I am nominating this article for FAC because I believe it to be well-written, well-researched, comprehensive, neutral, and stable. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Support - I GA reviewed this with FA in mind, and therefore don't have much to add. Some sources have dates in addition to year as well, I'm not sure if these should be made consistent with the rest, that don't. It seems his alleged children have been cut, they would probably warrant at least a footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your support Funk Monk! There is an endnote regarding his progeny, see nb#32. After looking at the sources I only see one magazine article with a full date (Morello), and its my understanding that periodicals should include a full date when one is available. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I've heard about a daughter as well (I'm aware the son is transsexual, but it should be another person), anything to that? As for dates, again, not sure if it is a problem, but the month is also listed in at least Fairchild, Michael (April 1991), GP staff (May 2012), and Owen, Frank; Reynolds, Simon (April 1991). FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any WP:RSs for a Hendrix daughter. Those others sources you mentioned are also periodicals, and as far as I know, if a periodical has a month or date available, then they should be included; I might be wrong though. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the bottom discography, it seems awfully empty on the right side. Wouldn't it be possible to add live albums, singles or some such? Plenty of room for it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I honestly think that's idiotic, if there's room I see no reason why, we basically just have a lot of white space there. Anyone else have thoughts on this? McCartney passed before it was removed, right? Which means it was no problem during review, so I'd say be bold and put it back. The user who removed it also said "generally", which shows even he admits it is optional. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
In 1958, Hendrix completed his studies at Washington Junior High School; he did not graduate from Garfield High School- I'd slot a contrastive here, such as ", though" rather than semicolon. Just a bit stilted as is.
What a fascinating character; I'm so glad this was nominated. The prose is excellent.
I'm not fond of the wording "He headlined the Woodstock Festival in 1969 and the Isle of Wight Festival in 1970 as the world's highest-paid performer". (He wasn't headlines as "Jimi Hendrix: The world's highest-paid performer".)
It does, thanks. – Quadell(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Like nearly all FACs, many places in the article use the serial comma (e.g. "Are You Experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, and Electric Ladyland"), but a few places omit it (e.g. "emotions, spirituality and music"). MOS:SERIAL says "Editors may use either convention on Wikipedia so long as each article is consistent within itself."
I'll do my best to find the missing serial commas, but it can be a bit difficult in an article of this size (my eyes aren't what they used to be), so I would appreciate any specific examples that you are willing to give. I have no idea where "emotions, spirituality and music" is located. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If I find any more omissions, I'll add the serial comma. – Quadell(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Per MOS:COMMA, when a date is formatted as "November 27, 1942", the year is acting as a parenthetic, and needs a comma after it as well as before it (unless it ends the sentece). This is usually done correctly, but like most FACs, it's a problem in a few places.
I only found one that was lacking a comma, but I'll look for more. Again, I would greatly appreciate any specific examples. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That might have been the only such problem. I'll keep an eye out. – Quadell(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is "Utee" in quotes? (What is "Utee"?) If it's a backup band or stage name, I don't think quotes are needed, and if it's another single, I think the wording is confusing.
"Utee" is the name of the song that was included on the single's B-side. Does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Did Hendrix play on Utee as well? If so, I'd probably word it as "she invited him to participate in a recording session for her single 'My Diary', and on its B-side, 'Utee'." (I'm not sure if there's a standard or not for Single / B-side listings.) If he didn't play on "Utee", then I don't think the B-side is worth mentioning, personally. – Quadell(talk) 18:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Hendrix played on both tracks. This is made clear in the following sentence: "He played guitar on both tracks, which also included background vocals by Arthur Lee." Do you still think that this need to be clarified? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so it is, sorry. This may be a product of my age, but I would not have known that 'her single "My Diary"/"Utee"' refers to the A-side and B-side of the single. If that's a standard way of naming singles and B-sides in other FAs, then that's fine, but if not, I think it would be clearer to specify that Utee is a B-side. (This comes up again when discussing "Hey Joe"/"51st Anniversary".) – Quadell(talk) 20:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, this is an accepted convention, but I could omit the b-side here for the sake of simplicity, though in other instances I think its better to retain the information. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Learner001 recently added a direct quote, sourced to the DVD The Sixties. But I'm not sure who is being quoted. It's a strong statement. Was it the assessment of someone notable? I'm trying to determine if the quote merits inclusion or not.
Right, its also lacking a location for the event. I've started a discussion with them at their talk page, so hopefully we can get an answer about the speaker and the location. Otherwise, I think I'll just remove it, as it strikes me a bit like revisionist puffery. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
That's probably best. – Quadell(talk) 21:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
There's an after-before-after situation in this sentence: "After the festival, the Experience played a series of concerts at Bill Graham's Fillmore, with Big Brother and the Holding Company and Jefferson Airplane, before replacing the latter at the top of the bill after embarrassing them musically." I assume the Experienced replaced Jefferson Airplane in the middle of the series of concerts, not once the concert series was done? And I'm not sure what "after embarrassing them musically" means; is it that the Experience was so much better? I think it would be useful to reword this sentence somehow.
Yes, great. – Quadell(talk) 14:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
In the captions for two adjacent sound files, each says it "demonstrates Hendrix's cutting-edge use of" something. It would be an improvement to add variety to the wording. – Quadell(talk) 16:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is in the category of "American baritones", but the article never mentions this, so it's essentially an unsourced claim.
I don't get into cats, but I agree that this is not cited in the article, and after a quick perusal of the sources I'm not seeing this readily available, so its now been removed. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll continue reading and reviewing this tomorrow.– Quadell(talk) 21:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. This article is clearly among the best Wikipedia has to offer. It fulfills all our FA criteria and should be featured. – Quadell(talk) 13:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Will you be able to do a source review as well, Quadrell? For now I'll just request an image review at WT:FAC (which might generate some further interest in the nom as well). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sure. – Quadell(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Source review: The references are formatted very well. I really like the specificity of references like 308, where it's clear exactly where each point comes from. It's hard to find any reference formatting errors, but ref 305 does say "pp." when "p." is meant. As for the Sources section, the formatting is impeccable, and every source appears to be a RS. – Quadell(talk) 15:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Bertran_Philander_Ross_Hendrix_and_Zenora_"Nora"_Rose_Hendrix.jpg: when/where was this first published?
I have no idea, but its my understanding that due to its age, its a PD image. Am I wrong about this? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Outside comment: Since Nora and Ross Hendrix were Vaudeville performers and photographs were relatively expensive back then, I think it extremely unlikely that this photo would have gone unpublished for decades. It is very unlikely that this image could still be copyrighted; it would be a strange collection of circumstances indeed that could cause that. It would strengthen the claim if we could find any information about who took the photograph or when it was made available for viewing or published, but I can't find any info online, even using newspaper archives. In my opinion, it's safe to assume this c. 1910 publicity photo is PD. – Quadell(talk) 16:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As Quadell says, it's unlikely that this is still under copyright, but it's pre-1923 publication, not creation, that would make it PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, okay, but the source of the image (blackpast.org) claims that it is PD, and it was used as such in an article written by Janie Hendrix, so is that good enough, or no? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, this image would of course have been published if it was included in a book or newspaper, but it would also have been legally considered "published" if it were made available to the public, for example on a flyer at a publicly-accessible location or in a publicity collection sent to various Vaudeville venues. This photo could only still be copyrighted if it was created in the U.S. (and not Vancouver), and if it was first "published" after 1922, and if was published with a visible notice and copyright registration, and if the copyright was renewed 28 years later. (Alternately, it could be copyrighted if it were created in the U.S. and first published after 2003 and if the photographer died after 1943.)
Can I suggest we nominate the image for deletion on Commons, noting the various information there? Then, if it's deleted on Commons, we of course won't use it here either, but if it's deemed PD there, we'll consider it not a problem here either. (That would also give me some time to see if I can find any other information about the photo.) Would that be acceptible, Nikkimaria and GabeMc? – Quadell(talk) 21:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Deletion discussion is here. Feel free to comment, if you like. – Quadell(talk) 16:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg: not seeing a strong rationale for use of this image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggestion that I need to tighten-up the FUR, or that even with a better FUR the image should not be included? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Outside comment: In my opinion, this non-free image fails NFCC#8. We already have images to show what Hendrix looked like, and all the other encyclopedic information in this image can be (and is) conveyed through the text. – Quadell(talk) 16:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that I do not anticipate a FUR capable of justifying the inclusion of this image. It's possible, but unlikely. Nikkimaria (talk)
NFCC#8 is the deletionists "Get out of jail free card", since it's entirely subject to the interpretation of the beholder. The article is stronger with it in then it is with it out, and if being in means it doesn't get a GA, so be it. There's a very distinct difference between a truly good article and a WP:GOOD ARTICLE. The first is a measure of quality, the second is a measure of how many artificially-designated hoops you're willing to jump through. BMK, Grumpy Realist (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The consensus here is that it should not be used. Graham Colm (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
More bullshit filtered down from the FA controllers. Go through any of our video game FAs. NONE of them should have a single FU image on them. Oh, but they do, and often with more than one FU image. This is uneven, nonsensical application of FU image policy for FA articles. I'd personally strip every video game FA of FU "screenshots" (which are far more likely to incur copyright issues than a historical mugshot) if I could. But that would be "disruptive". Right? You FU/FA folks (alleged experts like Nikkimaria) need to get a handle on the hypocrisy of how FU images are already used on supposedly FA articles. Gut 'em of the FU's. You've got a lot of FA's that are crying out for the FU images to be removed already. Apply your prowess there. Doctalk 04:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I put the image back, right where it has been for years. Nominate it for deletion the proper way. Orphaning it because you don't like it is the easy way. Doctalk 04:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Support Admittedly I contributed some minor additions to this article a few years back which I can still spot in parts, mainly the intro, but I'm very impressed with the way Gabe and others have developed this into something so comprehensive and concise. I was just checking again to see if I could see any lack of coverage of his technique/playing aside from the bio details and it's all there. Of course one could go into a Technique of Jimi Hendrix sub article (which I'd love to see at some point, would make interesting reading for us guitarists) and venture into more detail but what is covered in the article covers the most important points well I think. Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)