Talk:The Beatles at the Cavern Club/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Start of review

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times.

Why is this article needed?

I've just read other Beatles-related WP articles and there is a lot of overlap with The Quarrymen and Brian Epstein - in fact most of this article's section "Background: The Cavern Club, late 1957" appears almost word for word in the last 2 paras of The_Quarrymen#The_Quarrymen. I suggest that to give this article a distinct role you need more about their performances at The Cavern - dates of specific "series" there, what they played (especially any songs that became hits then or later), commentary on their performances there (especially any that got the attention of a wider audience), staff changes. Chronologically there is quite a large gap for this article to fill, as the band first appeared at The Cavern in Aug 1957 and only met Epstein in Nov 1961.

The alternative is to re-think the structure of the Beatles-related package of articles, e.g. overview articles The Beatles and more detailed chronological articles on the pre-Epstein period (which would absorb The Quarrymen and The Beatles at The Cavern Club), the Epstein years, and the post-Epstein years (up to the break-up).

I'll pause the review here to give you time to consider how to minimise duplication. --Philcha (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dendodge will probably wish to reply too, as primary contributor and GA nominator, but for what it's worth here's my reply to why the article's needed. The convergence of Brian Epstein and The Beatles at this club is seen as highly significant in The Beatles' history, because having thus met the band, Epstein went on to become their manager and a major player in their commercial success. The article originally had a longer name to try and reflect this convergence, but it got renamed to one which perhaps misses the point and suggests more emphasis on all performances there as you suggest. In my opinion (and Dendodge or others may disagree) it would be a loss of important emphasis if the article's focus shifted to include a great deal of detail about all the Cavern Club performances over the two-and-a-half years. It sounds as though the question of duplication needs to be addressed however, perhaps by summarizing the background rather than repeating paragraphs verbatim from the other article. PL290 (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes - the article is intended to cover the early Cavern days and the meeting with Epstein. Dendodge _T\^C 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The meeting with Epstein and its consequences are well-documented elsewhere. There are 4.5 years before Epstein where quite a lot may have happened, e.g. in their musical style, if sources can be found. --Philcha (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)--Philcha (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just to clarify one point: they didn't play at the Cavern for that whole period. They were in Hamburg for part of it. I don't think they played at the Cavern in between that 1957 Quarrymen appearance and their debut there as The Beatles in 1961, the year Epstein saw them there (did they Dendodge?) PL290 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case I don't see that there's enough for this article to talk about. Your statement makes it just a footnote in the meeting of the Beatles and Epstein, and as far I can see the other material is already covered elsewhere. --Philcha (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dendodge, it seems we should take our cue from both the rename and Philcha's comments, so that the article's role does indeed now become just the one Pilcha identifies in the second sentence: "to give this article a distinct role you need more about their performances at The Cavern". Perhaps not all 292 performances, but say a table of a representative sample covering the two-and-a-half years starting 1961, along with significant attendant facts. For instance, the time they appeared there on the bill along with "their idol Little Richard", R&B marathon(s) with other groups, Hamburg "Welcome Home" dates, etc., etc. There's quite a lot about this in Bill Harry's Beatles Encyclopedia. This article will then be the one place where a summary of Beatles Cavern performances can be found, plus the one place where the Beatles/Epstein convergence, while stated elsewhere, can be done justice by including any and all salient detail surrounding that convergence. Philcha, if you agree and can allow a day for a Beatles Cavern performance summary to be added, I'm prepared to do that, in the absence of a different suggestion from Dendodge. PL290 (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PL290, I'm in no rush, as I realise that some work will be involved. I didn't realise there were as many as 292 performances. --Philcha (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) Sorry I haven't responded earlier, but my laptop's broken and I get precious little chance to use the main desktop in the house. Well done PL290, it's a lot better now it's more comprehensive. I hope to be online a bit more from now on, so I will be able to help out with the article a lot more. Dendodge _T\^C 16:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that there's a coherent article here:

• The early chronology in all the Beatles-related articles, including this one, is a complete mess, and its hard to see any causal connections between events. The best thing anyone can do is produce a clear, detailed and well-referenced timeline as a basis for strucuring the portfolio of articles about the band's early history.- possibly in a "Timeline of ..." article. Then it will be easier to work out what were the key stages and events in the formation of the Fab Four.
• I still don't see a single subject "The Beatles at The Cavern Club". There were apparently two series of performances at The Cavern, 1958-1960 (before the first Hamburg trip ) and from Feb 1961 to Aug 1963 (interrupted by the 2nd Hamburg trip; terminated by the USA trip). In the first serie sthe were known as the The Quarrymen, apparently McCartney had already joined (though after the audition with Sytner that got The Quarrymen) but before Harrison became a member. It looks like The Cavern was the place where the band moved up from a "wedding group" (dances, interludes, etc. at social occasions) to a group people came to hear. Somehow in this period Allan Williams became their manager/promoter, which led to the Hamburg engagements.
• There were tons of personnel changes. The important ones were the joining of McCartney and Harrison, as they formed core of the Beatles line-up that started recording with George Martin. It's hard to avoid Stu Sutcliffe simply because his rather tenuous part in the bands rise gets so much publicity. Obviously the replacement of Best with Ringo was vital as it completed the well-known line-up.
• It's unclear how involved Epstein got, when and why. The Beatles in Hamburg says a record they cut in Hamburg got his attention. The "popular" account says their performance at The Cavern in Nov 1961 was a turning point; but IIRC one of the articles says Epstein trie dto hire them earlier for a gig.
• Too much of this article is about Epstein and activities of his or the band that nothing to do with The Cavern.

Right now this article is failing the WP:WIAGA criterion "broad but focussed coverage". The gaps, espeically in chronolgy, make is less than broad; and the space given to activities and events not connected with the Cavern means it's not focussed. I'm putting this "on Hold", which means you have 7 days to fix it. You might consider withdrawing this GA nom so you have time to sort out the chronology and then decide how to structure the entire package of articles about the early history of The Beatles. --Philcha (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to see the right way forward here... putting three things together:

• Dendodge's confirmation that "the article is intended to cover the early Cavern days and the meeting with Epstein";
• Philcha's last comment "Too much of this article is about Epstein and activities of his or the band that nothing to do with The Cavern";
• Currently not meeting the criterion "broad but focussed coverage"

I think there is a need for an article that covers this period of the band's history in this detail. I think this need is not met elsewhere. I think the current article nearly achieves what's needed, but fails to make explicit why the Cavern/Epstein convergence is significant. It is significant because it brought about UK chart success and everything that led to. So, for all to consider, I suggest that:

• IMO the article name, which got changed but has never been quite right, may be part of the problem;
• IMO the focus is "how the band achieved UK chart success", and the Cavern performances are the build-up to that;
• The breadth is actually very much present in the article already; the periods when the band did not play at the Cavern are not chronological "gaps" as they were doing other things at the time; the Cavern appearances that there were are part of the breadth of how it was possible for the events to take place that did when Epstein eventually met them there and took them to UK chart success by getting them a record contract.

Philcha and others, thoughts about a possible article rename to suit "how the band achieved UK chart success" and addition of material to cover success of "Please Please Me"? PL290 (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

PL290's "the periods when the band did not play at the Cavern are not chronological "gaps" as they were doing other things at the time" puts its finger on the problem - there is no single, coherent stage in The Beatles' development that is specifically associated with the Cavern. Instead there are struggle to develop into a band that people came to listen to, to get into the charts and to settle the line-up. Some of these happened partially at The Cavern. I think you'd do best to withdraw the nomination and then think out the structure of a package of articles to cover the whole of The Beatles' career. --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, and I'm sure Dendodge as nominator will see that that has to be a possibility. I would value your thoughts on the possibility that the problem is simply the article title, since the "gaps" are of course Hamburg which is properly given its own focus in the Hamburg article. But anyway, I for one appreciate the time you've already allowed for the article to take the right shape during this GA review. It would be nice to think that is still possible but perhaps I've chimed in enough and we need Dendodge's thoughts on all this. PL290 (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Look for comparison at The Beatles in Hamburg. They switched from clients, from Koschmider to Eckhorn, were expelled when Koschmider made trouble as soon as they started playing for Eckhorn, but Eckhorn forked out his own money to enable the band to return. In other words the Hamburg period was a single career stage (Aug 1960 to July 1961) with an enforced break (Nov 1960 to Apr 1961) - which had the incidental benefit of showing British observers how fast the band was learning its trade in Hamburg. The contract with Eckhorn also led to the group's first record deal.

The Fab Two plus a series of hangers-on had one series of gigs as The Quarrymen at The Cavern in 1957, a couple in early 1961 before returning to Hamburg, and then a longer series from July 1961 to Aug 1963. McCartney played with The Quarrymen at The Cavern, but had not been in the band at the audition with Sytner. Harrison joined after the end of the 1957 Cavern gigs. The band was not called The Beatles until their first trip to Hamburg. So strictly speaking the 1957 series was part of the history of The Quarrymen, whose only real connection with The Beatles is Lennon. Hence it should be just a brief explanatory note here, e.g. skip how they got an audition but point out the very different line-up and that they were then hired to play skiffle rather than rock-based pop music.

Epstein first saw The Beatles perform at The Cavern, although there are differing accounts of what drew his attention to them - some say their first recording, made in Hamburg, was a factor. At present I don't know whether the 1961 to 1963 series was part of their contract with Epstein (25% of the gross) or outside it, as they were 4 months into that series when they met Epstein. In short, while Epstein was hugely important to The Beatles, it's not clear that The Cavern was important in forming that relationship - they had to meet somewhere and he had to see them perform somewhere, but it could equally well have been at a one-off gig elsewhere during that period.

If there's core content for an article called "The Beatles at The Cavern Club", it's whatever significance you can extract from the performances Aug July 1961 to Aug 1963. How much publicity did it get the band, especially did it help to promote their early UK singles? How much did their style develop in that time? Did they make any significant friends or enemies, or attract the attention of some who later influenced their career? In short, is it any more than a list of gigs?

I'm quite sympathetic to the idea of focussing on "how the band achieved UK chart success". But that's a different subject: getting the attention of A&R men, deciding on songs and style of performance, production, promotion, etc. The Cavern is only relevant to that story if it can be shown that the gigs there created interest in the band outside Liverpool. --Philcha (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When I created this article, it was supposed to cover the period during which they played at the cavern and met Brian Epstein, and it was a fork based on a subsection of The Beatles. When read as a contiguous piece along with the other history articles, it makes sense, but I can see how it appears to be lacking when read alone. I have been rather inactive recently, but should be able to help expand this article to cover a wider range of topics if that is what you feel it requires. Personally, I would suggest renaming this back to its original title ("The Beatles: The Cavern Club and Brian Epstein"), or something similar, since that more adequately explains the article's coverage. Dendodge _T\^C 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've seen no significant improvement in the telling of a coherent story since I first raised the issue on 7 July. I am now formally placing the artcile on hold, which gives you a week to resolve the issue. --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I love the idea of an article on The Beatles at The Cavern. However, I have to agree with Philcha that, at the moment, this article isn't quite there. I would support the idea of closing this nomination, having a rethink, and building the article up to a standard where it can be resubmitted. SilkTork *^YES! 12:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The current name provides much scope for expansion of the article (the name the article had when I nominated it didn't), and would also support closing this nomination and expanding the article. Dendodge _T\^C 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Links validity check

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) shortcut for en.wikipedia.org with redirected and disambig page options selected

Use of images

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Lead

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Conclusion

The issues I raised have not been addressed, and there has been no activity on the article since 9 Aug 2009. I regret that the artcile has not met the GA standard. --Philcha (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.