Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Mayer

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 16:08, 30 July 2007.

John Mayer[edit]

Self-nomination. This is currently a good article. I (and some other editors) have poured into the article ad nauseam. It has been through three peer reviews (a couple that were pretty anorexic). I think the article is encyclopedic, and real effort (sometimes painfully) has been put into cutting the fancruft. The article abounds in resources, many from reputable music sources (AMG, Rolling Stone, NME, etc...) Also, because John blogs so much and gives, like, an interview everyday, much of it is first hand accounts, verified by multiple sources. I have tried to work on the prose; I read the article out loud and tried to eliminate redundancies, run-on sentences, superfluous, wordy bits, and the like. I think it is thorough, as it covers all of John's major endeavors in and out of music, including his personal life. But it isn't filled with hourly are-they-or-aren't-they Jessica Simpson updates either. The images and music samples are all kosher. No edit wars. I really want this article to be great, and am eagerly open to (polite) criticism. Thanks in advance.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Selected events looks like a trivia section. ShadowHalo 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If several editors agree with this statement (after reading the section), I don't mind conceding, and with this in mind, I've already removed a great deal of the section. But, the section amounts to (1) a simple acknowledgment that he has played himself on TV, (2) a brief mention of his endorsements and (3) his affiliation with MacWorld. I (humbly) believe they are not just a laundry list of funky facts, but really subsets of activities he's involved in. Of the three, I most defend the MacWorld part, as his affiliation with Steve Jobs and Apple is essentially a side project, although, most accurately, it is not. I welcome more feedback in this regard.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support My only objections are that the Notes and Selected events sections should be merged into the main article. The notes shouldn't be hard to do: just put them where they're a note now. To be honest I don't see why they're notes at all. As for selected events, they all fit in his biography rather well, except perhaps the Family Guy one, which wouldn't be a very big loss if you couldn't fit it in. I suppose you could if you said "In the {{date}} episode of Family Guy..." or something to fit it in the chronology. Atropos 03:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will definitely try to integrate the "Selected events" section into the body of the article. The Family Guy thing can be deep-sixed, and is really a remnant of a time when there was a whole section dedicated to that episode. The reason the Notes section was created was because, if you read those facts, they significantly break up the fluidity of the sections that they are referenced from. I would love more feedback in this regard, and I'll also see what can be integrated there as well.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 11:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose for now. The prose has been cleaned up a lot since I reviewed it in the last peer review :) There are some other issues that need to be addressed before this will be FA quality, however. Great job with the changes! Karanacs 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very minor things:
      • per WP:MOS, Need commas after single years (i.e., in 2003,)  Done
      • The first sentence in second paragraph of the lead sounds awkward to me.  Done
      • "gotten involved in charity" -> possibly "He is also involved in charitable activities"  Done
      • First two sentences of Early career start with "After." The next two in that paragraph start with They. Can some of these be changed to something else?  Done
      • Instead of "(with AMG)", use ", of All Music Guide,"  Done
      • The wikilink for AMG goes to a disambig page -- please fix.  Done
      • Paragraph about Heaveier Things has a lot of repetitive sentence beginnings  Done
      • Need a better transition between last two sentences of Early life paragraph beginning "soon after getting his guitar,"  Done
    • I agree that the notes need to be incorporated into the text.  Done
      • At best the Michael J. Fox can be merged. The other two are entirely too disruptive to merge with the body. The note about his father is only kept because it is such popular folklore that when I deleted it previously editors would come back and add it. I think it makes sense to acknowledge that this is commonly thought, but wrong. The Tony Held note is WAY disruptive and extraneous. Apparently some editor(s) thought it was worth, including, however since it clarifies John's relationship with the company.  ::Sigh:: In conclusion, I would rather remove the notes than merge them (although I would most prefer to keep it like it is).--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point about the second note. I would just delete the third note; it doesn't really add anything to the article. Then I wrestle with whether it would be better to merge the MJF one and just have one note, or leave it as is. Karanacs 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No citation for this sentence: "This major label "debut" included the first half of the songs that had appeared previously on his independent release." and the sentence itself is awkward (do you mean the first four songs or half of each of the 8 songs?)  Done
      • I didn't write that, but, being familiar with the album, the person meant the first four songs on "Inside wants out" is on "Room for Squares." And it is now referenced and rephrased.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No citation for sentence "a remark that many mistook to mean that he was only 16 years old at the time."  Done
    • Need a citation for paragraph about live recordings  Done
    • Need a citation for "lyrically underscores Mayer's decision to move away from acoustic pop music and towards blues with the line "Got a brand new blues that I can't explain."" or it might come across as WP:OR.  Done
      • I would just as soon as remove this as actually search for citation. And, believe me, I fail GAs everyday for lack of citations, and I think this article shows my devotion to finding sources. However, it is really painfully obvious; the song says so pretty explicitly. I defend this (humble) opinion by saying there already are sources for his move to blues (the first half of the sentence), and the quote seems to me to just defy further explanation. But, if you think this is a significant issue, I'll just remove it (which I've been tempted to do for some time now. Though in hindsight, it somewhat justifies the existence of the clip from the song. I'll try to reword it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about citing the song lyrics at least, and then just add a cite for the first half of the sentence? Karanacs 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Found a citation that came out last week that links the song and his move to blues.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence needs work: "This resulting EP was released on December 12, 2006 as, entitled The Village Sessions""  Done
    • The link for Mayer's auction site is an external link. This should not be included inline, but could be listed in the External links section. The links to his blog and official site need to also be removed from the inline text as well.  Done
    • The Other projects section does not flow well from paragraph to paragraph. I think some of this information could be trimmed a great deal, and others could be reorganized. For example, I think you should have a separate section for charitable endeavors that would cover the first and last paragraphs of this section.  Done
      • I merged the macworld and family guy reference into the mainstream success area chronologically. I then divided the project section into "Charity," "Design" and "Writing." This, or course, led to reviewing/re-writing the paragraphs for cohesion. I have marked this criteria as done (in my humble opinion) though I am still open to critique.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need better transitions between sentences in the first paragraph of the Touring section. Done
    • Do you really need a separate touring section, since there are mentions of his tours in other sections as well?  Done
      • I dunno know if I have to have it, I certainly didn't write it to begin with, but, regardless, I could only merge so much, and didn't want to delete some of the other info - sooooo, I trimmed boatloads of it, rm the subheading, and blanked out the unverified sentence.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for "As of 2007, two are filled."  Done

I'll keep an eye on the page. If you fix all these things, I'll change my vote. Karanacs 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough feedback - you always do a great job of critique. I have began going through it, and the crossed out items I have either followed verbatim or corrected in a similar fashion. There are a few things I need clarified or have further comment on, which I will address shortly. Thanks again :)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that, milady, is the curse of the Bambino. Which is my totally incoherent way of saying that I've tried to address every issue, and consider myself...coughdonecough.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Please see WP:PUNC for misplacement of end-quotation marks. I made a few sample edits.  Done

Comment: When I first saw this comment I was dumbstruck, since punctuation is one of my stronger suits, although I do not claim infallibility by any means. Regardless, when I read the actual policy, for all I could tell the system the system beared no resemblance to what I have seen in other grammar books (Eats, Shoots and Leaves immediately came to mind). In addition, I have repeatedly seen stated and practiced (here at Wikipedia and elsewhere) an acknowledgement of the differing rules of terminal punctuation and quotation marks between England and American English usage. All that said and done, I will try to make heads and tails of the policy, and put forth an effort to implement it, but I feel that this should not be considered criteria for not passing the article, especially since the policy itself states:

The Manual of Style does not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style—everything here should be applied with thought, not robotically. These are not rigid laws, but principles that editors have found to work well in most circumstances. Thus, you are encouraged to follow these guidelines with flexibility.

Agreed, that it is not a basis for failing the article, just a suggestion for improvement according to the Manual of Style, and of which I feel featured articles at least should follow. They are minor, just some ending quote marks are misplaced. Cricket02 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see WP:CITET and WP:CITE/ES for correct use of citation templates.

The citation method I use differs from that page in only one detail. I have "(acessed...)" and the policy has "Retrieved on..." I could go through and change that, but again, the first line to the policy you reference is "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation format for Wikipedia." And when I first started doing it that way last April, they guide I read used the word "access" (though, in Wikipedia fashion, it may have changed). Considering there are close to 80 citations, I hope that this would not be a dealbreaker. I might be able to use a "replace" feature to fix it, I'll see how it goes.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need these cite templates to differentiate parameters such as publisher, etc., depending on if its "cite web" or "cite news" or "cite book", etc. template. I believe you'll find most featured articles use this method and I went through the same thing for FAC, reformatting all my references. But I am new at reviewing and will defer/inquire of more of an expert on the subject. Cricket02 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. For clarification, the article only contains two types of references: websites (most of which are to magazines and newspapers - Creative Loafing, Rolling Stone, NME, Spin, Bender, etc...) and a book. The two are cited differently, and according to the format at WP:CITET, as far as I can tell. I notice that you removed the {{done}} tag; let me know if that was not what you meant.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket02 asked me to take a look at the discussion here. It's not necessary to use the cite templates, in fact, many of us (myself included) hate them because they chunk up the article size so much and return inconsistent results for some situations. My personal preference is to do footnotes manually, as this article does. What is important is that sources are consistently cited by whatever method is chosen and that all relevant bibliographic info is provided. If an editor uses the cite templates, then they should use each parameter (example publisher, date, accessdate) correctly; if cite templates aren't used, then a consistent bibliographic style should be used. For example, on websources, title, publisher and last access date must be given, and author and date should be given when available. The only thing that looks a bit different here is the No byline for author, which isn't really necessary, but I guess that's a permissible style. (I believe when there's no author, the cite templates place the date after the title; I like that appearance better, but that's stylistic.) I don't see anything in the ref formatting that rises to the level of Object, although I do see a lot of blog sources which I hope are used adequately, as blogs aren't typically reliable sources, and it appears as if a lot of the article is sourced to Mayer himself, but the formatting seems fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) PS: an additional clarification. Cricket, the problem on your FAC was that the cite templates were used incorrectly, with publishers listed under author, which returned an inconsistent format vis-a-vis other sources which did have authors. What matters is a consistent bibliographic style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see! I knew you could articulate all that better than I could Sandy, thank you. I too thought the references looked good even without the templates, but wasn't sure exactly what was preferred for FA.Cricket02 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And shouldn't the "Notes" section actually be the "References" section? Unsure if that's a preference thing or not.

Thanks SandyGeorgia for clarifying this issue. Side note: I know blog sources cannot be used for verification, but these are all from John's blog, and they only are used to verify things he's said. Never factual information (like that George Washington was X old when he died). Also, I'll look into the "no byline" formatting that you mentioned. Thanks again!--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that the way I have done it is correct. See WP:CITE, which suggests the heading order an naming that I have used. Of course, I'm welcome to feedback.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please state the copyright owners in the song sample information pages (they only state year of copyright). Also, cited text relating to the sound samples need to be incorporated into the sound sample boxes to justify fair use. (Example here)Cricket02 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]

Will do :) --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, and I will work to implement the suggestions.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks like all issues have been addressed. Cricket02 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for excessive fair-use image use. The two album covers are not discussed (yes, I know the albums are discussed, but the covers are not, which is an important distinction). Image:Jm wotwtc.jpg specifically is much too high resolution. Image:That's Enough John Mayer.jpg adds nothing that a prose mention couldn't cover - fair use should not be used to decorate trivia sections. Image:Rolling Stone - The New Guitar Gods.jpg is tagged with a license which explicitly explains that these uses, unless discussed with critical commentary related to the individual, are expressly disallowed. More free images should be pretty easy to obtain. The man's hardly a hermit. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree regarding album covers. Fairuse of: Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). If the album is discussed, there is fair use of the album cover. Cricket02 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, likewise, think the above policy is applies. I am addressing a response for each image below.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The two album covers: Respectfully and simply put, you're mistaken. Cricket02 has referenced the relevant policy above.
  2. Image:Jm wotwtc.jpg - I've reduced the size of the image.
  3. Image:That's Enough John Mayer.jpg - I removed it.
  4. Image:Rolling Stone - The New Guitar Gods.jpg - For the sake of discussion, I have included the image tag verbiage here:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above...qualifies as fair use.

The article directly discusses the issue pictured, and "Rolling Stone" is clearly visable. The tag continues:

It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image.

The article is directly discussing Mayer's connection with the publication of this image. It is discussing the honor he received of being named as a Guitar God and of appearing on the COVER of Rolling Stone. So your assertion that the image "is tagged with a license which explicitly explains that these uses...are expressly disallowed" are unfounded. Otherwise, I have complied with your other objections as substantiated by Wikipedia policy. Thank you for your input.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See relevant discussion of the Fair Use issue at Talk:Slayer and WT:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SandyGeorgia for bringing this discussion up, if no more than it gave me some perspective on the battles going on. However, I feel my comments above still stand, because (1) The references are talk pages, not policies; (2) This seems to be a campaign by Durin and "a number of us who are fighting fair use over use tooth and nail across a wide variety of articles" (his words). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to enforce their opinion without process, consensus and policy to back it up; (3) I only really thoroughly read his objections regarding album covers (since that's all that's relevant here) and all his complaints were about lack of fair use rationales, which is not the case here. On the Slayer article, he complained the images were used in other articles and thus redundant - an argument I've never heard, that honestly makes no sense to me, and that was refuted with gusto on the talk page. I don't want to seem like all his arguments were without merit (and I definitely believe in fair use rationales, not having 15 fair use images in one article, etc...) But until someone shows me a policy, law, or Jimbo Wales explaining to me why these images are't fair use, the arguments above still stand.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment The prose need a lot of work. Examples only from the lead:
  • "began gaining" - Mixed tense.
  • I disagree. The gerund has no tense of itself (I am eating, I was eating, I will be eating), so where is the conflict? Please explain.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both did well commercially, going multi-platinum" - achieving multi-platinum status.  Done
  • "After originally performing mainly acoustic rock" - He began his career performing...  Done
  • "Mayer made a transition towards the blues genre, in 2005, by collaborating" - why are commas bracketing "in 2005".  Done
An editor above told me that I had to put commas after every phrase that said "in YYYY." I'll happily remove it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The blues influence can also be seen" - The influence of blues, drop the also.  Done
  • "Mayer's other interests include stand-up comedy, design, and writing" - Unclear; is he merely interested in these areas, or active.  Done
  • "and his efforts in averting man-made global climate change" - Latent POV.  Done
  • This was the result of wording battle with another editor. I'll fix it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general the article is over linked; guitarist, clarinet, cardiac arrhythmia, panic attacks, Boston, Massachusetts, United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, in 2006. Ceoil 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • rm all but in 2006, b/c it links to "as of" (in the case that this can be updated).
Thanks for your comments, I will get to it.
I see the work you did, I'm having another read and will post back later. The collecting watches thing is odd, no? ;) Ceoil 15:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again; it's good, but there are still a few prose issues as highlighted by Tony below. Easily fixed, looking forward to voting support when these are dealt with. Ceoil 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to support. Ceoil 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • "The re-release also included" - "also" is redundant  Done
The previous sentence lists things that were change for the re-release. Then this sentence mentions more. So I think removing "also" detracts from the logical fluidity of the sentence. But I changed it anyway.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a good point so you can change it back if you prefer. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it back (sheepishly)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mayer has also done some endorsements" - "some" is redundant  Done
  • "Mayer currently resides in" - "currently" is redundant  Done
  • The word currently is "redundant" by definition (if one is speaking in the present tense, the event is always occurring currently). But I removed it anyway.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of the album covers" - "of" is redundant  Done
  • "outside of his genre" - "of" is redundant  Done
  • "he began a string of collaborations with various important and provocative blues artists," - "various" is redundant, "famous" is a peacock term.
Sorry, I meant "important" is a peacock term. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
OK, I removed it.
  • "Mayer is partnering with Incase to produce various products" - "various" is redundant, "produce products" is repetitive  Done
  • You seem to think that the word "various" means more than one, and thus is redundant if you use it with a plural? (Correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the word (which can verify yourself) basically means "of many different kinds purposefully arranged but lacking any uniformity" - which is the exact usage intended here. He is making several disparate products, but they are all "green." But, I changed it anyway.
I think the word "products" is enough to indicate that the products are of different kinds, so I think "various" is redundant. If you strongly disagree, you can change it back. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kept it. It think items works just as well :)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its more formal to use "although" rather than "though"
"though" is a less formal abbreviation of "although", so "although" is better in an encyclopedia. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I changed them to although.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he's never been diagnosed" - avoid contractions  Done
"he's" is a contraction. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes - I read that wrong. Fixed it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The products are currently available only at his shows, although he has said they will eventually be available online" - this will eventually become outdated. Epbr123 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the article will. He will probably eventually move, he and Jessica Simpson might get back together, his parents will die, he will probably stop writing some of of those blogs, the fifth album will eventually be released. But I (or anyone) can only write what is (ahem) currently true.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to say "As of July 2007, the products are only available at his shows, although he has said they will eventually be available online". Done
OK.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention and critique. I've sought to apply it to the article. I hope you will reconsider your vote.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wihdrawn. Epbr123 08:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has come along nicely. Don't worry about the exceesive fair use-itis running amok on wiki these days. To them someone that lives on the steppes of Outer Mongolia can easily have a free photo taken of them and get back to wiki.Sumoeagle179 02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a and 2 (MOS). It's not bad, so once these are fixed and someone fresh has gone through it once more, I'll change to "Support".
    • Redundant words, such as "first" in the second para, and "also" in the third (two of them).
      • This is not redundant. The word "first" has significance. It means this was the first genre that he played in. Considering he's dabbled in several, this is a chronological term - where's the redundancy? The "also" used in paragraph three means "in adition to the aforementioned, and (presuming you feel "also" is redundant because of the word "included") "included" does not signify "in addition to". If you insist, I'll change them (I want FA bad). Why not? Done--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS says no final period in captions that aren't full sentences. Done
    • "Mayer's name began to grow"—his name? How many letters did it become? "reputation".
    • "Mayer came up with the song's concept - fantasies - and his vocals were sampled for the track." Read MOS on en dashes. I notice also spaced em dashes; MOS says em dashes are "normally unspaced". Done
    • "with tickets often selling for as much as 1,625% over their face value"—This means "more than 17 times their face value", does it [17.25 times]? I hope so. Many readers would understand my quoted alternative more easily than the huge percentage value.Tony 12:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)  Done
      • Not that it matters, but what does this mean: "does it [17.25 times]? I hope so"?--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your reading the article and offering your critique. I hope you will be motivated to change your vote.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead could do with some rewriting, I feel, and possibly could be expanded a bit.
  • His first two studio albums, Room for Squares and Heavier Things, both did well commercially, achieving multi-platinum status. - if they achieved multi-platinum status (which could be wikilinked for explanation), it's implied they did well commercially. "Both" is redundant. So it could just be "His first two studio albums, Room for Squares and Heavier Things, Done
  • Additionally, in 2003, he won a Best Male Pop Vocal Performance Grammy for his signature song, "Your Body Is a Wonderland". - "Additionally" isn't needed, and is rather jarring in such a short paragraph. Grammy should probably be included in the wikilink.
    • Grammy is already wikilinked elsewhere in the article, in more appropriate places. Otherwise  Done--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ultimately formed - not sure what the "ultimately" adds
    • A lot. Mayer's formation of the JMT was a culminating event. He stopped making original music for almost two years, and was dabbling in various genres, ranging from hip hop and film scores, to country and blues. Considering the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, the word ultimately is the abbreviated equivalent of two or three sentences in the "Change in musical direction" section.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 49th Annual Grammy Awards in February 2007 - excessive detail for the lead. "The 2007 Grammy Awards" or "the 49th Annual Grammy Awards", but we don't really need to know it was in February. Done
  • Mayer's career pursuits have occasionally extended to stand-up comedy, design, and writing; he has written pieces for several magazines, most notably for Esquire. - "career pursuits" is an odd phrase, to me. How "occasionally" has he been involved in these things? "Several magazines" - several is how many? Could probably remove it. Done
    • If you don't like career pursuits, tell me what you like and I can change it. Also, I wasn't totally sure what you wanted removed, but I removed "occasionally" and "several".--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's me, but the lead just doesn't feel very cohesive at the moment. I would expand the paragraphs a bit; when they're only a couple of sentences it makes the prose seem choppy. Trebor 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This suggestion is kind of vague. The lead currently is separated according to the major shifts in the article - the "Your Body is Wonderland" years, the "blues-John-Mayer-Trio forward" era and "Other". I could add something about Jessica Simpson to make that last paragraph longer. If you could give me some specific suggestions or specify missing topics covered in the article, I could incorporate them.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Mayer&oldid=1140114115"