Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/John Lennon/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

  • Comment inclining toward support. I was enjoying this article a lot (and felt it was an unqualified support) until around the Solo career section, and from then on I've been finding it harder going. It's a huge achievement, but I think it's too long (59 kB, 10272 words readable prose size), with structural issues, and too detailed in terms of the songs and their success. A person can only read so much "Song X was released in 1970, hitting number 13 in the Billboard what-nots and number 3 in the something-else doo-dahs." And it's not clear what the priorities are in the different sections. For example, in the section "First post-Beatles years: 1970–73", Tariq Ali gets a big mention, but Lennon's break-up with Yoko Ono, their getting back together, and their having a son very little, though surely those things mattered to Lennon considerably more than Tariq Ali did. In addition, the article is about him, not his song statistics, yet the personal relationships are explored after all the significant people in his life are already mentioned. And I think the murder should be toward the end, roughly after the "Political activism" section. I may say more later, but those are my initial impressions. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I take your point about the song stats, and I don't see that it will really detract from the article to reduce those. I see you took a few out after posting here; I removed some more as a side-effect of trimming Tariq Ali (which was indeed needed--better?). On structure generally, you rightly point out that "the personal relationships are explored after all the significant people in his life are already mentioned", but devoting a topic (non-chronological) section to each enables them to be considered at a level of detail which would not be possible to the same extent during the chronological run-through (main History section). There may be a few instances where more mention could be made in History, and I'll check that now. It's difficult to see how Murder could move away from the end of the chronological run-through; it would still need a mention at that point, and the section is only small anyway, so that wouldn't seem to achieve much. On article length, I feel it's not unreasonable given the article's subject, and the post-History topic sections, which contribute to the length, all add a valuable dimension of insight into Lennon's character. I'll check again for any inessential details or further song stats that can be removed. I hope you're able to comment again in due course after considering all these aspects further. PL290 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I liked the Tariq Ali material (though it's fine reduced too); it was the lack of the other I was wondering about. I see what you mean about the structure; I'm just not sure it's the best way to do it, because it leaves the reader wondering in the History section, which jumps around a fair bit, the explanations left for the personal relationships sections. So one minute he's in Hamburg, unknown, and the next he's (I forget the details) having tea with the Queen or something, with no explanation of how he moved from A to B.

    Regarding refs, how do you combine refs with the system you're using? That is, if you have {{sfn|RIAA|2010b}} and {{sfn|Rolling Stone|2008}}, what do you write to place them in one footnote? SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm open to suggestions about moving content, but the current structure's really not that unusual for a biographical article, and for good reasons: perhaps its main benefit is that it allows the article as a whole to include sufficient detail about the subject, while still presenting the reader with a main chronology that's manageable in size. But it's possible moving some things around would work well too. Re. footnotes (and I acknowledge that citation style preferences vary among editors!), I don't know if you can do that with {{sfn}}, but in my view it isn't usually helpful to the reader to combine, say, RIAA 2010b and Rolling Stone 2008 into one footnote. I am guessing you seek to reduce the total number of footnotes, but I don't think we should perceive the number as a problem: it's the sign of a well sourced article. PL290 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of footnotes isn't necessarily a sign of a well-sourced article, PL. It can be a sign of sources used indiscriminately or defensively. Not saying that's what was done here, but I found a few sources that seem to be used in quite a repetitive way, and it can be a little distracting. SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; citation density is one more part of the perennial citation preferences thing though, isn't it? :) And you may have seen above that another reviewer wanted more! (Although I accept that those were specific ones, so it doesn't exactly make a point.) I did go through them all prior to starting the nom, and I removed some unnecessary ones myself; those that remain, I judged to be needed. I will go through them again to check if any more could be removed. I appreciate your comments. EDIT: I've now been through the citations again, and I found a small number of extraneous ones I was able to ditch. BTW I notice you had the idea of adding an image of Ye Cracke, where he and Cynthia became partners, to fill the gap left by the Cynthia one that had to go. Nice touch! PL290 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I liked the image of Cynthia, and thought it would be okay in terms of fair use. I don't know who took it, mind you, so maybe there are commercial issues. I'm sorry you're being battered back and forth about number of citations; I know the feeling if that's of any comfort. :) I wanted to ask you about a sentence I found in the last paragraph of the Yoko Ono section, as I'm not sure I understand it: "In April 1969, on the roof of Apple Records, Lennon added Ono as part of his name, but despite being unable to remove "Winston", he referred to himself as John Ono Lennon." I'm confused about why he would do this on the roof specifically, and what doing it involved. Was it "I hereby announce etc?" And in what sense couldn't he remove Winston? SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the image of Cynthia, too. Concern was flagged though (comments at top of this page from Fasach Nua, who's been quite active recently here at FAC providing image reviews) that the image would not meet the WP:NFCC criteria. I do wonder about that interpretation, and having looked again at NFCC I've left Fasach Nua a further question above. On John Winston Ono Lennon, I've clarified the passage to cover the questions you raised. PL290 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sentence is much clearer, thanks, though I wonder if it's accurate regarding changing name by deed poll. "Although he used the name John Ono Lennon thereafter, official documents referred to him as John Winston Ono Lennon, since he was not permitted to revoke a name given at birth." I believe you can change your name to anything you want by deed poll in the UK (so long as it's clear there's no fraud involved); I'm thinking of people like John Lewis who stood in an election in the UK in 1981 after changing his name by deed poll to Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel. :) See the last paragraph of this section of Deed of change of name. This is a minor point in terms of the overall article, but it jumped out at me as odd-looking. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It struck me as odd, too, while I was clarifying it earlier. So I looked it up in several sources, and they all agree that that's exactly what happened in this case. PL290 (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for checking. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question: "Two days later, Lennon reappeared at a joint dental appointment, stupified and confused to such an extent that Pang believed he had been brainwashed. He told her Ono had said she would allow him to return to her now." He told her Ono had allowed him to return to Pang after he had briefly disappeared? Or he told her Ono had said he could now return to Ono, as in permanently? Given the context it could be either. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means the separation from Ono was over. I've recast to avoid the ambiguity. PL290 (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, PL, I'm removing what I see as repetitive citations, but if I remove anything you see as vital, or where someone else has specifically requested a ref after the sentence, feel free to revert me, and if I'm over-doing it, also feel free to ask me to stop. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what this means: "Lennon's life was one of searching, confronted with the paradoxical juxtaposition of his ideals and his own human temperament." SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To paraphrase: his ideals for the whole of humanity were to do with peace, but in his own human nature he was quite violent. Those two things, when juxtaposed, produce something of a paradox. He was confronted with that paradox, and searched for answers (per his saying he was "a hitter ... that is why I am always on about peace", and Urish and Bielen's description of him "holding the mirror up to himself"). Trust that clarifies the intent; feel free to clarify the wording! PL290 (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's intended to summarize what's stated in the article. Is there a problem with it? The sentence is not absolutely essential, but it sets the tone for what Urish and Bielen have to say on the same subject. Let me know if you see issues with it, and it can be reworded or simply deleted if necessary. PL290 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about the four refs after "After McCartney, Lennon is the second most successful songwriter in Billboard singles chart history, responsible for 27 number one singles on the US Hot 100 chart as a performer or songwriter.[176][177][178][179]" These seem to be primary sources. Do you have a secondary source that says what the sentence says? SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence is only meant to report statistics, so those sources are for the chart figures. (See below.) PL290 (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question, related to the above. I've been trying to tighten the writing in the first paragraph, but as I edit it I'm coming to realize that I don't know what it's saying exactly:

With Paul McCartney he formed one of the most influential and successful songwriting partnerships of the 20th century. Second only to McCartney, he is among the top songwriters in Billboard singles chart history, responsible for 27 number one singles on the US Hot 100 chart as a performer or songwriter.

He alone is responsible for 27 number ones? Because that sounds unlikely. But if with McCartney, what does second to McCartney mean exactly? SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you had changed the meaning, which is why I tweaked it. It's correct the way it is now, which was the way it was then. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean exactly, and is there a source? SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the number of number ones he had involvement in as writer, co-writer or performer. Some of those were joint efforts with McCartney. The equivalent statistic for McCartney is 32 (Paul McCartney, end of 3rd para. in lead). Having just checked the cited sources again though, I see the McCartney article refers also to www.everyhit.com, which is not a WP:RS. The remaining sources don't support the statement that McCartney and Lennon are in first and second place in Billboard number one singles history. I will remove that part. Also I think the sentence might fit slightly better in the last paragraph, so I'll look at that too. PL290 (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a secondary source that says what the sentence said? Or is this being compiled by you (or others) from primary sources? SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not a secondary source that says what the sentence said, and now that that's become clear to me, I've removed the unsupported part of the statement. PL290 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to use primary sources so long as the reader can easily verify what they say. Where would a reader have to look to find "As performer, writer or co-writer he is responsible for 27 number one singles on the US Hot 100 chart"? SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note to allow the reader to easily verify that Lennon was responsible for 27 Billboard Hot 100 number one singles as performer, writer or co-writer. PL290 (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's good, though it would be better to find a secondary source.
I've very close to supporting this, but there's something that's making me hesitate. I think it's that it feels a little unpolished, and maybe also all the figures about his music. For example, the lead:

After retreating from the music business in 1975 to devote time to his family, Lennon reemerged in 1980 with a comeback album, Double Fantasy, but was murdered less than a month after its release. The album won the 1981 Grammy Award for Album of the Year and is Lennon's best-selling studio album at three million shipments in the US.

His death is sandwiched between the release of the album, and it's winning something and selling X number of what-nots. I know his music is very important, obviously, but the sales and the chart positions aren't equivalent to the music. And I wonder about the length—still over 10,000 words. Can you see any way to tighten/cut it? SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to hear you're so close to supporting. I tend to agree about the album sales sentence that follows his death in the lead; it's troubled me before. But I don't think his death should be tagged onto the preceding paragraph either, meaning it would become a one-sentence paragraph if the album sentence was cut. Perhaps that's not a problem; it's a special case, given the subject matter. [EDIT: I just considered it in preview, and it may be OK tagged onto the end of the middle paragraph.] What do you think about just dropping the album sentence? (It's in Awards already.) As to what could be trimmed from the remainder of the article, the only thing I can see is FBI surveillance and de-classified documents. The information is already in Jon Wiener. Would cutting that section help? (BTW, Allmusic is not a primary source—it's quoting the Billboard charts.) PL290 (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did with the lead, it's a lot better. I'm going to take another read through this from top to bottom, and see where I stand on it. I'm sorry to be hesitating. It's not that I don't think it's great, because I do. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PL, do you have Bill Harry's John Lennon Encyclopedia? I see some interesting stuff on page 495 about his mother being out shopping on Penny Lane when she went into labour. Plus a difficult birth. SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have that book. Are you seeing a partial view in search results? It's not talking about John's birth, but Julian's. Might be worth a mention in Cynthia's section, at the end of paragraph 2. PL290 (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, that's the problem with these snippet views. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loading issues and length[edit]

The page is very slow to load, and it's difficult to load diffs/preview. I believe this is because of the number of citation templates, but that's not an actionable oppose, so I'm not sure what to do. That apart, I feel it's a bit long and could use some tightening. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my support to the page, because I do think this is an excellent article, but I've qualified it because of the length concerns and the long load time. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your extensive review and for now supporting the nomination.
To speed page load, I have now converted the {{cite book}} etc. templates to {{vcite book}} etc.—these templates are known to be far less resource-hungry, and also to reduce html size, and should bring a significant improvement in page load times. PL290 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation preferences, and order of references[edit]

(moved from review page PL290 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

PL, this is the kind of thing that could use some fixing in the References section:
  • FBI Releases Last Pages From Lennon File. The Washington Post. 20 December 2006.
  • Fawcett, Anthony. John Lennon: One Day at a Time. Evergreen; 1976.
If there's no byline on the W/Post article, what I normally do is add it under T (the full title is The Washington Post), with the newspaper title in place of the byline. But I wouldn't add it under F just because the title began with F.
So I would write:
But in actual fact looking at that article I see it's the AP, so I would write:
SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about refs. PL, I'm trying to do two things, but worried about messing up the templates (which I'm finding very awkward to work with). Using this citation system, how do you (a) combine refs, as in <ref>Smith 2010, p 1; Jones 2009, p. 2.</ref> And how do you add "ref name=" with the shortened ref templates so you don't have to keep repeating refs? SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example: This ref needs to be Sheff, David. Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono", Playboy, September 8–28, 1980. Same with all the others, but where there's no byline use the name of the publication or company instead. BBC News. "Interview with X," date. Who is hosting the material doesn't need to be included. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to SV's questions (which, we must of course note, bring us once more to the rocky terrain of citation preference variation amongst editors!):
  • Regarding your question about ref names, that's one of the advantages of {{sfn}}: not only do you no longer need to clutter the text with <ref></ref> tags (let alone the citation detail itself); you also no longer need to mess around with ref names. Simply repeat the citation. That is, if you have the citation {{sfn|Smith|2010|p=1}} in one place, and you want to cite the same page again, simply add {{sfn|Smith|2010|p=1}} again. The template takes care of it.
  • Within this short footnote system, different refs (such as Smith 2010, p 1; Jones 2009, p. 2) are not combined. It is considered unhelpful to the reader to do so, as that would simply produce a loss of definition.
  • I understand the position of those who favour hand-crafted references (and I don't deny that the approach has its benefits too), but I am swayed towards the use of templates because in my view, their benefit is greater. They remove a vast amount of citation clutter from the text, helping editors to see the actual material they're trying to copyedit, and (in varying degrees, depending on the template) they bring consistency of formatting, instead of relying on editors to get every full stop and so forth right. I note the suggestions made about formatting of entries, but I would prefer to stick to the standard in use, which is one of several accepted standards and is controlled by the template (it's that consistency benefit again). For book cites, author is shown first. The same is true of the other cite types when there is an author; otherwise, publisher or title comes first. You can find more about the template at {{vcite book}} if you're interested. I've reordered the entries in References accordingly so that they're displayed in alphabetical sequence. PL290 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PL, when you say "it is considered unhelpful," could you say who considers it unhelpful? From my own perspective, it's often a sign of a poorly referenced article when I see multiple footnotes after a sentence, or in the middle of one.
The disadvantage of using this system is that it makes it awkward for others to help you sort it out. There are still issues: for example "US chat show veteran Douglas dies. BBC News. 12 August 2006" is listed under U. "The Lennon-McCartney Songwriting Partnership. BBC News. 4 November 2005" is under T. "Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. London Gazette (supplement). 4 June 1965 [cited 7 December 2009]" under M. And several others. Sorry if this seems overly focused on details, but it looks a little odd, and it makes it harder for the reader to judge the quality of the refs quickly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, SV, there are only three places in the entire article where multiple inline citations appear together. (I've just checked.) In each case, it's for a good reason, i.e., the prose has just made clear there's more than one thing to cite. Considering it helpful or unhelpful to combine them is an example of citation preferences among editors, so all I'm saying is, I admit to being in the latter camp! The alphabetical sequence accords with the convention in use (see {{vcite book}}). Thanks again for your continued help and input. PL290 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by the alphabetical sequence according with the convention in use. It's odd-looking to list some articles alphabetically according to title, but others according to byline. Which convention are you using? SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{vcite book}} gives the details, and provides links to further info about it. PL290 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what must be happening here is that the template has unclear parameters, so you feel you're being consistent but it's producing odd results. What you need to do is decide what you want your refs to look like first, then fill in the template in a way that achieves that look. So for example if you want to write "BBC News. "John Lennon is dead," December 8, 1980," you have to fill in the template in a way that achieves that, and not list it under J because the template has placed the BBC at the end. You need to take control, in other words. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and I'll have another check. PL290 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it can be hard to do that with these templates, and I hope this input isn't driving you mad. The aim is to achieve a nice consistent look, so that the reader can quickly scan the References and see what's being used. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all :) and that's my aim, too. PL290 (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/John_Lennon/archive1&oldid=1045818756"