Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4

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 promoted by Karanacs 18:44, 23 February 2010 [1].

Elvis Presley[edit]

Nominator(s): PL290, DocKino, Rikstar
Toolbox

Notes from previous FAC:

  • Media review reported no issues.
  • Source review noted issues: these have been addressed. PL290 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, carried over from the last FAC. Some opposition floated in after my review last time, items that I should have noticed and did agree with—the nominators appear to have addressed them. The para about Elvis meeting Nixon looks much better as well, which was the other standout objection that I noticed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some sources doubting Presley’s reputation as the most successful popular singer of his day are still missing. For example, this one:

  • Though he has featured prominently in a variety of polls and surveys designed to measure popularity and influence, sociologist Philip Ennis writes, "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." See Ennis, Philip H., The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), pp. 251-252.

Some details that were part of previous article versions have frequently been removed, for instance

  • His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk," and had alcohol problems.

Furthermore, why isn’t there a special section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era in the article? In that era, for which Presley is so well known, the singer was distanced from the main currents of rock 'n' roll, which were seized by groups such as The Beatles and the Rolling Stones during the 1960s. This moving away from his roots was much criticized by critics and rock musicians.

  • "There was so little of it that was actually good," David Bowie says. "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002.

One of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley.

Furthermore, why is there so little on Elvis’s personal life to be found in the biographical article? A section more specifically dealing with his friends is missing, although it is well known that he spent all day and night with them. The problems he had with his stepmother are not even mentioned. Where are the paragraphs about his personal habits? Why are there no passages about his violent behavior and his notorious predilection for guns?

The Legacy section primarily includes superlatives. Where are the critical remarks about the world-wide Elvis industry and the Elvis cult at Graceland? The same section still includes the following (false) claim:

  • "Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television", Elvis "was arguably the most famous person in the world."

“...the most famous person in the world?” Sorry, at the age of 21, i.e. in 1956, Elvis was much loved and hated in several parts of the USA, that’s true, but Charles Laughton didn’t even know the correct name of Elvis when he introduced him in the Sullivan Show. More famous in the minds of many at that time may have been Mao Zedong, if you count all the Chinese people whose hero Mao was and who had never heard of Elvis. And you can be sure that many Americans too hated him in 1956. Furthermore, in 1956, Marilyn Monroe, as a celebrity, was surely more famous for marrying Arthur Miller than Elvis for his gyrations. More famous than Elvis in the minds of many American adults at that time were also Dwight D. Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev (the latter for his de-Stalinization policy). So much for the false claim that, "at the age of 21," Elvis "was arguably the most famous person in the world."

More critical voices have stated that while "Elvis’s success as a singer and movie star dramatically increased his economic capital, his cultural capital never expanded enough for him to transcend the stigma of his background as a truck driver from the rural South... 'No matter how successful Elvis became... he remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans... He was the sharecropper’s son in the big house, and it always showed.'" See Linda Ray Pratt, "Elvis, or the Ironies of a Southern Identity," The Southern Quarterly, vol. 18 (1979), pp.43, 45, also cited in Rodman, Elvis after Elvis (1996), p.78, and Janet Podell, Rock Music in America (1987), p.26. Such statements certainly belong to the "Legacy" section, but have frequently been removed.

See also the critical commentaries by Johnbod, for instance [2] and [3]. Onefortyone (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The points which Johnbod raised have been addressed and I look forward to his assessment of the actions taken. The remaining points appear to relate to incidental aspects of the artist's life and career, or that of his parents, relatives and colleagues, or, alternatively, dwell too much on details of one aspect for a summary article of this size. The question of inclusion of both positive and negative aspects has already received careful consideration and I feel the correct balance has now been achieved. PL290 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is comprehensive, well researched, well written, and relates a very complex story with clarity and, yes, excellent balance.

I'm disturbed by the nature of the opposition raised just above, which appears to be made without any concern for the need to maintain that balance, as well as proper focus and manageable length. The interest in inflating coverage of Presley's family and associates is obviously misplaced, as is the desire to further emphasize the decline in his physical condition and his disreputability in certain circles—issues already covered by the article in depth and at many different junctures.

Particularly questionable are certain misleading and poorly based arguments, which cast the opponent's good faith into grave doubt:

  • The conflation (via "because") of the high school poll with the isolated statement ""Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" appears to be willfully deceptive. Here is that sentence fully in context—it begins a section in Ennis's book called "The Legacy of the Pantheon":

Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load; yet he clearly outshines the other performers in rocknroll's first pantheon. He, more than the others, has become a national icon. The legacy of rocknroll's founding years, therefore, is largely Elvis', even though it was a collective accomplishment.

  • The desire to introduce this single high school poll also reconfirms the obliviousness to concerns of balance and length. Its inclusion would require the survey of broader, more objective standards of popularity in comparing Boone and Presley, such as chart success and record sales. In 1957, Presley had four chart-topping singles; each "sold about two million copies. Elvis had two number-one albums and three number-one EPs, and in all had spent twenty-one weeks at the top of the singles charts, fourteen heading the album charts. The single 'Jailhouse Rock' sold an instant two million copies, and the EP became Elvis's second million-seller in that category" (Ernst Jorgensen, Elvis Presley: A Life in Music, p. 98). And, of course, 1956 was even bigger for Presley than 1957. Boone's achievements were impressive, but not in the same league (for instance, he spent seven weeks at the top of the singles charts in 1957). Believe otherwise? Please quote in similar detail and properly source. Thank you.
  • Presley's first network appearance was in January 1956; he turned 22 in January 1957. The statement that he was "arguably the most famous person in the world" within a year of the first event, when he was still 21 (that is, by roughly the end of 1956) is well sourced. I checked the source. Indeed, it flatly claims that he was the most famous person in the world. The statement in the article thus—appropriately, I believe—moderates this claim, for which much evidence may be marshaled but which is ultimately hard to prove conclusively. The idea that an English actor's (possibly intentional) mispronunciation of Presley's name in September 1956 contradicts the statement is bizarre—especially when the article clearly states that this September '56 event was key in catapulting Presley to the heights of fame. The opponent's OR claims concerning Mao, Monroe, Eisenhower, and Khrushchev, all obviously unsourced, in no way refute the well founded statement.
  • A request is made for a "special section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era". The era—including the attention paid to Presley's costumes and, of course, the nature of his music—is already extensively and appropriately covered in the article's historical section.
  • Johnbod's comments from the last FAC are raised, as if the nominators had not expressly worked to address them.

In sum, I don't see anything actionable here and I believe the submission as a whole represents a fringe position.—DCGeist (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few notes. According to the New York Times, May 17, 1991, Queen Elizabeth II
"is arguably the most famous person in the world -- a woman famous not for Andy Warhol's 15 minutes or for 15 years but for almost five decades. She is incalculably wealthy, a living link with the Britain of Chaucer and Shakespeare and Wellington and Churchill, who has herself been privy to the deepest secrets of the West since 1952, when Harry S. Truman lived in the White House and Joseph Stalin lived in the Kremlin." See [4]
Another source says that
"During the anti-Communist witch-hunts spearheaded by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Paul Robeson became a target for repression. He went from being arguably the most famous person in the world, to being erased from the history books. Now, after a six-year grass-roots campaign, the United States Post Office is issuing a commemorative stamp in his honor." See [5].
So much for the ridiculous claim that Elvis, in 1956, was "arguably the most famous person in the world."
According to Billboard, Boone was the second biggest charting artist of the late 1950s, behind only Elvis Presley but ahead of Ricky Nelson and The Platters, and was ranked at No. 9 - behind The Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney but ahead of artists such as Aretha Franklin, Chicago and The Beach Boys - in its listing of the Top 100 Top 40 Artists 1955-1995. See Joel Whitburn, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, 1996, p.806. It is a fact that, for high school students, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." This suggests that Elvis, the bad guy, and his rock 'n 'roll music was more favored by lower-class than by middle-class teenagers, the latter favoring the good guy Boone. And this fact is certainly of some importance.
Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on John Lennon includes a comprehensive section on "Marriages and relationships", the Paul McCartney article has "Personal relationships" and "Lifestyle" sections. The Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, Marlon Brando and James Dean articles all include "Personal life" sections. It’s a mystery to me why a biographical article on Elvis Presley should not have such sections that more specifically deal with Presley's family and associates. Onefortyone (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.

  • Elizabeth II was indeed very famous in 1991, as she remains. This is utterly irrelevant to the statement in the article: "Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television, he was arguably the most famous person in the world."
According to the New York Times article, Queen Elizabeth II was "arguably the most famous person in the world ... for almost five decades. Onefortyone (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know... that in the English language, the word "arguably" indicates that there are other plausible candidates for the status in question? Did you know... that two hours before your latest love letter to the Queen, the passage was emended as a result of a sane, productive, English-language exchange with Johnbod? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that the word "arguably" indicates that there are other plausible candidates for the status in question. That's why I think that such statements are ridiculous, especially if they are cited in a featured article. Thanks for emending the said passage. Onefortyone (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul Robeson was indeed very famous when he was blacklisted, in 1948. This is utterly irrelevant to the statement in the article (I'll repeat it for your convenience): "Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television, he was arguably the most famous person in the world."
  • You have provided zero evidence that the vastly popular Presley was relatively "more favored by lower-class than by middle-class teenagers" compared to the very--but rather less--popular Boone. I see nothing in the poll with which you are obsessed that breaks down the respondents' opinions by economic class. Nor, in my considerable reading in the field, have I encountered any evidence to support your novel claim. Given Presley's unprecedented sales, it is most plausible to assume that he had large followings among teenagers of all economic classes. If you have any contrary evidence that directly addresses teenagers and class, please present it and we can consider whether and how it should be integrated into the present article or if it is more suitable for the topical article Cultural impact of Elvis Presley.
Boone had three No. 1 hits in 1957 ("Don't Forbid Me", "Love Letters In The Sand", "April Love") and still holds the Billboard record for spending 220 consecutive weeks on the charts with more than one song.
According to Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Hess and Gloria Jacobs, “Elvis was visibly lower class ... He represented an unassimilated white underclass that had been forgotten by mainstream suburban America – more accurately, he represented a middle-class caricature of poor whites. He was sleazy.” See Lisa A. Lewis (ed.), The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (1992), p.100. According to Lucian K. Truscott, “Elvis Presley made lower class Americana sexy.” See New Times, vol. 9, 1977, p.7. According to Gilbert B. Rodman, “in the eyes of many (perhaps even most) of his fans, one of Elvis’s greatest virtues was that he never strayed terribly far from his working-class roots...” See Rodman, Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996), p.73. Music critic and Presley biographer Dave Marsh says about the singer's fans: "There are people in places that count in the world, and people in places that don't. He is the son of the people who don't count, and their shining star. That's what makes him unique and what people still respond to." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002. These quotes certainly support the view that Elvis’s music wasn’t favored by the middle and upper-class youth, as the opinion poll also shows. Onefortyone (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know... that not a single one of the quotes you have provided actually establishes that "Elvis’s music wasn’t favored by the middle and upper-class youth"? Did you know... that not a single other person has read this article on Elvis Presley and experienced distress at Pat Boone's absence from it? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some further sources. “The growing varieties of popular music in the 1950s helped socialize young people into their ‘appropriate’ social classes. Coleman saw rock ‘n’ roll as the soundtrack for working-class youth.” See Joseph A. Kotarba and John M. Johnson, Postmodern Existential Sociology (2002), p.105. Mike Brake writes about Elvis: “The working-class Southern boy from the wrong side of town with sexy, black movements and voice spoke beyond the United States to working-class youth everywhere.” See Mike Brake, Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Cultures and Youth Subcultures in America, Britain, and Canada (1990), p.73. Social and cultural studies indicate that new Hollywood heroes such as Presley “became important models for rebellious young men from working and lower middle-class milieus”, whereas the group identity of highly educated middle- to upper-class youth was more “based upon cultural consumption and physical styles that advertised the fact that they - unlike their ‘social inferiors’ decked out in leather jackets and jeans - enjoyed elevated European-style tastes” (though some of them may have personally enjoyed Elvis movies and rock ‘n’ roll). See Heide Fehrenbach and Uta G. Poiger, Transactions, Transgressions, Transformations: American Culture in Western Europe and Japan (2000), p.102-103. Onefortyone (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have voiced your personal displeasure with the fact that the editors have chosen to thread discussion of Presley's personal life throughout the article, rather than to create a discrete section for it (though there is, in fact, a subsection that specifically deals with the influence of his friends, the so-called Memphis Mafia). The fact is that his personal life is given the coverage it merits. Your personal preference for a different structural choice--one that is objectively no better or worse--is irrelevant to the FAC criteria. DocKino (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not think that in the Wikipedia article Elvis's personal life is given the coverage it merits - in comparison to all the other details mentioned in the text. All other Elvis biographies include much more material concerning his parents and friendships etc. There are even entire books dealing with these details. Onefortyone (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know... that four other reviewers have apparently read through the entire article and offered their support without a single one even hinting that they agree with you on this issue? Did you know... that in addition to all of the coverage of personal matters in the present article, there is even an entire article dealing with these details, Personal relationships of Elvis Presley? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main article mentions several important details about Elvis's personal life only in passing. Some of these details are not even mentioned. The other article only deals with some of these aspects. However, the main article should include a summary of this material. Onefortyone (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. PL290 (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My opinion still stands from the last nomination; this is a fine article and it meets, perhaps even exceeds, the FA criteria. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think enough has been done to address my concerns from the last review, & other improvements made - too many changes to follow in detail but a second read does not leave the same impression as the first. I think I'd be inclined to soften or drop the "most famous person in the world" claim. It's reminiscent of Lennon's "more famous than Jesus quote", but I'm dubious that in 1957 Anglosphere popular culture did have that reach to China, USSR & Soviet bloc, Africa & even much of Europe & South America. 1957 was just before the point where the transistor radio became cheap and popular, and so on. How many countries had he even been released in by that point? But I won't withold support for that, & otherwise its a very strong article. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your observations in the last FAC--they led to definite improvements in the narrative.
  • As noted, the claim in question is softened from our source with the addition of "arguably". Here's several other relevant references:
    • "In April 1956...after a couple of hit records and a handful of TV appearances, he was one of the most famous people in America, soon to be one of the most recognised on earth" (Ray Connolly, Daily Mail, 3-15-2002)
    • "By May his 'Heartbreak Hotel' was top of the charts in fourteen different countries" (Hunter Davies, The Beatles: The Authorized Biography, p. 34)
    • "the litany of 'youth culture' happenings in 1955 and 1956—the rise and fall of James Dean, the rise into a world-historical stratosphere of Elvis Presley" (Christian G. Appy, Cold War Constructions, p. 248)
    • In Refried Elvis: The Rise of the Mexican Counterculture, Eric Zolov describes how new overseas territories were becoming an increasingly important source of revenue for the major U.S. record labels in 1956–57. Among the countries cited in that regard outside of Western Europe are Australia, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, and Venezuela (p. 23).
    • "On February 3, 1957, the New York Times ran a story under the headline "Presley Records a Craze in Soviet Union." The paper reported that, although not officially released in the Soviet Union, bootleg recordings of his music were being pressed on discarded X-ray plates and sold on the black market in Leningrad for the equivalent of about $12." (Scott Schinder and Andy Schwartz, Icons of Rock: An Encyclopedia of the Legends Who Changed Music Forever, p. 14)
  • Weighing your observation and the above, my inclination is to soften the claim a bit further from "arguably the most famous" to "one of the most famous" and to add the Soviet craze information to the history so the scope of his impact is more apparent in the narrative. DocKino (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. The Soviet info is interesting & unexpected (to me anyway, at that date), but I expoect most of the Soviet population had still not heard of him at that point (unless he was being mentioned by Soviet media as an example of Western decadence etc). Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DocKino (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some general questions.

  • A featured article should be comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. To my mind, the present article neglects several details concerning the singer’s family, his personal relationships, and the world-wide Elvis industry.
  • Did you know... (just reflecting on the couple rare specifics your mind has brought to the table) that the article already states that "several of [Presley's] family members had been alcoholics"? Did you know... that you are the only person living, dead, or avatared that believes the article would be improved by quoting Peter Guralnick to the effect that Gladys Love Presley was "full of spunk"? DocKino (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, DocKino. In 2008, this version was favored by at least four different editors:
Presley's father, Vernon (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) was a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility. He had several low-paying jobs, including sharecropper and truck driver. His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk,"[1] and had alcohol problems. She worked as a sewing machine operator. They met in Tupelo, Mississippi, and were married in Pontotoc County on June 17,1933.
See Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 24. Some excerpts from the discussion:
Is there a reference for when her alcohol issues began? Lara❤Love 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are several references. I did some further research. Here are some sources:
  • Kathleen Tracy, Elvis Presley: A Biography (2006) says, "While Vernon was serving his time in prison, Gladys found solace in Elvis and, increasingly, in drinking. Even though she drank in private, her bloodshot eyes and the lingering aroma of stale liquor gave her away. She also began missing work..." (p. 17). The author adds (p.23) that those who were like Gladys "owed their extra weight to drinking or avoiding field work. Alcohol was cheap; food might be hard to come by, but one could always find a drink."
  • According to Jane Ellen Wayne's chapter on Elvis Presley in her book, The Leading Men of MGM (2006), in younger years "she also enjoyed an occasional night out drinking and dancing" (p.368). The author also mentions that "Gladys and Vernon were both heavy drinkers" (p.373) and that "Gladys took Benzedrine and consumed vodka to excess to ease the pain of loneliness" (p.377).
  • Rex Mansfield, Elisabeth Mansfield and Zoe Terrill write in their book, Sergeant Presley: Our Untold Story of Elvis' Missing Years (2002): "she had a weight problem (Gladys had been taking diet pills on and off for some time) and a drinking problem." (p.54)
  • J. G. Ballard says that "despite her own well-developed taste for drugs and alcohol, Gladys seems to have offered Presley rock-like support throughout her short life." See J. G. Ballard, A User's Guide to the Millennium: Essays and Reviews (1997), p.39.
There are many more references of this kind. Other sources deal with her liver problems caused by drinking heavily for many years. See, for instance, Elaine Dundy's chapter on "The Death of Gladys" in Elvis and Gladys. Onefortyone(talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some further sources. When Gladys's friends and co-workers collected some money for her shortly after the birth of Elvis, Elaine Dundy says, they were warned: "Don't give it to her in money." " He'll only drink it up." (p.10) Bobbie Ann Mason, Elvis Presley (2002), writes about the young couple (p.9): "I think of Elvis's parents, Vernon and Gladys, as a pair of cutups — teasing, playing cards, drinking beer, dancing." Connie Kirchberg and Marc Hendrickx add in their book, Elvis Presley, Richard Nixon, and the American Dream (p.62): "Like Gladys, Grandma Presley was known to enjoy a drink or two..." Interestingly, the Presleys did not talk about their drinking habits. According to Larry Geller and Joel Spector, If I Can Dream: Elvis' Own Story(1989), p.46, "Some people ... suggested that Gladys drank then, but if Elvis knew, it was his secret. He occasionally remarked about 'the drinkers' in his extended family, and he detested drunks. Elvis did say that Gladys would have an occasional beer, but that was all." Onefortyone (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elaine Dundy says about Gladys alcoholism, "She was drinking a lot. At the end she was drinking all the time. Vodka. Where'd she get it from? Vernon — he give it to her. Just to keep her quiet." (p.294) In addition, here is Dundy's statement about Elvis's father: Vernon "didn't work very hard or very steadily. ... He had been known all his young life as a 'jellybean' – by definition weak, spineless, and work-shy." (p.10) Onefortyone (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support this version with the first reference provided above to back the statement of her drinking and Rikstar's additional of their elopement. Lara❤Love 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So do I - let's have some clear preferences noted on here!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, absolutely, unequivocally. Except for the omission of the Johnny Burnette quote, but I'm not gonna let that get in the way of this article's progress. Rikstar (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are clear statements by other Wikipedians. Onefortyone (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deeply resent the misuse by 141 of the quote above, made by me nearly two years ago. It applied to a version of the article that had little if any other reference to Gladys's Presley's character. There are now new references to her in the completely and excellently revised FA nominated version; they are more than adequate, and if they had existed in the version of two years ago, I would have supported those "unequivocally". It is also worth pointing out that my overuse of positive adverbs in the above quote was somewhat tongue in cheek - simply a plea to move on, at a time when, yet again, the main objections to the collaborative effort being overseen by LaraLove were coming from user 141, and causing a good deal of frustration.
If user 141 wants to dig up past quotes, how about this one from LaraLove, from December 18, 2007? "He's [Onefortyone] obviously pushing his own POV on the article. If we prove this, he should be blocked from the article. This has gone on for far too long." [6]. In my opinion, too, nothing has changed, except for the profusion of gray hairs and the twitch in my left cheek... This has gone on for far too long. Rikstar409 02:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Significantly, my old opponent Rikstar has reappeared on the scene. Do you remember that your attempt to ban me failed because the arbcom rejected the case? Furthermore, do you remember that other users were of a different opinion? See [7]. However, it is a fact not to be argued away that, in 2008, my version of the said section was supported even by my opponents. By the way, you are wrong, Rikstar, that there are sufficient references to Gladys's Presley's character in the current version of the article. Onefortyone (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am so glad that my existence is seen as 'significant'. Yep, you've survived a banning attempt - congratulations. If that was me I'd be cock-a-hoop just knowing that so many editors found me disruptive, and blind to the collective reasoning and wishes of others. Can't for the life of me think why anyone would object to your involvement in wikipedia. To think of all those editors who've had the temerity to think you're not a good-humored team player. I'm so glad that you managed to point out that I am plainly "wrong" about matters of subjective opinion, and that you have managed to expose me as an uncritical ELVIS FAN (is it curable?). I am absolutely certain that everyone reading this will agree with your many objections regarding this article, and will fall over themselves in the clamor to add their support. Rikstar409 03:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, that'll about do it with the personal bickering. Please take the commentary that's not specifically about the article elsewhere. Rikstar, why do you keep posting that weird tagline at the end of the page? Check your history. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A featured article should be stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content should not change significantly from day to day. In the past, there were several edit wars and many significant changes were frequently made.
  • Did you know... that in the past the United States was at war with Germany, Italy, and Japan, but that this is no longer the case? Did you know... that you have been a central party in virtually every single edit war the article has been subjected to in living memory? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, as in the past there were also edit wars between several other users. Onefortyone (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A featured article should not be protected or semi-protected. In the past, the Presley article was frequently attacked by vandals and therefore protected. How can this problem be solved? Onefortyone (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no requirement that featured articles not be semi-protected or protected. Indeed, there are several that are permanently protected to some degree. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the latest from 141--which includes selections from a two-year-old Talk page dialogue, in jumbled chronology, all of which should have been blockquoted for visual clarity--and find nothing there that would improve the article. Once again, the article states that "several of [Presley's] family members had been alcoholics." Leading biographers tend not to identify Gladys as such, and there is no profit to weighing down this article on Presley's entire life and career with an attempted delineation of the precise quantity of spirits his mother imbibed. The important person here is Presley himself, and the information which is clear and relevant is that he reckoned that several of his family members had been alcoholics, and that he largely refrained from drinking in order to avoid becoming one. The article currently conveys this information.

It is a fact, that, in 2008, there was a consensus to include the following passage in the “Early years” section of the Wikipedia article:
Presley's father, Vernon (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) was a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility. He had several low-paying jobs, including sharecropper and truck driver. His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk,"[1] and had alcohol problems. She worked as a sewing machine operator. They met in Tupelo, Mississippi, and were married in Pontotoc County on June 17,1933.
The current version fails to consider this decision. After mentioning that Elvis Presley was born to Vernon Elvis and Gladys Love Presley, it only says about the singer’s parents:
Gladys was regarded by relatives and friends as the dominant member of the small family. Vernon moved from one odd job to the next, evidencing little ambition.
Query: which version is better? Certainly not the current one. However, it may be added that Gladys was the dominant member of the small family. On the other hand, the following passage on young Elvis is still part of the article:
He was encouraged to enter a singing contest after impressing his schoolteacher with a rendition of Red Foley's country song "Old Shep" during morning prayers. The contest, held at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show on October 3, 1945, saw his first public performance: dressed as a cowboy, the ten-year-old Presley stood on a chair to reach the microphone and sang "Old Shep". He recalled placing fifth.[2]
Query: what is so important about this singing contest that it takes up so much space? Isn’t it more important to add some further details concerning the character of Elvis’s parents and simply say,
At age ten, Presley won fifth prize in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show for his rendition of Red Foley's "Old Shep"?
This shorter version was also part of the 2008 consensus. Onefortyone (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - 141 actually refers above to the concept of consensus. It would help discussion about this nomination enormously if 141 showed a consistent regard for consensus, given the many unilateral objections he has raised. Rikstar409 04:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned that there is a new concern: Mr. Walsh informs me that despite 141's probation in this area, he is now canvassing and asking known opposition to come to the FAC page. Given the nature of the canvassed party's contributions to the article Talk page ([8] [9]), should s/he appear here, I believe complete silence will be my only appropriate response. I believe, at this point, that this is also the most suitable response of the nominators to 141's own commentary. Though I will continue to read everything, of course, I will remain silent in the face of any further entries by 141 unless a second reviewer or delegate flags an item as requiring a response. DocKino (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What should be wrong with asking another user for his/her opinion about the current version of the article? Much more significant are your recent personal attacks against me on the Elvis talk page. See [10]. I have not yet seen some kind of excuse for these unjustified attacks. For several years I have been the target of attacks by lots of Elvis fans, simply because I have a more critical view of the singer. Some of these fans even took me to arbitration, that’s true, but they were all banned by arbcom decision, because my “editing has substantially improved” in comparison to some of my earliest contributions. As the arbcom says: “A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.” Arbcom member Sam Blacketer says, “his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority.” Onefortyone (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety: Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety:

Support All my worries about sources from last time have been sorted. I was going to support based on sourcing, but I had a read and all the other criteria are fulfilled. One nitpick I've got left is the Billboard article pages. I'm sure you can easily find them on Google Books. Overall, great job guys. RB88 (T) 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will reviewers please comment on the size of this article? It currently measures 90kb of readable prose (15330 words), which exceeds the guidelines in WP:SIZE. Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As background information relating to Karanacs's request, may I draw reviewers' attention to the talk page discussion and associated FAC preparatory work that was done specifically to reduce the size of what was then an even larger article. This was felt to have achieved as great a reduction as realistically possible, given the size of the topic under consideration. The nominators have maintained a keen awareness that the article size remains large and have continued to seek to exclude all possible unnecessary detail. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't "exceed the guideline", which is not that inflexible - see WP:SIZERULE. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It exceeds the guideline by a good 50% (6,000 to 10,000 words max reader attention span). Also, it would be the largest FA if passed at this size; Ketuanan Melayu (much too large) is 14,000 words. This needs to be looked at, not only for readability, but also for load time. There are plenty of daughter articles used now, but it's not clear if summary style has been effectively used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe any further reduction or splitting would be detrimental, not helpful, to readability of this summary of the life and career of Elvis Presley. The nominators judge the article to be pitched at the right summary level. This judgement is already confirmed by fivesix reviewers who, by their Support, affirm that the article meets the FA criterion pertaining to article size:

"4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."

PL290 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Johnbod, as far as I can tell, reviewers did not address the size issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason that User:Rikstar is not listed as a co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominators have had a major hand in all aspects of editing this article recently, with the specific aim of bringing it up to FA status. The issue of me being, or asked to be, a co-nom didn't arise. That's fine by me - given that being involved with this article for about four years has left me with little inclination to get bogged down with admin and nomination issues. Rikstar409 05:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rikstar, sorry, I wasn't quite sure how it worked with co-noms, but I think from Sandy's remark that I really should have included you. You've certainly put a great deal into the article over the years—not only in sheer edit count, but also in working with other editors to get the article content right and present a balanced, mainstream view of the topic. I've now added you as a co-nom in acknowledgement of all you've done for the article. Hope that's OK with you—obviously you can just remove yourself if you're not happy about it. Sorry again! PL290 (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PL, as usual, took care of business while I niggled over my composition book. Briefly, then: While PL and I took the most active roles during the six weeks leading up to January's FAC, I am not the only one who considers Rikstar the senior voice on the project, whose views on all matters weigh heavily. Rikstar not only has put in more thoughtful work on this article, but has also had to put up with more...stuff. Forget the star, heavy under-fire medals are in order.
As for that star, when the moment came that I'd been dreading eagerly awaiting (PL's signal that it was time to go forward with a FAC), it never occurred to me that Rikstar wouldn't be as deserving--at least as deserving--of a star if the candidacy succeeded. I had been dimly conscious that Featured Article writers were somehow externally tracked, but became aware only in the last week-and-a-half that the system generated credit automatically via nominations. That some system might ever "officially" accord me a star for this article yet not Rikstar is patently absurd. I'm proud to appear on a list of nominators that includes Rikstar's name. DocKino (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, folks. Rikstar409 05:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on size. While I didn't comment on it here or in my initial support during the last nom, I did struggle with it and continue to struggle with it. The issue is that I can't responsibly say it's too long without offering some suggestion for splitting off some of the content. I don't think the article goes into undue detail—the primary editors seem to have carefully considered what to include and what to omit. I think the important questions are:
  • Is the size technically unmanagable? Possibly. I don't have problems loading it like I do with Catholic Church, but it's on the verge of troublesome (and I have a relatively fast connection).
  • Will it bore readers? Certainly not. It's dynamic enough that it sustains interest, even though it's long.
  • If we split off, say, Early life of Elvis Presley and leave remnants here, are people likely to visit it? Commercial breakout of Elvis Presley? It may be difficult to write about these out of context.
  • A feasible option may be to break off the "Musical Style", "Influence of Colonel Parker and others", and other sections that are not part of the chronological narrative.
In this case, I'm advocating that an exception be made to the size guideline. It's a difficult choice, and I'm interested in hearing what others think. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size, size, size It's always seemed to me a bit of a debunked standard, especially when editors are required to adhere to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which is the case here. I'm OK with it being the size it is. As Andy said, it's hard to see where to split and also to do it without losing the flow of scholarship. RB88 (T) 03:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On size: According to User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, this article at 90 kb would be #2 on the list (and probably #1 when the list gets updated) of the largest FAs. Although I have never experienced these drawbacks in loading large pages, I understand the issues are slow loads to the point that it may crash the browser and other difficulties navigating the page. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain concerned about the amount of detail that could be consolidated to daughter articles and more tightly summarized, and notice an omission-- doesn't Elvis have a notable daughter? I can't find her in the article, and this is his bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lisa Marie gets a mention—which is, of course, all we have space for! Any suggestions about which parts could possibly be consolidated to daughter articles and more tightly summarized? We've made a concerted attempt to do just that. We feel it's gone as far as it can, and the reviewers who've considered these specific aspects just above seem to agree. Open to ideas! PL290 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made a couple suggestions above. You could leave the main article as a chronological narrative, and break out Musical Style, Influence on, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would focus on any sections that are going into extensive detail about his recordings and movies; that detail bogs down the reader (since we already know he's ELVIS!). Elvis the man, the bio, seems to get less attention-- Lisa Marie and Priscilla are sidenotes worked in here and there, while his musical accomplishments are entire articles themselves (as they should be). Where is the man? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just tried a test; if we remove the two sections Andy suggests, that takes it down from 90K to 80K. Will that be acceptable? PL290 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Measuring articles by KB isn't useful; Dr pda's script for counting readable prose is better. The article was at 15,000 words; 10,000 is an outer limit on readability. I suggest deeper than Andy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Should have said, the 80K is readable prose, per the said script: User:PL290/Sandbox/subpage. PL290 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • KB of readable prose does not translate well to words of readable prose; it is an approximation, and not a very useful one. Your sandbox version is at 13,500 words, according to User:Dr pda's script; 6,000 to 10,000 words is an average reader attention span. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry for not responding more comprehensively to your point there. More detailed figures from Dr pda:
The top 3 largest FAs:

Elvis Presley (shortened as proposed): Prose size (text only): 80 kB (13546 words) "readable prose size"
PL290 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as much about getting it in under Dr pda's wire as it is writing an article that people do not have to struggle to get all the way through. You want readers to want to read through the entire thing easily and happily. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, agree with Moni). FYI, most of those Dynasty articles grew in size after they passed FAC. My argument is that the article is burdened now by detail; we want a bio about the man :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion and a request. On level of detail, six reviewers appear content (seven if you count Moni3's enthusiastic response in the previous FAC). On the question of size, since nominators and reviewers have based their activity to date on the FA criteria, and have devoted time to producing and reviewing an article that meets these criteria, I now ask that the article be accepted as it is, and the question of size be deferred until after this candidacy completes. The matter may then be properly addressed as part of a review of the Featured Article criteria. WP:SIZE gives guidance and is quite flexible, but perhaps needs to be less so. Making the size factor more explicit in the FA criteria and WP:SIZE should help to prevent the possibility of future nominations reaching so advanced a stage before problems arise. PL290 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria require adherence to the MOS; WP:Article Size is part of the MOS. Criteria 4 is also specifically about Length/summary style. Therefore, this conversation is not irrelevant in terms of the FA criteria. Karanacs (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, the article's length and its readable prose size is not the problem, but SandyGeorgia is right to ask, "Where is the man?" As I said above, "why is there so little on Elvis’s personal life to be found in the biographical article? A section more specifically dealing with his friends is missing, although it is well known that he spent all day and night with them. The problems he had with his stepmother are not even mentioned. Where are the paragraphs about his personal habits? Why are there no passages about his violent behavior and his notorious predilection for guns?" Onefortyone (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignoring the dross...)
I've hesitated to weigh in so far, having once precipitated World War B when an FA expanded to 13,352 words of readable prose on my watch. (I've reformed! Film noir—under 10,000!). But here's a couple of thoughts:
  • Moni's last observation is indeed on point. We want readers to read through the entire thing easily and happily—and that's exactly how I'd characterize the experience of reading Elvis Presley. It's clear that most very long articles would improve from the tightening of language and the pruning/summarizing of material. In this case, however, the language is about as tight as can be, and it is not at all clear what further pruning or summation would necessarily produce improvement.
  • Andy's well-explained analysis of the article and what might potentially be summarized and broken off parallels my own, for the most part. I too imagined daughter articles like Early life of Elvis Presley and Commercial breakout of Elvis Presley, and concluded that this biography would almost certainly be poorer for losing much of the material in the related sections. Of the thematic sections toward the end of the article, Andy and I may hold slightly different views: I'd say that Musical style is fundamental to an understanding of Presley the artist, and its excision would leave a very problematic void. Influence of Colonel Parker and others, too, is rather essential to an understanding of Presley the man and the money machine—though, as viable daughter articles exist for this material, the existing summary style here could be constricted even further, saving, let's say, 200 words. The Racial issues section is terrific, but perhaps there is enough additional material on the topic to justify creating a daughter article for it? Though the section is fat-free as is, converting it to summary style might save another 250 words. The one section I think could be cut without great loss is Questions over cause of death, which is fascinating but not fundamental—that's another 291 words of prose. Aside from that, it would seem a torturous task to determine what detail would "best" be dropped.
I can only conclude by simply stating again that I think it's a fine, high-quality article.—DCGeist (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re my comments on the previous archived FAC, I think the quality of the writing is quite good, but size concerns are valid ones and PL290 asked me to return to the FAC with that issue in mind. FACs should be promoted ready to appear on the main page immediately. Although they can all be improved and the FA designation does not preclude that from happening. --Moni3 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The citation format needs some work.

  • Many sources are cited just once, but it takes two hops through the page to look them up. This is unnecessary work for the reader and bloats the page, for no particularly good reason. For example, the first reference, Adelman 2002, is cited only once. To follow that citation I currently have to click on the "[336]" to get to the Citations section, which says "Adelman 2002, pp. 13–15", and to find out who that is I then have to click on the "Adelman 2002", which takes me to the References section. This two-hop approach is justifiable for a source that is cited more than once as it saves space in that case (Victor 2008 being one example), but it wastes space for sources cited just once and it causes unnecessary work for readers. This article is too big already; let's not waste space with make-work citation bloat.
    • Presenting consistent short footnotes using {{sfn}} was actually first suggested to me by a FAC reviewer (The Beatles FAC). No red flags were waved at the time, and the editors involved took the suggestion on board and converted the article. We were really impressed with how much it tidied up the notes, and with the vast amount of citation clutter it removed from the article text. The Elvis Presley article was recently converted to use short footnotes because of that. Again we were very pleased with the tidy notes and de-cluttered article text. I take your point about the two-hop approach, but that would always apply to the works cited more than once, and there's benefit in making them all consistent rather than short ones working one way and long ones another. The extra white space around the clean, narrow columns is again seen as a benefit for the reader. Are you strongly opposed to the scheme in use? PL290 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not strongly opposed, and this issue shouldn't hold up FA status. Still, the current citation formatting is less functional than it could easily be. In other parts of the article it's often reasonable for beauty to trump function, but citations are the plumbing of an article and when it comes to plumbing we should prefer function to form when the two conflict. Eubulides (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several entries in References are not cited at all. For example, Bronson 1985, Curtin et al. 1998, Falk 2005 (and here I stopped looking for them). I expect this is because of the ungainly two-step citation system being used: it encourages unreferenced citations. Please clean this up.
  • The Falk 2005 citation shows one example of weird authorship (the authors are listed as "Falk, Gerhard; Falk", which can't be right). There are several other examples like this. Please check all the citations to multiple authors for this problem.
    • I'll check this out. PL290 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. Falk was among the unused entries removed; one or two remaining multiple-author works had the problem you identified and have now been fixed. PL290 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This large page takes waaaay too long to load when you're editing: I was regularly seeing times of 30 seconds or more when I previewed. This is a serious obstacle against improving the aritcle. Much of the bottleneck is in the citation templates, which are notorious hogs. I tried switching from {{cite book}} etc. to {{vcite book}} etc. and got large performance improvements: the CPU overhead on the server dropped from a minimum of 18.2 seconds to a minimum of 12.8 seconds, a 42% speedup, and the size of the generated HTML dropped considerably (this would be good for readers as well as editors). I suggest redoing the citations by hand (which would be even faster), or switching to {{vcite book}} etc. I can help with the latter if that's the way you want to go. Disclaimer: The vcite templates will change output format slightly; also, I wrote them and so of course am biased in favor of my creations.
    • On hand-coded citations, I know they have their devotees, just as templates do, and I confess to being in the latter camp—but it certainly sounds as though we should change to {{vcite book}}, since you gained a large performance improvement by doing that. May I accept your kind offer of help with that—much appreciated. If you don't have a chance at the moment, I'll look at it after doing the two ref tweaks above. PL290 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome, and I installed a patch to do that. Please feel free to revert if it has problems. This edit shrank the article's HTML from 510693 to 433451 bytes, a savings of 15%. In one test, the old version took 40.004 secs to generate on the server, the new version 12.023 secs, but a single test proves little and I think this one test overestimates the performance benefit; we'd need to do many tests to verify the speed improvement, though I'm sure there is a substantial one. By the way, I inlined the calls to {{SfnRef}} as I expect they're a significant load to the server and the calls don't really help editing much. Eubulides (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC) PS The page still takes too long to load, but it's no longer waaaayyy too long so I struck that comment. Eubulides (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems vcite has brought a considerable improvement. I took a break, intending to start on the vcite change when I got back, only to find you'd done it, in one hit—terrific! I suppose you have scripts. Point noted about {{SfnRef}} for future reference. Thanks again—the page loaded in about 3 seconds the few times I tried it. PL290 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eubulides (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link has been fixed. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. A pleasure to read and well done. On first read-through the movies section did seem a little choppy but I couldn't find any deal-breakers or obvious fixes when I went back to read it. The size of the article is what it is - I can't see how anything can be chopped out, this is the King we're talking about. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; while there was clearly consensus to promote this (and I would have done same), I am concerned that the size issues were never addressed, and the shorter version was never implemented. This should not set a precedent at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 23 February 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.
  1. ^ a b Guralnick 1994, p.12
  2. ^ Guralnick 1994, pp. 17–18.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Elvis_Presley/archive4&oldid=1138459448"