Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roger Waters/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:45, 4 November 2010 [1].

Roger Waters[edit]

Roger Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Roger Waters for featured article because I feel after it's GAN and Peer Review it is ready and worthy of FA status. — GabeMc (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, previous nom. Image review needed, sourcing clarification needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time SandyGeorgia, I will happily make notes for every double cite, I just don't know how at the time.
Question - Can you please show me the wikicode to acccomplish this using the citation system currently used in the article, aka Harvnb? — GabeMc (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only double cites that remain in the article are ones that involve a variety of sources, i.e., a primary and a secondary, or a secondary that has two cites, one from a book, the other from a magazine. Why would I have to write, (for Mason on "the last sentence see p.233-245, and for Blake on the last sentence see p.336-335)? Why is this not good enough; or, can you please show me how this needs to be done in terms of wikicode, cause I am willing to write the notes, you just have to show me how. — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote the lyrics to the five Pink Floyd albums preceding his own departure, starting with The Dark Side of the Moon (1973) and ending with The Final Cut (1983), while exerting progressively more creative control over the band and its music.[1]

  1. ^ Mason 2005, pp. 106–107, 160–161, 265, 278; Blake 2008, pp. 3, 9, 113, 156, 242, 279, 320, 398

Please, show me how to do this the right way. — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As of now there are no more double cites in the article, how do I request an image review? — GabeMc (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one doesn't show up within a few days, you can post a request to WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2c: Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citations in further reading ought to be brought up to standard (publisher, location, ISBN).
    • Subtitles are indicated by colons, "Comfortably Numb — The Inside Story of Pink Floyd." ; "Pink Floyd — The Final Cut".
    • So you hadn't resolved these two, I did. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate your help. — GabeMc (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loder, Kurt (14 April 1983). is not correctly linked
  • Date out of style: Billboard Aug 27, 2005. Billboard. 2005-08-27.
  • 1c, an opposeable issue: The cover of Mojo 193 (Mojo Music Magazine Issue 193 Roger Waters cover. Mojo Music Magazine. December 2009. Retrieved 2 October 2010.) fails to sustain the quotation "The loss of a father is the central prop upon which (The Wall) stands. As the years go by, children lose their fathers again and again, for nothing. You see it now with all of these fathers, good men and true, who lost their lives and limbs in Iraq for no reason at all. I've done 'Bring the Boys Back Home' in my encores on recent tours. It feels more relevant and poignant to be singing that song now than it did in 1979."
    • Perhaps you meant to cite an article inside Mojo 193? And give a page number for where the quote was found?
    • The citation of the above is incorrect
    • Not a correct citation of a news or magazine item: Cooper, Emmanuel (25 January 2001). "Judy Trim". London: The Independent. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
Is it okay for a cite web? — GabeMc (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is The Independent a newspaper regardless of its mode of publication? Yes. Does the publication location come before the title of the containing work in Wikipedia Cite style? No. I have resolved this for you Fifelfoo (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your help, I guess this should be applied to the Kurt Loder cite as well then, or no. — GabeMc (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo, thanks for your specific suggestions, I believe I have fixed the issues now. — GabeMc (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you hadn't in the case of subtitles requiring colons and the correct citation of an article from The Independent. FAC, and citations, can be a frustrating process. It is okay to be honest about what you've done or not done, and to ask for help. 2c now looks good. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look back on the archive, you'll see that I have been asking for help for two weeks, but had about given up, so thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if I said I fixed it it means I thought I fixed it, not that I am a liar. — GabeMc (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending image review. I left comments on the previous nom, all of which have now been addressed. Nice work. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your comments were very helpful, thanks for improving the article, thanks for the pronunciation of Ca Ira. — GabeMc (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image you removed is the only one of the five members together, and there are no free pics of the early band on commons. Also, it is being used at Pink Floyd, why can't it be used at Roger Waters in the section about Pink Floyd? — GabeMc (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of non-free images must meet our non-free content criteria. The fact it is used elsewhere (whether that is legitimate or not...) does not automatically mean it can be used here, and the fact it was added to the article without even an attempt at a non-free use rationale... J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the other images, I note that File:Roger Waters 18 May 2008 London O2 Arena.jpg is currently listed as non-com only, but that it was once legit (which, whether ethically sound or not, means this is legally ok to be used commercially). I hate to be a bore, but we do have problems with two files- File:Astoria (Péniche).jpg has attribution/sourcing issues, while File:Roger waters.jpg is primarily a picture of a picture of the moon- the picture of the moon may or may not be copyrighted, and so would need to be cropped out (I'm afraid neither freedom of panorama nor de minimis would apply here- the only way out would be to demonstrate that the picture in question was public domain, which seems unlikely). J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well darn, edit conflict on my image review. Well, I'm going to post it anyway so there.
    • File:Roger Waters 18 May 2008 London O2 Arena.jpg I believe you need to be more explicit in the summary that this was cropped from the other photo, and then provide a link to the original source on Flickr in addition to linking to the photo it was cropped from. The author should also be linked like it is in the original.
I expanded the summary to include the fact that the pic is a cropped one, the file page already links to the original file, so could you please help me with anything that needs to be done with the file. — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be good now, thanks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All other images look fine. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed File:Astoria (Péniche).jpg and File:Roger waters.jpg. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything else I should be doing? — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ping all previous reviewers from the old nom (positive and negative, avoiding WP:CANVASS) and ask them to revisit for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged all previous reviewers. — GabeMc (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources comments - this is a nice, well-written article. No dabs and the external links are fine. On the sources, from this version:
    • Ref 45: the cite templates have an |author= or |last= and |first= fields for a reason – use them! :-)
    • Why is ref 54 using {{cite document}}? It should use cite web.
    • No need for a location in ref 60, it's a newspaper. A link to said paper might be nice, though.
    • Current ref 70 should use {{cite journal}} for a magazine, and should cite the article name for |title= , not the magazine title. see below comments
    • "In 2007, Waters became a spokesman for Millennium Promise, a non-profit organisation that helps fight extreme poverty and malaria, he wrote a commentary for CNN's website on the topic." -- not a sentence.
    • Ref 77 does not support the canceled concert sentence.
    • Ref 78 should use Wired News as the publisher, I believe.
    • Ref 81 should link to Marketwire.
    • Refs 82, 83, and 84 will eventually be updated. These either need to be replaced with new sources or a link to a specific date from the Internet Archive. Why do they even need a source? Are they contentious statements? — GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's special about Cinema for Peace that makes it a notable award?
    • Ref 86: same as ref 60, no need for a newspaper's publishing location. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specific suggestions, I think I have fixed all the issues you mentioned above. — GabeMc (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. A few more: ref 53 needs .com removed from "Allmusic" for consistency, and are you sure that the work/publisher is right? Allmusic and Billboard? If it's the latter, why isn't the information on their own site?
  • Ref 70 is still wrong. You need the actual individual article's title, the magazine name, date published, and (a) page number(s). "Google Books" isn't needed because it's a convenience link.
  • There are still some issues above as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 77 is there to support that he was to play there. — GabeMc (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't support that the concert was canceled due to the Mumbai attacks, however. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to source that the shows were cancelled or delete the info?
The source you have is fine for anything pertaining to "Roger Waters was going to be here on x date for Live Earth 2008", but because your source says nothing about the show being canceled, you need an additional reference to cover that information. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because its contentious that the shows were cancelled because of the attacks? — GabeMc (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added source for why the show was cancelled. — GabeMc (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now the only problems are refs 83 and 84. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with refs 83 and 84? — GabeMc (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information that you are attributing to 83 and 84 (through the use of the two endnotes) will not always be there, as websites of major artists tend to be frequently 'updated'. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see, I think I have fixed 83 and 84 now. Thaks Ed, great suggestion. — GabeMc (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support buffed up nicely now. No glaring prose issues nor comprehensiveness holes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Images are good, I've not read through so cannot support or oppose other than that. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This has seen a vast number of edits since nomination; somewhat daunting for reviewers to try and assess a moving target, but perhaps understandable given the early comments before the restart. Reading the lead now, it looks to be in good shape, and my structural concern expressed earlier has been addressed. Just starting a review now and will comment further after that. PL290 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... which so far are:

*He invoked the "leaving member clause" in his contract - I know that phrase is a quote within a quote later, but it doesn't really add here or tell us anything about the legal wrangling surrounding the decision; is it not sufficient for the lead simply to say he decided to leave the band?

  • Waters' or Waters's? Both are acceptable per MoS; consistency is needed.
  • They took the name Sigma 6, and included Waters on "rudimentary" lead guitar, - again, why the scare quotes? Needs to make a clear factual statement.
  • They had managed to secure some recording time through a friend of Wright's who worked at a studio in West Hampstead, and let them use some "down time" for free. - same again. These quoted terms are not encyclopedic.
  • I don't think bandmate or lightshow are words in British English; please check.
I changed bandmate to be sure but the BBC used it in much the same way I was using it. Look here. The BBC also uses the word lightshow, but I changed that also, to be sure. — GabeMc (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although several of Barrett's friends, Waters included, claim to have tried to help him - any reason not to simply say they tried to help him? The phrase claimed to have is loaded language here, and should not be used without justification (and cited explanation).
  • It was selling over 8,000 units every week as of 2004 and is the, "second best-selling album of all time, worldwide, and the 21st best-selling album of all time in the United States."[15] - the quote really adds nothing and is a distraction in the prose; it would improve flow to paraphrase instead. (I noticed one or two other examples of this; please check.)
  • Pink Floyd has sold over 200 million albums - should be "have", as in the lead
  • In 1983 the last Waters–Gilmour–Mason collaboration, The Final Cut, was released. The sleeve notes describe it as "The Final Cut: A requiem for the post-war dream by Roger Waters, music performed by Pink Floyd". - the quote would be more effective without including the repeat of the album title.
  • The David Gilmour-led Pink Floyd released two studio albums - we've already been introduced to Gilmour; why the first name here?
  • Please check for underlinking; for instance, When the Wind Blows and Amused to Death are linked in the lead, but never in the main text. Per MOS:LINKS, "links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the openings of new sections, ...".
  • The album had one hit the song, "What God Wants, Pt. 1", Amused to Death, which reached number 35 in the UK - not sure what's going on with this sentence; should Amused to Death be there? Needs punctuation or word after "had one hit" anyway.
  • Jeff Beck played lead guitar on many of the album's tracks, which were recorded with a "stellar cast" of studio musicians - those quotes again; either needs attributing to a speaker or stating plainly.
  • Miramax announced in mid-2004 that a production of The Wall was to appear on Broadway with Waters playing a prominent part in its production. - unfortunate repetition of production.

Looking generally good; will review last few sections tomorrow. PL290 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your specific suggestions, the article is much improved due to your edits and input. I did my best to fix everything you mentioned above. As per underlinking, during this FAC SlimVirgin told me to link on the first mention only, so I deleted many, many links at his suggestion. — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that may have been a misunderstanding if it left some things only ever linked in the lead. However, if it wasn't a misunderstanding and others disagree, I will not press the issue for this FAC, but the guideline I quoted just above is clear enough on the question, and its advice appears to me to be sound: MOS:LINKS, "links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the openings of new sections, ..."
  • as of 2005, Waters is engaged to filmmaker Laurie Durning. - but it's now 2010.
  • Before the restart we discussed the lack of detail on his singing and musicianship; I gather from your response then that it's because there simply are no sources for that detail. That is unfortunate, but if it is the case then we have to accept that it's not an actionable objection. Other than that, I am now mostly nitpicking or finding things that come down to individual preferences ...
  • ... so I am happy to Support. PL290 (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific suggestions, the article is greatly improved due to your input. — GabeMc (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: I'm wondering why you don't really have any information in the article about Waters' playing style and reputation as a bassist. I realize that he is primarily known as a singer-songwriter, but there is literature out there about Waters as a bassist. For example, several articles have been published over the years in Bass Player magazine, and you don't seem to have included any of them. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I don't have any of those sources, but my short answer would be that most of the good bass lines on Floyd stuff is Gilmour, or a studio musician, and not Waters, who, by his own admission, can barely play. Waters joked that he thanked Gilmour whenever he won a best bass player poll. As far as I know, his reputation as a bassist is not notable, expect that he is not very skilled. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that's actually very interesting, Gabe. Do you think you could source that and add it to the article?—indopug (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. FWIW GabeMc (talk · contribs) notified me about this FAC at my usertalk page - I had already been familiar with it due to having passed the article as a GA. Due to writing quality at the time of GA Review I had recommended a peer review, and I am glad the nominator took that to heart. ;) After another check of the article, writing quality appears to have improved, past GA-quality and on to FA-worthy prose. -- Cirt (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I read through the lead and first section and saw some recurring problems - too much detail in some areas and lack of clarification in others (what a conundrum!):

  • Too much detail in the lead. Do we need to know the dates of his marriages and divorces, or even the names of his wives in the lead? do we need to know in the lead that he "played The Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety for his world tours of 2006–2008"?
  • There's no source for the first paragraph of the Early years section...
  • Do we need to know that Eric Fletcher Waters was the grandson of a coal miner and prominent labour party leader, or how he was known? That seems more appropriate for the article on Eric Fletcher Waters, unless these details impacted Waters' development (which doesn't appear to be the case).
  • Based only on my knowledge of the subject I'd say it might well have, considering his left-leaning views.Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to know in this article where David Gilmour lived and went to school? I am unfamiliar with the area, and this seems irrelevant to me.
  • Can we spell out what YCND is? I've never heard that acronym before
  • The article implies,but doesn't clarify, that Waters attended the Regent Street Polytechnic school of architecture. Did he graduate from there?
  • IIRC the band members quit their studies, focussing instead on music. Parrot of Doom 16:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specific suggestions. The detail in the lede is there at the direct request of another FAC reviewer, and in an effort to be sure to adequately cover the artcle. As far as his Dark Side tours in the lede, it is the most notable thing he did during that entire decade, why is it not notable enough for the lede? Do you know when Waters quit Poly? Cause the sources are as vague as the article, IMHO, correct me if I missed the date, I can't find it. This process is beginning to feel like an infinite feedback loop, i.e. "there's too many cites", "you need more cites", "there is not enough detail in the lede", "there is too much detail in the lede", etc...I fixed what I could. — GabeMc (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I hope to give this a closer read over the weekend. But for now, I suggest incorporating "Marriages and children" into the general biography. Also, the article is big enough that you could rationalize splitting off his discography into its own page. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific suggestions, I have incorporated "Marriages and children" into the general biography, and split off his discography into its own page. — GabeMc (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good job, as detailed as Parrot of Doom's album articles. igordebraga ≠ 14:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone review the linking? I see tearoom and Klose (linked not to Bob Klose, just Klose) linked. In Classic period, the various Pink Floyd albums are linked on multiple occasion, but often not in the first occurrence. I'll try to give a more detailed review in a couple of days.—indopug (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSLINKS, "links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the openings of new sections, ...". If you see under, or overlinking then please, be bold and fix it. — GabeMc (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not liking the newly added information about the specific instruments he played, in the lead (i.e. "He briefly played a Höfner bass ... acoustic guitars in recordings and in concert.") That's too much detail for the lead, and not of any interest to casual, non-musical readers. Besides, the instruments are already listed in the lead in the infobox.—indopug (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The info was added to the lead at the request of other FAC reviewers, so that the lead summarized the whole article. — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed what I could, so as to be less specific and detailed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my concerns were addressed before this nomination was re-started. This is a well-written, engaging and comprehensive contribution. Waters is a difficult subject because there is no official, or unofficial, biography. The facts given in the article are pretty much well established and are unlikely to be contended. The article satisfies the FA criteria IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

  • Does the great-grandfather who was a prominent Labour leader merit a (red?) link?

Ucucha 13:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say, if he was prominent. Who was he? He has now gone, and is not mentioned in Fletcher's article, which he should be. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the source (Blake) does not use his great-grandfather's name, it only mentions him in passing. — GabeMc (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Nearly there, but:
After the very early days there is really nothing describing his or the band's musical style. The sources must have plenty of quotes that could be used. It has changed a lot over the years & needs to be covered.
Shouldn't that be covered at length at Pink Floyd, and is there really a need for me to repeat the info here? — GabeMc (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article isn't shy of going over other stuff covered at PF, & he has been out of them for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just personally disagree, there is enough detail in the article already IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on here with the [] in quotes?: "family life versus "[T]he call of the wild".[49] In the end the character, Reg, chooses love and matrimony over promiscuity. The album featured guitarist Eric Clapton, jazz saxophonist David Sanborn, and artwork by Scarfe. Rolling Stone's Kurt Loder described The Pros And Cons Of Hitch Hiking as a "[S]trangely static, faintly hideous record",[50] Rolling Stone rated the album a "[R]ock bottom" one star."[51] Mike DeGagne of Allmusic praised the album for its "[I]ngenious symbolism" and "[B]rilliant use of stream of consciousness within a subconscious realm", rating it four out of five stars.[52]"
Fixed.
I agree with Andy Walsh above that if he is actually not much of a player this needs to be mentioned.
Point me to the sources, since if I mentioned his simplistic bass playing style it would be original research, and my opinion. — GabeMc (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to point you to the sources, but to point you to problems with the article. In fact Andy Walsh pointed you to sources above, which you declined to follow up. I can't in fact believe the subject is not addressed in the rack of band biographies already being used. It doesn't seem an exceptional demand that an FA on a professional musician should include some assesssment of his competence and style as a performer. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own the sources Andy mentioned, nor do I know exactly where to find them. Bass Player magazine is a bit vague. I do in fact own EVERY source listed in the references, and NONE of them, to my knowledge, discuss Waters' bass playing, or performance style. It might not be your job to point me to sources, but it's not my job to go on assignment for every editors whim either. I am happy with the 6 supports I already have. — GabeMc (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waters is a tuff subject, since there are no bios on him. Gaps in the sources should not be filled in with editor opinions. — GabeMc (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Small point, but I would add links at: "Bo Diddley meets the 007 theme."[11] Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Is the nominator responding-- these comments are days old. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GabeMC hasn't edited since the 24th, he may well be indisposed. Parrot of Doom 09:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was busy attending Roger Waters The Wall Live, I will address the latest comments tonight. — GabeMc (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
  • I was wondering if the following could be summarized to avoid the list of quotes:

During the recording of The Wall, Waters, Gilmour, and Mason became increasingly unhappy with Wright's lack of contribution to the album.[29] Gilmour said that Wright, "[H]adn't contributed anything of any value whatsoever to the album—he did very, very little," and he "didn't seem to be pulling his weight."[30] Mason said, "Alas, Rick's contribution was to turn up and sit in on the sessions without doing anything, just 'being a producer'."[31] Longtime Pink Floyd studio engineer Nick Griffiths said, "by the time of The Wall, Rick Wright had lost interest in the idea of the Floyd. He was more interested in his leisure time—sailing around the Greek islands and enjoying the life of a rich rock 'n' roll star."[32] Gilmour would later say that Wright, "wasn't doing the job he was paid to do" and he "got the boot because he wasn't contributing in any way to anything."[32] Waters added, "he was not prepared to cooperate in making the record," and "it was agreed by everybody ... either you can have a long battle or you can agree to this, and the 'this' was you finish making the album, keep your full share ... but at the end of it you leave quietly. Rick agreed."[33]

I like the detail there, it is one of the most contentious points in Pink Floyd's history, and it deserves to be told accurately. I prefer to quote here, so readers know what the other three Floyd's had to say about Wright during the recording of The Wall. Wright's departure is usually blamed on Roger, so to set it straight is important. Also, weren't you telling me to add detail a couple weeks ago? Now you want me to remove detail. Didn't you also complain that the article was overcited, now you want cites added? — GabeMc (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall asking you for more details. I did ask you not to add large numbers of refs after each sentence, but it's not a question of overall numbers, but of citing appropriately. If you want to keep the list of quotes, I'd suggest adding them to a footnote, and summarizing something like this: "During the recording of The Wall, Waters, Gilmour, and Mason became increasingly unhappy with Wright. Gilmour said Wright contributed very little to the album, and Pink Floyd studio engineer Nick Griffiths said Wright seemed to have lost interest in the idea of the Floyd. In the end it was agreed that Wright would finish making the album, then leave quietly afterwards." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is another of your opinions and preferences that are not actionable in an FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source query:
  • "During Dennis's brief tenure the band was regularly referring to itself as The Pink Floyd Sound, a name which was, according to Mason, created by Barrett on the spur of the moment when he discovered that another band also named the Tea Set were to perform at one of their gigs." Sourced to Blake 2008, p. 43
I can see that page here, but can't see where it makes that point. Could be a ref got moved into the wrong place. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sentence was copied over here from this section of Pink Floyd. The source is Mason's Inside Out, p. 30. You mention that source after the next sentence, with different page numbers; perhaps a different edition. It might be worth mentioning that, in the source you cite for that sentence (Blake 2008, p. 43ff), Dennis has no recollection of them being called the Tea Set, and according to Mason there's confusion regarding when the name Pink Floyd emerged. Because of that I wonder about the accuracy of the next sentence: "Sometime during the late summer to early autumn of 1965 Waters co-founded Pink Floyd with Barrett, Wright and Mason," cited to Mason, pp. 33–37. Perhaps worth tweaking it to make clear there's confusion, and checking the page numbers.SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blake page 43 supports when the name Pink Floyd was first used, during Dennis's tenure, and that it was Syd's idea, so I am not sure what page, or book, you are looking at. I added a cite from Mason p.30 to the paragraph. — GabeMc (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering where "Sometime during the late summer to early autumn of 1965 Waters co-founded Pink Floyd with Barrett, Wright and Mason" came from. It suggests there was some kind of restart, whereas the sources seem to be saying there was a fluid situation from one name to the next, and people coming and going. Blake p. 44 says the Pink Floyd name was first used in February 1965, though on the same page it says the issue is cloudy because Richard Jacobs says it was used in 1963. So who is saying Pink Floyd was co-founded in the summer of 1965? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mason p.30 says "Throughout the Autumn (1865) we played on, usually under the name, the Tea Set, but we now had an alternative name, created by Syd" According to Mason p.36, "Pink Floyd Sound reconvened in London after the summer break of 1966." I think that Mason makes clear that the name came about in the Autumn or late Summer, of 1965, and not sooner, at least, according to Mason, who is Richard Jacobs anyway?. Maybe I will change the verbiage to avoid using the word "founded". — GabeMc (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe, there is either a source for the sentence "Sometime during the late summer to early autumn of 1965 Waters co-founded Pink Floyd with Barrett, Wright and Mason," or there isn't. Is there is, please add it.

This has now been fixed I think. — GabeMc (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand frustration at the end of a long FAC, but you've been biting people's heads off since before the restart. It means things aren't being checked, and I'm not sure copying material into this article from Pink Floyd without attribution [2] was a good idea, because it means someone else's writing, sourcing, and context has been added here. That might be fine, but it's hard to be sure, and if we ask for clarification we get told off. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this unbecoming behavior from the nominator, and am moving it to talk. GabeMc, if there are any more posts to reviewers of this nature, this FAC will close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Gabe has posted another attack on my talk page, including the comment "SlimVirgin, is case you didn't know, Waters changed the film in his show, and the star of David is no longer juxtaposed with a dollar sign," whatever that's supposed to mean. [3]
On what grounds? Is there an issue with the article that needs to be fixed? — GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article when brought to FAC had writing and sourcing issues. It has improved during the course of the FAC, but this has been achieved in part by lifting material from Pink Floyd, slotting it in here and editing it. Gabe's responses to straightforward requests have been very aggressive since the beginning of the FAC, which means the article is not being reviewed thoroughly. And I don't know what the Star of David reference is about, but I doubt it's a good thing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't I use passages from Pink Floyd, I am a major contributor there and some of the passages in the article were in fact written by me. — GabeMc (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was inclined to oppose this when I first saw it, but didn't because I saw people were working on it. I opposed it a few minutes ago, but that was after a personal attack and that's not the right time to do it. I also don't want to put the delegates in an awkward position. So I'm withdrawing the oppose, and I won't comment here further. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe has now turned up with multiple posts to Talk: Death of Ian Tomlinson, [4] one of my FAs, and has so far added seven cite tags to the article for material that is sourced, including in the lead. [5] This is very inappropriate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this FAC. At a time when we are lacking reviewers and need more scrutiny at FAC, we cannot have the kind of posts GabeMc made on SV's talk page, or this kind of behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, SG is accusing me of anti-semitism, and closing the FAC based on comments I made on another reviewers talk page. SG, my father was Jewish, I am 1/4 Polish Jew, and here you close my FAC and accuse me of anti-semitism? — GabeMc (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you close an FAC that has achieved 6 supports, and not one opposed? SG, you are retaliating for an incident with your friend, that is not appropriate. — GabeMc (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roger_Waters/archive1&oldid=1138470157"