaps "She and her sister had become passionate about the issue of human trafficking as a result of their involvement with the organization Run for Courage"I don't think we need to say their mother thought God had led her to She Has a Name." In order to have the rights to produce the play in the United States, FreeFall Stage made a special arrangement with the Playwrights Guild of Canada" The source just says it was "produced by special arrangement with the Playwrights Guild of Canada", not that this special arrangement was to allow it to be staged south of the border.", who was born in Thailand, where she received a Bachelor of Music, and she was studying at American River College at the time of the performances. She had arrived in the United States in January 2014, and said that, prior to receiving a role in She Has a Name, she had not realized the extent to which human trafficking had become an issue in Thailand" I would snip all this—it's not relevant to the production."In these performances, Ali was portrayed by Brianna Flynn, Marta by Marybeth Moore, and Mama by Sara Matsui-Colby. The voices were separately portrayed by Caitlyn Wardell, Bonnie Antignani, and Jeannette Baisch." What voices? See my comment above about the ordering of the article. It is very hard to understand as it is presently constructed. I would move the "Characters" and "Plot summary" up to appear straight after "background"."Performances ran from May 2 to June 22." But the reference is from before 22 June.
Characters
You don't need the word "different" in the first sentenceI would put "four female and one male" (using the genders as adjectives rather than as nouns)—sounds more consistent"young, female prostitute" don't need to say "young" as we say immediately after she claims to be 15. Also I'm not sure we need "female" as prostitutes are generally assumed to be female unless otherwise stated"beautiful" according to who? the script? is her beauty a plot point? Perhaps reword to "Ali is Jason's wife; they have two young daughters".Perhaps reword to "The other characters are a pimp, who is unnamed, and his assistant, a cruel brothel keeper called Mama."There isn't an inline reference at the end of this paragraph."The script calls for both of the male characters—Jason and the pimp—to be played by the same actor." Perhaps "The script calls for one actor to play both male characters—Jason and the pimp"."these characters serve much the same purpose as a Greek chorus in Greek tragedies." this is an objective statement but I feel it may be better presented as somebody's opinion."While these voices emphasize the horrors of the sex industry, they also empower Number 18, comforting her as divine messengers." says who?
- "The fact that the chorus is made up of dead child prostitutes is revealed only at the end of the play." Perhaps reword to "It is only revealed at the play's conclusion that the chorus is made up of dead child prostitutes."
Since we say at the end of the section that the chorus is made up of dead child prostitutes, perhaps we can cut it from earlier in the paragraph and just say the first time that "Jason and Number 18 are haunted by four voices"?
Plot summary
I will copy-edit here directly.
Themes
"The general topic of the play is human trafficking, and specifically the trafficking of children into sexual slavery" perhaps "human trafficking—specifically the trafficking of children into sexual slavery". More direct and stronger, I think"and she experiences fear, anger, and shame" I think this goes without saying."Waldschmidt said that the sympathetic portrayal of the perpetrators prevents the play from becoming a simplistic story of good and evil." when did he say this?"the stock damsel in distress character" don't think you need "character" at the end hereThe second and fourth paragraphs in this section are very long. I recommend splitting them."In order to depict the tension" Don't need "in order" (both in the prose and in the Skype caption)"whether to continue to work on the case or whether to return to Canada" reword to "whether to continue his work or return to Canada"
- Don't think we need the wikilinks on "Calgarian" and "Vancouverite"
- "Evelyn Chew, the Vancouverite actor who took over the role for the 2012 tour, said that the play is intense because it unabashedly deals with human trafficking, and builds in intensity to its climax." She said the play is intense because it builds in intensity?
- "million women and children sold into sexual slavery each year" is this figure for a specific place or worldwide?
- would change "argued that" to "reported that" (where Mallory Clarkson says audiences can also laugh).
- Do those who say there are funny parts say what those are?
I would change the semi-colon in the last sentence of this section to a full stop.
Critical response
In the UK, Members of Parliament are usually called "John Smith MP" rather than "MP John Smith". Is the latter usage preferred in Canada?- "than expected" by who? Kooman?
When we say "The religious community" do we mean the Christian community, or other religions too? (or the community surrounding a particular sect of Christianity?)
- "because of how she was written rather than how Warkentin performed her" You don't need "written rather than how Warkentin performed her"
I personally think "a play you will carry with you long after the lights have gone up" would be a stronger peroration than "you must see this play".
Infobox and lead
- "and were directed by Emma Eldridge" perhaps "under the direction of Emma Eldridge"
- "a young female prostitute who claims to be fifteen years old" see above—perhaps reword to "who has been a prostitute for six years and claims to be 15 years old"
Again above comment re: "John Smith MP" vs "MP John Smith"
I hope all of this helps. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for this thorough review, John! I have implemented the majority of your recommendations. Please let me know if I have done so to your liking. I didn't add the definite article to mentions of Burnt Thicket Theatre because this entity is a troupe and not a building; I don't know if this is a dialectical difference, but the sources are consistent in omitting the definite article in referring to Burnt Thicket Theatre. I don't know of a source stating that the troupe is based in Calgary, and the "About" section on their official website doesn't declare a home base, although I assume that it's Calgary or the environs. I retained the phrase "Asian descent" rather than "Asian appearance" because the relevant sentence would otherwise imply that the actors were of Asian descent and just didn't look like they were. I cut most of the description of Sunpanich's background, but I retained the statement that she was born in Thailand because it is relevant to the play, which is set in Thailand. I kept the word "young" as a descriptor of Number 18 because removing it would make it seem like Number 18 was older and was just saying she was 15 in order to make more money. In the same sentence, I retained the word "female" because I would prefer to avoid promoting the stereotype that all prostitutes are female. Several sentences in the "Characters" section don't have explicit references for the same reason that there aren't any citations in the "Plot summary" section; this information is taken from the play itself. "MP Joy Smith" is the preferred word order in Canada; a Google News search reveals "MP Joy Smith" to appear much more often than "Joy Smith MP". I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. If I have not, I would be glad to make additional attempts. Thank you again for engaging with the article. I think it looks much better as a result of your input. Neelix (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the reply David. I think the article is much stronger now.
- Burnt Thicket Theatre: OK, this isn't a major issue—just so long as we are consistent with the usage.
- Asian descent: Again not a major issue, on reflection I think most readers can understand from the context what is meant.
- Sunpanich: OK (though, from a pedantic point of view, the play is set in Thailand but that particular character is Cambodian)
- Young: OK, fair enough
- Female: OK, but we do have the feminine descriptor "heroine" immediately beforehand, so perhaps tautology?
- There are still some comments above that haven't been addressed. I have gone through and stricken those that no longer apply or are elaborated on here. Well done on all the work so far, keep it up. =) — Cliftonian (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for striking the issues that have been resolved; it makes it easier to see how to proceed. Considering that five issues remain, I will number them in order below:
I reworded the relevant sentence in the article so that it starts with the words "Kooman learned that some audience members..." In this way, the sentence no longer indicates any entities providing this information to Kooman, and no longer indicates that the number of these members was many. The only remaining question you ask is, "Did they all know each other?", and, unfortunately, this information is not contained in the article. Is there anything else you would like to see happen with this sentence?
- Done; I must have accidentally overlooked this bullet previously.
- Unfortunately, the sources don't provide this information. It has been more than two years since I saw the play myself, and I don't remember funny parts, and it probably wouldn't be useful if I did, as that would be original research on my part. Would you recommend that this portion of the article be altered?
Unfortunately, the source just refers to the religious community and doesn't specify further. I would assume that it was the Christian community, considering that several of the performance locations were churches, but I don't know for sure; the play isn't presented from any particular religious viewpoint, and would probably have supporters from a variety of religions.- I'm not sure what you mean by this point. Removing the portion you indicate would result in a sentence fragment, as far as I understand. Might you phrase your suggestion in another way?
- Thank you again for engaging with this article so thoroughly, John. I look forward to discussing the article with you further. Neelix (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that last one was a mental typo on my part. I mean "because of how she was written" (and end the sentence there). Others I am not too concerned with I have stricken above. There remains the point about reception being "better than expected"; by whom? — Cliftonian (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries; that makes sense. I have removed the portion of the sentence you mention. I have rewatched the video that sources the statement that "the play's premiere and initial run were more critically acclaimed than expected." Unfortunately, the narrator simply says that the fact that the initial performances sold out was an "unexpected response"; it is not stated who wasn't doing the expecting. Given the vagueness of the statement, do you think it should be removed? Neelix (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would be best, particularly as "more critically acclaimed than expected" could be taken to imply that they expected to get bad reviews. Better I think just to say it got generally positive reviews (or something like that). — Cliftonian (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reworded the sentence to remove the vague reference to unattributed expectations. I just noticed your additional revisions; thank you for continuing to help with improvements. Do you have any remaining concerns regarding the article, John? Neelix (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's it for me. Great job. I'm supporting now. — Cliftonian (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
Roscelese feedback[edit]
I've raised this point before, but the article and its two sub-articles are probably 90% fancruft. It is not necessary or desirable to include a day-to-day itinerary, detailed excerpts from paid/PR event listings, pull quotes from every local paper about how great it is, the internal self-congratulation of the production team, ticket sale information, etc. etc. It might be interesting information for a website about the play, but is wholly unencyclopedic and promotional. I cannot support featuring this article and furthering its obviously promotional goals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The content in this article is primarily sourced by articles in public newspapers targeted at a public audience, not articles in fan magazines targeted at fans with niche interests; I do not see how the content in this article could be considered fancruft. As far as I can tell, this article does not include a day-to-day itinerary, nor detailed excerpts from paid/PR event listings. Critical reviews from newspapers are included irrespective of whether or not they are positive; both the favourable and the unfavourable reviews are included. The sole ticket sale information that is included is that the initial performances sold out, which seems to me to be quite encyclopedic information. I do not see why you would consider this article promotional; I have endeavoured to treat this subject as encyclopedically as possible. Neelix (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Truth Zone You could literally find articles in "public newspapers" targeted at a "public audience" about any topic in the world. Anything. Newspapers need to fill up space, and they fill it up with bullshit like this. There's a play in town, they need to write something about it, there you go. This is not significant. Your article is not significant. The hours you have spent crafting this page do not make it significant. You are the very model of a stalker Wikipedian. The guy below who writes that this is "frankly quite moving" - hit the showers. I nominate this article for deletion. Somebody get Jimmy in here. Jimmy, check this shit out. This is who you've got running this place. Gimme a fucking break. Jimmy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.153.206 (talk • contribs)
Oppose. As other comments above have said, this is a fluff piece about a play that is, at best, of very minor regional/local interest. I'm not convinced this should be meeting Wikipedia's Notability criteria, let alone having an article this extensive written about it. The article is filled with minutiae and trivia that could only be of interest to the playwright's mother. The fact that the sources rely almost exclusively on tiny local newspapers (which would of course write puff pieces on whatever tiny local productions are playing at any given time) suggests just how small-scale and unimportant this topic is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.220.106 (talk • contribs)
- Please note that the two sets of comments above were written through IP address accounts which appear to be controlled by a single person who has been operating a variety of new accounts and IP addresses in order to undertake a series of attacks against myself throughout this weekend. Neelix (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written, widely sourced and cited, balanced, and frankly quite moving. A fine article, which I am glad to support. The adverse comments in the section above seem to me extraordinary, and I can't relate to them at all. Respectable newspapers and the comments of their drama critics are the obvious and sensible sources to go to. If in due course the play is dealt with in scholarly books, well and good, but we can't have a policy that nothing about anything new can get to FA till someone's written a book about it. For now the newspapers are exactly the right source. Official campus publications are always to be viewed with caution as far as WP:RS is concerned, but the citations to The Gauntlet et al seem to me as sound as those to the commercial newspapers. The press's views, both the appreciative and the adverse, appear to be fairly and proportionately reflected in the article.
A few minor points on prose:
- Lead
- "The drama centers around" – some people get very hot under the collar at this construction, insisting that centring round is a logical impossibility. I think they're a bit silly, but I try to avoid stepping on their corns by writing "centre – or center – on", which seems to placate them.
- Characters
- "the same purpose as a Greek chorus in Greek tragedies" – you might pipe to get rid of the first "Greek" – it would help the flow of the prose
- Pre-tour revisions and readings
- "in the fall of 2011" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating things by seasons to avoid annoying people in the opposite hemisphere
- Themes
- "without averse effect" – adverse?
- "disassociate" – not good BrEng ("dissociate" is the word) but if it's good Canadian English please ignore me.
That's all from me. It is not easy to review an article that rather affects one's emotions while reading, but I am in no doubt that this is a fine piece of work, and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 13:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the constructive criticism and the support, Tim! I have implemented all of the suggestions you made above. Your comments are quite encouraging, and are greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and minor comments I've been here a few times already, happy to support. Two minor comments
- Please check that where you have multiple refs, they are in numerical order. One or two aren't
- "She Has A Name" in ref 50 looks odd and inconsistent. Even though it's the same in the source, I'd normalise it and lc the third word
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Jim! I don't think I ever would have thought to order the references numerically, but I agree that it looks better in that order. I have made both of the changes you recommended. Neelix (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've commented Support at the prior FAC discussions, as well. The article page about human trafficking seems to have only improved in quality since then. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Cliftonian[edit]
Neelix has requested a source review from me. I'll check formatting etc in one section and do some spotchecks in a second. Reference numbers are given as of the time of this source review (permanent link here).
Formatting
- Particularly for publications that don't have geographic indicators in their names I would recommend putting location tags in there as well to make clear where they are from. This is especially pertinent as the article leans not insignificantly on sourcing to local and regional media as opposed to the national press. For example the Country Sunrise News (ref 24), Gauntlet (ref 30), 100 Huntley Street (ref 32), The Chronicle Herald (several) could be from anywhere. Ditto regarding abbreviations such as CKOM (ref 73).
- What makes The Reflector (ref 27) reliable? Who publishes it? Where?
- I would recommend that more sources, such as Art Threat (ref 67), have the publisher given. For Art Threat this is particularly pertinent as it initially appears just to be some blog but scrolling down reveals it to be under the auspices of the Canada Council for the Arts. Red Deer Living (ref 60) is another example; who publishes this?
Spotchecks
- Ref 1: So far as I can see the source doesn't specifically say Kooman's from Alberta, just that he's a "Red Deer playwright". This could just mean that he lives there. The Red Deer Living source in ref 60 (here) says specifically he was born and raised in Red Deer, so perhaps add this?
I'll come back and finish this later. Hope this helps for a start — Cliftonian (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 4: Doesn't seem to confirm the statement that Waldschmidt "was initially reluctant to attach himself to the play because of the immensity and ugliness of the issues therein, but he ultimately worked with Kooman to expand it into a full-length play with an extra hour of material by the end of 2010."
- Ref 20: incomplete reference to Lethbridge Herald—needs page number and/or url.
- Ref 21: should be [sic] not (sic). Also I can't see here where "Kooman spoke highly of Waldschmidt's directing, and Kooman praised Waldschmidt's work as scenic designer". I think you've confused him with Krogman.
- Ref 57: just says "the content is not recommended for anyone under the age of 15", not specifically that FreeFall Stage said this
- Ref 60: says "they recently scouted locations in Cambodia", not specifically that this was in 2014. Perhaps reword to "By mid-2014 they had scouted locations in Cambodia" or something like this
- I'm restricted in the spotchecks I can do on some of the sources as subscriptions are required for some of them. I will try to get by as best I can.
More later. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I brought this up above as well, but it still bothers me—we say "The religious community's reviews of the initial run were also positive", but the reference is to a single Christian talk show. Both the wording and the sourcing here bother me. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that this Christian talk show reviewed it positively, rather than the whole "religious community"? What is the "religious community" anyway?
Cheers, hope this helps. If anybody else wants to do spotchecks as well that would be great as I didn't check absolutely everything. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comments I'm not convinced that local newspapers are reliable sources by default. What makes the following reliable sources?:
- Red Deer Advocate
- Red Deer Express
- Plank Magazine
- The Strathmore Standard
- The Charlebois Post
- Country Sunrise News
- Strathmore Times
- Mennonite Brethren Herald
- Fast Forward Weekly
- Victoria News.—indopug (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to oppose in light of the nominator's wikibreak. I believe this article should not pass until the local-newspaper sources have been examined and deemed to be reliable.—indopug (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibreak notice[edit]
I am very sorry, everyone. Despite the fact that this FAC has four supports and looks like it is on the cusp of getting the article successfully promoted, I am going on a wikibreak. I have been the target of a very high level of trolling on Wikipedia these past few days, and I think it would be unhealthy for me to continue working in such an environment. I care about this article and would very much like to see it featured, but if it is not ready to be featured as it is now, or if others cannot get it to that point, I will simply have to renominate it for another FAC when I return, which I expect will be in February. Thank you all for your interest in this article. I hope you have an enjoyable, productive, and vandalism-free month. Neelix (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In 1991, Mexican singer Luis Miguel released an album called Romance, a collection of 12 classic boleros. This peculiar recording singlehandedly brought back popularity for the bolero in the 1990s. Miguel was just known as a teen idol before this recording and not only did he get the younger audience into boleros, but he also gained a following with an older crowd. It was so successful, that he recorded three more bolero albums in his career and Romance is one of the bestselling albums of all time in Mexico. I previously worked on Romances (Luis Miguel album) (the third album in the Romance series) and it became the first article about a Spanish-language album to be FA. When Romances was suggested to me to appear as TFA on Valentine's Day (it didn't), that's when I decided I would work on this article hoping to get it TFA on Valentine's Day next year. I never thought I would be able to pull it off until I had some Mexican newspaper archives which helped me a lot on finding how this album came to be.
Note to the spotchecker Most of the articles are in Spanish and articles from El Informador can be searched here. I currently do not know how to link articles from that site. Erick (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query about news archival moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Based on content and prose. EddieHugh (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This simply isn't ready.
On content:
- There are major things missing, not the least of which is anything at all about the music itself. More than a dozen musicians are listed... what did they do? Strings on every track (although only a viola player is listed)? Tempo always the same? Any instrumental bits? Any indication, other than "romantic lyrics", of what the songs are about? Also, what sort of songs did he usually perform?
- I have already indicated what the musicians were credited for on the personnel section, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to say about them. The only information found about the music besides being boleros are that the arrangements are accompanied by a string orchestra. Boleros are just love songs with "poetic lyrics" (which I just added into the article based on the same source I used). The article gives an overview of what all the songs have in common (being romantic love songs and poetic lyrics), information about the song themselves belong on their respective articles (see Inolvidable (song)) as this album is just a collection of songs as opposed to an album with new compositions. I included what Miguel usually performed by including what kind of music J.C. Calderon produced for Miguel before.
- Only 2/12 of the songs have an article, 1 of which has info on the LM version. It's not so much info on the songs themselves (although that would be useful – see below), but info on LM's version of them, that's required. Billboard indicated that the album "categorically redefined the interpretations of traditional boleros", but with no information about what had gone before, and almost no information on his versions, the reader is left to wonder about what was so amazing about them. On the musicians: did all the tracks have the same instrumentation? Any solos? All with strings? etc, etc. There is different poetry, different romance (even the lyrics to the two songs with articles here vary – one on loss, one on new love (in the English version at least) – these should not be lumped together into one class. In summary, add basic info to help someone who hasn't heard the album to get an idea of what can be heard on it. EddieHugh (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh: Okay, I've expanded more on the information on boleros themselves on the parenthesis talking about it to explain how "bolero" is traditionally defined and its music origins. Otherwise, information such as bolero's decline belongs on the article about it not here. On the same source you mentioned for Billboard, Leila Cobo (as well as Mark Holston on the critical reception section) describes Bebu Silvetti's arrangements so readers can see what made Miguel's versions special. All the sources that talk about the arrangements describe the whole album being "string-laden" and if they had mentioned any differentiations between each track as far as music goes, I would have added them already but they don't. The audio sample provided on this article provides a good example of how the album generally sounds like to the readers. The credits and personnel section includes every instrument provided on each track and specifies which track has a specific instrument by a musician. Erick (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to suggest that the description of the arrangements should be put in the section describing the music... I've checked the 13 top-importance FA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and all of them have descriptions of at least some of the tracks, mostly in a dedicated section. If more than half of the Legacy section is on how the album revitalized interest in boleros, then some information on what interest there was before, and why, is needed. There's info in the article "Bolero Kings (and Queens) Sing Songs of Love" from the Wall Street Journal, July 23, 1992, p. A10 (it also describes one song and passes on useful info about LM's age at the time). (Minor things: I didn't suggest more on boleros generally; the Personnel section lists one viola for one track, so we still don't know where the strings came from.) EddieHugh (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh: Those albums however have original compositions so it's important that they describe the tracks for its meaning and music. This album on the other hand only consists of covers (compared with Romances (Luis Miguel album) which is also a FA-article and I even wrote information about the original compositions on that album too). Could you please show me where you got access to that article? I looked on Google, Highbeam, and Questia and couldn't find it. From what I understand what you're trying to say about interests in bolero, I mentioned below that bolero's popularity was at its height in the 1950s until rock took over it's popularity in the 1960s. Boleros then became "uncool" with the younger crowd for a long time until this album came out. I added more information about how the youth perceived boleros before LM recorded them on the Legacy section. For the last part, I only listed whatever what was on the album's booklet and sources say it is an album full of string-laden arrangements so I'm going by what they say. On a side note, thank you for taking the time for replying my comments. Erick (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that provides historical WSJ access would do. ProQuest, for instance. EddieHugh (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh: I'm afraid I do not have access to ProQuest, could you please e-mail the article to me? Erick (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I do what I can to isolate my e-mail from here. I think that there's somewhere on Wikipedia where these things can be requested. Hopefully someone else can advise. EddieHugh (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@EddieHugh:, I was able to access the article (courtesy of NQ from the Resource Request). The article does briefly mention one song ("Inolvidable") yes, but it was talking about Miguel's live performance of the song as opposed to what is heard on the album. According to an article for the Miami Herald, Miguel sung it live with a faster tempo than his original recording during the Romance Tour. One major fact I was able to get from the article is how Mary Talbot compared the bolero's renewed interest to swing jazz being revived at the time and they both were overtaken by rock music. I added this info in the legacy along with a source from the book The Rough Guide to Cuban Music by Philip Sweeney. I also put more information on what made Miguel's versions of boleros special aside from the arrangements by adding a comment from his former manager. Erick (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh:, it has been a week since your last comment. Is there anything I haven't already addressed? Erick (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that I find it unlikely that an album that sold 7,000,000 copies had no reviews that genuinely described any of the individual tracks. Is there someone who has access to other sources in Spanish? The bits that I've read in English indicate that LM was young, good looking and already popular, but this doesn't come out in the background section, which is where it should be. That section's prose and contents are also not much better than before: LM considered boleros after an interview and because his manager suggested them (which? Or was there a link?); "it would be the first time Miguel serve as a producer for his album" (bad English); "He previously performed boleros (including songs recorded by Manzanero) during his previous tour" (repetition of 'previous'). The strings matter has not been addressed; there's a mix of roles and job titles in the Credits section (and a random selection of capital letters); the sources have spaced emdashes and an assortment of approaches to capitalization; etc. More important is that the prose is not going to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (criterion 1a) without a substantial rewrite. It's not a bad article – fine as a GA, but a lot of thought and effort on phrasing would be needed to get it to meet that criterion. EddieHugh (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh: I already asked someone (off-wiki) who I know has access to Mexican magazines before I actually began working on the article and he couldn't find any reviews and the third review with with Mark Holston was the only one the Resource Exchange could find. Yes, thank you for pointing that out, I found information about his earlier albums with WEA Latina being successful in Mexico and I included info about him already being a teen idol at the time of his last album. There was a little more to his decision on recording boleros which I also added. I only go with what reliable sources say about the strings even if the album booklet doesn't list other musicians who did string instruments. I always used emdashes on my articles references (including those that got FA). Erick (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On prose (and content to some extent), taking just the Background and recording section:
- "was in the works". Too casual.
- Changed to "was in preparation". I'm considering using the word "production", but I'm unsure about the over usage of the word in the paragraph.
- "since he signed with the label". When was that?
- Specified.
- "Original plans were". Not 'The original plans were'?
- Fixed.
- "Production was scheduled to begin in April, with Italian- and English-language albums to follow". Does that mean Eng and Ita versions of the album, or completely different albums?
- Specified by using studio albums (although the source doesn't really clarify).
- "Miguel had a contractual deadline with his label to record new material". New in what sense? He recorded an album of covers.
- New in the sense having to record something. Per the source from the Sun-Sentinel: "Luis Miguel's contract with Warner had a deadline the singer could not meet if he looked for new songs."
- "a television program interviewed where they both were interviewed". First "interviewed" → "interview", but the repetition is bad anyway.
- Removed first instance of "interviewed".
- "He previously performed boleros (including songs recorded by Manzanero) during his 20 Años tour". When? Content: what exactly was 'wrong' with baleros anyway? Why were they unfashionable, and since when (useful for a background section)?
- According to Mark Holston on the article Ageless romance with bolero, and The Rouge Guide to Cuban Music by Philip Sweeney, boleros became unfashionable when rock and roll became the prominent genre in Latin America throughout the 1960s.
- "manager Hugo López". Manager of what?
- Changed to "his manager Hugo López"
- "hired Manzanero to take over the project". Take over in what sense?
- Fixed.
- "it would be Miguel's first self-produced album". Two sentences later, in another para, it's co-produced. Put this stuff together.
- I changed it state that it was the first time Miguel became a producer for his own album.
- "Miguel and Manzanero selected which boleros to cover for the album out of five hundred songs". This should be earlier, with the other information on song selection. Rephrasing for flow is advisable, too.
- Fixed
- "Seven of the album's twelve tracks were recorded by September 13, 1991". And the other five?
- I was unable to find anything what happened after the incident not even when recording resumed.
A quick note on fidelity to sources:
- "In the United States, Romance debuted at number ten on the Billboard Latin Pop Albums chart for the week of December 14, 1991; it reached number one two weeks later, replacing Daniela Romo's Amada Más Que Nunca.[50][51]" Those sources put it at 10 on Dec 14; I'm not sure where they state that it debuted at 10. Dec 14 to Jan 11 is not 2 weeks. Which of those 2 sources has it replacing DR? (It could be that the Billboard site isn't working properly, as it has space for that info, but is not displaying it. Either way, a more stable source is preferable.) EddieHugh (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According Billboard.biz (the url is http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f[0]=is_bmdb_album_id%3A346727&f[1]=itm_field_chart_id%3A295&refine=1 it keeps screwing up when I try to link it), it did debut on the chart on the week of December 14, 1991. I fix the number of weeks it took to reach #1 (I forgot that the Latin pop albums chart were posted bi-weekly at the time of the album's release when I was counting them). The number one album for each week can be found on the bottom by using the "Browse the Latin Pop Albums Archives".
Hello EddieHugh, I believe I have addressed your main issues about the article. If there's anything else that needs fixing, please let me know. In regards, Erick (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from WikiRedactor
- Done
- Do we have specific dates for the single release dates or are the months the closest verification we can find?
- No, the months are the closest verification I can find.
- I'd like to see "Promotion" renamed "Singles and promotion" just so readers know where to find them at quick glance.
- Done
- "Certifications" should not be in the same column with "Charts and certifications". I'd personally like to see "Charts" as its own unit and "Certifications" as a grouping underneath it.
- Done
WikiRedactor (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiRedactor: Fixed everything you addressed. I looked at our article Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 to see how the certifications section should be handled and I followed the format. Thanks for the reply! Erick (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiRedactor: I'm sorry to bother you, but it's been a week since I addressed the issues you mentioned. I understand if you have been really busy. Erick (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So sorry for the late reply! You always deliver solid work, and I see no further issues that would keep me from supporting the promotion. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Thank you Eddie and Erick for picking up on your discussions following Christmas / New Year, but with some outstanding concerns there, prose among them, and little enough in the way of other reviews apart from WikiRedactor, I can't see consensus to promote being achieved any time soon. I'll therefore archive this and let you take some time away from FAC to see if further improvements can't be made before a possible re-nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator(s): BollyJeff | talk 02:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the entire world. Since it reached GA in August, I have further improved it significantly, and had it copy-edited by the GOCE. I am confident that it is now FA quality. Khan is turning fifty in about a year, and I would like to see this as TFA at that time. Please enjoy reading about this highly admired actor. I would also like to acknowledge and thank User:Dr. Blofeld for the contributions that he made after starting his review. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 02:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I did not read the article properly during peer review. I am giving some comments here as I read it:
the very first sentence, "... is an Indian actor, producer, television personality and philanthropist". Philanthropist is not a profession, at least not his profession. I think that word should be deleted. Other opinions are welcome.IMO, you should add "film" before "actor", as he is primarily a film actor (as opposed to theater actor). What is the usual practice for articles on film actors?" His eighth Filmfare Best Actor Award put him in a tie for the most in that category" I feel not significant enough to be in the lead."Khan later earned wide critical acclaim for his portrayal". IMO, remove the word "wide". Just "critical claim" conveys pretty much the same meaning."the family was often living in near poverty in a rented apartment" Is that what the source say? they were in poverty? I mean , living in rented apartment hardly establishes poverty in Delhi. His schooling in St Columbus also apparently goes against being poor. I am pretty sure his father was not below the poverty line (if there was one such thing at that time).
- The source says "hovered at the edge of genteel poverty" which is a bit of an oxymoron. How to translate that, middle class?
- Yes, I think middle class is appropriate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
"The death of Khan's parents at an early age affected him greatly. He described these events as a motivator for his own work ethic" The first sentence sounds rather melodramatic/not having any worth. Can be removed I guess. Now, how come deaths of parents motivates work ethic? the work ethic/working style/lectures of a parent can influence work-ethic, but death?
- The source says "was very attached to his parents as a child and describes their early deaths as a turning point in his life and as his biggest motivation for hard work." I just report what the sources say; I am not making this up.
- Yeah, but you have to weigh the weight of each source! a photogallery in IndiaTimes is a pretty poor source in general. Plus, we don't even need this. IMO, not worth the space in this pretty big article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I agree. Done.
"a Punjabi Hindu" needs wikilink(s).
"She never fully recovered from the shock of her parent's deaths" That sounds un-medical. The shock/grief from family member's death are normal events and last for weeks-months. Non-recovery from such grief is completely abnormal, and suggests underlying psychiatric disorder (depression, personality disorder, or whatever). Any clues on that? Otherwise, this sentence reads like emotional Bollywood movie, honestly, and can be removed.
- I am sure that you are correct about an underlying psychiatric disorder, but I have not yet found sources that dare to say it in that way, so again I lightly paraphrased what was written. I will look for a source with more direct language.
- Or even can remove the " never fully recovered from the shock" part and just say that she lives with SRK family.
- I added some more direct language from another source.
--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all of the above has been resolved. BollyJeff | talk 19:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Umeed, Wagle Ki Duniya, and that English TV film needs years of release.
- "Khan had travelled between Delhi and Mumbai during this period, and was not interested in film acting" Okay, this needs some background info for those who do not know that those serials were made in Mumbai, and that is why he needed to travel between his residence in Delhi and workplace in Mumbai. Otherwise, for those who do not know, the inclusion of this sentence in the biography does not make any sense. Or, you can entirely remove this sentence. The very next sentence discusses his permanent move to Mumbai anyway.
- " Also released in 1992 were Chamatkar, and Khan's first films as the male lead, Dil Aashna Hai" But Chamatkar released before Dil Aashna Hai, and Khan was the male lead in Chamatkar.
- " The Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema said "he defied the image of the conventional hero in both these films..." In this particular use, the year of the publication of the Encyclopedia is needed. The encyclopedia said this in 2003, ten years afterwards, which helps establish the historical significance of the comment
- " In a retrospective review, Sukanya Verma called it Khan's best performance" Needs year for the review.
- "Khan's performance as a young NRI who falls" NRI needs full term.
- Can the description of Dil Se be slightly reduced? It occupies a large number of words, compared to other films of similar significance of the same time (say, Dil To Pagal hai)
- "Ironically, Khan became a romantic icon without ever actually kissing any of his co-stars" The word "Ironically" appears editorialized for an encyclopedia. You can use quotations; otherwise, this needs rephrasing.
- "starring the handsome debutante actor..." This spelling of debutante something else.
- "Khan's next release was Mansoor Khan's action drama Josh" Since it is a new paragraph, it's better to include the year in this sentence.
- "The film was screened at the Venice Film Festival and the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival to a positive response, but it performed poorly in Indian box offices, and losses continued to mount for the production company, forcing him to close srkworld.com, a sub-company that he had started along with Dreamz Unlimited" A long, convoluted sentence. Please consider splitting.
- 10 Filmfare Awards (including 'Best Scene'): Best scene is a category? Even if it is, it does not need to be mentioned.
"Because of Khan's spinal injury from 2001, he was in acute pain while shooting" The term acute for medical illness is used to denote time/duration, and acute means of short duration (see Pain#Duration). This needs to be changed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above has been resolved. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 17:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "..told the story of two unhappily married couples in New York who have an extramarital affair. " Shouldn't it be "have extramarital affairs"?
- "whose love for his accidental wife Sharma" Accidental wife? This needs to be re-phrased.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BollyJeff | talk 23:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, great job on expanding and writing so much details about one of the world's and especially India's most famous persons. It is a privilege for me to read this article.
Can you empty the references from the lead section as per WP:LEAD and explain about the sentences with references in later sections. (For example: There is repeition about the Los Angeles Times refernce. You can remove the reference from the lead section and place it in "Popularity and wealth" section.)"one of the most successful leading actors of Hindi cinema" - "leading" can be removed (even though it is true, it does sound a bit like an honorific. 
)"a co-owner" can be rephrased as "the co-owner"."Media often label him "Brand SRK" because" - Can you add the word "as" in-between "him" and "Brand SRK"?"Newsweek named him one of the 50 most powerful people in the world." can be rephrased as "Newsweek included him in their list of the 50 most powerful people in the world." (If it is only their list. If the list from newsweek is used by all newspapers and magazines, then leave the sentence as it is.).
"Shahnaz continues to live with the Khans in their Mumbai mansion." - Can it be rephrased as "Shahnaz continues to live with her brother and his family in their Mumbai mansion."
Can you find a better alternative word (a synonym) for "loverboy" (other than "Romantic Hero")? (Section : 1995–98: The Romantic Hero.)"top-grossing production" can be rephrased as "highest-grossing production"For the film Duplicate, the source (Box Office India) states that it is "Below Average". Just wanted to ask if "Below Average" is considered as a "commercial failure"? You can also re-write the sentence as "did not perfom well at the box office.""candyfloss romance" - Can you re-write it as simply "romantic film" and wikilink it?
"Ashoka the Great" sounds like an honorific again and can be rephrased as "King Ashoka" (even though Ashoka the Great is mentioned in the article "Ashoka".) - (1999-2003 Section)
"ensemble cast" can be wikilinked - (2004-09 Section)"It earned Khan another nomination for Best Actor at the Filmfare ceremony." can be rephrased as "It earned Khan another nomination for Best Actor at the Filmfare Awards."The source TOI doesn't say it is a "starring role" in Slumdog Millionare. It just says that it is "a role that subsequently went to Anil Kapoor". Can you rephrase it like this? The word Filmfare is sometimes written in italics and sometimes not. Can you write it in italics? (Except in places where it says "Filmfare Award for Best Actor" or "was nominated for Best Actor at the Filmfare Awards".)
- The only times it's in italics is when referring to the magazine; I think that is correct. BollyJeff | talk 17:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"For his performance in the film, Khan was nominated for a Filmfare Award for Best Actor." - Can you add the source for this sentence as it is unsourced. (Section : 2010-2013)Can you add a little bit more about Happy New Year in the "2010-13" Section as it is already released. Also, I would recommend you to rename the section as "2010-Present".Have you already wikilinked Always Kabhi Kabhi? If not please do so. If so, please state atleast a few deatils about the film in the 2010-13 Section.In this reference for Anjaam, it doesn't show Box Office India's verdict. Can you find an alternative source that explains the film's performance?
- Ssven2 (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not found a reliable source for Anjaam, but the fact that it's blank in the provided list means it was not good. Cameos are mostly not mentioned, but AKK is linked in off-screen work section. Except for HNY, which I will get to, the rest has been implemented where appropriate. Thank you for your kind words. BollyJeff | talk 15:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bollyjeff: Maybe you could use this source for Anjaam? It states that it was a "below avarage". You can write the sentence, "The film was a commercial failure, but Khan's performance earned him the Filmfare Best Villain Award." as "Although the film did not do well at the box office, Khan's performance earned him the Filmfare Best Villain Award." Ssven2 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I will use it. BollyJeff | talk 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bollyjeff: Please do expand just a little bit about HNY (details like Box Office, Something the critics say about the film.) Ssven2 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. Great job once again. Ssven2 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ssven2 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have anything much to say, but you can try rewriting the section titles (eg: "1995–98: The Romantic Hero" and "Behind the camera") more formally and neutrally. Also, do please balance the usage between "Bollywood" and "Hindi cinema". And I don't think "movie" is a very formal or encyclopedic term (use "film" instead). Kailash29792 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to retain the phrase "Romantic hero" if possible. It is used both in Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema and in the Anumpama Chopra book (possibly others), so it should be formal enough for here. It is an important part of SRKs story. BollyJeff | talk 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A new list of comments:
- Lead
- I think Bollywood can be referenced in any manner as a nickname for Hindi cinema.
- "For his contribution to film" - I think this should be pluralised.
- "an autistic man in My Name Is Khan" - I think his disease there was asperger's syndrome, not autism.
- "Media often label him as "Brand SRK"..." - Media who? Outlets or personalities? If neither (or both), it better be "the media".
- Early life and background
- "mid teens" - is that not colloquial? Because "teen" is a shortening of "teenage".
- Acting career
- "In the critically acclaimed series" - WP: WORDS discourages the usage of "acclaimed". But it may stay with a valid reason given by you.
- I think there can be some de-capitalisation in "The Romantic Hero".
- "Mani Kaul's miniseries Idiot (1991)" - the article reads it as 1992, and is it a single film or a miniseries?
- Read the rest of the article. It came as a mini-series first in 1991. I am not now going to attempt a name move. BollyJeff | talk 00:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Khan changed his mind about films" - "changed his mind" is idiomatic and clichéd, so it must be replaced with something more literal (how about "changed his decision"?)
- "His performance in Baazigar [...] won him his first Filmfare Best Actor Award." - use the full name of the award as its article is titled. Same applies for "Filmfare Best Villain Award".
- Because Rediff writer Sukanya Verma does not seem to have a Wikipedia article and sources published by herself are used in this article, refer to her by her occupation (eg: Sukanya Verma of Rediff...)
- Reincarnation can be wikilinked.
- Update info on DDLJ's run at Maratha Mandir in present tense.
- "Khan became a romantic icon without ever actually kissing any of his co-stars" - But this feat was broken in Jab Tak Hai Jaan (2012), so do something about this.
- "Kaho Naa... Pyaar Hai starring the handsome new actor Hrithik Roshan, who took the country by storm at the time." - there seems to be some POV here, and I don't think the film literally created a storm.
- "[Hey Ram] was critically acclaimed and was selected as India's entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars that year" - use the actual name of the award, not "Oscar".
- "Taran Adarsh of Bollywood Hungama called him outstanding" - put the peacock term within quotes.
- "the adult-drama Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna" - the film's article reads it as a "musical romantic drama", and I don't think it was an adults-only film. Also, replace the z in "polarizing" with s, to look less American.
More to come soon. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done up to here. BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sections "Ups and downs" and "Back on top" can be renamed to something more formal, like "career instability" and "resurgence".
- Lol, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bibliography and further reading
- Remove "further reading", as the former name is enough.
Comment I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Last comment: How reliable is RajTamil as a source? It also appears to be a case of WP:MIRROR. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed this text and source, and added another comment that is better sourced. BollyJeff | talk 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. And because I find no other flaws, this FAC has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick glance, I see there isn't very much in the section on his awards. Probably worth adding another paragraph on them, as WP:LAYOUT discourages sections/subsections that don't exceed a short paragraph. Alternatively, the section on them could be removed and the awards/nominations list page be moved to "see also". Additionally, why only include his net worth in American dollars if he isn't American? I'll be back with a more detailed review later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The source listed his net worth in US dollars. Is there a converter template from USD to other currencies, and would that even be desired? Also, why did you remove the select filmography. Those were the films that won him certain "best actor" awards. If I rename the section, or add a note stating such, would this be acceptable? I have seen these in other FAs. BollyJeff | talk 00:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if I remove the one paragraph on awards, I will have to add a bunch of sources in the lead, which is also not desirable. It was a subsection, not a section, before you changed it. BollyJeff | talk 00:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed it because "selected" lists are POV (see Talk:Ashton Kutcher#GA Review). If consensus determined not to use crores and lakhs for net worth, then so be it. I would ideally list his net worth in rupees. Anyway, onto the review, with raw article size not withstanding.....
- Lead
- "Shah Rukh Khan also known as SRK" should have a comma after "Shah Rukh Khan"
- "numerous accolades" should link to List of awards and nominations received by Shah Rukh Khan
- I don't find it necessary to include his total number of nominations for Filmfare Awards in the lead- that's better for the above linked article rather than here
- "The media often label him as" → "He has often been labeled as"
- Then someone will say by who?
- Early life and background
- I don't know if "One of his childhood friends and acting partners was Amrita Singh, who later became a Bollywood actress" is needed
- "he commenced studying"..... began
- "but abandoned the course to pursue his career"..... seems incomplete, I'd use something like "acting career" or "career in film"
- "he also values his wife's religion. At home, his children follow both religions; the Qur'an is situated next to the Hindu deities"..... it should be established that Gauri Chibber is Hindu before the "At home" sentence
- It is, three sentences earlier.
- Acting career
- The sub-article linked is an expanded version of what is here, but I moved the filmography link here as well.
- 1988–92
- Television and film debut
- Is "mass recognition" the best term to use in "earned him mass recognition"?
- "He earned the Filmfare Best Male Debut Award for the performance"..... it's best to include specific roles/movie names for sentences like these
- 1993–94
- The anti-hero
- I know what "dark roles" is supposed to mean, but it seems POV
- 1995–98
- The romantic hero
- "the following year was an improvement"..... POV
- "The film and his performance in it met with critical appreciation"..... awkward phrasing
- 1999–2003
- Career challenges
- "Khan turned producer in 1999"..... something doesn't seem right about this phrasing
- Not sure if "but more than recovered its costs" is needed
- "he was in great pain"..... maybe severe would be better
- 2004–09
- Resurgence
- "although the critic from Epilogue"..... you need to provide the critic's name
- I don't know about the use of "serious" in "Khan suffered a serious shoulder injury"
- Remove "intense" from "the intense pain"
- 2010–present
- "effectively" in "Khan effectively portrayed" seems POV
- "One publication criticised Khan's oversexualised superhero"..... "oversexualised" is POV, and the "one publication" should be named
- "Regardless" is inappropriate tone when used at the beginning of a sentence
- "On 7 March 2013—a day before International Women's Day—The Times of India reported that Khan had requested a new convention with the name of his lead female co-stars appearing above his own in the credits"..... no quotes on request or reasons doing so?
- "As of December 2014, Khan is filming Maneesh Sharma's Fan, in which he essays dual roles of a superstar and his fan. He has also signed on for director Rahul Dholakia's next film, entitled Raees, produced by Excel Entertainment and co-starring Nawazuddin Siddiqui"..... I would include scheduled release date(s)
- Other work
- "which is not common for Bollywood actors" from "Khan has occasionally done playback singing for his films, which is not common for Bollywood actors" is not really necessary
- "which became popular on the music charts"..... I'd give specific chart names
- Humanitarian causes
- "Khan stated in an interview with The Guardian" → "Khan told The Guardian"
- "Khan has pledged to further the cause of child education in India"..... awkward phrasing
- "he teamed up with Amitabh Bachchan and Judi Dench"..... perhaps joined is better
- In the media
- While Dr. Blofeld and others did extensively compile the referral article, I personally would've just cut any excess detail and not included a subpage.
- "Khan receives a large amount of media coverage in India, and is often referred" → "Khan is often referred"
- Is "Wealth X" reliable? I've seen it challenged when used for net worth on other BLPs, and don't know whether its credibility has been established or not.
- Not sure if "Several books about Khan were published in 2007, including Mushtaq Sheikh's Still Reading Khan, which describes Khan's family life and features rare photographs, and Anupama Chopra's biography King of Bollywood: Shahrukh Khan and the Seductive World of Indian Cinema, set against the backdrop of the Indian film industry" is needed
- "In 2007, Khan became the third Indian actor to have his wax statue installed at London's Madame Tussauds museum"..... it would probably help to mention those who preceded him
- Filmography and awards
- One paragraph isn't very much for his awards, given how many Khan has recieved. Even though there is a separate article for his awards, it's worth adding another paragraph on his achievements.
- This should really focus more on his awards
- "has likely garnered him more awards"..... borderline WP:WEASEL
- References
- It is italicized in its own article, but I will take your word for it.
- FN's 5 and 7: YouTube tends to be discouraged as a source, and can potentially go against copyrights
- FN5 is not available elsewhere, FN7 is the YT channel of the interviewer, so no copyright problem
- FN15: Twitter is discouraged as a source when high-quality secondary sources are available
- It would take a lot of sources to cover that one sentence
- FN27: "Daily Bhaskar" should read Dainik Bhaskar
- FN71: Has a HARVref error that needs to be addressed
- FN96: Should just read BBC News
- Why? What about 33 and 186/187?
- FN113: Same problem as FN71
- FN136: Should read Film Journal International
- FN175: Unlink Red Chillies Entertainment since it was previously linked in FN174
- FN187: Same as FN96
- FN198: Should read "Business of Cinema"
- FN199: Not sure this is FA-worthy
- HuffPost, really?
- FN213: Should read Yahoo! Movies
- FN222: reliable?
- FN234: should read "Indian Television"
- That seem too generic, and the .com is in their logo
- Bibliography
- The following all have HARVref errors:
- Byline by M. J. Akbar
- Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge: (The "Brave-Hearted Will Take the Bride") by Anupama Chopra
- Bollywood Travels: Culture, Diaspora and Border Crossings in Popular Hindi Cinema by Rajinder Dudrah
- King Khan by Deepa Gahlot, Dipali Singh, and Amit Agarwal
- Hall Of Fame Shah Rukh Khan by Biswadeep Ghosh
- Global Bollywood: Travels of Hindi Song and Dance by Sangita Gopal and Sujata Moorti
- Impossible Desires: Queer Diasporas and South Asian Public Cultures by Gayatri Gopinath
- The Routledge Encyclopedia of Films by Sabine Haenni, Sarah Barrow, and John White
- A Companion to Diaspora and Transnationalism by Ato Quayson and Girish Daswani
- Dispatches From the Wall Corner:A Journey Through Indian Cinema by Baradwaj Rangan
- New Cosmopolitanisms: South Asians in the US by Gita Rajan and Shailja Sharma
- Shahrukh Khan — Still Reading Khan by Mushtaq Shiekh
- Shah Rukh Can: The Story of the Man and Star Called Shah Rukh Khan by Mushtaq Shiekh
- Mother Maiden Mistress by Bhawana Sommiya
- My I ask what the errors are? It is not obvious to me. BollyJeff | talk 01:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You may need to install this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm going to oppose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some good points SNUGGUMS, thanks for looking at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think your ping worked back in November Bollyjeff requesting input at peer review as I wasn't aware of this until recently. Never mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "For his contributions to film, the Government of India honoured him with the Padma Shri, and the Government of France has awarded him both the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres and the Légion d'honneur." I think that would read better at the end of the lede. I think you could also mention the dates that he was awarded those.
- " He is considered one of the biggest film stars in India and has a massive fan following; the Los Angeles Times described him as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star". " on the otherhand I think belongs nearer the beginning. Don't like the word "massive" here. I think it;s important also to put it in context as calling him the world's biggest movie star might look odd to many of our (white) western readers, many of whom will not really be that familiar with him. For most of us (in the UK) Tom Cruise or Will Smith or somebody would have that title, I'd say a good percentage of the population will not have heard of him. It's due to sheer numbers of fans in Asia and the Indian diaspora worldwide which really account for the bulk of his fanbase and being the biggest star. I've reworded and moved it around a bit myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
- It's difficult to mention specific Filmfare winning roles given that he's won 14, but as a reader I think it would be good to know at least a handful of the films which he won the most awards for for reference.
- In the lead, or how about in filmography and/or awards sections? BollyJeff | talk 13:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The awards section in the main I think could state the roles which he won Filmfare awards for. Personally I think if Filmfare is the most important award then the Filmfare table in the sub article belongs in the main article too so readers can quickly check. In the lede it's difficult to really do it without bloating it. But if there was one or two roles which stand out by sheer merit perhaps mention it there too?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Early life
- "Khan's father Meer Taj Mohammed Khan, an ethnic Pashtun, was an Indian independence activist from Peshawar, British India (present-day Pakistan), a follower of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan,[9] and was affiliated with the All Indian National Congress.[10] " -a bit of a mouthful, could split into two sentences.
- "Khan's mother Lateef Fatima was the daughter of a senior government engineer.[12][c] His parents met when his mother was involved in an auto accident, and his father (who is 13 years older than she) " Not sure it is relevant to mention 13 years, but if so it would be better to word it something like "Khan's mother Lateef Fatima, 13 years his junior, was the daughter of a senior government engineer.[12][c] His parents met when his mother was involved in an auto accident, and his father...
- "half Pathan " -is there a link for Pathan or is it another word for Pashtun? I see no previous mention of it.
- "His cousin in Peshawar" -you might mention him by name.
- Fix link to St. Columba's School, Delhi, you might say in central Delhi after it. Do we have years of attendance?
Especially relevant give that you say "His favourite actors at the time " without actually stating the time.
- "He started studying for a Masters Degree in Mass Communications at Jamia Millia Islamia, but left to pursue his career.[23] He also attended the National School of Drama, Delhi during his early career in Bollywood.[24" -again some year mention here would help put it in context.
- Acting
- "His initial film roles saw him play characters who displayed high levels of energy and enthusiasm. According to Arnab Ray of Daily News and Analysis, "he came, sliding down stairs on a slab of ice, cartwheeling, somersaulting, lips trembling, eyes trembling, bringing to the screen the kind of physical energy ... visceral, intense, maniacal one moment and cloyingly boyish the next."" -which film does this refer to?
- "He received a nomination for the Filmfare Award for Best Performance in a Negative Role, also known as the Best Villain Award.[50] B" -which film? The Darr/Baazigar does seem a bit jumbled to read. I think you need to get information about the role sorted first. "Baazigar, in which Khan played an ambiguous avenger who murders his girlfriend, shocked Indian audiences with an unexpected violation of the standard Bollywood formula." for instance definitely belongs before the Encyclopedia quote I think.
- "In 2006, Khan considered this film to the best one he has acted in." to be or he compared it to another film which he considered the best?
- "Khan was subsequently credited for "pushing the envelope" by choosing to play such characters, " -by whom?
- Romantic hero
- "Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge has grossed over INR1.2 billion (US$19 million) worldwide.[59] " Doesn't really belong there. If you must mention a figure do so where you say major commercial success. It does seem odd in 2014 terms to see a film earning just $19 mill as a massive success though!
- The flow of 1996-7 paragraph isn't great either it seems like in note form towards the end. Could use a copyedit. The problem continues into 1998 with short sentences like "The film did not perform well at the box office." I don't like keep reading that sort of thing. I think in some cases you don't have to keep saying how it fared at the box office, or at least reword it so it fits into discussion of the film without devoting a sentence to it.
- " These roles," -what roles, as far as I can see you're only discussing Kuch Kuch in that paragraph.
- " romantic icon " -repetition . I believe neutrality is compromised at the end of this section. Needs to be reworded to say the same thing without so much fluff.
- Career challenges
- " The critics were very harsh on Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani and Khan himself, saying that he was no match for the younger Roshan." -an example or two of the grilling would be good here.
- "Khan waved his fee for playing this part." -why?
- 2001-3 -good job, reads much better than the earlier section
- Resurgence
- Priety Zinta -typo
- ""Top 80 Iconic Performances"" -of Bollywood?
- Paheli was panned yet ""justifies his supremacy in the film world". Yuck, looks like cherry picking.
- 2007 "Chak De! India was a major critical and commercial success in India and abroad." -you could just say successful when you introduce the film.
- Television hosting
- Zee Cine, and Screen Awards. -should these be linked or have you already done it further up?
- If you're going to link Perth and Sydney, why not Rotterdam? MOS advises against linking big cities I believe, Sydney definitely falls under that, Perth probably too.
- SLAM! The Tour -no link?
- Endorsements
- " At times he was an ever present celebrity, with two or three films a year, constantly running television ads, print ads, and gigantic billboards lining the streets of Indian cities." -vague and surely "ever present" would depend on the context and person.
- "Khan has also been engaged " -best not to start a new paragraph with also
- "For a time, Khan's brand value was thought to have declined slightly because of his status as an ageing superstar. " -according to whom?
- Popularity
- "he was able to personify an ambitious, assertive and yet feel-good India." -seems like patriotic puffery
- "In 2014, the firm Wealth X ranked Khan second in their listing of the richest actors in the world" -after who?
- Public image
- "Media have said his dimples are one of his distinctive physical features.[273] Khan has also achieved recognition as a style icon in India.[274] In 2011, the British edition of GQ magazine featured him as one of the best dressed men in the world" -See you don't need to say all that. You could simply say "A style icon, in 2011 the British edition of GQ magazine featured him as one of the best dressed men in the world".
Overall, way way too much puffery in the media sections and the bulk of the information about it all I think overshadows your coverage of his actual film career which should really represent 70-75% of the article. I know it's SRK but I really believe it affects article neutrality and encyclopedic quality. There's way too much detail for the main article and reads like a fan piece in the lower sections. I think you should create an article Shah Rukh Khan in the media or whatever and cover from non acting to the end in it and aim to cut down the bulk in this article on his various media assets I'd say by at least 30%. Normally I'd give a straight oppose, but I know how diligently you can work Bollyjeff so I'm going to revisit this later. If you need any assistance in cutting and improving let me know Jeff.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything up until this last paragraph is easily fixable, but that really kills it. Are you suggesting to include non acting in the main article, or cut that and everything below? Can you show me another actor's article that cuts out all other work and media except acting to a sub-article as a reference? If I cut all of that, the lead would be nearly empty as an article summary. He is way more than just acting. Shah Rukh Khan except early life and acting?? BollyJeff | talk 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that he is does more than just acting, but you can cover his other endeavours within moderation without so much puffery. Do you really need to say he had fans at an airport in New Jersey for instance... I am suggesting that you find a way to split the bulk of the other work material into an article or two covering it in detail and condensing down the coverage here. I did not say " cut out all other work and media except acting" now did I? I said that I don't think it should be 50-50. High status or not the coverage of his other work here is (in my opinion) excessive to read and I don't believe it reads as well as it would do if you file away some of the puffery. Popularity and wealth, Public image and in other media. Three big sections. Why? I think you could quite reasonably combine all three into one section which reads well and is informative without so much forced down our throats as the reader on how wonderful he is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that I could create another article to "cover from non acting to the end". It was, and is still not, clear to me if you meant that the non-acting work would be part of the main or the sub article. The three sections that you mentioned could be pared, but they currently account for about 20%, and I am thinking of criteria 1b - comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. BollyJeff | talk 18:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think creating an article on SRK in the media with some of the lower sections is quite reasonable and filing down three big sections on image and success to one would be a good start. "neglects no major facts or details " does not mean we must document everything reported like fans at an airport and smoking in public. Perhaps you'd like some further input from others. I personally find it excessive to read three or four sections on media related material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will implement your other suggestions right away, and figure out how to do the rest in a sandbox, but yes, I would like others opinions before making a split and/or paring down 10-20% of the article. Thank you. BollyJeff | talk 20:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I acknowledge that it's appropriate to give his media work and coverage considerable attention but you've got at least 4 sections, Endorsements, Popularity and wealth, Public image and in other media which I really don't think is necessary in a main article piece about him anyway. I think he has had enough media coverage to constitute a detailed article especially on that with his various assets, but not in a main article on him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorsements is considered media coverage rather than work? He earns a large portion of his income from that. What about Humanitarian stuff; where should that go? BollyJeff | talk 23:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorsements and advertising are certainly part of his relationship with media and commerce yes. It needs a lot of pruning, and it's not just the media content which needs filing down. I think the acting career section would benefit in places from some production information and better reviews to improve readability and the encyclopedic value, particularly in his earlier career. The 2001-03 part reads very well I thought, and there was a reason for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've managed to keep all the material together and create Shah Rukh Khan in the media, a 45kb article in it's own right. That can be worked on at a later date. This takes priority for now. "In the media" covers endorsements too I think, it's promotional and media relations isn't it. I don't think you need to trim the TV and stage work much at all, but from endorsements down I think there should be two main sections maximum, Humanitarian and In the media perhaps like the Angelina Jolie article with a main article link. Image, popularity, endorsements and all that I think belong in "In the media". I think I could come up with a condensed version which is more comfortable to read without losing too many important details but I'm going to leave you (and others) to try to see some light in what I'm suggesting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Dr. Blofeld is rightfully suggesting is we trim down on the three major sections that describe his popularity in the main article. Instead, we can have a brief synopsis of that in one "in the media" section. Also, an "artistry" or "acting style and reception" section will be beneficial. The non-acting work can stay as is. I also agree that more weight should be put on his acting career by including some pertinent production information and critical opinion on his earlier work. The article is almost there, and with these fine-tunings taken care of, I'm sure Blofeld will agree that it meets the FA criteria. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Spot on dearest Krimuk!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for creating the sub article; it looks really good! I still don't see a precedent for this, as Angelina Jolie seems to have everything in the main, unless I missed something. Please have a look here User:Bollyjeff/sandbox for a reworking of this main article to include your sub. If you think it is acceptable (maybe some minor polishing remains), and the FAC delegate thinks it is appropriate to make such a change at this time, I will put it up. BollyJeff | talk 14:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rather drastic!! When I meant condensing I still meant a sizable section or two, just not three or four different sections on media related stuff. The main article has to be as informative as possible of course, just without so much to digest on his media personality. It can't be so short that it affects the quality of information. I think you could make it perhaps twice as long if not a bit more than your current sandbox version. It really needs to be a highly tuned/"condensed" version rather than "cut" if you see what I mean. I think it does need to be fairly substantial, but written in a way which doesn't seem like puffery and informs the reader without even having to read the media article. Two fairly chunky but concise sub sections of "In the media" might be the best way to cover it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then someone will probably put a merge tag on the sub article because there will be too much duplication! The link to the Awards sub has only one small paragraph, and the Filmography sub is just a link with no text at all. You obviously know exactly what you want, so feel free to change it, instead of all this back and forth. I would like to see the article make FA any way it can, rather than taking full credit. Concerning the suggestion of an "artistry" or "acting style and reception" sections, they were there prior, but because of complaints from other editors about duplicate information and article length, they were removed and worked into the first two paragraphs of the current "Public image" section. It is hard for one to please so many people with differing standards and ideas. BollyJeff | talk 15:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd say the sandbox version is a significant improvement in terms of neutrality and looks less promotional with a neat summary, but I think you can afford to add a bit more detail. I may have a go later using your current sandbox version. See User:Dr. Blofeld/SRK, I think I've managed to condense it down by 22kb without losing too much. It could still use a trim in some places but I'd need to do that once this is updated here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks good. Although I still have not seen another actor's article with this type of setup, I am okay with you putting that up now. Then further refinements can be made on the live article. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. IMO a few of our current Bollywood actor FAs would benefit with less in the media and image sections but I do think somebody like Khan who obviously has an enormous amount of media coverage a separate article on that is more appropriate. I'll try to give this further attention over the next week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be headed in the right direction now. We could really use some of the regular (western world) actor reviewers to give this a vigorous review but people are away and busy at Christmas. It has been open since 12 November, I wonder why so few have really had a good look at this. I think the 2000s film work needs a fair bit of work still but it's certainly improved.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I have implemented all the other suggestions that you made above, prior to the sub-article discussion. It seems a bit ambiguous to say that it still needs "a fair bit of work". What do you mean precisely: additions, deletions, change in tone? BollyJeff | talk 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2000s section I think could use some reinforcement from google books to try to improve readability and tone yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made a number of changes over the last couple days to improve the readability. BollyJeff | talk 03:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some further major edits and additions this evening (mainly to the 2000s section) which I think improve the overall readability and interest which have addressed the problem I identified beyond what you did Jeff. Perhaps a few more negative quotes might be a good thing for neutrality though. I think this would still benefit from several neutral able "Western" editors on here to fully review this and help copyedit in places but I'm happy now with the overall content and balance and think we're onto a winner here. I would offer my support, but I think I've put enough constructive work into it now to not really be able to give a "support" as a neutral reviewer. I'll continue to look occasionally at this over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please avoid using PR pieces such as this (bizarrely titled "Leading News Resource of Pakistan" in the reference) as sources.
I'd also suggest to review the Humanitarian section on the whole; it makes him seem like Mother Teresa, especially because it uncritically allows him to humblebrag, "Somewhere in the Quran it says that if you do charity for a reason, it's not charity."
Please use lakhs and crores for the rupee figures (Western readers use the $ figures anyway); no Indian can understand how much INR1.22 billion is without converting to crores.—indopug (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the specific source that you questioned, and will consider the rest. I believe that there was a discussion that resulted in a consensus to not use crores and lakhs since they are not really monetary units. BollyJeff | talk 16:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Blofeld has asked me to comment, and it seems to me that this article is much too long and over-detailed. It runs to 131,600 bytes – this for a career of just over thirty years, when recently promoted FAs on actors with vastly longer careers come in at 94,100 (John Gielgud) and 96, 810 (John Barrymore). I have just downloaded the article as a pdf and it runs to 22 pages. That is a monograph, not an encyclopaedia article. It is unreasonable to ask any reader to wade through an article so excessively long. I have no reason to suppose the sources are inadequate or the coverage biased, and the prose suffices, but there is just too much of it. – Tim riley talk 21:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tim riley: If you count the number of on-computer-screen readable pages, up until you get to the references section, Barrymore has 17, Gielgud has 19, and Khan has 15. I think the bulk of the size difference comes because many of Khan's citations are of the fully filled out cite-news and cite-web variety, whereas the other articles use primarily the simpler sfn, or just 'author and page number between ref tag' cites, which take up less space. The readable text is actually more for both of the examples you gave. I cannot easily determine from the article how many films or plays Barrymore was involved with (which I think is a flaw in that one), for Gielgud it is over 60, but for Khan it is over 80. I have also compared this article's relative size favorably against three others on the FAC talk page. Oh, and BTW, Khan has an OPUS with over 800 pages written about him, so we have been brief here. BollyJeff | talk 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the above, I think that you and Blofeld have unfairly characterized the length of this one. That being said, what would you recommend? There are already sub-articles for Khan's filmography, his awards, and a newly created one for his media exploits. Does it make sense to split off yet another sub-article only about his film career? What else could you suggest to make it more palatable, yet still be comprehensive? BollyJeff | talk 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't " unfairly characterized " the length of anything. It just concerns me that somebody generally as enthusiastic (and capable) as Tim cannot complete and read the article because he finds it unpalatable. I do think though that somebody such as Khan and most of the Bollywood fan readers will enjoy reading a detailed article about him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it back then if your concern was the lack of participation in the review. There were two supports above for the original version with more media info, but yes, I wish that more of the usual reviewers had given it a go over. I did not want to call anyone in and be accused of canvassing. BollyJeff | talk 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a robust defence and a fair response. I was not opposing, but if I had been I should have withdrawn my opposition on the strength of BollyJeff's explanation of the facts. I don't know enough about the subject to feel confident in adding my support, essentially because I cannot judge whether the article meets criterion 1d, though I have no reason to suppose it doesn't. As I say above, there is no problem with the prose, the sources look excellent, and there is no question about the comprehensiveness of the article! I wish the candidacy a fair wind. While here, may I add that another editor, Bede735, has an article on an actor – Gary Cooper – up for peer review with FAC in mind, and BollyJeff and any other contributor to this page will, I know, be welcome at the PR should they care to look in. – Tim riley talk 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492 What do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if we could get down to 40k characters, rather than the 48k we've got now... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Tim and Dr. B, this article is far too long. It's a shame that a good, comprehensive article such as this is being overlooked by people who are put off by its length. CassiantoTalk 19:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that B's proposition of breaking it up into multiple sub-articles is the way to go? Or rip out text just for the sake of getting the size down? Or leave it as is and renominate later? Give up? I am looking for solutions here guys. BollyJeff | talk 19:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally I wouldn't advise on entries like media of and "Film career of" of people, but I do think that for somebody like SRK it is appropriate to have really detailed articles on things like that, given that this gets over 2 million hits a year and attracts many who will want to read it. I did a Film career of Grace Kelly a while back (which has some issues and needs toning down in some places as I didn't write most of it) but might be worth getting to GA. That was to avoid bloat in her main article. Film career of Audie Murphy already is a GA and is a perfectly valid article for somebody who had several high profile careers. I really don't want to lose too much on his career as I do think some of the details I added on themes especially in places improve readability and comprehension, but I do agree with Crisco's suggestion of trimming the readable prose by about 8kb. What I'd suggest is splitting the current version into a main article and a bit of a trim of the career without losing too much, but is at least within the realms of acceptability for readers like Tim and Cass. Then I think a main article on SRK's film career you could fully expand that with far more biographical details and include many more reviews and production info etc, although I'd guess a number of editors wouldn't be too fond of it. I'm certain there will be editors interested in that and it will be worth it, thousands of visitors daily will be looking for something super comprehensive on SRK. Above all what I really want on this is an article in which our regular actor editors on here with much experience will be willing to offer their support for this and a version in which anybody is going to approve of, even if not familiar with Bollywood. Like Jeff though I don't want to eat too much into it so that it affects comprehension and interest, but I do think we could file it down to something more comfortable and move some of more detailed content I added on themes etc to a main article and expand it for those who want it. I'll have a go at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've trimmed it by 7kb, should be more if Jeff or somebody else can kindly take care of the books I didn't remove from the bibliography during the cut. I'm not sure how much readable prose I've removed, perhaps it could still be trimmed slightly in places which I'll look at tomorrow but in comparing it with the film career article I think it looks more reasonable now and comparable to many others. Bear in mind that he's starred in over 80 films I think so it's not going to be short! Any thoughts? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Blofeld, BTW, "Humanitarian causes" is duplicated in both "Shah Rukh Khan in the media" and in the main article. Should it be here or there? — Ssven2 speak 2 me 05:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Another editor was concerned about it. I think its OK, we have similar sections in the other articles. It is possible to condense it to a summary but I think it was really the career section that needed a trim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK we've lost 11 kb, I believe it's currently down to around 43k characters. I think it's already looking better, Tim riley, Cassianto, Crisco 1492? I don't think it's too unreasonable currently. I don't want it to be cut to the point we really start losing some notable details.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The overall length is now actually shorter than the FA on Priyanka Chopra..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Chopra's was 40k when it was promoted. Those extra 4k of bloat are in the past year... indicative that the article is facing the same problems this one is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is still the problem with the SRK article then? I'm viewing it on safari and it doesn't look massively long to me anymore. The career is still a fair size but in no place do I think it harps on about the same film, it reads quite well now I think. The summary of most films is brief. What exactly can we now lose from the career section without affecting how comprehensive it is? We could lose mention of some films which won Filmfare actor awards but that would affect its comprehension. It seems he won or was nominated for them for a good number of films. If you remove too much of the discussion of some things it'll read as even more monotonous than when it started. It looks about what you'd expect on somebody of SRK's stature.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant "was" with that last post. You're at 40.8k now, which is really good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492: I've given the career a full copyedit and managed to reduce it a bit further, we should be near 40 k now. It would be good if a few people could now read this and leave some comments on whether it needs further improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article is now at a much reader friendly length. Good work! CassiantoTalk 11:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord notes[edit]
I was on the verge of archiving this at one stage in December as it seemed unlikely to gain consensus to promote, but eventually left it as disagreements over length/detail were being resolved. I note from the discussion immediately above that that's continued but we really should've been able to achieve consensus to promote after a couple of months, even allowing for Christmas / New Year. Even without Snuggums' recent oppose I'd be unable to promote this when only two of the eight or nine reviewers (many of whom are pretty experienced in film articles) feel able to declare their support -- I realise DrB and Tim have their valid reasons for not doing so but the issue remains. The fact that DrB feels he needs to recuse owing to the work he's done on the article during this nom is indicative that this has become more of a Peer Review than it ever should have (not the first such nom and won't be the last but it should be the exception, not the rule). Now scanning the outstanding comments I think several could be considered subjective but the fact that some relate to the vexed question of focus on accolades also suggests this article still has some way to go. I am therefore going to call a halt and archive it now, in the hopes that things can be resolved away from FAC and it can return for a fresh nomination after the usual two-week break. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree Ian Rose, I do feel that this should have been fully sorted before nomming, but in fairness Jeff didn't see any problem with the length or neutrality. What I suggest now is to open another peer review and to try to get some of the regular actor reviewers to try to offer some pointers and when it comes to be nominated again hopefully it will attract more interest and confidence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) [10].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Who are one of the most important rock bands to have an article on Wikipedia, with over a million views a year. I started work on improving it in autumn 2013, getting it to good article status. Since then I've been gradually working on tightening up the prose, the sources and the layout, and the article went through an extensive peer review a few months ago. That has now finished, so I think it's time we had a look to see if it can meet Featured Article status. I await comments with interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. While the lead is factually accurate, it's too much a narrative of releases and events and I don't think it captures what is really important about The Who. A significant percentage of readers never look past the table of contents in an article, and so the lead has got to serve as a self-standing description of the group. Here are some of the things I think are missing and some of the things that could be removed:
- The lead doesn't describe the group's sound – in particular, the two things that made the group most unique, Townshend's power chords on guitar and Moon's frenetic drumming.
- I think the best thing I can do here is pull out something from the introduction of the three main book sources (Marsh, Fletcher, Neill / Kent) and see what they have to say. There's a slight difference on emphasis as the books probably assume you a little about the band to start with, whereas this article should assume no prior knowledge whatsoever. Obviously anything new here needs to be reflected into the body (probably under "Musical style and instruments"). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It only barely alludes to Townshend being the group's songwriter. In fact he is an acclaimed one, and the lead could briefly mention his recurring themes such as age and Meher Baba-based spirituality.
- It should briefly mention the group's focus on pop art in the early days.
- It should briefly describe Tommy as the allegorical story of a deaf dumb and blind boy.
- It should briefly describe Quadrophenia as a rock opera that mirrored the group's four personalities in a look back at the mod movement.
- Something should briefly be said about the volatile personalities in the group and the infighting and hotel room trashing – more than most groups, this was a vital aspect of their existence at the time.
- More needs to be said about Who's Next since it's their most popular/best selling album. The lead should mention the innovative use of synthesizers and say that "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" rank in top-rock-songs-ever lists.
- There's no need to name every album they released in the lead. A Quick One and Who Sell Out don't have to be mentioned by name – instead you could say their early albums experimented with conceptual forms, something like that. I really like Who By Numbers, but at the end of the day it's not a part of the Who story that people most need to know. There's no need to mention by name both of the Kenney Jones-era albums – nor is it necessary to say in the lead where Jones came from.
- I think this fell out an earlier review (either GA or one of the PRs; can't remember which) where somebody said all the albums needed to be listed. I agree with you on this point, and I would say that the important singles should be mentioned; "I Can't Explain" - first hit, "My Generation" - first big hit, "Happy Jack" - first US hit, "I Can See For Miles" - first big US hit, then albums from Tommy through to Quadrophenia, maybe "Who Are You" and I think that should suffice. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said earlier, "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" should be mentioned. Mentioning the album Who Are You is useful because it implicitly mentions the title song as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've redone this bit - have another look and see what you think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the changes regarding what is named and what is not named are for the better, but I don't agree with all of the characterizations (the significance of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is not that it was a "hit", Quadrophenia is not a "celebration" of anything ...). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead says Endless Wire was in the top ten of the album charts in the UK and the US - but that's not a metric used for any of the earlier albums (in recent years all it measures is first-week splash). Sales certifications is more appropriate for albums, and in the US it didn't even make gold.
- Should we just say it was released and leave it at that? It's the only album they've released in the last 30+ years, so just mention of it should be sufficient in the lead, wouldn't you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that change suffices. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should omit future speculation - whether they release another album ("TBA (Summer 2015)" in the Discography section should be removed) or whether they really do retire from touring, time will tell (rock artists are notorious for multiple retirements).
- The body did mention this at one point, but the counterpoint source used was the Daily Mirror, so it had to go. I don't know who added "TBA (Summer 2015)" - wasn't me, honest - but that can go right now! As it is I've trimmed the lead down to just mention The Who Hits 50!, which I don't think had been named when that went in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general problem with the comments on the lead is that I feel it is right on the edge of what is acceptable at WP:LEADLENGTH, so if facts were to be added, something else ought to be taken away to restore balance. Indeed, The Beatles and U2 seem quite acceptable as FAs to have a three-paragraph lead; although the Who has arguably been more active and released more significant work, maybe we should follow suit? I've redone it, cutting down the history to what I think are bare essentials, and adding something from the "Musical Style" and "Legacy and Influence" sections which were under-represented. To be honest, I think the best way forward is for all interested parties to say what they think are the important facets in the lead, then when we have consensus, we can put something around that. How does that sound as a way forward? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a problem with lead length; I think this one should be four paragraphs, not three, given the length of the article. (Other FA articles aren't always the best guide; the lead for Katy Perry manages to never say a single thing about what her music is like or what her artistic persona is!) The part that begins "They have made major contributions ..." is good, and I suggest expanding it with power chords as a compositional, innovative synthesizer use, songwriting themes centered around age, identity, and spiritual meaning, and whatever else you come up with. This is your chance to tell the reader what made the Who different. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't diss Katy Perry too loudly otherwise SNUGGUMS might come up and give you a bit of a slap, but it certainly would be good to get their opinion here. In the meantime, I've put in the use of synths, since doing a bit of work on Won't Get Fooled Again itself has tripped up its obvious contribution. Lyrical themes are another good point to add, specifically that the Who did not do boy / girl love songs at all; although that needs to be added in the article to - the best source I have is the Live at Leeds reissue CD notes that play up "My Generation", dismissing the Beatles and the Stones as "still writing love songs during this period" (which, being late 1965 is actually questionable, but the basic point is sound). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't find Wasted's comments to be offensive/dissing at all, Ritchie, don't worry. However, I couldn't really think of a good way to incorporate that detail in her lead when working on the article (I got it up from a DGA to GA this past June, and up to FA in August). Wasted, I do welcome you to give specific suggestions on how what to say where in the lead for her article and/or perhaps edit it accordingly yourself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now, will add more later. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments regarding the article body, in roughly appearance order:
- "Daltrey maintains that his subsequent musical career saved him from a dead-end working man's job,[9] and in 1959 he started the band that was to evolve into the Who." That's an important point about The Who, but the phrasing is awkward. Maybe here give the 1959 fact, and later in the article mention Daltrey's belief, because that was core to his arguments with Townshend in the mid 1970s. (see Marsh as source)
- I've moved this to 1975, where Daltrey and Townshend had what can only be described as a major public brawl in the NME, where Daltrey made it clear that the Who had saved him from being a sheet-metal worker and he felt Townshend was unprofessional. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs to have a description of "My Generation" the song! It's their early signature song and the stuttered vocal and the "Hope I die before I get old" are both super famous then and now and need to be mentioned.
- Done. Marsh also considers the key change significant, so I've added that too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should have a side box that quotes the whole "People try to put us d-down" verse through to "Hope I die before I get old". It deserves that level of prominence in the Who story. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been resolved by means of the audio clip. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should have a brief description of "Substitute". The identity confusion lyric is another theme of Townshend's and it shows how he early on was writing on unusual topics.
- Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief description of what the "A Quick One" concept was about would help.
- Do you mean the title track? The background of the album is already there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a brief description of what the title suite is about. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A little more description of what Tommy is about would help - allegory of mass cults, of rock stars, etc. And "We're Not Gonna Take It" might be mentioned as the most well known song on it after "Pinball Wizard".
- Interesting comment this as I remember the GA review also says "we could do with a bit more Tommy". Are you sure your background is the case as documented in sources though - certainly my impression is that the plot is vague and what there is derives from spiritual enlightenment via Meher Baba, plus a bunch of other songs that were kicking around at the time. I think I might have held back a bit on this section as otherwise I could write far more of it, being my favourite period on the group. In the event, I took Tommy (album) to GA instead which seemed to satisfy my "itch". I'll have a look over there and see if there's anything that really stands out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article can say that the plot is disjointed but the work is clearly about this and that and another thing, although even Townshend himself was not able to consistently explain it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really convinced that Tommy is clearly about anything one way or another - indeed, I would say that the most significant element of the plot is that it's vague and confusing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, sales certifications are a better metric of album success than chart position, so you might mention the sales for Who's Next. And as I said above two, you can give best-song-ever list appearances for "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" as well as saying they are staples of classic rock radio.
- I've done quite a bit of work on Who's Next recently (it's at GAN now) and moved some stuff over from there that covers this area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still more that can be said here. It tells me that someone plays a violin solo on "Baba O'Riley" but nothing regarding what the song is about or the minimalist influence that is responsible for half its title. And the article should mention somewhere that Townshend sang lead parts now and then during the Who's career, with the "teenage wasteland" refrain being a good example. And if I didn't know already, this article wouldn't tell me that "Won't Get Fooled Again" is an 8 1/2-minute epic about questioning political involvement that features what many have said is the greatest synthesizer in rock, the greatest drum entrance in rock, and most of all the greatest scream in rock. These are things that the reader of this article should know even if they don't click through to any album article or any song article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but I have to disagree - if you asked the Sex Pistols what their favourite Who songs were, they wouldn't be anything off Who's Next, but they'd be the mid 60s singles. The 69-71 period is my favourite era of the Who, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it dominates everything else. Obviously you can't say such loaded POV terms such as "the greatest synthesizer in rock" in a GA, let alone an FA, so you'd have to go to good sources and qualify who said what, which would start to introduce topic drift just to get the claim to stick. Even then I don't think there's enough non-fan opinions to make it stick. Having done a quick straw poll around friends, I get the impression that for non-Who fans and non-rock fans, it's best known today as "that theme from CSI". I don't think I'd even include that much information in Who's Next article itself. I think the best thing to do is ask a friend who isn't a particular Who fan and see what their response is - that would give us a good idea of what the reader requirements are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no competition here - the early singles were innovative and greatly influential as you say. I'm sure you can come up with sources that describe the scream - a Google Books search shows a bunch of them. Just to take one off my shelves, John Swenson in the New Rolling Stone Record Guide (1983, page 544) says "His [Daltrey's] scream at the climax of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a moment of pure rock transcendence." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's already in the article, the caption with the audio clip (under "Musical Style and Influence"), that uses a caption from Marsh's book, that says "the greatest scream of his career", with a sample to show it, and also showing the organ / synth, Moon's drum roll and Townshend's power chord. Sums it all up nicely. Also, the article is over 60K, which is right on the limit of WP:SIZE. So we have to use summary style, which we do as Who's Next and "Won't Get Fooled Again" are spinout articles, as expected. However, I think superlatives are still a bit too POV for an FA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Quadrophenia description should briefly mention that the album and its musical scheme reflects each of the four personalities of the group.
- Done. I think a description of what the themes are and what personalities they reflect belongs in that album's own article, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. But your addition doesn't quite make clear that the four different personalities of the Who members are also the four different aspects of Jimmy's personality that he is struggling to reconcile. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's too much detail on the session musicians for the Tommy film - doesn't have that much to do with The Who and can be handled in the soundtrack article.
- Okay. I left in Kenny Jones as his tie to the Who is much stronger, and Elton John as he had the hit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But an important effect of the Tommy film is that it gave Daltrey a new power base in his arguments within the group. (See Marsh as source)
- Are you sure about that? I thought it was more to do with Lambert and Stamp being fired as managers, who Townshend sided with far more than Daltrey. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've been looking through the Marsh book and I can't find what I remember being there. So ignore this until and unless I do. 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where is says "(except for Daltrey, who retired to bed early)", you should add that Daltrey always did that, to protect his voice and because he was the most serious in the group about their professional responsibilities. (See Marsh as source)
- It doesn't specifically say it at that point (p.432) but it is worth adding somewhere earlier. I'm just not sure where. Certainly it was evident by 1967 that he wasn't get involved in hotel trashing and never did. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Daltrey punched out Townshend a different time, in a studio session, didn't he?
- Did he? Hmmm, have to have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I was confused, what you describe is what I was thinking of. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In "The Godfathers of Punk" you should delink Punk - links within quotes are bad from and it's linked right after that in the sentence anyway.
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You could say that the songwriting on Who By Numbers" presaged Townshend's solo career approach.
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You could add to Moon being absent from "Music Must Change" is because he couldn't handle the 6/8 time signature.
- I think that's done, though I can't find what the MOS says about describing time signatures (if anything). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You could use {{music|time|6|8}}, though it doesn't seem to be recommended anywhere (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music recommends using the {{music}} template, but doesn't mention time signatures). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the description of the Quadrophenia film, it's misleading to say it starred Sting. He down in the billing and basically has a small part, but one that made an impact with. Phil Daniels is clearly the star.
- I swapped the sentences around, and changed this to "played" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the Shepperton performance was Moon's last is in the article twice.
- I've changed the second one to "the Shepperton concert" (the second mention is important in context that it's on The Kids Are Alright) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Join Together album should be linked.
- Done. I tend to forget about adding wikilinks because half the time I get a message from DPL Bot telling me I've done it wrong ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should briefly identify Zak Starkey as Ringo's son and mention Moon being a friend of Starr back in the day and teaching Zak drums.
- I'll pull something out of Fletcher's Moon biography that says this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where it talks about Townshend playing acoustic guitar it should emphasize that he excelled at this - witness "Pinball Wizard" among others - and it should add that Townshend used a flamenco technique in his playing of acoustics.
- Done, though I've gone for the slightly milder and less POV of it just appearing on albums from Tommy onwards more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where it says "at the MGM Grand Garden Arena." the period should be a comma.
- I've taken out the full stop altogether. Every time you remove a comma from an article, Eric Corbett cheers Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Beatles were fans of the Who and appreciated their live sound when on tour." - unclear whose tour you are talking about.
- The specific bit in the source is "the big sound they had discovered on tour while listening to groups like The Who". Changed to "appreciated their sound". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth noting that The Who never won a Grammy during their main career, only maybe in retrospect.
- Did Entwistle really ever play keyboards on a Who record (as opposed to one of his own)?
- Yes, he is credited as piano on the liner notes for Who's Next and for synthesizer on Who Are You. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Right you are. Guess it's been a long time since I looked at the back cover of my Who LPs! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote 193 uses The Who's official site as a source. Generally not a good idea if you can find a third-party source for the same material.
- Yes, I've started taking out the official site elsewhere, as I've discovered it goes out of date very quickly (being revamped every six months or so) and has a tendency not to transfer to the Wayback Machine very well, so they have a high risk of becoming unverifiable very quickly. I'll make a point of removing all citations for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced this with Marsh, but there are several other references to the official site, mostly (then) contemporary press releases added in Wikipedia's lifetime. I'll have to revisit this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote 54 uses use the fn:pageno format, but that isn't used for the books and seems inconsistent. You could just include the three pages of the liner notes that you use in the base cite.
- As this only cites "My Generation"'s chart position, I think the best thing is to pull that from a book instead. Then only page 5 of the CD liner notes (basically describing Live at Leeds) is used, negating the need for {{rp}} Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now, although I might think of more things later. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
A few more:[reply]
- There should really be somewhere a capsule portrayal of The Who's stage act appearance: Daltrey strutting on stage, spinning the microphone on its cord in the air; Townshend windmilling the power chords and leaping in the air; Moon leaning over his drum kit, bashing it with abandon; and Entwistle standing still, passive and expressionless.
- I am starting to go towards agreeing with this, and the last paragraph in "Musical style and equipment" could accommodate this. The tricky bit now is to find a good source that summarises it as being a general overview of the band's entire career, rather than one specific era - not to mention the fact that the group have 35 years of post-Moon activity, not all of which can be written off as being insignificant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a good quote on the group that you could use in Marsh's entry on The Who in the 1980 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll, page 286: "Their spats and feuds, public and private, were the essence of Who mythology."
- The article should mention that The Who were the halftime act at Super Bowl XLIV in 2010, since that is a very high-profile appearance in the US.
- Seriously? I can do (it probably got trimmed out during a purge I did before I took the article to GA) but I don't really think it compares with the Marquee, Monterey, Woodstock or the Isle of Wight. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, seriously. It definitely compares with some of the events already listed in the post-Entwistle era. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - since Rolling Stone said the gig was in front of 100 million people, I agree it should go in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Legacy and influence", no links inside the quote in the side box.
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick holding reply, thanks for the comments so far. I've just been a bit busy elsewhere this week (both on and off wiki), and I have a few GA reviews I need to finish off as priority, but hopefully I'll get round to tackling all of this lot soon. I think mainly sorting out the lead looks to be the difficult bit; everything else doesn't look too insurmountable providing I find a spare evening or two and round up my collection of book sources. More later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I did realize a major omission though:
- I've never been a fan of audio clips - not so much their presence in articles but rather the requirement to get the FUR right. However, it will solve a number of issues - a "My Generation" sample would allow us to caption it with the "Hope I die..." lyric and provide a much needed break in the text in a section of the article where images are sparse. Then the riff from "Pinball Wizard" would document the acoustic playing, and the end of "Won't Get Fooled Again" (about 7:42 - 7:47) would sum up synths, Moon's drumming, power chords and Daltrey's vocal projection all in one hit. How does that sound as a first draft of ideas? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that sounds good. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some new comments from me that I didn't think of previously.
- It would be worth mentioning that The Who were an unusually self-reflective group thanks to Townshend. In other words, he spent a lot of time thinking about what it meant to be the Who and what their role should be towards their audience. This shows up in the later parts of Tommy. And it's no accident that the Who appear as a character in the Quadrophenia story. This is a consistent theme of the Marsh book and this almost obsessive self-reflection on the part of Townshend is one of the things that made the Who different.
- The portrayal of Moon isn't quite right in this article, which makes him out to be the stereotypical overindulging, self-destructive rock star. Which is was, but he was also a classic British eccentric, often completely dressing the part of various extravagant characters and the like. That's partly why the British press labelled him "Moon the Loon". There's a good quote on one of the photo plates in the Marsh book about this, which I don't have in front of me right now.
- I felt this belonged more in Moon's own article, but what I think might be a good idea is to create a new "Personal relationships" section that discusses how the members of the Who and associates got on (or, rather, didn't). I think we ought to cover the paradox that is that the Who always seemed to hate each other and were always leaving, yet the classic band stayed together for as long as it could. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it needs a separate section - the infighting is really intertwined with the history of the group. The article on Moon can go into his persona as an eccentric in more detail, but it also deserves mention here to give a fully rounded portrayal. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there some respectable critical voices that dissent on the Who, who think they are overrated? If so, their views should be alluded to in the article. Unfortunately I can't think of any offhand but maybe others know of some. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Elements of their career that have been covered negatively (eg: 1968 Australia tour, Quadrophenia first tour, "The Who On Ice") are in the article, and from the early 80s to the late 90s I don't think the Who were as popular as they were or are now. Possibly a lack of strong criticism stems from Townshend being the first one to criticise the band before anyone else gets a look in! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you do have a point with that last bit. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]
Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I seem to remember the GA review looked at images carefully to the extent that two got deleted on Commons as a direct result. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, subject to getting a few audio clips as above. Prose looks ok, sourcing looks good (though I haven't done any spot-checks). --John (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Still tending to support but I would like to see the valid concerns of Snuggums and Curly addressed. --John (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
You've done quite well, Ritchie. Before anything else, I should say to you and John that audio clips should never exceed 30 seconds per WP:Manual of Style/Music samples. Of the ones currently used, File:Won't Get Fooled Again.ogg is 33 seconds long, and File:My Generation sample.ogg is 35 seconds long. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, well made. In fact, looking at the MOS, both My Generation and Pinball Wizard can be no longer than 18 seconds long. If John doesn't get to it first, I'll get my Audacity shears out and fix that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point indeed. I have trimmed the samples. --John (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now onto the review.....
- It's rather redundant to list both rock and subgenres of rock
- Which bit is this referring to? If it's the infobox, meh - don't mind what goes there, I got fed up of people edit-warring over the "genre" infobox tag :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the infobox Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken it down to "rock" and "power pop", the two obvious ones
- I thought we had problems with this area of the lead as outlined in the talk page, but it appears that was for more broader claims like "the holy trinity of rock" or "the best group ever" which don't stand up to scrutiny. I'll work that in somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't seen the talk page discussion :P. The sales should definitely be mentioned, though I added "best-selling" bit because the page previously linked lists those with 75 million+ records sold. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is, that source probably isn't good enough for an FA, I'd want something more official. A quick google for
"the who" "100 million" gives a different source that says they have sold about 100 million. I think we should defer this for the minute until we find the best source possible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I could find, The Independent also supports 100 million. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's now in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The release of Who Are You in August 1978 was overshadowed by the death of Moon on 7 September"..... I'd just go with "in September".
- I can do, but perhaps we could even more simply say "The release of Who Are You in 1978 was overshadowed by Moon's death shortly after release" - how does that grab you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "By 1982, Townshend had become weary of touring and this led to a split at the end of the year" → "Townshend had become weary of touring by 1982, leading to the band splitting at the end of the year"
- I think there's a subtle difference (he got weary of touring first, then the band split up afterwards) - how about "After Townshend became weary of touring, the group split in 1982" - shorter and hopefully less ambiguous Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Go with that Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Details on family and passing the eleven-plus exam belong in members' individual articles, not here
- I can't agree with this. I've heard this argument before about people who didn't grow up in the tripartite system in the UK, but the eleven-plus exam could completely change your career. Daltrey, Townshend and Entwistle may not have gone to Acton County Grammar and met each other, Townshend would not have gone to art college, and the Who as we know them may not have existed. Fletcher's Moon biography spends a few pages explaining the importance of this. It's not just with the Who - Coronation Street's Ken Barlow had a class gap between him and his father because he passed the 11 Plus and his father didn't. Perhaps a footnote for younger and non-UK readers would clarify this? Also, the family mentions are only important if they show a musical influence (which is why Daltrey and Moon's parents are not mentioned). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote is worth a try Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's possible to sum up the tripartite system and its significance in a sentence or so, I think it should ideally go in the body. If you're going to shunt the explanation to an endnote, probably the bit about the 11 plus should go there, too—its significance will otherwise go over the majority of readers' heads. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well I've thought about this and I reckon if that just saying the fact they went to Acton County Grammar is good enough. If you didn't pass the 11-plus, you wouldn't have gone there. If you know that, you do, if you don't, well click on the link to the grammar school and hopefully you'll find out. As far as parents go, I've trimmed it down to the Townshends, but I think they should stay because Cliff Townshend is a notable musician and Betty did the very early bookings and driving for the Detours c. 1961 - so there is a direct link to the band. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "despite being significantly older than the rest of the band, and married, was a better musician, having been playing semi-professionally for two years at that point"..... "a better musician" is NOT a neutral description at all. Something like "a more experienced musician" would be better.
- I've gone with "proficient" as this is the exact word used in the source Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The next morning Daltrey chose the Who"..... I'd put the time frame at the end of the sentence
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove the hyphen from "film-makers"
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "My Generation became the highest charting single the group have achieved, reaching No. 2"..... highest charting in UK, I assume? This song peaked at #2 both there and in Australia.
- Added "in the UK" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "reached No. 4 in the charts"..... this sentence seems incomplete
- Added UK Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "mod was in decline"..... what "mod" is this referring to?
- Changed to "becoming unfashionable" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer what the "mod" is Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mod (movement) - I've made it a little clear. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC should not be italicized
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The album reached No. 1 in the UK and No. 1 in the US" → "The album reached No. in both the UK and the US"
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "the results were disappointing"..... POV
- Changed to "the group were unhappy with the recordings" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ann-Margret received a Golden Globe Award for her performance, and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress" belongs in her own article, not here. Focus on what the band members won.
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In 1976, it was called the "Guinness Book of Records" though, what's the normal procedure here Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The book should definitely be italicized, and I'd link it to Guinness World Records. 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- You should use the 1976 title and pipe it to the current article title (and italicize). I've done that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Moon was so unfit"..... unhealthy is a better word choice and more specific
- Done (I think somebody copyedited this from my original "out of shape") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "their career showed them capable of covering other styles"..... awkward phrasing/questionable tone
- Changed to "but they took influence from several other styles of music during their career." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How strange - I did a check last week for dead links (witness a whole bunch of "rm / fix dead links" from about a week ago from me). Anyway, replaced with a book. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, outstanding article and quite close to becoming FA material. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I have to tip my hat to John's meticulous copy-editing that immediately preceded his support !vote Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It really did benefit the article :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS: I think all your concerns have now been addressed, can you check? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a truly fine piece of work. Well-deserving of FA! Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have a number of unaddressed comments on the talk page. Perhaps I should move them here, but for now I have a few new comments on the lead:
- I haven't got round to looking at those, but pretty much all of them are requests for additions for content, which, on a 62K article that is on the limit of WP:SIZE I wouldn't be happy without a consensus, particularly as some (such as Jimmy Page playing on "I Can't Explain" which Marsh says is false, or adding non-notable tribute bands) I think would introduce problems. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if Page on "I Can't Explain" is disputed, then it should be left out, but some of the other stuff should go in—especially the naming of the band. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand, the bit about Townshend and Barnes coming up with the name is in the article. I have put in Page as playing on the B-side, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I meant about Entwistle or Moon coming up with the name Led Zeppelin. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that relate to the Who more than, say, Ann Margaret (which got removed)? I do want to add something about Moon leaving the Who in '66, but I can't remember if this ties in with that incident. If it does, it can go in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Their best known line-up consisted of lead singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist Pete Townshend, bassist John Entwistle and drummer Keith Moon: this wording might best fit a band that had a revolving door of members that went through a "classic" period (think Yes). This lineup is not just the "best known", though---it's the canonical one
- Have you met the Best known for IP? Somebody's changed to "classic" but I'm not really comfortable with that, classic to whom? What does classic mean? Is it something to do with classical music? Can anyone think of a better word? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Who developed from an earlier group, the Detours, before stabilising around a line-up of Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and Moon.: I might drop this from the lead, or at lest shorten it to the first half as we've just been told Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and Moon were the classic lineup.
- Yes, let's drop it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- all written by Townshend: it's not clear from the wording that Townshend also wrote "I Can't Explain". Since we're shortly after given "lead songwriter and visionary Townshend" I might drop "all written by Townshend" anyways
- Dropped Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- from a hit-singles band into a respected rock act: it's not clear why "hit-singles band" and "respected rock act" would be mutally exclusive
- I'm not sure what you mean, but to give you some examples, Herman's Hermits are a "hit-singles band" while Jethro Tull are a "respected rock act" (deliberately picking bands the Who have toured with). Does that clarify things? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see how a band may be classidied as one or the other, but I'm not convinced they're mutually exclusive. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This might need more context. Certainly "pop" and "rock" became quite different during the late 60s. I'm not sure what to suggest though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There were singles-oriented artists and album-oriented ones, but those don't correlate with being "respected". The Animals, The Young Rascals, and Creedence Clearwater Revival were all singles-oriented artists from this era. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fletcher's Moon biography has quite a good comment on this circa .p152, talking about the 1965 NME Poll Winners Concert - "a temporary coming together of every notable act in the country before they diverged, some progressing into rock bands that would give the music the depth required .... others to tread water as pop groups ... until they eventually faded" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We're going off-track a bit - what changes need to be made to the article here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 1969's rock opera Tommy: from this wording it comes off as "just another rock opera"; probably want ot mention the "rock opera" as a Who thang
- I'm not sure what you mean? I'm concerned anything more than just saying it was a rock opera would be POV Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there are proposed precursors, the Who are still the band credited with the first successful rock opera[11][12][13][14][15][16] Might want to mention the Tommy influence on Jesus Christ Superstar as well.[17] Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about S.F. Sorrow? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And S. F. Sorrow was preceded by The Story of Simon Simopath Tommy popularized the term, and the term is associated largely with the Who. Who else put out rock operas with the impact of Tommy or Quadrophenia? Notice how everyone compares Zen Arcade to Tommy or Quadrophenia or---oh, nothing else. It sure ain't because the album sounds like the Who—it's because the Who virtually own the term. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Curly Turkey here - it doesn't matter exactly which came first, mention "rock opera" to any general rock fan and the two they will first mention are these two. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So what changes should be made? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I wouldn't go as far as Britannica, which opens their oarticle ont he band with "the Who, Who, the [Credit: Jim Summaria (http://www.jimsummariaphoto.com/)British rock group that was among the most popular and influential bands of the 1960s and ’70s and that originated the rock opera.]"—but I'd definitely throw in a line (say in "Legacy") that they are credited with popularizing the rock opera and that the term is strongly associated with the band. Then I'd mention that in passing in the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- abandoned in favour of 1971's Who's Next: Who's Next was made up of material left over from Lifehouse, wasn't it? From the wording it sounds like they tossed and Lifehouse and took on a separate project instead.
- Well My Wife was nothing to do with it, the key track, "Pure And Easy" wasn't on the album, and Lifehouse itself was supposed to be much more than just an album. Anyway, I've reworded things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to mention it when albums are doubles
- I'm concerned this would add too much information to the lead that is already quite big - I'm more in favour of removing things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it does give the impression of just how big these projects were. It's surprising that it's not even mentioned in the body, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention in the body, not the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Something about album length would be useful. I've added that to Tommy but not for Quadrophenia until I can find a source that talks about the relevance of its length. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's such a source that talks about the significance of there being four sides to the album, thus it needed to be a double. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the Richie Unterberger source. He's using quotations that are also in Marsh's book, documenting the decision to drop Rock is Dead - Long Live Rock due to it being too close to "Who's Next Part II" and Townshend deciding to do something else. That's not actually talking about Quadrophenia as such. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The group continued to play live regularly, including the Quadrophenia and More tour in 2012 and the Who Hits 50 tour in 2014.: fine for the body, but naming these tours in the lead I think is RECENTISM and UNDUE
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They have been cited as an influence by several punk rock and mod bands: and hard rock and heavy metal in general
- That will need to go in the body and cited to reliable sources, though Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave you a bunch of sources on the talk page. This is something the article really needs—as it stands it gives the impression that their main legacy is the impact they had on punk, which is seriously unbalanced. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the best thing to do here is be bold and add to the article, then I can check the sources and the context and make a balanced opinion on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think someone else mentioned it above, but something should be said about their sound, and something about power chords
- I'm really not sure what exactly can be said here, plus their sound is quite varied when you listen to all of it (eg: I Can't Explain vs The Song Is Over vs "Guitar and Pen" vs "Underture" on Tommy vs Sunrise on The Who Sell Out). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure there's variety, but the great big, extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords of "I Can See For Miles", "Pinball Wizard", "Baba O'Reilly", and "Who Are You" are about the first thing that comes to many people's heads when you mention the Who, and a central part of their legacy. That would be a major oversight if left out of the lead. You could always mention that there was a variety while noting the sounds typically associated with them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are "extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords" on "I Can See For Miles". Of the four songs you mention, for me the first is the psychedelic-fused guitar and drums, the second is the acoustic, the third is the synthesizer and the fourth is also the synthesizer. So I'm sorry, but this sounds just like expressing a POV which we can't use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The verses of "I Can See for Miles" are all power chords—great big crashing power chords that are great fun to windmill to—and Townsend promoted the song as the loudest single ever.[18][19][20] (and here's a great quote: "The loudest record I know is certainly The Who's original single of 'I Can See For Miles', which is so overpowering that my dog buries her head in her paws if I take it out of the sleeve"
- I've come across the June 1994 issue of Guitar World, which proclaims "'I Can See For Miles' was pivotal in makin the power chord a central part of the rock guitar vocbulary" (p 47). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And on p 57 "these rot/fifth, root/fifth/root chords are known as 'power chords'. As the Who grew in popularity, power chords became synonymous with the name Pete Townshend". There's some other good stuff in there. I'll come back with a few suggestions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Need to mention something about their stage show: Daltrey swinging his mic, Townshend doing his windmills
- I think this would make the lead too long. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It could hardly be less important than the fact that one of their hit singles was used as a TV show theme. I think a lot of people would be surprised to see nothing about it—this is a band with a reputation, and their stage show is a central part of that reputation. I could see dropping "The Who developed from an earlier group, the Detours", "a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 and a tour of Quadrophenia in 1996," and ", thwarting plans for a new album" in its favour. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I disagree, sorry. Can anyone else express an opinion on this? There is a bit more about the mic cable stuff in the body now, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see leaving out the mic cable stuff, but windmilling? I see that at far more leadworthy than any of the three snippets I mentioned above. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What specific changes do you think should go in? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- including the theme music for the television series CSI: recentism and UNDUE again; ten years from now readers will be thinking "CS-What?"
- I'm afraid you're showing your age there! CSI has been around for 14 years and is described on "the most popular dramatic series internationally". I did some market research amongst peers off-wiki to ask them what songs by the Who they recognised and a common theme from under 30s was the CSI themes. Plus this article is linked from the lead of CSI's main article, so do you consider mention of the Who there to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE? For a younger generation, it's important enough to add as a footnote to the lead in order to jog their memory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm showing more my lack of interest in TV (though my wife does watch CSI). I'll admit I'm perhaps not qualified in that particular area and let others decide if this point is really lead-worthy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it was taken out, so I'll take that as a consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All said and done, I think the problem now is a balance between FA criteria 1b ("neglects no major facts or details") and 4 ("focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") which I think will require consensus. Plus any new prose will need to be checked against the rest of the FA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in general, I think including a comprehensive depiction of what made The Who different and so highly valued is more important than worrying about the article length. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We just need to make sure whatever content is added meets the FA criteria and is closely copyedited for flow and sources checked over - jus' saying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did the development of the Marshall stack somehow get cut from the body? I could've sworn it was there before, but now the first mention of Marshalls is Hendrix's stack at Monterey. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I see it comes late in the article. Something about this needs to be mentioned in the general history of the band---it almost comes across as if Hendrix invented the Marshall stack the way it's introduced. Curly Turkey ¡gobble!
- Okay, I've been WP:BOLD and added I pile of stuff, though I understand your concerns about length. I don't think any of the stuff I've added is fluff, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, your additions all look good and exactly what we need to get out of the logjam - thanks! I've expanded on a few things. I want to add a bit more to the "relationships" section per the comment in there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd integrate the information on "personal relationships" section into "history"- not one band article I've ever seen has such a section, let alone those that are FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]
- See WP:DATEOTHER-- typically the final year in a date range is abbreviated to two digits.
- Prose
- The Who occasionally re-formed for live appearances such as Live Aid in 1985, a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 and a tour of Quadrophenia in 1996, before resuming regular touring in 1999, with drummer Zak Starkey.
- Drummer feels stuck on to the end of an unrelated thought.
- I wonder if we should simply take Starkey out of the lead altogether. Although Starkey gets the most coverage in sources, no other touring members are mentioned, including Rabbit who's been touring keyboardist for the majority of shows since 1979. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NBSP reviewed needed throughout (sample 100 million in lead, top 50, 32 tablets, etc.)
- I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at WP:NBSP. Places where numbers and the noun they modify need to be together should have a non-breaking space to avoid screen wrap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He was expelled from school aged 15 ... expelled from school at age 15, or when he was 15?
- Doesn't that mean the same thing? I'm confused Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dawson later left after frequently arguing with Daltrey. ... later ... after ... awkward
- Yes that should simply be "left" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOSLQ errors, sample was "so much better than the Who it was embarrassing." ... please review throughout.
- That's a verbatim quotation from Tony Fletcher's book - what's the issue? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It has to do with how it's introduced into the sentence. Compare He said, "That movie's totally rad." to He said the film was "totally rad". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The punctuation on those should be outside the quote. Have a careful look at WP:MOSLQ for the distinction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting - my take on that is that the punctuation never goes inside the quotation unless it is part of the quotation. So in the example above, if the phrase "totally rad" ended a sentence in the source, I would put the full stop inside the quotation marks. I can't remember where I picked that up from. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:MOSLQ on Wikipedia's convention for logical quotation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, Jones' consistent and precise drumming was very different from Moon's wild and unpredictable playing. Is that a fact, or an opinion that should be attributed to the author who holds it?
- Changed to " Jones' drumming style was very different from Moon's and this drew criticism within the band." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SIZE: the article has almost 12,000 words of readable prose, and there do seem to be areas where some trimming might be possible. As one example, the "Guitars" section discusses Townshend in depth, when he has his own article. "Bass", on the other hand, is shorter and focused on the the group.
- I think unfortunately this is a deal breaker; a majority of edits since the FA review started have been requests to add content (specifically against criteria 1b), largely from Curly Turkey and from a lesser extent Wasted Time R. As you can see, I have expressed concern over WP:SIZE but consensus is that had not been an issue. John has done a fairly substantial copyedit on the article already and removed some fat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- John's copyedit was before I added any of the stuff I did. I think another thorough copyedit will help bring this down—as for the guitar stuff, some of it could go (I've removed the bit on Townshend's signature SG), and I'm sure it could be tightened up, but a lot of that stuff really is the band's legacy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read most of the article (just a MOS flyover), but overall I suggest MOS attention and some prose tightening with an eye towards trimming the article. I also quite a few samples of statements that are positioned as fact when they may be the opinion of a given source; a runthrough with an eye towards attribution of opinions would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I can't get behind MOS stuff, in all honesty it just give me a feeling to me to walk away and find something else to edit. Can you recommend some scripts, or can somebody else tackle this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you get everything else worked out, and only MOS issues are holding you up, then please ping me and I will run through. Of course, I'll keep my fingers crossed that maybe someone else will first, since it's time consuming :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have a look and see what I can do. I'm not trying to argue against your comments, on the contrary they are good suggestions to make the article even better, just I struggle with getting time on here while trying to balance work, family and everything else that goes on, which makes committing the necessary time to work on FA quality prose hard to impossible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More Turkey[edit]
Okay, I'm going to take a crack at trimming the article. I'll try to do it in small edits so anything you disagree with you can easily revert. I'm leaving the lead til I'm finished. I'll probably take a few days, as it is a long article, and there are other things I want to do, too. I'm going to leave a few more comments here, because I know you're eager to hear my lovely voice.
- on hearing the guitar work of Duane Eddy, he moved to the bass: Eddy played guitar---in what way did he inspire Entwistle to give up guitar?
- a more proficient musician, having been playing semi-professionally for two years at that point: by mid-1961, hadn't Daltrey been playing semi-professionally for two years as well?
- Probably should mention the two-chord nature of "My Generation", which I think is a lt more notable than the key changes
- were not meant to be taken literally: the line seems to assume the reader knows that peole were taking them literally (and they were---stick it to the man!) Should clarify this.
- My Generation was released in late 1965: a momentous occasion like this probably deserves a month of release
- When "Rael" is mentioned it's prbably a good idea to mention its importance as a rock opera
- didn't there used to be a description of how the Marshall stack came to be? That really needs to be in the article, and it should be introduced in the history part so readers understand the significance of Hendrix showing up at Monterey with a Marshall stack.
- Townshend had stopped using drugs: but it was never mentioned he used them
- The description of "Pinball Wizard" is lacking---we're told it was written to impress a journalist, but we learn nothing of what it sounds like, its chart success, or the fact that it preceded the album's release. This is one of the group's best-known songs, and the article glosses over it. I'd ditch the journalist stuff and talk about the song and its success.
- with gigs at weekends: is "at weekends" a BrEng thing?
- the link for the Life quote is incorrect
- I assume the Who's reluctance to perform at something as big as Woodstcok was because of the hippie thing---should be explicit
They decided a live album would help demonstrate how different the sound at their gigs was to Tommy, and set about listening to the hours of recordings they had accumulated. Townshend baulked at the prospect of doing so,: so, the band thought it would be a good idea except for Townsend, or did Townshend htink it was a good idea until he listened to the tapes? Never mind, I've cut all this.- Two newspapers and the BBC consider Leeds one of the best rock albums of all time? Seems a strange set---isn't there a source that makes a more general claim about how the album is regarded?
- The show was abandoned for an "oldies" set: as in Who favourites?
- that former Beatles and Rolling Stones manager Allen Klein had bought a stake in his publishing company. A settlement was reached, but Townshend was upset and disillusioned that Klein had attempted to take ownership of his songs.: So Klein buying a stake in Townshend's publishing company meant he was trying to take ownership of his songs? I think this needs to be reworded or better explicated.
- he passed out in a doorway: the doorway of the club or elsewhere?
- if he could stand and walk: so he was able to stand and walk?
- By this point, Moon was so unhealthy that the Who conceded it would be difficult for him to cope with touring.: was this the reason for not touring, or is it incidental?
- wondering if he was no longer a visionary: God, this makes him sound so full of himself
- Should make explicit the connection between the Who's reputation for volume and Townshend's tinnitus.
- I notice sometimes you do "In Smallville, Kentucky, they" and sometimes "In Smallville, Kentucky they"; I also see a mix of serial commas and non-serial commas. You'll have to decide on which styles you want for the article.
- where Townshend injured his arm on-stage: I know I sound like a broken record, but I really thin kyou should state the nature of the injury
they had acquired new equipment, including earpieces, that allowed Townshend to perform: the same ones recommended by Young and the audiologist? Never mind, I cut this.- The Quadrophenia and More toured started in 2010 and lasted until 2013? Just double checking---that's one heck of a long tour for a bunch of old farts!
- "Irish" Jack Lyons said,: who? And why do we care? This quote has no context
- His trademark sound with the band has been a characteristic scream, as heard at the end of "Won't Get Fooled Again".: that's an awesome scream, but... is it really his "trademark"? How often does he let one out?
- favouring down strokes and: did he really favour downstrokes that much? This makes him sound like Johnny Ramone.
- The description of Jones' drumming doesn't make sense---it was a sharp contrast while echoing Moon's drumming, and Moon was his teacher?
- The Who have been called "The Godfathers of Punk": every band and its dog has been called "The Godfathers of Punk"...
- I'm thinking the whole third paragraph of "Media" could be summed up by simply mentioning the band's songs have featured in films and video games.
- More to come... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whew!—okay, I've managed to shave about 7k from the article (more than 10%, from 66k to 59k). Ritchie333, please take a look at what I've done to ensure I haven't distorted the meaning of anything or dropped something you feel is important. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these changes make the article worse. For example, Live At Leeds has been consistently documented as one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful live albums, deserving of a GA itself if I can get round to doing it, and it is now reduced to one sentence, saying "Live at Leeds was an album recorded at Leeds", which is a tautology. So, I don't think this FA nomination is going to close successfully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong, but am pretty sure that while people are able to withdraw, they can't oppose their own nominations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I've cancelled out that but this review has just cemented my view that FAs and me just do not mix. Now, let me think about getting Genesis to GA instead (don't rush, I need to buy some books first). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If this doesn't succeed, you can always come back to FAC later on. This article definitely deserves to be FA sooner or later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, talk about disappointing. For the record, here's what I cut from the Live at Leeds paragraph–none of which contributes to an understanding of the album as "consistently documented as one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful live albums": it retains "The album is viewed by several critics including The Independent, The Telegraph and the BBC, as one of the best live rock albums of all time" and removes out-of-scope details such as the Hull recording, the number of tracks, and the CD bonus tracks released deaceds later (not only out of scope but out of chronology). I'm at a loss as to what you're objecting to, and I've already invited you to revert anything you disagree with. Are you officially withdrawing? I'm hoping the answer's "no". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to me that the answer is yes, unfortunately, unless we hear to the contrary from Ritchie333 soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, withdraw this. I recently had to revert one of Curly Turkey's edits which added a lulu.com source, which I wouldn't accept for a GA, let alone an FA. I don't know what other errors are in the article. I feel it's better to leave this as a GA and move on to other things. The current tour will mean IPs and new users will add edits, so it may be unstable for a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite a shame that this had to end in a withdrawal :(, I'll help bring this up to FA standards if assistance is needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The shrugging off weeks ago of the need for MOS corrections was not optimal; I hope Ritchi333 will read and review the suggested pages before any future FA nominations. And I appreciate the needed Curly Turkey trim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to be honest and say they have made the article worse, though in fairness only slightly. I didn't "shrug off" anything and I apologise if I gave the impression I had. Rather, sometimes I feel as this is voluntary project that I don't get paid for, I just have to reach a point where things stop being fun and say, "sorry, I'm not up for doing this". Just the way things go sometimes. I think it's unlikely I will try any more FAs for at least a year. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You make it sound like someone twisted your arm into bringing this article to FAC. None of the rest of us are getting paid for this either, and some of us have also put hours of work into this article, only to have our concerns ignored when raised. Yes, I'm aware I did an inadequate job: here's the article before I fucked it up, and here it is after I finally finished botching it. Please revert so you can get the shiny star. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC) [21].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's everyone's(?) favourite childhood game, Jumping Flash!. Definitely one of the most underestimated and forgotten games of all time, upon release it showcased one of the first fully 3D environments any game offered and also ensured the PlayStation's emergence into the market. This was also a failed attempt to create Sony a mascot (like Sonic or Mario) and were it not for the overshadow of other games at the time, this would be a different story.
I almost wrote a review there. Please bear in mind that this game has no logic at all - it has missile shooting pigs, talking cheeseburgers and planets with telephone boxes on them. Not to mention a robot rabbit. All things considered, it is best played whilst high. It was also very difficult to find any proper information on the internet regarding the development and release of the game, as there appears to be a large black hole in 1995 Japanese video games. I have worked hard over the months, and am nominating this for FA as I want to ensure this game gets its well-deserved honour. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not going to oppose because I'm no expert on this game, but even briefly examining the article I see a number of issues. There are quite a few dead links to be archived or replaced. Moreover, the citations are sloppily compiled. In citation 15, Gamespy is misspelled GameS[u and IGN is listed as the publisher. Citations 9 and 14 are the same, as are citations 22 and 28. While it's quite normal to use scans from the Internet, linking directly to copyvio sites like ImageBam is frowned upon. Spot checks were not encouraging:
- Personally, I would separate contemporary reviews from retrospective coverage. Despite the seemingly unanimous collection of superlatives that comprises much of this article's "Reception" section, a few minutes of searching reveals that not all modern critics are impressed with how well Jumping Flash! holds up (for example, 6/10 from Eurogamer, 5.5/10 from Now Gamer, and 4.5/10 from IGN--although there are positive reviews such as Joystiq's 7.5/10 or PocketGamer's 7/10, and USGamer believes the game is at least still "playable", unlike even more primitive early 3D platformers such as Bug! for the Sega Saturn). Has this article really been researched thoroughly enough to make the jump from GA to FA?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will address your comments shortly (I think some of them have already been addressed down below, though)! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A quick read through the article highlights issues, some of which I've detailed below:
1a:
Lead:
- "the changing game generation" - what does this mean?
- Means the transition between the fourth and fifth generation of consoles, but reworded. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "despite its overshadow" doesn't read right - wouldn't overshadow normally be something that's done rather than something that's possessed?
- I'm afraid I don't understand, I think the phrase "despite its overshadow" of the game reads fine? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like "despite being overshadowed" or even "despite its overshadowing" seem to fit more naturally to me. Google suggests that this article is the only thing on the whole internet that uses the phrase "despite its overshadow" [22]. Techtri (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, reworded again. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "did spawn a few sequels such as" - 'such as' suggests we're listing some examples from a wider series, needs rewording if these are the only two sequels.
- Reworded. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Slightly better, but "including" still suggests that it's only listing part of a fuller set. Were there only two sequels, or were there more titles/spinoffs? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep two sequels and two spinoffs, reworded. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under Gameplay:
- "The enemies are often of animal-like creatures" - 'of' is redundant. Also wouldn't the examples given (kiwis and penguins) actually be animals, as opposed to animal-like creatures?
- Reworded, I know they are both birds, but these were just examples. In the game all the animal-like enemies are either anthropomorphic or robotic, so clarified. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "After collecting them, landing on the "EXIT Pad" is all that remains in finishing the level." - dislike the use of "all that remains".
- Reworded. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under Development and Release:
- The first paragraph appears chronologically backwards, as it firstly covers the previews of the game and then goes onto explain the intial formation of the partnership and how they were tasked with coming up with a preview. It would read better if covered in order. Also the fact it was a "technology demonstration for the then-upcoming PlayStation console" is mentioned twice in this same paragraph.
- I have re-structured the development section, moving some parts around to that they appear more chronological. Let me know what you think? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ultra (formerly known as MuuMuu Co., Ltd.)"..."Japanese studio MuuMuu Co. Ltd (later renamed Ultra Co., Ltd)" I understand it needs covering as the characters took their name from the old company name, but it needs rewording for clarity, as at the moment it reads in a way that the company is effectively introduced several times, giving the impression of different companies. Possibly remove the mention of their previous name from the second para and reword how it appears in the third.
- Removed instance in the second paragraph and elaborated in the third. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Jumping Flash! was among one of the first games of the platforming genre" - 'among one' doesn't sound right to me, I'd prefer either "was among the first games" or "was one of the first games".
- You're right; reworded to "was among the first games". ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "inspires the name of the MuuMuu creatures that features in all three games" - what three games are we referring to here? This one, and the two mentioned most recently in the article (DKC and Yoshi's Island?)
- Oh no, the only three main games in the series. Reworded. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence "Many of the tracks were included with tracks from Jumping Flash! 2" took a few reads for me to understand what it was saying, possibly because it isn't explained that it's referring to an OST until after a (brackets) break in the sentence.
- It did appear confusing, so I've reworded this sentence to make it clearer. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under Reception and legacy:
- "received very positive reviews from magazines and critics alike" - wouldn't it be critics writing the magazine reviews?
- Cut down to just critics. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "praised its unique innovation, advanced graphics for the time"..."The graphics were also critically acclaimed" - Duplication here with the praise of the graphics.
- Reworded. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The graphics were also critically acclaimed by critics" - crit-overload here!
- Re-structured. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "GameRevolution staff"..."IGN Staff" - staff or Staff? In fact, is the word staff even needed at all - would this read better as "GameRevolution also criticised..."
- The reason why it reads as "IGN Staff" is because that is the placeholder name that is given in the actual reviews, it appears that whoever reviewed it back in 1996 didn't give their name as an author. 'Staff' is only capitalised because that is what it says on the review page, I can change it to lowercase if you want? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary to mention staff at all, it doesn't add anything to my understanding compared to just referring to the publication. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed IGN staff from prose. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "despite its initial overshadow from newer platformers" - I don't understand what this is saying - what's an initial overshadow?
- Referring to when it was first overshadowed by other games, seeing as this didn't gain a cult following I've removed 'initial'. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the lead, I still don't think overshadow sounds right when used this way. Wouldn't it be "overshadowed by" newer platformers? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "also praised Jumping Flash! as having lasting memories" - wouldn't the person have lasting memories of the game, as opposed to the game having the memories?
- I believe the sentence is correct, people have lasting memories of games they like, especially experienced in their childhood. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly - people have lasting memories. The wording of the article says that the game has lasting memories. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I see, reworded. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The lasting memories part still doesn't read right. In any case, I checked it against the source and couldn't see anything mentioned about lasting memories in there. I'd suggest removing that bit altogether and leave only the direct quote, or picking another fact that's actually in the source (that he chose it as one of his top three favourite PSone games of all time for example). Techtri (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1b:
- The plot section covers the back story to the game (presumably the buildup from the manual), but doesn't cover the story of the game itself. What happens with the storyline as you progress through the game, is there some final showdown or an ending scene that could be covered?
- I was afraid someone would ask this. I'm not sure on how to explain, this game has no logical story or narrative structure at all. It's sort of like how in Donkey Kong Country the game revolves around somebody stealing their bananas and their quest on travelling through the world to get them back. In this game, as one progresses through the level there are no further cutscenes or anything that suggests there is a story at all (there is, however, a structure in Jumping Flash! 2). I would consider the plot section the whole story and not a back story, so I'll reword some parts in the section to make it clearer. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing at all happens at the end of the game? No final boss fight on his home ground? The protagonist doesn't escape vowing to return in the sequel? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, a boss fight and final cutscenes at the end, slightly reworded. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed you referenced that to the instruction manual - does the manual really tell you how the game ends? Techtri (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That citation can simply be redacted; it's more common for media articles (including FAs) to leave the plot unsourced than not. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The gameplay sections mentions hidden bonus levels, but it didn't appear clear how these bonus levels were accessed? Just a quick mention if they're perhaps hidden in an existing level or accessed by collecting particular items would be nice.
- Elaborated, I am happy to say that it looks much better this way. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1c:
- Sourcing-wise, a spot check shows that ref 12 cites the wrong page number and is missing an issue number. Most of the Edge citations and some of the Next Generation cites are missing publisher info. ISSNs would be nice if available.
- My bad, fixed the page number and added the issue. Added all publishers, works and issues too. I'll try to find ISSNs as I go along but most are not available. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that the ISSNs are not available - they'll be on the front cover as part of the barcode if you can't find them elsewhere. Techtri (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 8 was a Allgame deadlink, which I've added an archiveurl for, but it appears to be the page for the sequel. Is this correct, or should it be this link instead?
- Don't worry this is correct, the gameplay for both games are exactly the same. If anyone disagrees with using this I can use the other link you provided me. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't checked that the other source backs up the material, but it's definitely an issue to cite a reference for a different game, no matter how similar they play. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right - replaced. I think I got confused back there. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so the Allgame source is used to reference three points -
- 1 - The enemies including some specific ones that have more intelligence than others (it briefly covers enemies, but I couldn't see anything specific about the more intelligent ones).
- 2 - The 'collect 4 jetpods and proceed to the EXIT' game mechanism (which while it briefly mentions collecting jetpods, it doesn't mention proceeding to the EXIT platform)
- 3 - The ability to play through the 18 levels again in a more difficult mode (which I couldn't see mentioned at all in the source). I don't know whether the second point needs a source (it would of course be nice to have one), but the first and third points definitely do, and none should be referenced to a source that doesn't cover the material discussed. Techtri (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 41 links to a (dead) Fortunecity website, which I'm not sure would be classed as reliable even if an archivelink was available.
- Removed. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Ref 1 and 4 a different instruction manual from Ref 3? If so, is there anyway you could clarify which release this is from?
- Ref 1 and 4 are the same manual, the ref 3 is slightly different because it only exists online and is the North American version of the manual (I'm not sure if it's significantly different from European manuals), but I don't know how to clarify how they're different. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know what release they're from? Could you reference the Sony part number like you've done with the North American one? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In Ref 32 (IGN reference for the Famitsu claim), I didn't notice the game listed in the Top 100 list? Is the other reference (Culdcept Central) considered reliable? I note that the reference makes the publisher out to be Famitsu, but I couldn't see a link between them on the website.
- Culdcept Central appeared in the VG reliable sources search engine when I searched for it, so I take it maybe is, though I'm not sure how to judge. The Top 100 list is mentioned in a Giantbomb entry but I was discouraged from using it. Anyway fixed the publisher. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under development:
- "Japanese studio MuuMuu Co. Ltd (later renamed Ultra Co., Ltd), which inspires the name of the MuuMuu creatures that features in all three games" - reference is in Japanese which is no problem, however a Google Translate of the page didn't seem to show anything relating to the company name inspiring the creature names. Could you check and advise?
- I remember reading it somewhere while I was on the search for sources, but I can't remember how to find it. But it's absolute logic, I'll try to find another source but I shouldn't see this as a problem? If not I'll have to remove it. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's in the article, it'll need a source no matter how logical it appears to be. If you take it out of the article, it'll be a relevant fact that's missing and the article wouldn't meet 1b in my opinion. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under reception and legacy:
- "The graphics were also critically acclaimed by critics and owners alike" - nothing to back up the owners acclaim here.
- Owners refer to just people who play the game (an audience as a whole). I think as any review summarises the audience's feelings of a game as a whole, I'll leave this sentence alone for now, but if you want/disagree I can cut this sentence down? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, owners would be folks who went out and bought the game, not publications that were likely sent copies to review by the game creators, people who borrowed a copy off their mate or people who rented a copy from Blockbuster. As such, I stand by the original point that there's nothing in the source material to backup this claim. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "even suggesting that it could be the game of the year were it not for the emergence of other competition at the time" - This is attributed to ref 23 and 29, but the scan in 29 doesn't seem to cover it (only mentions it could be the "sleeper game of the year"). What was the exact quote from the publication that supports this?
- Could be a small mix up, moved the refs around to support the quote. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More of a large mix up now - the article attributes it to Gamepro, but you've added another source that isn't Gamepro to support it. There are now three references supporting this statement when there should only be one. Two of the references appear to be the same thing, which is the Gamepro review, but the article appears to be scanned in it's entirety and I can't see anything there along the lines of "this could've be game of the year". So same question - what's the exact quote from the publication that supports this? Techtri (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fahey stated that Jumping Flash! would always have a large legacy in videogaming history, despite its initial overshadow from newer platformers such as Crash Bandicoot." - I couldn't see any comparisons to Crash Bandicoot in the provided ref.
- Just used it as an example myself as it was a successful game at the time (which I probably shouldn't have). I've reworded. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed another issue with the references - Refs 39 and 40 both point to an Edge review from June 1995, apparently to reference the fact that the game spawned a sequel released in 1996? Techtri (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I found an archive link for the reference used for the PSN release dates, but it only covers the release of JF in 2007, not JF 2 in 2009. Techtri (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Another ref check issue: Ref 12 - ""Edge - Pre Screen". Edge (Future) (19): 42. April 1995." is cited for the following sentence "Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) initially believed that Jumping Flash would be remembered as the first appearance of a new "platform star" with the same longevity as Sonic the Hedgehog or Mario" but the only references to Sonic and SCE in the source state "The plot may sound suspiciously like Sonic's but the action is reassuringly different" and (two paragraphs on) "Jumping Flash could provide SCE with its first home-grown winner". Techtri (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, I see it in the source. It's a caption, rather than in the article body. Techtri (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2a:
- In the lead it mentions "Jumping Flash! has been described as being synonymous with Sony's début gaming hardware" but I couldn't see anything along these lines under the Reception/Legacy section.
- It was used a technology demonstration and was also bundled with the console in Japan? I think that contributes to Sony's success (many of the reviews provided in this article states that this game gave Sony a 'boost'). I would leave this in as it gives the reader a general idea, but it's up to the reviewers if it should be removed? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:OR "(original research) includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Taking the fact it was a tech demo and a bundled title and coming to the conclusion that makes it synonymous with the hardware seems to be covered by the above statement. Techtri (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if I haven't explained any of the above very well, and I'll be happy to clarify. Thanks, Techtri (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Techtri: thank you for taking the time to review this, I've addressed everything but there are a couple of things you might want to take a look at. All the refs now have work, publishers, authors clarified etc. Thanks to your review the prose has definitely improved, so this article is improving as the review comes along. Of course it's still up to you if you want to oppose it, but before anything happens I would like to make sure everything is addressed and everyone here is satisfied with the article. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Staying with an oppose for the moment. The prose is still well short of being of a professional standard. Some of the references (1up, PSN) appear dead without archive links. The refs that are there are still a bit of a mess. See the Edge Ref 11 for example - are you sure that's on Page 41, because the scan of Page 42 (which appears to be cited both as Ref 12 and 15) seems to be the complete article? Techtri (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A closer look suggests that this article is a sloppy mess that should not have been promoted to GA, let alone FA status. Jaguar's seeming inability to accurately cite and summarize sources appears to be a widespread problem. For example, the Giant Bomb entry on Jumping Flash!—which is edited by random users and blatantly not a RS—says nothing about any Famitsu list. Nor does IGN support the claim that Famitsu "ranked Jumping Flash! among the magazine's top 120 PlayStation games of all time in 2000." In fact, IGN is discussing a list of only 100 games, and there is no evidence "Culdcept Central" (a fansite dedicated to the Culdcept series) is remotely reliable (it's certainly not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources). Likewise, while GamePro predicts Jumping Flash! might be the sleeper hit of the year, this is very different from a potential Game of the Year obscured by competitors not in existence at the time of writing. That Jaguar sees nothing wrong with using a review of Jumping Flash! 2 as a source on the gameplay of Jumping Flash!, that he doesn't understand why it would be problematic to attribute something "I remember reading" to a random source obscured by a language barrier, and that he is actually prepared to argue with FAC reviewers over blatant original research (acclaim from "owners and critics alike") or outright nonsense ("synonymous with Sony's début gaming hardware") says it all about his seriousness as an editor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- TheTimesAreAChanging, I am still working hard on the article as I have been for months. Because this article has not received any in depth comments prior to this FAC review it was very difficult for me to make the changes. I do appreciate you taking the time to review this and I thank you for writing down your comments, but using this FAC as to judge my "seriousness as an editor" is needlessly personal, insulting and incorrect. On the contrary I have not argued with anyone regarding the comments, as to say during many GA reviews it is within the nominator's right to question some comments (which as a reviewer I respect). I will still address your concerns above and sort out everything to do with the refs, but I'm still frustrated on why you use this as a reason for personal attacks. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
