Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2013: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 1
added one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Herriman/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Island Emu/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Island Emu/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive2}}

Revision as of 23:22, 13 April 2013

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 GrahamColm 10:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

George Herriman

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 16:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive, well-illustrated article about one of the core early American cartoonists, who has been a primary influence on some of the best-known American cartoonists. His story has a wide appeal, especially his success at keeping his racial background a secret until decades after his death; its revelation has coloured interpretation of his work in the decades since. It would be nice if the article could be TFA on 13 October 2013, which is the 100th anniversary of the debut of his signature work, Krazy Kat. Curly Turkey (gobble) 16:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

—Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To try and get this review moving, I've been looking at the prose in the early sections, and have a few quibbles:

Lead
  • By "high arts" do you mean Fine art? A piped link would help.
    • According to the article, "fine art" is primarily applied to the visual and performing arts today; Seldes came from a literary background,a s did many of his other prominent admirers (such as Cummings). "High arts" is being contrasted with popular or lowbrow arts here. I'm not sure if Highbrow is the appropriate link here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to list seven influenced artists in the lead?
    • I know...I've cut McDonnell, but it's hard to choose from the rest. Each of those left on the list are really the cream of the elite amongst cartoonists, cut from each decade of comics since Herriman; and they each claim KK not as an influence, but as a primary influence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • In the second sentence, the comma after "Creole mulattoes" affects the meaning. Is it all Creole mulattoes who "were considered free people of color[4] and were reportedly active in the early abolitionist movement", or just Herriman's line? If the latter, the comma should be shifted until after "people of color".
  • Are the ages of Herriman's parents at the time of his birth relevant?
  • "He graduated in 1897, and soon sold a sketch of the Hotel Petrolia in Santa Paula to the Los Angeles Herald." Unrelated facts should not be connected by an "and" in a single sentence. Suggest: "Soon after graduating in 1897, he sold a sketch of the Hotel Petrolia in Santa Paula to the Los Angeles Herald."
Early career in New York
  • "sneaked aboard" - not really encyclopedic? Sounds slangy in British English but maybe OK over there.
  • "Herriman appeared in the November 1902 issue of the literary magazine The Bookman and wrote of his profession self-deprecatingly..." Verbose: "In the November 1902 issue of the literary magazine The Bookman Herriman wrote of his profession self-deprecatingly..."
  • "Another of Herriman's obsessive characters, the Major, traveled the world..." Delete the second comma.

Haven't got any further yet, but will try to give it more attention soon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. I was afraid people were overlooking this article, thinking it was the George Harrison one below (how can people neglect the greatest American cartoonist, like, ever for just the third Beatle?! For shame!). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no accounting for folks' tastes. Incidentally, the third Beatle isn't getting much attention either. And I've just nominated yet another George... Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments continued

Return to California (1906–1910)
New York again
  • "Critics do not hold regard the strip highly..." Something wrong there
  • "on July 26, a mouse threw a brick at the family cat..." I was slightly thrown by this on first reading; you should clarify that this is a cartoon event, not a real-life occurrence.
  • "undeliberately" is a made-up word. Maybe "spontaneously"? Ah, I see you've used "spontaneous" later; you could make that second one "impromptu" or "improvised".
    • "un–" is a productive prefix in English; grammatically, it can be added to pretty much anything, and thus most "un–" words will never be found in a dictionary. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is generally true, but the prefix doesn't always work. You wouldn't, for example, say "unspitefully" or "unabruptly", to give just two examples. Also, it's not absolutely clear what you intend by "undeliberately". Since "deliberately" means "on purpose", does "undeliberately" mean "by accident", i.e. beyond the creator's control? That does not seem likely. Brianboulton (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dropped. There actually are examples in print sources of "unspitefully]" and "unabruptly" (Google Books links). I can see, though, that the meaning of "undeliberately" might not be clear to all readers (the intended meaning was "without deliberation").
  • I'm not convinced by "officemates" as a word. "Colleagues" would suffice, or "office colleagues".
  • "At some point, Herriman visited Monument Valley in Arizona". Needs to be "had visited". Also, "at some point" sounds unnecessarily vague; Perhaps "Earlier in his career, Herriman had visited..."
  • Link Enchanted Mesa
  • "which is the most famous piece of writing about the strip" Does the source say "famous"? Any such opinion should be ascribed to the source.
    • The sources do say it, and so do a lot of them. I just added three more that specifically use the adjective "famous". In comics studies circles, Seldes's essay is considered a key work, partly for historical reasons, but also partly for the quality of the essay itself. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its Hall of Fame in their April 1923 issue". Suggest alter "their" to "the"
California again...
  • "Herriman developed ties with members of the film industry, where he knew..." The "film industry is not a location to which "where" can be properly applied. I'd follow "film industry" with a semicolon, then "he knew..." etc.
  • "which Herriman made bold use of." This usage is frowned on in British usage, in favour of "of which Herriman made bold use", but North American perceptions may be different
Personal life
  • "sold his first Hollywood house, which had bought for $50,000..." Needs a small fix
  • This is a side comment, but I'm surprised that Merrifield was so hooked on Ford's "pacifism" that he could ignore his antisemitism.
    • You're surprised that a partially African-American man who drew jolly strips of a black man getting beaten up would be concerned with the plight of the Jews? Besides, antisemitism wasn't really stigmatized in the US until after the Eichmann trials; only retroactively has WWII been painted as the Americans valiantly rescuing the Jews. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Race and identity
Reception and legacy
Work

I have more or less limited my comments to prose issues, as I don't know the subject. My impression is that overall, this is an excellent and very informative article on an important and influential artist. I will be happy to support when the fixes are done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my numerous points have all been addressed, very substantially as I would have wished. I'm happy to support now: I just wish some other reviewers would give the article some attention. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

A few queries about spellings. Ordinarily I'd just change obvious typos, but in this article I hardly dare to. So perhaps you might check:

  • vaudevillean
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*srtip

Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*comix

This is actually the accepted term for underground comix, as per the article title. Now protected with {{Not a typo}}. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*cirlces

Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*prepares top throw. Tim riley (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why "hardly dare to"? Because it's an FAC? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! I'm merciless at FAC (in a cuddly kind of way), but I suspected I was out of my depth, as you have proved in re comix. Excellent stuff. Happy to support. Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Whenever I start reading a new FAC article on an unfamiliar subject I wonder if I am going to struggle or if it will make everything clear. This is in the latter category. Clear, full, well proportioned and referenced. Good stuff! – Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Looks good for the most part. I only have a few technical issues to point out:

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I think we need an image review, at least one is missing a source. Graham Colm (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that was the infobox image; I didn't upload it or add it to the article, and I can't find it in any of my books, so I have no idea where it came from. Google image search finds plenty of copies—from wikis in different languages. I've replaced it with another photo: File:George Herriman 1915-12-01.jpg—this one's better anyways, as it shows his face nearly straight-on. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The publication date of this photograph, which is not given, might not be the same as the date when it was taken (1 December 1915). We need clearer evidence of the copyright status. Graham Colm (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've misunderstood a lot about photograph copyrights. Does this mean that the 1902 wedding photo may not be PD if it turns out that it was never published for public consumption until it appeared in McDonnell, O'Connell & Havenon's book in 1986? Do photographs that are never publicly published ever fall into the public domain? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something I fully understand because the law is complex. But if a photograph has never been published, I think the copyright expires around 70 years (or more) after the death of the photographer in most jurisdictions. The photographer in this case might have died relatively recently. We need someone with more knowledge on this to comment here. But I suspect the image is problematic in this regard because it is from a book published in 1986. What does it say in the book? If it says "copyright", it almost certainly still is. Also I notice that the source given for the Lead image says "© All Rights Reserved". Graham Colm (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the image is from that book; it just happens to be the only book I have that has that image. I can find no credit for the photo (or any of the photos) anywhere in the book. I'll just go ahead and remove the problematic photos (I think they're just the infobox one, the wedding photo, and the family photo. I've found a self-portrait that was published in a magazine from 1922 to replace the current infobox image. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Krazy Kat: The Comic Art of George Herriman has picture credits on p. 223, according to Amazon [2]. Graham Colm (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Picture Credits" are acknowledgements to those "who kindly provided original Herriman art"; they're credits to collectors who own the original cartoon pages that were reproduced in the book, and not photo credits. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification. Graham Colm (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

King Island Emu

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it collects practically all known information about this extinct bird (including recent genetic work), and it is doubtful that much more will ever be known about it. The article has been copy edited, and all important historical PD images have been added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

I have some prose and referencing concerns at the moment, and will try to do a closer reading later for additional prose issues. I'm not strictly opposing at this time, but I think this article has the potential for some improvement still. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Probably" reword one of the last two sentences of the lead.
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at this myself. Hopefully, I didn't make it worse. If not, revert away. Either your version or mind, I think, would be better than the original.
I think it's better, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure on the capitalization of emu here when it's not referring specifically to the King Island Emu. It's my understanding that bird species names get capitals, and the Emu is a specific species, but the Emu (the mainland species) is also a type of emu (the category of birds). Regardless, it looks weird the way it currently is.
I thought the same early on, so I guess so too, and I'll fix that now. I've left "mainland Emu" capitalised, since "Emu" is the common name of that taxon, but if anyone objects, I can change it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave any further discussion about the emu/Emu debate to someone more familiar with the MOS issues at hand.
  • Update the ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s.
Alright. How can I do that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found a nice tool[4], done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your references have a closing period, but some are missing it.
Fixed. Why does the "citation" and "cite journal" templates differ in this? FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, those were from different generations of reference templates. It's all ancestral wisdom to me, really. I just hunt for misplaced dots! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, seems like the "citation" template should be updated then, that's the only one that causes the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to happen, as some articles use the citation template instead of the cite foo family, and in general any internally consistent referencing style is copacetic.
  • The Mathews 1921 source is fully available online, and you should link to the page.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how useful they'll all be (and I have more limited source access than normal at the moment), but there are quite a few more sources to consider for this topic, especially ones from the Australian ornithology journal Emu:
  • Ashby E (1924). "Notes on Extinct or Rare Australian Birds, with Suggestions as to Some of the Causes of their Disappearance". Emu 23 (3): 178-183. doi:10.1071/MU923178
Nothing new. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That one had such a promising sounding title, too.
  • Brasil L (1914). "The Emu of King Island". Emu 14 (2): 88-97. doi:10.1071/MU914088
Covered in later sources, but I've added a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legge WV (1907). "The Emus of Tasmania and King Island". Emu 6 (3): 116-119. doi:10.1071/MU906116
Added cite, but it doesn't bring any new info, just another junior synonym. FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Color me weird, but I love documenting short shelf-life junior synonyms. I think it gives a sense of history to the science of taxonomy that other reference works rarely, if ever, have the space to consider.
I like it too myself, which has lead to taxonomy sections being the bulk of some articles I've written in the past. In this case it is of minor importance, because it wasn't really a taxonomic response, it was just a matter of which publication came first. I read earlier today that Legge retracted the name when he learned one had already been published, but I don't remember where... And in any case, the name would be invalid, as it was the youngest at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morgan AM, Sutton J (1928). "A critical description of some recently discovered bones of the extinct Kangaroo Island Emu (Dromaius diemenianus)". Emu 28 (1): 1-19. doi:10.1071/MU928001
Was covered already by newer sources, but added citation anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with demonstrating that work on the topic has been ongoing.
  • Roots, C (2006). Flightless Birds. Greenwood. p.172. ISBN 978-0313335457.
I've encountered this book before, it just summarises already cited material, and in some cases it is even wrong. His entries for some species have several errors. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got to take a look at this myself. Agreed, exclude this one. WorldCat, you failed me here.
It seems to be a summary of Spencer's 1906 paper (which is already cited), and to also have been written by him, so it doesn't add anything new. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll fix the issues in a moment. As for sources, the older ones are mostly covered by newer sources, but I'll give them an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No further referencing objections. I need to take another pass through the prose when I have the time, but I always like to hit the bottom of the article first because if the references fall apart under pressure, then it doesn't matter if the text sounds pretty. Good so far, though! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and thanks for the sources, I like using original citations whenever I can. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no further problems with the article, so making my support official. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • extinct sub-species of emu — this invites confusion with the capitalised Emu in line 4, especially as it's referring to that species, better as of the Emu
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The King Island Emu was the smallest of all emu taxa — "taxa" is a bit unfriendly in the lead, especially since it's not linked, smallest of all emus may be better
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird gathered in flocks to forage and during breeding time, and fed on berries, grass and seaweed. They ran swiftly
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • kept in Jardin des Plantes — the Jardin?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • King Island likely drove the wild population — "likely" looks American to me, please assure me that it's standard Ozspeak
I'm not sure I follow. You mean the word likely? It should be pretty old English. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that construction, using "likely" where a Brit would use "probably" strikes me as AE, but I don't know if it's also Australian usage. Either way, it's no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "presumably"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which has led to some confusion — further confusion?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jouanin and Jean-Christophe Balouet demonstrated that the mounted skin in Paris came from King Island — How?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • nuclear and mitochondrial DNA — links needed
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • alternate genetic or non-genetic, gene/genetic — I think you mean "alternative", also need to link gene or genetic
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • links or explanations needed for intertrochlear foramen, distal foramen, cranium
Added some links, but the second term is not likely to ever get an article, since it is relative to the structure in question (a structure which is found in many bones). Like if we said "distal end of the metacarpus", there wouldn't be anything specific to make an article about, apart from metacarpus itself.

FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm happy if you want to lose the redlink since, as you say, the article is unlikely to ever be written Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...foraging, which was exploited by hunters — ...foraging, behaviour which...?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either parent stayed by the nest when the other was incubating — The non-incubating parent stayed by the nest?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which also brought along naturalists, who described the local wildlife — why the comma?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your references appear to be in French, but there is no "language = " parameter to tell us that
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Binomials should be italicised even in the references
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've fixed some issues, and will fix the rest later today. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to a couple of your comments above, but there is nothing significant outstanding, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, the difference is that the former is a typo, good catch! FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. "scientific names subsequently being erected for either bird," is an odd use of erected, if that is Biologists jargon, is there an alternative word such as allocated that would be acceptable to scientists and more obvious to lay readers? ϢereSpielChequers 18:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Coined" could be better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Thanks for your prompt response, signing out now as I don't think that I can contribute much further to this. But for what its worth I think the prose is FA standard. ϢereSpielChequers 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sasata

Prose and MoS nitpicks for now; I may have more substantive comments on content after I try a lit check.

I'm satisfied that the article meets the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as for lit check, be aware that most sources prior to the 1980s are very outdated and usually incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • any reason why sub-species is hyphenated? Our article does not do so, and it is inconsistent with the non-hyphenated version in the taxobox.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The birds gathered in flocks to forage and during breeding time, and fed on berries" weak construction (and ...and)
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in 1804 several live as well as stuffed King and Kangaroo Island Emus" "as well as" -> "and"?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why bad weather would have prevented emu encounters
Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • no first name for L. Brasil?
Searched, but found nothing. The similarity to "Brazil" also muddles up search results... FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • our article does not hyphenate eggshell
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • should ensure short-form binomials have a non-breaking space (also in the range map caption in the taxobox)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link subfossil, invalid, taxon, morphology; subfossil is inconsistently hyphenated in the article (shouldn't be, according to our article)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…was reclassified as a subspecies of Dromaius novaehollandiae; D. n. ater." think a comma works better here
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "features which distinguish the taxa." which->that (check throughout article for other instances; "which" generally follows a comma)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Late Quaternary period" consider adding the dates for this period parenthetically so the reader doesn't have to click out
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approximately 100 km" give imperial conversion? (to be consistent with rest of article)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link land bridge, founding, tibia, femur, pelvis; link tarsometatarsus and foramen earlier
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossil emu taxa show an average size, between that" comma not necessary?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • should the cranial comparison image perhaps indicate that the mainland bird is represented by A,B, and C?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a feature which is in fact also seen"
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Péron's interview sheds light" not sure if idiomatic expressions are appropriate for encyclopaedic writing
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They swam well, but only when necessary." so when it wasn't necessary, they swam poorly?
Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1800–1804" ->1800–04 per WP:YEAR
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of these survive in European museums today." this could perhaps be interpreted as meaning there are specimens alive today; reword?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference nitpicks:
  • Brasil 1914 should give the full page range
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • is this a suitable link for Viellet 1817?
Seems to be about warblers, so doens't appear so. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • please check the citation for Spencer & Kershaw 1906; this journal is available online at archive.org, but I cannot seem to find the article cited (should have a full page range too)
Fixed range, but not sure how to link to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • full page range for Legge 1906 & Morgan and Sutton 1928 (needs issue# too)
Fixed range, but I can't find the issue number. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathews & Ireland should be title case to be consistent with the other book sources
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jouanin 1959 has different author format
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • no volume# for Balouet & Jouanin 1990? (check author name format too)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bull. B.O.C. -> why is this journal title abbreviated?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heupink et al. (2011) should be sentence case
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patterson & Rich (1987) available online here
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milne-Edwards & Oustalet (1899) available here
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giglioli 1900 & 1901 should be sentence case
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All issues should be addressed now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything worthwhile to add from a lit search. I do have a copy of Hume & Walters 2012 Extinct Birds, and thought it might be useful to do a spot-check:
  • according to the cited source, the heaviest birds weighed 45 to 50 pounds, not 40–51 as given in the article
Not sure what happened there, might have been created when the amounts were converted. Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • close paraphrasing:
Source: "It was constructed on the ground of sticks, and lined with dead leaves and moss; it was oval in shape and not very deep."
Article: "It was constructed of sticks and lined with dead leaves and moss; it was oval in shape and not very deep."
Source: "The chicks were striped and left the nest two to three days after hatching."
Article: "… and the chicks left the nest two to three days after hatching."
The part that is closely paraphrased was itself quoted directly from a public domain text from the 19th century (Milne-Edwards & Oustalet 1879, which was itself taken from Péron's even older account), and wasn't actually written by Hume and Walters, so I only modified it slightly. But if it is a problem, I can change it further. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • why not mention that subfossil remain are in Adelaide?
I know they are in more places than there (the authors of the genetics paper used bones in the Museum Victoria, for example), so it seems a bit odd to point out only that place. But I don't have any comprehensive list either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the above, everything else checks out ok from this source. Sasata (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DrKiernan

  • Claiming the birds couldn't run because they were too fat sounds very 19th-century. Surely they were slower because they had shorter legs or had no natural predators?
That's what the source says, but I could specify that it was the sealer's claim? FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we know that their eggs were always laid on 25 and 26 July?
Not really, but we don't have other testimony of their behaviour than that of Cooper the sealer. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would qualify these two paragraphs and put the paragraph on Flinders and Latham either first or last in the section, so that the sealer's testimony is all together. I would also change "documents" and "shows" to something less definite because anecdotal claims from a layperson are not as strong as direct evidence analysed by an expert. So, what I would have is something like:
"Péron's interview describes some aspects of the behaviour of the King Island Emu. He writes that..." (rest of paragraph could remain the same) and
"He claimed that seven to nine eggs were laid always on 25 and 26 July, but the selective ... (rest of sentence the same)" and "Peron gave the incubation period as five or six weeks..." in the final sentence to avoid repetition of "claimed". DrKiernan (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the attribution thing, which I'll implement as you describe it, but not on the order. All the sources mainly quote Péron (and Cooper), and it is not even sure what Latham was referring to. Flinders and his men didn't even observe live emus, whereas Cooper basically lived with them every day. But I've now grouped Péron's stuff in order, just as the first, not last, paragraphs. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's British spelling throughout FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for the changes. DrKiernan (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • I tweaked the lead a tad, let me know if any issues; suggest however that you clarify who "had arrived on King Island in 1802", Peron or the sealer.
Fixed, it was Péron. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

George Harrison

Nominator(s):GabeMc (talk|contribs) and Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe and I first nominated this article back at the beginning of January. During the FAC, the article underwent substantial edits that added content, trimmed content, revised content, and rearranged content. The final product seemed to be a good synthesis of what most of the reviewers (with a few exceptions) thought the article should be. I have spent the last week or so thoroughly evaluating the article, and I am confident that there are no actionable objections left unresolved. If there are any that I've missed, I hope this FAC can clear them up quickly and get the article to where it needs to be. I'm confident that we're at least 95% there already. Thanks for your time in advance, everyone! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

I really didn't like four choppy paras for the lead - and have rejigged it to two - the first is for most famous facts and the second more personal. I like the flow and composition this way as I think it grabs the reader more.
His mother was a Liverpool shop assistant.. - unless there is something mysterious about Liverpool shop assistants I think we can lose the discriptor here...
Link tambura and EMI at first instance
Should Live Aid be italicised?
I don't think so. The topical article doesn't use them. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison released no new albums for five years after 1982's Gone Troppo received little notice from critics and the public - err, grammar? word missing here?
Fixed? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh, my bad - I kept reading "received" as a past tense active verb...was tired when I read it. I think the first way is the best (sorry), but that a comma after "years" helps flow a bit. (d'oh!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, most of it is in good shape - some bits are a bit choppy (the Early solo work: 1968–70 section - but not sure what to do here, I will think on it) and I wonder whether the guitar and guitar work sections could somehow be combined or segue on from one another. I need to sleep now Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved the songwriting section to above "guitar work" and "guitars" so that the two later sections are consecutive. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have half a mind that these two sections should be combined and material threaded into chronological order...but not sure...it'd make the guitars section less listy. If you don't think this is a good idea, don't do it - I'm more just musing on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on this point. IMO, to riddle the guitar work section with mentions of each notable guitar Harrison ever purchased would considerably diminish the quality and readability of the "guitar work" section. If "guitars" seems too listy, then it may need a copy-edit to smoothen it out, although I'm really not sure how we could run-down Harrison's notable guitar purchases in the form of engaging and/or brilliant prose. The section is by nature a bit boring to non-gear-heads. I'm certainly up for alternate suggestions though, and I'm curious what Evan has to say on this particular point. We appreciate your time and respect your opinion, so thanks much for the great comments Casliber! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Guitars" section is less listy now than when it was a list, so in that department we've seen a lot of improvement. I can see what you mean, though, Casliber. I wonder if it wouldn't help the flow to move the "Guitars" subsection down to the bottom of the "Musicianship" section, directly below "Sitar and Indian music." One downside to that is that we now have "Sitar and Indian music" flowing directly into the "Hinduism" subsection of "Personal life," making for an unbroken discussion of Harrison's life vis a vis Indian culture. It's probably not a big deal, but moving "Guitars" would break this flow. I would say that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I've cleaned up the prose a little and expanded on a few points to hopefully make it a little less listy. Not sure how much I've done, but it does read a little easier to me now. One thing to keep in mind is that the emphasis should be on how the guitars relate to Harrison's career as much as possible, and not simply about the guitars for their own sake. Thanks again for all your input, Casliber! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evan, per: "I wonder if it wouldn't help the flow to move the "Guitars" subsection down to the bottom of the "Musicianship" section": That's where it was before I moved some stuff around in response to Casliber's comment: "I wonder whether the guitar and guitar work sections could somehow be combined or segue on from one another." I agree with your comment about the "'Sitar and Indian music' [section] flowing directly into the 'Hinduism' subsection". I also like the way it currently flows, although I am certainly open to specific alternate suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prose within I am happy with - this bit is not a deal-breaker. I am just trying to figure out some actionable items to address aspects I feel a little uneasy with - I will try to get some specifics up pronto. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tried comparing this article with John and Paul - they do flow better but I can't put my finger on why or how. I need to think on it - my initial concern was that the Beatles section was not George-centred enough, but it is on a par content-wise with the corresponding sections, so I am happy about that. I need to sleep now. Will have another look tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright; I'll give it another look and see if I can find anything to tweak. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the prose is tighter, which is a good thing. I asked Malleus Fatuorum and he replied thus. Looking at the old FAC page I saw notes from JG66 whose comments ring true for mine. I don't know enough about Harrison to know what can still be added, but I feel something still does. It would not need much, as some sections read better than others, but I reckon maybe 6-10 well positioned sentences which embellish or add colour to key points would be a big plus. I'd ask JG66 to prioritise this, particularly in Early life , Early solo work, a bit in his interest in handmade films are all good places to start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, if you look again at the previous FAC, you might notice that while JG66 wanted more and more detail to be added (to every section), SandyGeorgia opposed promotion based on his long review, and the length of the article, complaining that there was too much excess detail. So, basically, we made a choice to follow SandyGeorgia's advice over JG66's advice; perhaps a compromise middle position is best. I'll go through the article top-to-bottom and try to add detail where appropriate. Thanks again for your comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this can be tricky. It is a bit like a sliding scale and where we leave the bar. The trick is removing fluffy prose and reducing it to give maximum info in as few words as possible, and then embellishing with some narrative. The article needs some more (concise) on Harrison's ideas, feelings, reflections and point of view - it doesn't need much to carry it over the line, but this would make it massively more appealing to read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per your above comment: "a bit in his interest in handmade films"; are you suggesting that I add detail to this section? There is already a topical article dedicated to the subject, so what summary details are needed? I'm not seeing what you think is missing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is a good example - I'd like to see the comments about why he invested, and the quip by Jones is a classic that would make this article more engaging (and this material is as much about Harrison and his interests, as the company). Ultimately an ideal Handmade Films article would concentrate on the course of the company alot more, so Harrison's mention would only be relatively minor. However that is not the case with how the daughter article now stands. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll do my very best to add some appropriate detail to the Handmade Films section, but FWIW, that quip from Jones is unsourced in the daughter article, and I have no idea which book its in (assuming it is verifiable), so I'll have to search my sources for a quote that may or may not be real ... GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I searched and searched, but I cannot find that quote from Jones which you suggested from the daughter article, but I did find nearly the exact same statement from Idle. I think the "Handmade Films" section of the Harrison article is now about as detailed as it should be, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I've also now gone through the article and added some details where appropriate to help flesh-out, "Harrison the man". If you have any more specific suggestions, they would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for your effort. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Handmade films section reads much much better now. The Early life is still a bit mechanical sounding - if I look at this version, the first three sentences of the last para are great - it is engaging and not trivial (he was a *&(%% guitar player so how he first go interested is integral) - I'd re-add it. Then, even just one sentence of what family life was like (warm/friendly/chaotic/whatever) in the upper half I think would help glue this section together. More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, per your above advice, I've now restored the datum: "Harrison sat at the back of the class and would often draw guitars in his schoolbooks. 'I was totally into guitars,' he later said." However; as far as "I heard about this kid at school who had a guitar at £3 10s, it was just a little acoustic round hole. I got the £3 10s from my mother: that was a lot of money for us then", 1) I cannot find this exact quote in any source. 2) According to Babiuk, the guitar being referred to here is one that Harrison broke soon after aquiring, and it sat broken and unused for some time, so its notability is questionable. The Egmond is the first notable guitar Harrison owned, as its the one he learned to play on. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some additions to "Early years: 1943–57" that might have addressed this concern. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting better - I tacked the two sentences reflecting on humour and parents into otherwise dry first para - they might even go better further up the para, not sure. Second para then focuses more exclusively on music. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now fleshed the section out a bit more, hopefully its not too much. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
addendum: Solo work: 1968–1987 would greatly benefit from anything HArrison thought retrospectively about it - did he later regard them as mistakes/fun/underrated/overrated/what? Any info on his later feelings about them would just make that bit a whole lot more engaging. It doesn't need to be much at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
addendum 2: Actually, given All Things Must Pass is regarded as his best work, a mention of what it meant for him - what was he trying to say - how he felt about it would go nicely at the end of the first para. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does this edit resolve this specific concern? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that helps. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update - reading alot better now.
I would place the Cancer diagnosis, knife attack, illness and death: 1997–2001 subsection at the end of the Personal life section so it is further down the article. It looks odd reading about his dying and then back to handmade films etc.
I'd place the material from para 1 of Later life: 1988–2001 into the travelling wilbury's section as it is really about collaborating with those artists. It slots nicely chronologically at the bottom.
This then allows us to slot the remaining two paras after the beatles anthology section and thus make it all chronological.

To conclude, the extra colour added I think has helped bigtime in giving a narrative and sense of Harrison the man, and I feel we're on the cusp of in FA territory with this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John

I was asked to comment; I opposed last time round then started mucking in and editing it and latterly withdrew my oppose. I don't know how ethical it is for me to support or oppose now. I'll note that on this read-through, I still see things that can be tweaked, though it's better than it was. I saw Malleus's critique of it and I am wondering about that too; I don't always agree with him but I always take his opinion seriously. Let me think some more. --John (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be more to come. I love what you have done and it is definitely getting there. --John (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JG66

I've been asked to comment too, but there's not a whole lot that's changed since my oppose last time around. I'm interested by Malleus's opinion also (and it seems that a splinter discussion has started over there). When Malleus says "you have to have an overall idea of the story you're trying to tell", that's sort of what I meant by the "basic foundations" – which, from my knowledge of the life and music of George Harrison, still aren't here in the article. Personally, I only contribute to Harrison-related articles on wikipedia (but not Beatles articles), and I come to this one and it still doesn't adequately provide an overview of George Harrison's life. As I've said before, there's not enough of a sense of Harrison the non-Beatle – I don't necessarily mean detail, I mean it's not established as part of the foundation of this article. The Lennon article again comes to mind as an example of a biographical page that gives readers a definite idea of the man. To me, this one still reads more like an apology of an article; there's just not that engagement with the subject that's obvious in the Lennon piece and to a lesser extent in the McCartney one. And if this article is part of WP:Beatles (in a way, I wish it wasn't), why is it that the McCartney piece in particular can be so extraordinarily long, even when there are already generous articles covering that artist's musical career, personal relationships and the band Wings, yet this one is being limited to a specific word count? Yes, I know – an oppose at the previous FAC. But, with all due respect to SandyGeorgia, why weren't/aren't you nominees standing up to that oppose by citing the McCartney article as an example?

I'll give some specifics here, again, but I'd hope that my previous comments count for something in the final consideration.

  • Good to see some more text under Early life – this section finally extends beyond the level of the Arnold Grove pic on my screen. There's an interesting detail I'd add about Louise Harrison listening to the BBC's broadcasts of All India Radio while pregnant with George. It's either in Greene or Tillery, I think. I was fascinated to read that.
  • It's the idea of Harrison having possibly absorbed these sounds pre-birth that I think is really significant. I've found the mention in Greene (pp 1–2); here it is in full: "During her fourth and last pregnancy – with George – Louise's favorite program was a weekly broadcast called Radio India. Every Sunday she tuned in to mystical sounds evoked by sitars and tables, hoping that the exotic music would bring peace and calm to the baby in the womb." JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in early life, I think you should add a sentence about his earliest musical influences. We hear about Elvis, brief mention of skiffle, but nothing else. Hoagy Carmichael, etc – loads in Leng, I'm sure.
  • Skiffle's only one part of it. Leng mentions Harrison's "formative childhood years" listening to Cab Calloway, Django Reinhardt and Hoagy Carmichael (p 302), "Harrison heroes Hoagy Carmichael and Big Bill Broonzy" (304), and: "The first music that he heard as a 1940s war baby remained a passion throughout his life, and he often celebrated George Formby, Cab Calloway, and Hoagy Carmichael in his work." (320) Note mention that follows there of Elvis, Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran and Little Richard being "the music of his teenage years". I hope you'll agree that a sentence covering these early influences is important. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the wording's too fussy about his Indian instrumentation on individual Beatles tracks, as if each instance just has to be mentioned. I remember suggesting "the tabla- and sitar-driven 'Love You To'" rather than mentioning tambura again (after he "introduced" the instrument on "Tomorrow Never Knows"). I'd take that sentence starting "Further examples of Indian instrumentation from Harrison during his Beatles years ..." to sit as an endnote, but place the note following mention of swarmandal on "Strawberry Fields"; plus include the tambura part on "Lucy" as additional text in this note, not as a point made in the main text.
  • Way better. But again, why the standout phrase "Harrison also played sitar on the recording"? Why not: "The tabla- and sitar-driven "Love You To" was the Beatles' first genuine foray into Indian music. According to ethnomusicologist David Reck, the song set a precedent in popular music ..." ? JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like "Think for Yourself" needs to be mentioned in the endnote along with "If I Needed Someone", otherwise implication is that he contributed only the one song to Rubber Soul. The fact that all of Harrison's White Album comps are named makes this more apparent. (Still not sure why they are all named; I would've thought just "While My Guitar", for obvious reasons, and "Piggies", for the unfortunate Manson association, but never mind.)
  • Don't really agree on the Piggies point, but never mind.
  • The meaning in the sentence discussing "If Not for You" is jumbled up. The discarded Dylan take is thought to be the first recording of Harrison on slide (well, there's a glissando or two on "Strawberry Fields"), but that's got nothing to do with the context here.
  • From mention of "Ben Gerson of Rolling Stone described", there's four or so consecutive sentences containing "described".
  • I disagree about the inclusion of that October 1969 quote. It's confusing. Yes, he'd been talking about doing a solo album of songs to get shot of the backlog, since Jan '69; but in the context that All Things Must Pass was made, post Beatles break-up, the album took on a completely different identity from that of a project that might've sat comfortably beside the band's continued existence. He's got Spector in on the job, his mum was dying – there was way more invested from May 1970 onwards.
  • Even if it has been shunted off to an endnote, I'm still confused about why you're so generous with details regarding the My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine suit when subjects like Dark Horse Records, Splinter, Harrison's '70s projects with Shankar, production for Apple acts get barely a mention.
  • I'd say, delete the whole note. Again, so many relevant points don't even rate a mention in the article, and here you are providing excessive detail on this issue. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom Scott was assistant producer on 33 & 1/3, or more correctly provided "production assistance".
  • I'd cut down considerably the discussion of problems between Harrison and Lennon. Again, I'm thinking of what doesn't get included in the article when detail is being lavished elsewhere.
  • Definitely delete "The omission upset Lennon; Harrison regretted this and left a telephone message for Lennon, but Lennon did not return the call and they did not speak again.", I suggest. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused also not to see mention of Harrison's guest appearances with Dylan in 1987 when Birmingham Heart Beat gets an extended mention, and especially when there's all that stuff in the endnote about the 1992 Jeff Porcaro concert – I mean, what's that about?
  • The LA gig with Taj, Dylan and John Fogerty, yes, but also a couple of appearances Harrison made during Dylan's 1987 European tour with Tm Petty & The Heartbreakers. With the Porcaro benefit, I'm saying delete everything in the endnote. Once again: focus. Two sentences are currently in that note, describing the benefit, yet you give no mention at all in the article of Harrison's '74 tour musicians. (Come on ...) In the George Harrison story, though, it's still a shock to see this 1992 gig even get a mention when his more-celebrated TV appearances with Gary Wright (1971) and Paul Simon (1976) don't. So that's probably why the walk-ons with Dylan feel like they belong too. (You know he made guest appearances with Clapton, Elton and Deep Purple also?) JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of interviewees in the Scorsese documentary is typical, really, of what I mean by the not-enough non-Beatle-George feel of the article (the unfortunate fact of a WP Beatles focus, I guess). Ono's contribution in the film is minimal; Starr, Clapton and Keltner add far more in the way of insight than McCartney. But most of all, the interviewees who really add something personal about Harrison – the man, regardless of Beatledom – are Olivia and Dhani, Klaus Voormann (especially Klaus) and Terry Gilliam, I suggest. I find the wording in that sentence reflective of the lack of engagement in this article: anything real like family and friends is shunted off into "others" category, while anything Beatle is given pride of place. That list should read something like: Olivia and Dhani Harrison, Voormann, Gilliam, Starr, Clapton, McCartney, Keltner ... (Astrid Kirchherr perhaps also, certainly more worthy of inclusion than Ono.)
Yep. You're spot-on with this point, JG. I should have thought twice before listing the interviewees like that. Thanks for your input! I think if we can get as many specific recommendations from you as possible this FAC should go over without a hitch. You have a valuable perspective to offer to the article, and I apologize if any of my comments during the last FAC made it seem otherwise. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion of JG66's comments

All those points are pretty cosmetic though, compared to the real problems in the article. It may be a Good Article currently on the project's quality scale, but it's certainly not a good article on George Harrison – in that it's not a good overview of the subject. So much is missing, for a start. A section discussing his production work for others, on Apple Records and Dark Horse, and his 1970s session work. Right now, some of his '70s session work is mentioned in an endnote or two – part of that "apology of an article" issue, as I put it above. He was the most active of all the Beatles on Apple projects, and he committed to them – he didn't just do a Paul, and roll up with a song and say "Play it like this". Straight after finishing All Things Must Pass, he's repaying favours with session work for the likes of Gary Wright and Bobby Whitlock; then he's producing Ronnie Spector, Badfinger and Ravi Shankar, rather than looking to follow up his own album. The fact is that these projects were as much part of Harrison's career as his own albums; he never stopped wanting to support other artists just because the Beatles split up. This point applies even more with Dark Horse Records, with his dedication to Splinter and Ravi Shankar. The omission of any of this contributes to the article failing to provide any idea of Harrison's development, even generally, through the first half of the 1970s. And the same goes for what little treatment his 1974 tour with Shankar receives. I commented on that in the earlier review; you'll just have to go back and find it. (But in short, how can this notorious/ambitious/ill-starred/woefully underrated(?) event not get a brief discussion here when, in the McCartney and Lennon articles, comparatively trivial live appearances or tours do? Without wanting to sound too dramatic, this 1974 tour utterly defined George Harrison's musical career as much as All Things Must Pass and the Concert for Bangladesh did.)

Same with some idea of his duality between deeply spiritual pursuits and more earthly temptations. He was pretty open in discussing this – his Piscean nature – and it's received a lot of comment from his biographers. Such a major part of the subject's character is certainly not ignored in the equivalent article for Lennon, and I think readers deserve to see this sort of defining feature about Harrison. About the subject of any biographical article, particularly if the article's a GA.

There's more that is missing, I'm sure – but as I said, what's missing is only "for a start". I think the main issues are structural, article-wide, the focus of the entire piece. The overall idea – the "over-arching narrative" perhaps that Malleus mentions. These are only encyclopedic articles, okay, but there's no question that they require some creativity at this level. Someone like George Harrison is incredibly hard to sum up adequately in a few thousand words; there hasn't been a biographer yet who's really nailed it, even with 100,000 words at their disposal. (Not even Simon Leng.) I'm sorry to be so discouraging, but I care about an article delivering what it's supposed to, and I really don't think this one belongs in an FAC forum. I'd be going back to a blank sheet almost, taking a look at the Lennon article, and just thinking of a whole new way into this one, to be honest. JG66 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) Thanks again for your specific comments JG66; I've done my very best to address them. 2) Per: "A section discussing his production work for others, on Apple Records and Dark Horse, and his 1970s session work." Again, this sounds like material for Musical career of George Harrison, maybe not, but the only source that I find that describes Harrison as a "session musician" is Leng (a far from neutral source IMO), and he says: "Harrison was the only ex-Beatle modest or gifted enough to have taken up a second career as a session musician", a dubious claim at best, since a) Macca was clearly the most musically talented of the four, and b) describing Harrison as modest is a bit of a stretch. Furthermore, if we wrote a section detailing Harrison's session work, how would that help us attain "brilliant and engaging prose", as it seems like it would just create another section loaded with list-like details lacking an overarching narrative. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I really don't see how this would help with readability, nor do I consider Harrison a proper "session musician" for having worked on some basic guitar tracks for his friends and clients of Apple. Also, specific session work done for Apple would seem more appropriate at the Apple Records article. 3) Per: "what little treatment his 1974 tour with Shankar receives", IMO, there will never be enough detail about Shankar in the article to satisfy you (he is mentioned about a dozen times). How about starting the article, Musical collaborations of George Harrison and Ravi Shankar? Per: "some idea of his duality between deeply spiritual pursuits and more earthly temptations". You have lost me here, sorry. Are you suggesting that we discuss how many women he cheated on his wives with? Or that despite his conversion to Hinduism, he cheated taxes till the end, and hoarded $150 million dollars? Can you please explain further what you mean by this point? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just don't know where to start with a reply to the above. Perhaps you are "missing something here" – yes. Of course, a Musical Career article is needed, but the existence of such an article for McCartney never held you back in the Paul McCartney main article. And you've rather sidestepped discussion of Harrison as a record producer by choosing to focus on whether he was a "session musician" or not. In my comment above, I never said he was a session musician; Jim Keltner, Nicky Hopkins, Klaus Voormann, they're session musicians. I talked about Harrison's session work for others, and about combining that in a section discussing his projects as a producer (more than anything, to ensure that Dark Horse Records at least received some sort of discussion in the article). Your opinion about Leng's book concerns me, but in hindsight explains a lot about the problems with this article. It should be easy to see where Leng's reliable or not, and in most cases, he definitely is. (I'd be wary of other books you use, such as Bill Harry's encyclopaedia and Spitz's Beatles book, both of which are riddled with inaccuracies and/or inconsistency; especially the Spitz book.) And, you say, "describing Harrison as modest is a bit of a stretch" – I mean ... what makes you think that Harrison wasn't modest? Without fail, associates of his, and music writers generally, have pointed out his modesty, his humility. It's the thing that most impressed Ravi Shankar about him; how do you think the Concert for Bangladesh, the Wilburys came together, without that modesty, the fact that all involved knew they could trust Harrison? That doesn't make him perfect by any means, and he was the first to admit that he wasn't perfect. (And in fact, it's that imperfection mixed with the search for the divine that makes Harrison an interesting subject.) But your words there do make me wonder what you're doing championing this article. Also, adding such a section on Harrison's production and session work doesn't in any way distract from the article-wide issue(s) I mentioned. When you say "it seems like it would just create another section loaded with list-like details lacking an overarching narrative" – well, yes, if you want it to, Gabe! (Or, the entire article could be reworked, as suggested, and then, with the addition of a new section such as this, the overview on George Harrison's life would be both more complete and a more impressive read.) I keep finding more things in your reply, bewildering things ... Your choosing to focus on an increased Shankar presence when I mentioned "what little treatment his 1974 tour with Shankar receives". I'm talking about the [beep-beep] TOUR – not seeing a thirteenth mention of Shankar's name. George Harrison's only US tour. The first US tour by a Beatle since their break-up. The tour that launched Dark Horse Records. The tour that crash-landed his solo career. A tour that saw him combining Indian music, jazz, funk and rock – acknowledged by some as a precursor to world music. It's the George Harrison tour, not the association with Ravi Shankar per se, that merits discussion. (Okay?!) Schaffner sets the scene for the build-up and expectations for this tour, with the first Beatlefest event in the US that year; Bob Woffinden's Beatles Apart adds useful insight into how Beatles-obsessed the US still was, whereas the band's mystique had dimmed after 1971 in the UK, where new musical genres (glam, reggae) had been embraced by '74. (Again, compare with the detail afforded Wings' 1972 UK tour in the McCartney article, and the musicians listing for Mac's 1990 tour; same for detail on Rock 'n' Roll Circus in the Lennon article.) And finally there's: "Are you suggesting that we discuss how many women he cheated on his wives with? Or that despite his conversion to Hinduism, he cheated taxes till the end, and hoarded $150 million dollars?" To repeat: I've got to wonder what you're doing championing this article. You seem to have a very shallow grasp of George Harrison, like you've gone sideways from Paul McCartney and looked to apply the same results-results-results template. The Piscean duality marked Harrison's struggle through much of his life, and it was something he became increasingly open about from around 1987 onwards. This is from one of his last interviews: "I'm a Pisces. I am an extreme person. One half is always going down where the other half has just been. I was always extremely up or extremely down, extremely spiritual or extremely drugged. Now there is a bit of maturity. I have brought the two closer to the middle." This duality is reflected most obviously in the 1973 song "Living in the Material World"; he appeared to have reconciled the issue in 2002's "Pisces Fish". Of course it's covered in his biographies, but I can't see that it's worth me going into this point any more here – from my experience with this article, and elsewhere over the last year, it just doesn't do any good trying to get through to you. It seems like this point is news to you. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per "Someone like George Harrison is incredibly hard to sum up adequately in a few thousand words; there hasn't been a biographer yet who's really nailed it, even with 100,000 words at their disposal. (Not even Simon Leng.)" That's exactly what I've been saying; in order to do his bio justice in your eyes, we would need to include so much excess detail that the article would never pass FAC anyway. Please remember, Evan and I are just unpaid voluteers doing our best. I am curious though, as above you say "I'm sorry to be so discouraging, but I care about an article delivering what it's supposed to". Well, you've only ever made 32 edits to the Harrison article, and you havn't improved it since 1 February. Why not help us improve the article, instead of making us read your mind and goose-chase datums from any number of dozens of books. If you think the article needs a "Session work" sub-section, then why not draft one in your sandbox? Lastly, per your above comment: "But, with all due respect to SandyGeorgia, why weren't/aren't you nominees standing up to that oppose by citing the McCartney article as an example?" Have you ever tried to "stand-up" to SandyGeorgia? Do you know who she is? Her oppose alone can stop an FAC in its tracks, as few delegates would pass an article she has opposed, regardless of the efforts the noms make to resolve her concerns. FWIW, I tend to agree with you in principle, I just wish you would help Evan and I with a draft of a "Session work" section, and perhaps a few edits to address your concern: "there's not enough of a sense of Harrison the non-Beatle". I will keep working on it of course, as will Evan, and this article will eventually pass FAC, with or without your help, but I think I speak for Evan when I say that we would much rather work with you. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to make comments, especially regarding specifc concerns that we can address. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As alluded to above, I don't find communication with you an easy task. It's a two-lane street, so logically I contribute equally to the problem. In the past, and now here again, you've chosen to focus on "excess detail" when in fact I've been trying to draw your attention to scope and the foundation for the narrative article-wide. I acknowledge that the situation's not as clear-cut as that: sometimes I've been saying "This needs to be included". Detail. But I know in the last FAC I kept trying to bring it to your attention that details I was offering in that forum weren't necessarily for immediate inclusion in the article; they were intended to give some thought to scope for the relevant section. (As mentioned at the start of that FAC, I thought the nomination was very premature. In my mind, the FAC ended up taking the form of a belated workshop of ideas, to some extent.) But your reply here just confuses me more. Why should I be expected to actively work on an article just because I've got some strong opinions on the article? I've been asked to contribute comments, and I've done so. At the risk of sounding arrogant – but I'll risk it – I wouldn't be so opinionated if I didn't consider my opinions well informed. I'm just not interested in working on a bio/overview article that's not close to delivering, when there's Harrison song articles I can create, say, or existing Harrison articles to improve, that might immediately deliver a piece that fulfils the reason for the article's existence. You want to get an FAC over the line, I want to see every article deliver what it should – it doesn't seem to me like the two paths necessarily align. And I have to laugh at your comment "Have you ever tried to "stand-up" to SandyGeorgia? Do you know who she is?" I dunno ... Keith Richards? I mean no disrespect to SandyGeorgia – because I'm sure she's earned such a formidable reputation for the best reasons, and drawing a line on the length of an article to the total exclusion of some important points wouldn't be one of them, surely. But your reverence here in the hallowed chambers of FAC is symptomatic of the problem with this article, I think: no focus on content that delivers something educational and enlightening to a reader; all eyes on the gold-star prize. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabe, I think JG66 is making some good points on the colour the article needs - I don't think it is as ambitious as you're worried about - I think 1-3 sentences in each section can take it into much better territory. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect it's a problem of communication rather than necessarily of disagreement. We had a discussion over mention of Harrison's work with Tom Scott last time, for example, which I suspected was excess detail, but the way you have phrased it more recently, e.g. in your 28 March comments, where you stated generally that we should include discussion of his session work, among other things -- that is actionable and addressable. If you have particular details in mind that we could include, that's great too, but a general statement that the "foundation isn't there" isn't necessarily helpful. I can be exceptionally thick on occasion, so it doesn't hurt to beat me over the head if there's something I don't seem to be getting, but if you can generally keep comments to a "add x, and for example y is a good anecdote that illustrates x" formula, I think it will be better for everyone and for the article. Thanks again for your comments, and thank you, Gabe, for handling all the comments here since I last showed up! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, I'm glad to see these receiving some sort of coverage. I'm confused why you've not discussed Harrison as a music producer primarily in that new section; also by the choice of albums on which made guest appearances, eg no mention of Dylan's New Morning and Under a Red Sky albums. I don't mind stepping in to help here now that the section's at least under way, but I can't do anything for at least a week. The 74 tour discussion is surprising. I would be very wary of trusting Inglis' book - his source for negative critical reaction is Fong Torres' Rolling Stone piece (which can't possibly serve as a reliable ref because it was written after show 10 of 45). The tour was not a commercial failure. I'm sure Leng argues against it being a critical failure - he questions the whole Rolling Stone beat up, doesn't he? The only book I have here with me now is Doggett's - no way does he support either of the statements either. Again, I don't mind stepping in here, but I can't do it for a while. JG66 (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some detail about Harrison playing guitar on Dylan's New Morning and Under the Red Sky albums, and a bit on Harrison's producing Splinter, Preston, and Troy. Inglis is the most scholarly source currently available on Harrison, and though far from perfect, few if any sources are. Leng certainly isn't beyond bias. FTR, Fong Torres' Rolling Stone piece was printed in RS 176 on 19 December 1974, the day before the Dark Horse tour concluded. So, how do you know that he wrote it immediately following the 10th show, on 18 November? Further, if you think Fong Torres was the only critic who lambasted the Dark Horse tour, then read Greene, 2006, pp. 213–220. Numerous writers at the time, criticised the tour throughout, with Harrison defending his position against journalists until the very end at Madison Square Garden (Greene, 2006, p.218). Also, Doggett does indeed support that most fans were quite disappointed by Shankar's presence (he demanded silence and no smoking during his sets), and by Harrison's voice, and his inappropriate reworking of Beatles lyrics. Greene and Huntley also support these assertions. To clarify, no one is asking you to "step-in" here. If you have an improvement/s you would like to make then of course, by all means feel free; this is a collaborative project and neither Evan nor myself own the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ever the politician, you rather forgot to mention above that you'd reworded the sentence with Doggett's ref. When I last wrote, I was objecting to Doggett (and Leng) being used to support your statement that the tour was "a critical and commercial failure". That's quite a different claim from the innocuous wording you used above. Once again, your basic skills of comprehension are found wanting: who said anything about Fong Torres being the only critic who savaged the tour? I was objecting to Inglis's viewpoint being trustworthy, because Inglis supports his tour-wide statement with the Fong Torres article. I never said it was Fong Torres and only Fong Torres. From memory, Greene is simply repeating the individual early-tour quotes that Fong Torres does, with a New York one added perhaps (I don't have my books around me, so I'd need to check that). Yes, reviews were negative again on the East Coast. You can always tell which authors have pretty much gone with the Rolling Stone version, without looking elsewhere, by the details they give on the set list. Anyone referring to Shankar opening the concert is going with Fong Torres' description of the opening show in Vancouver; the set was immediately rearranged so that Shankar's (now only) segment sat in the middle of the show, to both improve the pacing of the show and reduce the length of the programme; Harrison dropped Lord Loves the One and Who Can See It after Vancouver - another giveaway as far as being able to spot the "parroters", who may refer to these songs as being performed "during" or even "throughout" the tour. It was the one show only. The issue of Rolling Stone was indeed dated 19 December but it must've come out two weeks before, perhaps more, because in a Michael Gross piece for Circus Raves, Gross and Tom Scott discuss the article and it's straight after one of the Toronto shows (from memory, 6 Dec). If you look at RS dates for All Things Must Pass and Dark Horse album reviews, they're both January or February even though albums were released in last month or two of preceding year, yet the NME reviews for each appear in issues dated December. (I've been meaning to investigate this difference in pub date vs given date, for an article I've been working on for ages, on the Harrison-Shankar tour. Figure this has to have been an RS ref/dating quirk at the time.) The Gross/Circus Raves piece is on Rock's Back Pages but it's (expensive) subscription only. I've got that show 10 of 45 idea from the Gross article, from his description of when Fong Torres was covering the tour for RS (only the West Coast gigs). From everything I've seen about this tour, Leng is actually spot on about this "given"/RS view being both widespread and inaccurate. It's clear, to me at least, that no major critics covered the middle two-thirds of the tour, when reviews were very good - and authors increasingly take the troubled start and the exhausted end (which was all tied up with the Beatles Agreement pressures) and present the bookends as a whole. The reason I really took exception to the way you'd used Doggett as your ref is because, having finally got around to buying his book, but been wary, I was really impressed to see how he'd discussed the tour: uniformly harsh reviews early on, no question, but tying in the Beatles nostalgia issue (and George's refusal to play ball) also. Gotta rush off; as mentioned previously I'm winging this without my books right now. JG66 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - no way were Dark Horse album and single first releases by a former Beatle not to make UK top 30. Ringo's Beaucoups of Blues album didn't, nor did his Snookeroo single, the latter released a week or two before Dark Horse in the UK. McCartney's Back Seat of My Car was another. As mentioned in the previous FAC, I still think you've confused the situation, because Dark Horse was second single from the album in the UK, after Ding Dong, which did chart (though not inside top 30). JG66 (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. JG66, while Evan and I greatly appreciate your comments, your walls of text are quite difficult to follow and reply to. I would really appreciate it if you made some attempt at brevity, and perhaps you could also consider using bullet points.
  1. And those walls of text are difficult to write also. I've tried to write short comments at times, but you misunderstand even the briefest of statements, which then leads to me have to write more in the way of explanation. JG66 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please reel back the rhetoric and insults, many of which are bordering on personal attacks. E.g. "it just doesn't do any good trying to get through to you", "ever the politician", and "your basic skills of comprehension are found wanting". There is absolutely no need to be hostile and abusive, and your comments should pertain to content, not editors.
  1. Well, that's all well and good, GabeMc, but communication being a two-way thing, perhaps it's something you're giving out. Ive acknowledged above that I must have a hand in this problem. Impatience and frustration sets in when I've tried to explain a point, not just here but in the previous FAC, and you often pick up half of it and ignore the rest. Not only that - and this is is related to the above point about brevity - I'm amazed at the level of detailed discussion and debate needed here, quite frankly, regarding some very basic issues to do with the life and music of George Harrison. Going back to January, I've found that you seem to be unaware of a number of these issues, and yet you apparently feel qualified (in the loose sense of the word) to act as editorial control on this article at FAC. While I certainly don't set out to be abusive, you'll have to understand if I'm less than full of respect for your work. I only work on George Harrison articles, and I've never seen you add anything even semi-substantial to a Harrison article. (My apologies if I'm wrong about that, but that's from what I've seen anyway.) I'm tough on myself too: I wouldn't dream of taking an article to FAC unless I was something of an authority on the subject. JG66 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In my opinion, stuff like the above comment just isn't helpful. It's perfectly fine to acknowledge the difficulty in communication, but it's not okay for the majority of a comment on a page dedicated to the improvement of an article to be regarding your personal impression of another article's work. It's off topic, and things like that should be avoided as much as possible. Keep in mind that your preferred version of the article is not the only good way for it to be written, nor is implementing every last detail of it the only way to meet the Featured Article criteria. While my knowledge of Harrison's career may or may not be as thorough of yours, I do feel qualified to say that the article's coverage is well balanced. If you disagree, that's something worth noting, but let's keep the particulars of the disagreement as the core of the conversation, and not focus on the simple fact that the disagreement exists. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per you above comment: "Oh - no way were Dark Horse album and single first releases by a former Beatle not to make UK top 30." According to Roberts, David, ed. (2005). British Hit Singles & Albums (18 ed.). Guinness World Records Limited. ISBN 978-1-904994-00-8, neither the Dark Horse album nor the single charted in the UK, and the single, "Ding Dong, Ding Dong" made #38 (I didn't mention "Ding Dong" in-line, as it was yet another critical failure, but I have now added it as a note). Also according to Roberts, Macca's "Back Seat of My Car" peaked in the UK at #39, so it did indeed chart there. However, you're absolutely correct to assert that Starr was the first ex-Beatle who released something that failed to chart, Greene obviously made a mistake there, but really, all he had to add was "other than Starr", or similar. As I said above, I have yet to find a perfect source completely free from errors, especially regarding the Beatles. I think Harrison attributed the name, "the Beatles" to the movie The Wild One, as did the Anthology film, yet we now know that the movie was banned in the UK at the time, so it's nearly impossible that it inspired the name, despite Harrison's claim. Anyway, I've now copyedited the bit for accuracy, so thanks much for the fact check.
  1. I was querying your wording that they were the first releases by a former Beatle not to make the top thirty - I know Back Seat made number 39. JG66 (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Regarding the Dark Horse Tour and reviews: My point is that the negative reviews came-in throughout the tour, and from various sources, not just RS. Greene gives examples from the Los Angeles Herald and the San Fransico Examiner, among others. On 15 December (5 days prior to the tour's conclusion), an East-coast reviewer described the show as "perceptible boredom".(Greene, 2006, p.216) Near the end of the tour, Harrison told a reporter: "There will always be [criticism] ... I didn't force you at gun-point to come and see me. And I don't care if nobody comes to see me".(Greene, 2006, p.217–218) Greene called the tour "the greatest disappointment of [Harrison's] life".(Greene, p.219) As much as Leng attempts to re-write history, the most complementary thing he wrote about the tour is that it was "revolutionary in its presentation of Indian Music".(Leng, 2006, p.177) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, but Greene is merely quoting from Fong Torres with those LA and San Fran reviewer comments. Alan Clayson, Inglis and Huntley all take that RS article as the basis for their descriptions of tour wide critical reaction, and add some East Coast reviewer comments. For the purposes of this article, at least with the wording as it currently stands, any discussion here is redundant, I suggest. (As mentioned, it was the original wording you had that was unsupported by the refs you chose.) I really think you're wrong about Leng, and certainly wrong to treat Inglis as a reliable source for anything factual about Harrison; I view his claims like those of an Allmusic reviewer - he just hasn't done the research, it's obvious. For the record - because I think others here might need to know if they don't have the book - Leng is not attempting to rewrite history, I believe, and he's the only author that's researched the 74 tour to any degree, which includes accessing a wide range of reviews and interviewing musicians such as Andy Newmark and Jim Horn. A sample of reviews appears across five pages of the book (all this from memory, I don't have the books here right now) and Leng makes the point that the majority of reviews were positive. From the sample he provides, that's definitely so. Leng has way more positive things to say about the tour than you've stated, GabeMc. He discusses a Fort Worth show in some detail and is full of praise for the performance; following Long Beach, Leng states, the tour was very well received. (I can remember all that off the top of my head). New York and East Coast generally, the harsh reviews start again. Leng's the only one to investigate the reception afforded the whole tour, and I find it hard to believe he'd be falsifying the results. And he's dead right that other authors have simply gone with the predominantly RS version of events. To all our relief no doubt, I don't think the matter needs to be discussed further here, because of the current wording. But I feel the need to point out that Leng's contribution to understanding George Harrison is vital, in my opinion, and definitely shouldn't be overlooked in favour of Inglis, or Greene or Huntley. PS That Inglis-attributed sentence about Shankar opening the concerts is incorrect and needs changing; scholarly or not, Inglis just hasn't done the background. (I could give you a list ...) JG66 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm going to have to go double-check Leng's comments on the tour reception. I'll probably have something to say here once I've done that (probably later today). Thanks. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JG66, are you suggesting that Harrison's friends Andy Newmark and Jim Horn are WP:RSs for the critical reaction to the DH tour? Are you suggesting that Greene, Inglis, Huntley, and Tillery are all unreliable? Is Leng the only reliable source on Harrison IYO? If so, why? Also, you keep blaming all the bad press on the Fong Torres piece, however; Greene uses several sources for his material on the tour (chapter 11), including Mark Ellen from Q, Larry Sloman from RS (30 January 1975), Jim Miller from RS (13 February 1975), as well as 8-10 interviews with Harrison conducted during the tour or shortly after. So, you really can't blame all the bad reviews on Fong Torres, can you? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabe, I don't keep blaming all the bad press on Fong Torres's piece; I'm saying that those authors base their accounts of the tour primarily on his RS piece (covering the West Coast), spiced with some equally stinging comments from reviewers of the East Coast shows. The middle portion of the tour, close to two-thirds in other words, wasn't reported on by Rolling Stone (or any major music publication, as far as I know), yet critical consensus tour-wide, according to these same authors, was almost entirely negative. Leng's research shows us that the tour received very favourable reviews during that larger, central portion; I was surprised also to see some positive reviews of a West Coast show and a New York one included in Leng's book. (Again, I'm without books, so I'm going from memory right now.) JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Larry Sloman wrote the piece for RS on the New York shows; Jim Miller wrote the RS album review for Dark Horse, and focused a great deal on the tour and Miller's opinion of Harrison. These two pieces combine with Fong Torres' to provide the RS/"given" view on the 74 tour that Leng refers to, a view that makes no mention of this apparently warmly received middle two-thirds of the tour, because it went undetected on the RS radar. Almost every writer - Mark Ellen at Q no doubt, I don't know - has gone with this overwhelmingly negative picture of the tour. But I've yet to find that they've done any active research. Leng has done the research, he makes a claim that challenges this given view, and he provides pages of reviews to support his position. I'll buy that anytime, if it can be seen that an author's done the research. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the other authors you mention - yes, I do believe Leng should be trusted over them. Ingles states at the front of his book that it is not a George Harrison biography; it's commentary and analysis of Harrison's music, and pretty much to the exclusion of projects outside of a defined solo career unfortunately. Inglis at least provides a source for his statement on tour-wide critical reception in 1974; the problem is it's the Fong Torres article on Harrison's W Coast gigs, reproduced in RS Press Harrison tribute book. Huntley: not a reference in sight in his book. And rather than him being a writer who appears to research his subject thoroughly, I'm afraid I've found a lot of examples where Huntley's lifted text from others' work, almost verbatim, and presented it as his own work. (Eg, compare Huntley's discussion of the My Sweet Lord court case with the article by Joseph Self which appears under External Links in the My Sweet Lord article.) JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love Greene's book, and - like Leng's and to some extent Clayson's - it provides a really important window on George Harrison, IMO. But I don't consider it factually reliable. He separates some of Harrison's comments to Fong Torres, for instance, and states that Harrison "told an interviewer later in the tour" - in fact, all the comments came from the same interview in November. (Again, this off the top of my head, I hasten to add.) Greene, and Tillery too, has indulged in a fair bit of creative non-fiction writing, I think it's fair to say. Greene invents conversations that took place between Harrison and Hare Krishna friends, I'm sure of it (for instance, Harrison's side of a conversation appears to be straight out of the text in I Me Mine in some cases). Tillery gets equally creative with his description of Harrison returning from India in early 1974 and "wondering what to do next", or something similar; same with the description of Harrison wandering around the grounds of Friar Park in a daze after the tour. These points are based on truth to some extent, but they're dramatised, there's no question. Greene especially is one for this style of non-fiction/biography, which one normally finds adopted by authors of more historical-themed texts (I've read biographies of people from the American Civil War era which use this style). In the case of Greene's book, this approach makes for an entertaining read, sort of halfway between a biography and a novel; but much of what I read there I'm reluctant to take on as fact. I'd need to check the relevant chapter, as far as the 74 tour goes, but my feeling about Greene is that he'd be more concerned about the presentation of the overall picture rather than necessarily searching out the facts: he wants to build up a scene dramatically. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone on and on here and I promised myself I wouldn't ... Plenty more to say on the subject as always, but it's best left for other talk pages. The main thing is, as mentioned last time, the current wording in the article is pretty correct, I believe. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting recent comments by Casliber and Spike Wilbury, I do agree that the article's looking much better overall, by the way. I've got a couple more issues to comment on, specific points, but that's going to have to wait a day or two, I'm afraid. JG66 (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I was pretty sure I was remembering correctly, Leng quotes a number of reviews from across the nation. The most favorable of those seems to be John Wenderborn, commenting on the Vancouver show. At least in the bits Leng quotes, he doesn't even mention the vocal problems. Most of the reviews seem to mention either Harrison's singing issues, audience apathy, or both, though not necessarily as the defining elements of the tour. As has been mentioned, Ben Fong-Torres of Rolling Stone says, for example, "He performs 'My Sweet Lord' and out of the silence comes the silence—a still and seated audience with only the front section clapping along." (Interestingly, Lorraine Haacke notes that the Fort Worth audience was "ecstatic" during this encore.) D. P. bond of the Post-Intelligencer says, "Harrison's voice was at best raspy," but goes on to say that, "Harrison's concert tour will be a successful, well-remembered entry in rock history." Jacoba Atlas for Melody Maker called one of the LA shows "a complete delight," and Walter Dawson says that the Memphis concert showed "no evidence of raggedness."
It goes on like that for the next two or three pages. I'm going to go check the article now and see if we might be able to place a bit more emphasis on the positive reaction. While most critical reviews were negative, there seem to be a vocal minority of positive ones. I'll see what I can do. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the solution I decided on was to add a quote from one of the reviewers who liked the show. I feel this helps counterbalance the overall account, which seemed primarily focused on the negative (that was at least partially my fault). If anyone thinks this made the section unwieldy or worse overall, feel free to overrule me. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evan, FWIW, per your above comments: "As I was pretty sure I was remembering correctly, Leng quotes a number of reviews from across the nation. The most favorable of those seems to be John Wenderborn, commenting on the Vancouver show". The title of Wenderborn piece is "Opening Concert by ex-Beatle Harrison left many Listeners Grumbling".(Leng, p.332) Also, where are Leng's notes? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! By Wenderborn, I meant Larry Fleischmann (Wenderborn and Fleischman are each the first review quoted on two sequential left-hand pages; I must have turned the page and not noticed before I checked the name). It does seem to me as though Leng may be selectively choosing positive reviews in order to "stack the deck," as it were, and I do wonder what was between the ellipses in many of these. As I said, if my addition unduly weighs anything down, feel free to undo it. Not sure what you mean by "Leng's notes." Are you asking for a page number? 160-165, if so. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I guess he attributes the reviews in-line, so he doesn't need to add them to his bibliography. It is worth noting; however, that while he includes 20+ excerpts of reviews, a 45-date tour must have produced 10 to 20 times that amount of write-ups. At a conservative guess of 5 to 10 reviews per show, Leng's elided review samples would represent only about 5-10% of the conservatively estimated available reviews. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

I've skimmed through the article again, and while it's good to finally see some extended discussion given to Harrison's 1974 tour and his production and session work, the article does feel like it gets bogged down at times. I'd put that down to the lack overarching narrative discussed above; on the other hand, I agree with Spike Wilbury that comparisons with McCartney and Lennon articles are now unnecessary, because now this one actually connects with the subject, which I certainly didn't think was the case until recent additions were made.

I thought it was interesting, Evan, your point about you having been overly negative in the text re the 1974 tour. To me, going back months, this article had quite a negative undercurrent towards its subject - I'm not sure if that's quite the right way to phrase it ... To put it as clearly as possible: I got the impression that neither of you warmed towards Harrison in any way or rated him at all as an artist. Perhaps that's far from the truth, but I guess I'm thinking of recent comments about it being "a bit of a stretch" to describe Harrison as a modest person, that all he did when making guest appearances on others' recordings was provide "some basic guitar tracks". Other points of discussion, in the previous FAC, had brought this home. Of course, a healthy sense of impartiality is a good thing, but the article reflected this attitude, and quite obviously. I was pleased to read below Spike W querying a mention of "flashy" guitar playing equalling "technically difficult", as you had it previously in the article. Most guitarists would agree, I think, that it's actually more difficult to play something simple but effective (as per Petty's quote under Guitar work) than to go crazy on the fretboard. But the implication was there that Harrison somehow wasn't up to it. (Was the "technically difficult" bit in your original source ...?) I don't want to dwell on the issue; it's just that, to me, this negativity (perceived or otherwise) was a major factor in the lack of engagement and lack of "Harrison the man"/non-Beatle George focus in the article previously. Which is probably why I repeatedly drew comparisons with the other ex-Beatle articles. I think the article is now closer to delivering a more rounded and educational overview on Harrison with the latest changes. Much of this is down to an apparently more generous attitude towards the subject.

A number of things I picked up during a quick read through, some of which address remnants of that same issue.

  • I'm sure the lead-in is still a work in progress, but the mention that "By the end of their career" Harrison introduced Indian instrumentation to the Beatles' sound seems both repetitious and not entirely accurate in that context.
  • I realise that the associated acts field went through a rethink per guidelines, but if Badfinger's included, shouldn't Splinter be also? He certainly "joined the band" while producing them, just as he did with Badfinger.
  • "prolific session musician" in the lead-in (kind of what I mean by a "more generous attitude"!). Aside from the terminology, "session musician", seems like Badfinger should be included here?
  • Early years: It is a nice detail about Louise Harrison's loud voice startling visitors, but excess perhaps? I feel cruel for raising it. A more George-centric point might be a point made by Mojo writer John Harris that out off all Beatle parents, Louise H was the only one who championed her son's and the other Beatles' talents. The quote's somewhere in the Deep Blue (song) article, or it was last time I looked. See what you think, I'm certainly not pushing either way.
  • I think it makes the point that his mother was musicaly inclined, which is quite different then merely being supportive of George's music, which is already well-established previously in the paragraph by the Boyd quote. Also, per your comment: "Louise H was the only one who championed her son's ... talents", well, George's father bought him the Egmond, and his father's friend taught George his first chords, so while generally more practical then George's mother, I wouldn't say he was never supportive of George's talents and/or aspirations. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean. I didn't mean to suggest that Harry H didn't support Harrison also, just that out of all the Bealtes, Harrison was the only one who had a parent (or two) who was fully supportive of the band's success. Like I said, not pushing for any change on this. JG66 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A thorough copy edit will cover this sort of thing, of course: My Sweet Lord is linked twice within a few paragraphs. Elsewhere, authors are "introduced" (ie description and first name) at subsequent mentions rather than the first one. Ian Inglis is only introduced under Legacy, I think, yet we hear from under All things must pass, if not before. Womack also. And what's the deal with those Oxford commas? Plenty of instances without, plenty with. Would love to see them gone - utterly redundant. (Is a comma really needed in "'If I Needed Someone', and 'Think for Yourself'"?)
  • I've fixed the "MSL" linking, and properly introduced Inglis and Womack on their first mentions, I'll scan the article for similar issues. As far as the Oxford comma, 1) Evan is the one who sort of decided this for the article, so I really don't feel that I should be required to defend his actions, 2) I think this type of choice is typically left-up to the noming editors, and it is not an actionable objection per se. Having said that, I really don't care either way, I just want it made consistent, and I'm more than a little tired of these pointless minutiae-based arguments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the Oxford comma was essentially my decision. We did form a consensus on Oxford spelling at the talk page, but serial commas aren't really a part of Oxford spelling per se. If others think they should be gotten rid of, I'm fine with it, but I don't see what that has to do with the Featured Article criteria. Losing them doesn't improve the prose in any way. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malleus suggested that we remove the Oxford commas so I have attempted to do just that, but I'm sure I've missed a few and/or removed some that I shouldn't have. Commas are obviously not my strong suit. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solo career: Regardless of my opinion about Inglis's book, his presence in the article is a bit overbearing. He comments on two key songs on All Things; he's again the only contemporary reviewer we hear from re Material World, and at length there; he tells us about Harrison's "sermonizing" during the 1974 tour; we hear from him again about both Ex Texture and "This Guitar". I'll come up with suggestions to vary later examples. Under All Things, is it possible to get a Leng quote to cover discussion of Isn't It a Pity, instead of having Inglis's view on both songs?
  • Concert for Bangladesh: Relevant to suggestions below about cutting down on amount of text afforded Material World and Dark Horse period, I wonder if it might be an idea to include a quote from Rolling Stone online's Harrison bio, the quote says something about Harrison unwittingly being the centre of attention as a result of the Bangladesh aid project. (Sorry to be vague. I'm working on an iPad here, battery's almost gone. You'll find the piece I'm thinking of in the refs section for The Best of George Harrison.) I just think that's a fair observation to add here; also that it would provide something on Harrison's standing at this early point following the Beatles breakup, and avoid a couple of issues that surface in the text covering his next two or three albums.
  • Are you referring to this online bio? If so, can you please be more specific about which quotation you recommend we include? Because I'm not seeing anything there regarding "Harrison unwittingly being the centre of attention as a result of the Bangladesh aid project". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies - it's in fact Bruce Eder's Allmusic bio on Harrison. The sentence I was thinking of is: "In the most towering irony imaginable, the reluctant Beatle became the beneficiary of most of the lingering good will attached to the group." My thinking is that a comment such as that is both appropriate in the text discussing Bangladesh, and also goes towards avoiding the rather bogged-down situation that Inglis' comments create under Material World. This latter issue involves some other changes, which I'll tie up below. I just wanted to give you the correct bio link right now. As mentioned , it might be an idea to hold off with replies, because I'd much rather present you with something that's complete and actionable. JG66 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Material World: The first sentence, discussing chart placing in Us and Uk for single and album seems a bit wordy. The only thing I can suggest is rewording to state that they both topped the US charts, and maybe take mention of UK chart peaks to an endnote (?)
  • The discussion that follows on this album is one of those examples of an unnecessarily negative picture of the situation, IMO. It does seem as though the unfavorable reviews get a lot of focus. I can see why, because of the point from Inglis about the effect of this criticism on Harrison, so I'm not saying its necessarily for the wrong reasons. But Living in the Material World is much admired by many authors (Leng, Greene, Rodriguez, Tillery, Huntley), and it received some amazing reviews on release. The praise heaped on the album by Stephen Holden of Rolling Stone is the most effusive I've ever seen for a Beatle solo album, if not for any album of that era in an RS review. My suggestion would be to quote from Holden's review, but point out that some other critics were less enthusiastic, and forget Inglis's segue altogether. Apart from the issue of balance, currently a lot of text is dedicated to this album, Dark Horse and the 1974 tour, which seems out of proportion with acclaimed works such as All Things and Bangladesh. (Dont you think?) Also worth pointing out that other highly regarded albums such as George Harrison, Cloud Nine and Brainwashed receive no discussion at all regarding critical response; Thirty Three gets a brief line on this issue, no more. I was all for showing some sort of development in Harrison's career through this decade, I know, but the attention afforded this 1973-75 period just can't be replicated for the other releases, I imagine. JG66 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made an edit that, I think, tightens-up and balances this section nicely. 1973–1979 is by far the most prolific 6 years of Harrison's solo career, and arguably the most notable after ATMP and Bangladesh; therefore, that it seems slightly more detailed then other, less notable sections is I think quite fine. Having said that, I've added some minor, but important details regarding George Harrison, Cloud Nine and Brainwashed, which I believe will go a long way towards improving the article's overarching narrative while respecting brevity. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with you at all, I'm just mindful of earlier concerns about article length and a recent comment on that issue from Tim Riley. I worry that more text is being added than is needed perhaps. The discussion on the 74 tour reads very nicely, for instance, but I think the sentence or two that Evan added (from Leng's book) could in fact be removed in the interests of keeping the discussion more concise. As mentioned a couple of times previously, I thought your wording (without that new point from Leng) was absolutely fine: very fair, with the Rodriguez and Leng quotes concluding the discussion. Rather than qualifying the point about critical consensus at the time, if something else is needed it would be mention of this being first US tour by an exBeatle and Harrison's refusal to play ball, I think. If you wouldn't mind bearing with me, I hope to give you some suggestions about cutting down the amount of text needed in this section but still retaining the overall message. Adding that Bangladesh point is the first thing to help achieve this, and I think mention of Harrison's anti-Beatle feelings on the tour might work well with that. For what it's worth, my feeling is that the brief comment on 33 & 1/3 being warmly received is just fine, same for what relatively little there is in the way of reviewers' comments for Harrison's best known release, All Things Must Pass. More soon. JG66 (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dark Horse: I think discussion on the album has to follow text on the tour. The harsh reviews the album received, particularly from RS, stemmed from the tour, in part. Those that had no problem with the tour (Melody Maker, Billboard, Circus Raves) reviewed the album very positively. The RS quote you've taken actually makes reference to this chronology. Also, that "complete disaster" phrase from Joshuua Greene, it's actually him paraphrasing Jim Miller's RS review. Just seems odd to see it, I suppose, when Miller's words appear straight afterwards.

Sorry, this has been very rushed. I'll come back with part two tomorrow. Might be best if you let me come back, reword, clarify, tie up points, first before getting into heavy discussion. I'm sure much of it doesn't make sense yet. JG66 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for using bullet points, they are much easier for me to follow. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think of this version of the 1973 to '79 solo work section. Not as short as I'd hoped maybe, but then I did add mention of first US tour by ex-Beatle along with quote from Mikal Gilmore on Dark Horse album. The edit history on that page may have some comments/explanations if youre interested. Also, there's a quote under LITMW that's attributed to Greene in the text but Leng in the citation; I think it is Leng, but might be an idea to have input from Greene instead, to avoid too much coming from Leng? To my way of thinking, the text in this version is now tighter, with some repetition removed. Worth adding perhaps that I had second thoughts about doing this; so I re-read the article from midway through the Beatles section down, and I still got that feeling that the discussion got bogged down from LITMW onwards. As I say, see what you think.

1) JG66, as much as I greatly appreciate your effort, I'm not at all a fan of the "copy-paste from my sandbox" method. 2) FWIW, when you edit like this, you often add and/or move material around so that the following source no longer supports the preceeding assertions in the text. E.g., while you listed Preston, Tom Scott, Willie Weeks, Andy Newmark and Jim Horn as DHT musicians, the supporting source, Inglis pp.48–49, does not mention Weeks or Newmark, so one would need to add Leng, p.167 (as I've now done, but as you can see, this method would require a re-check of all the sourcing). 3) I've added a few of the better bits in your draft, but perhaps you could bullet point the other important things that you think should be added or removed, as you had been doing above. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Well, a couple of weeks ago, you did ask/suggest I write a subsection on Harrison's extracurricular music projects in my sandbox. Is this so different? Each change in this 1973-79 section would've taken a sentence or two to explain, so I thought it was easier to present it and save time and space here. 2) Yes, I appreciate that. Sorry, yet again: I'm away from my books so I couldn't check the refs. Seemed important to mention Weeks and Newmark; in fact, Keltner only joined the tour halfway through. 3) Will do. Please note the Dark Horse Tour article you've linked to is not the same tour. Bullet-listed points coming soon. JG66 (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some points that I hope might support more of the changes I suggested yesterday for the subsection covering 1973 to 1979 under Solo Work. I think it might be an idea to first read, even skim-read, the article up to the start of this subsection as it currently stands. Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks this (?), but the article really slows down when we come to this '73-74 period. I've only got time right now to cover the 1973 album, so more to follow soon.
  • Looking at the wording right now under Living in the Material World, the big problem, I think, is that final observation from Inglis. Really, it belongs with Inglis's earlier point about Harrison's despondency at some of the less favorable reviews for LITMW - that's what "it coincided with" relates to. Even then, though, I don't think it would work, because more of Inglis's text would be needed to fully deliver the point (text that was in the article briefly, I think, about Harrison having never known anything but critical praise for the Beatles' work and his own). Not only that, but this observation from Inglis gives the discussion of LITMW an unduly negative tone, when in fact the negativity belongs in discussion of Dark Horse and Extra Texture, because those are the projects to which Inglis refers. Another thing is, I think Inglis is simplifying the situation about Harrison's "despondency"; more so than critics sniping at LITMW (mostly in the UK), I suggest it was continued problems with the Bangladesh proceeds and the new "front" against Klein in 1973, along with the failure of his marriage, that really brought Harrison down. I just made a change to that version I came up with, reinstating Inglis's "self-righteous, maudlin, and clumsy in its execution" comment, which I'd deleted previously. As you'll see, I've now deleted the Inglis "It coincided with ... a mood of gloom and cynicism" point - I think that quote creates too many problems. Maybe this new version appeals.
  • Streamlined and way better, yes. I've just corrected that ref for Greene's point in the article. Only thing I'd question is the inclusion of "overly sentimental" – might be best to leave out unless the ref does support that description? JG66 (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned last time, the quote about LITMW containing many of the strongest compositions of Harrison's career is attributed to Greene in the text, but the ref carries Leng as the source.
  • Talking about Leng, a way to at least touch on the issue that Inglis raises in that quote is to replace the Mikal Gilmore quote about Dark Horse with Leng's description of the 1974 album as "a musical soap opera, cataloguing rock-life antics, marital strife, lost friendships, and self-doubt" (p 159). It doesn't quite have the same tone as Inglis', I know. (And personally I love that quote from Gilmore.) JG66 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1974 tour. I think there's some text here that's redundant, and I felt I'd finetuned the discussion in the version I'd proposed. The first example of this is "His 45-date Dark Horse Tour, which extended into late December, received mixed reviews", because later on there's: "Despite numerous positive reviews, the consensus reaction to the tour was negative ..." So the mixed reviews point is handled later on, and in a more informative way. I suggest, remove that earlier sentence ("His 45-date Dark Horse Tour ...") and reinstate December in the first sentence of the paragraph. So much on reviews and critical consensus appears later in the para, I really don't think the situation re critical response needs to be outlined upfront. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The order of musicians I came up with reflected Preston and Scott's roles as featured performers during the shows, but omitted Keltner because he only participated in about half of the tour. I suggest the order should be Preston, Tom Scott, Willie Weeks, Andy Newmark and Jim Horn. Also, link for Scott here rather than later on, in the note under Thirty Three & 1/3. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording in my version also avoided mention of these musicians having "worked on the album", because, with discussion of Dark Horse moved down in the article, no album has been mentioned yet. So that needs to be either per my version or reworded somehow. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the various issues that critics had with the tour really goes on, I think, and I'd really tried to streamline this. (More than anything, with all this discussion on what critics thought about the tour and his albums during this period, it highlights the fact that little is offered about the projects, musically. Much could be said about Harrison deliberately paring down the ATMP sound for LITMW and working with a small group of musicians unlike in 1970; Dark Horse sees him embracing funk and soul music genres, going for an obvious American sound. I don't suggest you add these details, with article length where it is, but do you see what I mean – the more text is given to critical reaction throughout this section, the more obvious the omissions regarding content become?) With the '74 tour, I definitely think "complaints about the content, structure, and length; the show's duration of two and a half hours was seen as excessive at the time" should go, seeing as three sentences follow this, all detailing critics' objections. (And if the points about structure and 2.5 hour duration get missed out, does it matter?) I hoped that what I came up with might make the overall picture clear enough to readers without affording the negative reaction too much in the way of detail: "Despite numerous positive reviews, the consensus reaction to the tour was negative.[9] Some fans found Shankar's significant presence a bizarre disappointment, and many were affronted by what Inglis described as Harrison's "sermonizing" as well as his reworking of the lyrics to several Beatles songs.[10] His laryngitis-affected vocals also disappointed fans and critics, who began calling the tour "dark hoarse"." JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dark Horse album. Good to see both the Gilmore and the Leng quotes here after all. I'd lose the "remarkably revealing" portion of Leng's, though, because – and I'm sure Leng says this elsewhere – all of Harrison's 1970s albums are remarkably revealing. Also because the preceding Gilmore quote implies this quality in Dark Horse. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra Texture. You must've made some recent cuts here, which is great because previously this discussion was bogged with comment and opinion about the album. Is it okay that Voormann's linked for a second time, after first appearance under All Things Must Pass? JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirty Three & 1/3. I'd take the note mentioning Scott's production assistance to sit instead at the end of the paragraph, and bring the note discussing The Best of George Harrison forward to sit at end of first sentence. This latter note needs additional text, I think, something like: "Released during the same month, ..." Otherwise, the Best of note seems tagged on, apropos of nothing in the main text. Also because the aside regarding Scott seems more appropriate following comment on the album's content: "With an emphasis on melody and musicianship, and a more subtle subject matter than the pious message of his earlier works ..." JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Harrison. Please note the rewording I came up with previously: "The death of his father in May 1978 and the birth of his son in August that year were transformational life events ..." Otherwise, certainly with no month given for release of the album, it appears that his father died in May 1979. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more comments to come, if memory serves me right, about later solo section. JG66 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments Pt II
  • Somewhere in England. As a further culling of the discussion about Lennon's death and his relationship with Harrison up to that point, I think the sentence beginning "Their estrangement had been marked by ..." could sit in an end note. The change would only be a cosmetic one, I realise, but removing this point from the main text would lessen the feeling that the discussion gets bogged down again. JG66 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph covering 1985 to early 1987. I know you told Indopug that he should put questions my way about the need for this discussion, but in fact I've never supported it, as far as I can remember. Because of the detail that's there on Birmingham Heart Beat, and especially because of what appeared under 1988–2001 until recently for the 1992 Porcaro benefit – and also because Harrison's walk-on at a 1990 Clapton gig is included – I suggested adding mention of Harrison's 1987 appearances with Bob Dylan. But for no other reason than they're as notable as the Heartbeat, Porcaro and Clapton gigs. On the subject of Harrison's live performances, though, I had also questioned the omission of his guest spot with Gary Wright on The Dick Cavett Show in November 1971 and his performance with Paul Simon on SNL five years later; I've also mentioned that he made guest appearances at concerts by Elton John and Deep Purple, yet they're not mentioned in the article, nor the fact that he joined Clapton on stage in late 1978 at Guildford Civic Hall. (Then there are his Henley Music Mafia knees-ups at various Oxfordshire pubs ...) So I've always been a bit confused about what merits inclusion as far as Harrison's rare live appearances go. It's not clear to readers that Harrison might've played (and did play) at other gigs besides the ones mentioned in these subsections – that's what bothers me actually: it's easy to assume that gigs mentioned in the article right now constitute a definitive list. Anyway, I certainly don't think each and every gig should be mentioned. My first suggestion would be to delete mention of the 1990 Clapton gig under Later life: 1988–2001, because it automatically throws up questions of why guest spots such as Clapton '78 and Elton and Deep Purple (early '80s) are not included. JG66 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, I would add, in an end note under Thirty Three & 1/3 that, amid Harrison's major promotional campaign for that album (the first time he'd ever engaged in that level of promotion), he appeared on Saturday Night Live with Paul Simon in November 1976. That's quite an important event in Harrison's musical story, imo. JG66 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that the gap between 1982 and 1987 does need filling, and the Carl Perkins special and Prince's Trust concert should certainly be mentioned; probably Heart Beat too, since Harrison was effectively "special guest" by appearing at the show's finale. I'd include the songs performed at the Perkins special and Prince's Trust, but remove mention of songs and fellow performers at Heart Beat. Along with these two, maybe three, live appearances, the most correct way to fill the gap would be to mention Harrison's increased involvement with film, surely – HandMade, of course, but also his "I Don't Want to Do It" single for Porky's Revenge. I don't think that'll interfere with the separate section on HandMade. JG66 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still the Dylan '87 gig(s), of course. I'd first reword the start of that sentence "The following year, he appeared at The Prince's Trust concert ..." to introduce Harrison's 1987 comeback after his years away in film: "The following year, marking his public return to music-making, he appeared at The Prince's Trust concert ..." (That'll only work if his time away has been commented on as suggested, obviously.) Then, in an end note, something like: "Harrison also made guest appearances that year at a Palomino Club gig by blues singer Taj Mahal, accompanied by Dylan and John Fogerty, and during two dates on Dylan's UK tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers." – and remove Harrison's recollection of the Taj gig. I think the shows with Dylan in 1987 and the SNL appearance in 1976 are important to include. I'll help with refs if you agree. JG66 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Traveling Wilburys. I've ummed and ahhed about this, but there's a problem here with the para beginning "In 1989 Harrison and Starr appeared in the music video", because the text covering Harrison's 1991–92 concerts through to mention of the Dylan 30th anniversary concert in 1992 doesn't correspond with the subsection heading: The Traveling Wilburys. A simple solution would be to insert a new subheading. I've got a solution that's a little more creative, though; it breaks slightly with the chronological order of events and instead attempts to adhere to a Wilburys theme for these projects through to late 1992:
  • To set up for this, I think you need to avoid leaving the Wilburys era with such finality (which certainly isn't in keeping with Harrison's story, I suggest). I'm talking about that sentence: "The Wilburys never performed live and the group did not record together again following the release of their second album." How about adding/rewording to say something like: "Although the Traveling Wilburys never performed live and the group did not record together again following their second album, Harrison continued to view himself as a Wilbury for the rest of his life." (That's paraphrasing a quote from Petty, the original of which I can dig up.) JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That, hopefully, flows naturally into discussion of Wilbury-ish projects like the Petty album. The current wording for "I Won't Back Down" has traces of that Beatle focus, imo. I suggest, for the whole para: "Harrison supplied acoustic guitar and backing vocals on Petty's hit song "I Won't Back Down" in 1989, and appeared in the video along with Lynne and Starr. The following year, he played slide guitar on Lynne's first solo album, Armchair Theatre, and on the title track to Dylan's Under the Red Sky. In October 1992 Harrison performed at Dylan's 30th anniversary tribute concert in New York, playing alongside Dylan, Petty and others, including Clapton, Roger McGuinn and Neil Young. The year before this, in December 1991, he undertook his first series of headlining concerts since 1974 when he toured Japan with Clapton. On 6 April 1992, Harrison held a benefit concert for the Natural Law Party at London's Royal Albert Hall, his first and only full-length concert performance in the UK as a solo artist. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that's pretty bold, but it does at least keep the Wilburys focus intact through (most of) this para. (I don't know if you agree about this point – I just can't see how, logically, the third paragraph can sit under the Wilburys heading otherwise.) Absolutely no problem finding refs for all the above, I hasten to add. Please note that change regarding the Natural Law Party concert: certainly not "his first London performance since the Beatles' 1969 rooftop concert", because he'd played a couple of songs at Wembley in 1987. Also, mention of "Under the Red Sky" could therefore be removed from the Studio collaborations subsection. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you're keeping compilation albums out of the main discussion, but I wonder if it might be an idea to include mention of "Cheer Down" in the main text, since Petty co-wrote the words. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Coatrack. This is yet another of your endless requests for more detail that do not in anyway tie-in with the overarching narrative. The article already says: "Harrison co-wrote songs and music with Dylan, Clapton, Preston, Doris Troy, David Bromberg, Gary Wright, Wood, Jeff Lynne, and Tom Petty, among others.[253]" That's quite enough IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the Natural Law Party gig received excellent reviews – I don't want to be adding any excess detail but it might be an idea to add a very brief mention, this being Harrison's only full UK gig. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Beatles Anthology. I find a similar issue – discussion not corresponding with the subsection heading – in the paragraph beginning "His final television appearance was to promote Chants of India ..." It's not ideal, but my suggestion would be to at least segue from Anthology to this non-Anthology text, something like: "Rather than return to a solo career as McCartney and Starr did following promotion for Anthology in 1996, Harrison collaborated with Ravi Shankar on the latter's Chants of India album. His final television appearance was a VH-1 special to promote the album, taped in May 1997." JG66 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think mention of Harrison overseeing the 30th anniversary edition of All Things Must Pass and his promotional work through to February 2001 might be good to include somewhere. (A sentence no more.) By all accounts (eg Huntley), he threw himself into the task, and it was a very successful campaign. Most importantly, it seems that the various interviews and the electronic press kit were pretty much the last that the outside world heard from Harrison himself. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking ahead through the rest of the article, I'm reluctant to get too involved. I think I'll have to apply Spike Wilbury's approach that there's much I would change but ... and leave it at that. I love that there's a substantial section on guitar work now – as always I'd like to see more on Harrison's solo years, especially his slide playing, rather than Beatles era. I'll keep a respectful distance, but I have noticed that some of the text in that section reads more like Songwriting than Guitar work. For example: "Harrison wrote his first published song, "Don't Bother Me" (1963), almost exclusively in Dorian mode" – it does read like a discussion of compositional style, less so one on his guitar playing. I will take a more active look at Studio collaborations, though. Bit disappointed that albums like Raga, In Concert 1972 and Shankar Family & Friends don't get a mention – I really don't believe there was any Western pop musician other than Harrison producing albums of Indian music or any other "world" music in the early 1970s (let alone also releasing them and promoting them). It's okay, don't reply to that(!); I'm just thinking aloud ... JG66 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • JG66, when you write guitar parts you do so in modes, as with Dorian. Modes do not only relate to the vocal melody, which actually follows the guitar part in the song. Anyway, I'm absolutely done addressing your comments. There is nothing left but your own personal opinions and nitpicks. Also, with five supports from five trusted reviewers, I'd say go ahead and oppose (we always knew you would anyway) so that this tedious and dysfunctional relationship can end asap. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you always knew I would be opposing, you knew more than I did. I had every intention of supporting; in this second FAC, I think I've shown that I've been taking on other reviewers' comments and been mindful of the general progress of this forum. If Casliber shares some of the concerns I had in FAC1, for instance, but feels the required "colour" can be achieved by adding "1-3 sentences in each section", I've respected that at least the issue's being addressed at last and maybe that's the most viable option, rather than the overhaul I'd thought was necessary. If Tim Riley's previously strong support becomes merely mild because of article length, I've tried to incorporate that concern in suggestions I have. It is/has been tedious and dysfunctional; I can't think of anything more tedious than having to keep conversing about Rolling Stone's opinion of the 1974 tour when I'd said, and kept repeating, that balance was now okay – no point in continuing the discussion. (But still you'd come back for more.) Or having to point out on three occasions that Harrison's production work for others should be included in that proposed new section, while you constantly referred to his session playing only. And I've not once read you acknowledge your part in all this miscommunication – which I think is very telling. As is your apparent u-turn from stating that Harrison supplied merely "some basic guitar tracks for his friends and clients of Apple" to immediately agreeing with Spike W's statement days later that "He formed real personal relationships with those musicians ... he did a lot more than just clock in and record some tracks" and your deciding that Harrison was "prolific" in this area. And that's only from this particular FAC.
  • I don't care what letters of the alphabet appear in the article's quality rating, and this popularity-contest approach highlights everything I've always been concerned about regarding FACs. It would be so easy to apply those changes I suggested above – it certainly would've taken me a whole lot less time to just jump in and do them myself than having to itemise each and every change here. I don't believe they're nitpicks (obviously); I think the article would benefit in each case. For example, I can't see how heading hierarchy works, logically, when text that is so obviously non-Wilburys related appears under a heading "The Traveling Wilburys". I know this stuff backwards, I can picture a point made on a verso in Clayson or Leng's books or a recto in Greene or I Me Mine; that dedication to this one subject is going to give me plenty to say in a forum such as this, and win me few friends in the process no doubt. But you've got a majority in the house, Senator, so go for it. JG66 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Wilbury

  • Comment: I've been reading through this and will post comments soon, but in the mean time, can you locate a new link for ref 236? The article is gone and I can't find it on the source web site. I'd like to read the text supporting that sentence. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and comment. I don't know how to implement the wayback machine, but I'm sure Evan does. Worst case scenario, we could trim-out that first bit, and start the section with the Wenner quote, though I suspect we could also source the sentence with our printed sources, but my eyes are too tired now ... more tomorrow. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. Thanks, Spike! I'm looking forward to the rest of your comments. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments:
  • 1a: It is well-written overall. I could find niggles all over the page, but they are largely subjective (not outright errors) and I expect for everything I would find to change, someone else might find reason to change it back. I might perform a light copy edit on a less visible article, but on an article of this scope and visibility, we ought to aim for stability.
  • 1b: I think the chronological sections covering his life and career are very good. I do not say this lightly, as I have spent extensive time reading the comments of JC66 in particular. I'm not convinced that repeated comparisons to Lennon's and McCartney's articles are entirely useful. Even though Harrison shares a lot with them musically, his article is going to look different because he was a much different kind of person with a different path and a different approach to music. I can't even imagine the challenge of creating a comprehensive Harrison article without having the finished product look like an overstuffed armchair. The rest of the article seems comprehensive, with a one exception:
  • I'm not very satisfied with the "Guitar work" section overall. It seems to most mostly a collection of quotations about his playing, but we don't get any real sense of what kind of guitar player Harrison was from a guitarist's perspective. This is a section a real musician will browse to, and he'll leave not knowing much. The article you cite earlier from Acoustic Guitar has some basic information about his technique and use of voicings; that is rudimentary information that should be included in this section.
  • Thanks for your comments, I'm working on it. FWIW, I am a "real musician" and a guitarist of almost 30 years, so I hear you on the content issue. I try to avoid too much jargon-esque language, but I'll do my best to flesh-out his playing in a way more pleasing to musicians. Great comment, thanks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some improvements to the Guitar work section that I hope will resolve your concerns. If not, please let me know what I've missed. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: Overall the research looks thorough and well-done. I have the Leng book and did some random checks for accuracy of sourcing. I didn't find any issues there. There are a couple instances where I feel that we could do a better job interpreting the source:
  • In which sources are Harrison's contributions to other projects referred to as "Session work"? In the business, session musicians are more "hired guns"; someone needs a ripping guitar solo, or their touring guitarist sucks, so they hire a highly technical guy to come in and lay down tracks. It's strictly a professional arrangement. I think this term doesn't do justice to Harrison's real contributions to the works you mention in that section. He formed real personal relationships with those musicians and he did a lot more than just clock in and record some tracks.
  • I'm not sure about the sentence "Harrison's guitar work with the Beatles typified the more subdued lead guitar style of the early 1960s, rejecting the technically difficult and flashy playing that had gained popularity by the end of the decade" (Guitar Work), especially the phrase "technically difficult". The source does say that Harrison eschewed "flashy" playing, but, if anything, the source praises his ability to fit difficult voicings and techniques into Beatles tunes. Harrison was shown to be quite a proficient player and "technically difficult" should not be considered synonymous with "fast".
  • I'm not sure what is meant by "incorporating the blues guitar style of Clapton and Indian gamakas". It's clear what he took from Clapton (blues guitar style) but what did he take from gamakas?
  • The source only says that he used them, it does not describe what they are, though from what I can gather, they are akin to an interval on a guitar or piano, only with some special character to it which sets it apart, perhaps not unlike a micro-leitmotif. Do you think we should trim the bit out, or introduce a source that explains what an Indian gamaka is? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1d: The article appears neutral; I didn't not notice any obvious POV.
  • 1e: This is a highly visible article so a lot of editing is to be expected, but I don't see any edit warring that would affect stability.
  • 2a: The lead is rather short considering the breadth of the article. The first paragraph mostly covers his songwriting, while the second paragraph mentions a few key activities. I think the lead could be expanded by at least two decent-sized paragraphs to mention his musicianship, major influences, professional relationships aside from Shankar, and major side projects (Wilburys, etc).
  • 2b: The article is structured well considering the subject. It's been a while since I've really looked at other FA's for guitarists, but this should be a useful structural analog.
  • 2c: Citations and references look good.
  • 3: I checked the media included in the article and didn't notice any licensing issues.
  • 4: I was glad to see that SandyGeorgia's comments from the previous nomination were taken on board regarding the length. I do feel that there is a good comprehensive overview here and that additional detail should be relegated to side articles.

I really like seeing this article here, in this condition. Thank you sincerely for putting so much hard work into it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley

Mild support. The article is very long, and goes into more detail (brands of guitar?) than is ideal in an encyclopaedia article. But the prose is readable and, Heaven knows, nobody could fault the article on grounds of comprehensiveness. If it were two thirds of its present length I'd be more enthusiatic in my support, but I think it meets the FA criteria in its way. Tim riley (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check

All ok (most images and samples were already checked and discussed during the last FA-nom), just one minor question:

Ah, well, no particular reason. I've only ever uploaded two images to Wikipedia, and I'm not particularly good with figuring out licensing and stuff. That was a mistake on my part. Take a look now; I think I fixed it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Just looked odd to downgrade the license version, no big issue. GermanJoe (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum

I was rather critical of the fragmentary prose when I was first asked to look at this article, but after GabeMc asked me to take another look at it today I can see that it's been greatly improved. Like Tim riley I think it's a little on the long side, but I am now leaning towards support. I need to spend a day or so reading through the whole thing again though. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Malleus! Your further input will, of course, be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that a great deal of good work has been done since I last looked at this article, and I'm still leaning towards support, but I have a few reservations about the necessity for some of the detail, For instance, "Soon after, his mother bought him a cheap acoustic guitar that he almost immediately broke. He then hid the guitar in a cupboard, where it remained until his brother Peter fixed it for his own use in the wake of the UK skiffle craze." I'm struggling to see the relevance or significance of that.
  • From the Early years: 1943-57 section: "Harrison developed a dry sense of humour as a youth, influenced by the surreal comedy of The Goon Show." That seems completely out of place and out of context. Would it be better somewhere in the Family, friends and interests section?
  • The early solo work section is written almost entirely in the past tense? Why? Does Wonderwall Music not still blend Indian and Western sounds for instance, or not still contain "Dream Scene"?
  • "... Harrison organized a charity event, the Concert for Bangladesh, on 1 August 1971". That looks like he did the organizing on 1 August 1971, whereas what I think is meant is that the concert took place on 1 August 1971.
  • "... a guitar that featured strings tuned in octaves which produced distinct overtones". It's not at all clear what that "which" is referring to. The guitar? The strings? The tuning? Why can't any old guitar be tuned in that way in any case?

Support. I'm satisfied now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug

I find that a particular pet-peeve of mine manifests itself several times in the article—sentences that are just long lists of items separated by commas. The problem with this listy style is that it makes for tedious reading. It also discourages the lay reader, because a sentence like 'He combined gospel music tradition with Hindu bhajan in his compositions: "My Sweet Lord", "Give Me Love", and "It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna)" ' can only be appreciated by somebody who has heard those songs.

  • In the lead, I find no less than five such sentences (for eg: "...George Formby, Django Reinhardt, and Big Bill Broonzy. Chet Atkins, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, and Ry Cooder...").
  • Later on too, this problem persists, leading to an unnecessarily detailed coverage of an issue that barely needs mention. For eg: the list of songs he performed at the Carl Perkins show and the ELO-organised benefit. (I find that entire paragraph a bit pointless—musicians play shows, no need to describe every one of them)
  • I don't entirely disagree, but removing the graph would create a 5-year gap in the chronology, leaving the reader wondering if Harrison was active at all during this period, which he was. Speak with FAC reviewer User:JG66 for more detail. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major culprit, though, is Musicianship, where lists of songs abound in Songwriting and Guitar work. The latter, especially, might be better off as a three-para overview and evolution of his guitaring, rather than the current series of short summaries of several songs.
  • You know as well as I do that if we do not engage in serious critical commentary regarding the songs in-line, then we cannot justify inclusion of an ogg file, which you have more than once insisted I add to FACs. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studio collaborations: I'd go to the extent of saying delete this section and recast the information as a separate table-based article. The general stuff and quotes about his collaboratory personality can be tucked-in elsewhere.
  • Another example of excessive detail—HandMade Films, which reads like the perfect lead for that article. If you cut down to a summary of Harrison-relevant material (basically a summary of the first and last paras) you can just tuck it in chronologically in his life.
  • I disagree. Harrison was instrumental in salvaging British cinema during the 1980s, his involvement with the company is quite notable, and forcing it into the chronology will only weaken the narrative. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The third point and last point bring me to another major issue of the article--the number of sections after the chronological biography leads to each topic being discussed excessively in detail. For eg: Hinduism, why do we need to know every holy man he met? Or a less-than-accessible paragraph of his thoughts of Lord Krishna (and I say this as somebody born in a Hindu family).—indopug (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly disagree. The point about Harrison's understanding of Krishna was added in an effort to flesh-out "Harrison the man", an important issue that has been repeatedly referred to as an area needing improvement regarding the article's overaching narrative. From ragas in utero to Shankar to his funeral and posthumous album it comes full-circle ala Hinduism. Thanks for your comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

This humungously long review page suggests that this nomination should have been withdrawn a while ago, worked on, and resubmitted. Reviewer resources are limited and shouldn't be squandered thus. Let's take one sentence from the lead:

"He became interested in the Hare Krishna movement, and an admirer of Indian culture and mysticism, introducing it to the other Beatles and to their Western audience, as he came to express and assert himself by incorporating Indian instrumentation in their music."

  • Clunky, long sentence.
  • So he became interested in an admirer of Indian culture and mysticism? Who? ...
  • "introducing it"—should that be them? If not, which of the two does it refer to?
  • Is "as" a causal or simultaneity meaning here? (If causal, "since" or "because" is better.)

I notice you use marked themes (i.e. sentence openings that are unusual, but still grammatical) without checking whether they flow. Just something to watch in your writing. "Also a music and film producer, he founded Dark Horse Records in 1974 and co-founded HandMade Films in 1978." As usual, the additive connector "also" isn't really necessary, so kill two birds with one stone, and start: "As a music and ..."? Here's another marked theme, just two seconds later—this time of a different class, a thematic equative, in which the comma functions as an equals sign: "A prolific recording artist, he was featured as a guest guitarist on tracks by Badfinger, Ronnie Wood and Billy Preston, and he collaborated on songs and music with Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton and Tom Petty, among others." It's ok, but please keep these in conscious mind for a while as you write. You might consider dropping the last "he", which surivives by ellipsis nicely.

Another thing to watch: shoving too much into one sentence. Look at this one: "Harrison was married twice, first to Pattie Boyd from 1966 to 1977 and from 1978 until his death from lung cancer in 2001 to Olivia Trinidad Arias, with whom he had one son, Dhani." Possibly just punctuate it to save the readers' holding on to too much in their working memory: "Harrison was married twice—first to Pattie Boyd from 1966 to 1977; and from 1978 until his death from lung cancer in 2001 to Olivia Trinidad Arias, with whom he had one son, Dhani." But I haven't fixed the reversal of order (person–year-range, then year-range–person) ... that's a crossword puzzle to solve! Tony (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think all these issues have been dealt with now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Alcohol laws of New Jersey

Nominator(s): User:ColonelHenry, User:DavidinNJ

I am nominating this for featured article because over the last month and about 500 edits, I and User:DavidinNJ have transformed this article into a comprehensive analysis of New Jersey's alcoholic beverage control laws and law enforcement structure, their history, their impact on the industry, licensing, their implementation and legal issues that have developed from them interpretation and enforcement. We believe that this article covers all areas of the topic in an adequate, verifiable, and well-referenced manner. We look forward to any comments and ideas from the FA reviewers and thank you for your time and efforts. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Nikkimaria and Kafziel

Image review

  • Check captions against guidelines at WP:CAPTION - some of them seem quite long
  • None of them, as far as I read WP:CAPTION, are violative. Succinctness, according to policy, does not mean brevity. I would assert each of the caption (1) ID the subject clearly, (2) is succinct, (3) establishes relevance, (4) provides context, and (5) succeeds in focusing the reader's attention to draw him/her further into the article. They comport to examples depicted with the guideline. The guideline uses indefinite conditional verbs like "may" and "can", which imply succinctness as subordinate to the other goals of a caption (namely relevance, context, identification). Because I do not see them being violative of the guideline, could you please suggest an alternative you would prefer and/or state how you believe beyond "seem too long" that they are violative of the guideline cited? --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shortened the captions on the images. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. The opening map ends with a period but isn't a complete sentence, Ocean City uses an acronym that isn't explained until much later in the article, "legal drinking age" caption isn't clearly related to its image (the Stone Pony image does this well)
  • Grammar on Atlantic City caption

I changed "24 hours a day" to "24 hours per day." I don't see any other grammatical problems with the caption. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Ocean_City_New_Jersey_Ferris_Wheel.JPG is tagged as lacking source info
  • Because I tried to take pictures in liquor stores in New Jersey near me (asking permission first) and I was asked to leave. The Colorado store picture looks like most NJ liquor stores I know of (there isn't much of a difference from one to another really that says "this only happens in Colorado"), it illustrates the concept, and it's a free photo. Will check the other three. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be a picture of a NJ liquor store, or none at all. Personally, I say screw asking permission; that's the kind of picture anyone can take with a camera phone in the middle of a slow day. Nobody would even notice. It's the sales floor of a business that's open to the public; they don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the image isn't being used for profit. I don't think it would matter for a normal article, but for FA it's a concern. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that kind of behaviour would be at a minimum quite cavalier and worse potentially reckless. At its best, it could be successful and provide value to material presented here. At its worse, it could expose the photo-taker to arrest (trespassing, criminal mischief, etc.) and Wikipedia to tort liability (even if it was a far-fetched claim, some lawyer would still push the paperwork). Some businesses do not like photo-taking on their premises because of a paranoid but very valid fear of competitors using their model against them or amassing evidence of code violations, etc. In some jurisdictions that is an invasion of privacy or trespass that is considered a "tortious interference" and frequently litigated. There are a host of problems, and I would prefer not to be apart of improper behaviour leading to such problems nor would I be able to condone it. If permission is denied, it's denied. We should be respectful of that. I'd rather get denied permission 100 times and not get a picture than get sued or arrested once. Nevertheless, what does the free, currently-available Colorado liquor store photo lack in terms of content and illustrative merit or that makes it markedly different from a liquor store in any other jurisdiction aside from being in Colorado? If the only issue lodged against a perfectly useful, free, and illustrative photo is a detail that doesn't distinguish it as being any more distinct from a subjectively-favoured, less-available equal alternative, there is no issue. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference? The difference is that it's not in New Jersey. Maybe you don't know what the difference is, but there very well may be one. Maybe something subtle, like a brand on a shelf that isn't carried on the east coast. Or a region-specific marketing standee, like a Coors sign specifically meant for display in the Rocky Mountains. And, no, taking a photo could not have any of those legal ramifications, any more than it could have had for whoever took that one in Colorado. I'm far more concerned about respecting the quality of our Featured Articles than I am about respecting some random liquor store owner and his paranoid fantasy about property rights. Still, if you're worried about that, then you could simply remove the photo (which is in fact not very useful, because the article is not about liquor stores in general, and the photo has next to nothing to do with the caption anyway) and the same purpose is served. That's certainly an easy fix. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kafziel, You are correct that under New Jersey law a person can walk into a liquor store, and take a picture without the owner's consent. However, under state ABC regulations, the owner of a bar or can kick a person out for just about any reason. Legality aside, if a person doesn't want me to take a picture of their establishment, I'm not going to do so. I agree with Colonel Henry that we should be respectful of other's privacy. The location of the liquor store would be relevant if we were using it to showcase something unique to New Jersey. I don't see it as a problem in this case because we are just using it to highlight the fact that New Jersey has a limited number of retail licenses. That being said, I will see if there is a different picture available. DavidinNJ (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I absolutely agree that they could ask you not to; I'm just saying anyone (myself included, next time I'm there) could take a picture without asking in the first place. I apologize if my flippant "screw permission" comment made that unclear. I'm certainly not suggesting anyone slap a store owner in the face and tell him to go to hell if he asks you to leave. I would just apply the old maxim that it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. You don't need to draw attention to yourself. Don't ask anyone about it. Don't hang up any signs, don't drag a tripod and a lighting kit in there. This kind of picture doesn't even require a DSLR. Just look at your Android phone for a second, touch the screen, and you're done. For all they know, you're reading a text message. If they get pissed, you just walk out and you still have the photo and the right to use it (because US freedom of panorama includes public areas of private buildings, like lobbies and sales floors). I do that kind of stuff all the time.
That said, the picture doesn't actually illustrate anything about the limited number of retail licenses, or their relation to the population. It's just a picture of a liquor store. It's not completely out of place, obviously, but it's not necessary at all. I don't know what sort of picture could illustrate such a concept; to be relevant, it would have to somehow simultaneously convey the total population of a town and the number of liquor licenses therein. That's a tough photo to take. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the most desirable picture would be one of a downtown area with a lot of bars. I know of a few such spots in New Jersey. You can use such an image to highlight the fact that some towns have far more liquor licenses than others. I can't guarantee anything, but I'll see what I can do. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New Brunswick's Easton Avenue near the Rutgers campus would likely be the best for that. College bars...and it would come close to rivaling South Amboy's per capita stats.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (04MAR13) I believe that I've resolved the issue by replacing the Colorado liquor store photo with an iconic liquor store sign from Wildwood. By the way, Wildwood has an 58 liquor licenses, and 5000 year-round residents, which is much more than South Amboy's ratio. I guess they weren't counting vacation resorts when they listed what town had the most licenses per capita. DavidinNJ (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! No objection from me. Thanks, guys, and best of luck with the rest of the FAC. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Mattximus

  • Comment For the Liquor licenses and permits section, the fee for licenses will no doubt change with time, so is it possible to write somwhere that the numbers are "as of February 2013" or something like that? Mattximus (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by IP address

Map it may be worth appending ...."within the United states" to the caption 92.41.216.10 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by FutureTrillionaire

What's the source for all the info in the tables under the "Liquor licenses and permits" section. I don't see any citations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnotes 31 and 32. The paragraph at the start of the section explains briefy the classes of licenses, and purpose of permits. The table is an extension of that introduction. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Casino nightclubs are prohibited from offering full nudity, but the Taj Mahal casino has been granted permission to open a strip club with scantily clad dancers." What does this have to do with alcohol laws? This seems off-topic.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a source spot-check for about a dozen sources and found no issues. As for the article as a whole, I haven't read the article extensively enough to make a judgement on whether it meets all the FA criteria. I'll take a more in-depth look tomorrow.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN 23 has an inconsistent date format problem. It says "(January 3, 2013). Retrieved 8 February 2013." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc

General
  • Page size. - There are currently 59 kB and 9,602 words of readable prose in the article. I suggest you attempt to trim it down wherever possible in hopes of bringing that total closer to 8,000 words.
  • WP:AS states that articles should have "30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words" This article is near the upper end of the limit, but I don't really see any sections that can be removed without reducing the structural comprehensiveness of the article. That being said, I will do what is necessary to make the article easier to read. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Bold? - Should this text string be bold: "The state laws governing the control of alcohol beverages"?
  • Negative verb form. - "contain many peculiarities not found in other states". The negative verb form not, needs a preceeding auxillary. Consider: "contain many peculiarities that are not found in other states", or similar.
  • Unnecessary article. - "the availability of alcohol and the regulations governing". Omit the second "the".
  • Vague descriptor. - "vary greatly". Swap out "greatly" for "significantly" or "considerably", or similar.
  • Word choice. - "Today, New Jersey's alcohol industry is experiencing a renaissance". I'm not sure that "renaissance" is the best choice here.
  • Excess parentheticals? - "(i.e. wineries, breweries, distilleries, blenders), wholesalers, retailers (i.e. restaurants, bars, liquor stores, hotels, theatres, clubs)". Are these necessary?
  • Capitalisation. - "rests with the State government" is closely followed by "overseen by the state's Attorney General". Is there any reason why "state" is capped in the first mention, but not the second?
  • Starting sentence with "because". - "Because of the state's adherence", consider: "Due to the state's adherence", or similar.
  • Prose. - "New Jersey law gives individual municipalities substantial discretion". Consider: "New Jersey law allows individual municipalities substantial discretion", or similar.
  • Prose. - "creating ordinances to regulate the sale and consumption". Consider: "creating ordinances that regulate the sale and consumption".
  • Linking. - "issue retail licenses for bars, liquor stores, or for restaurants to serve alcohol to patrons." These terms appear earlier in the lead, in the parenthetical. Link on first mention in lead, and the first mention in the article body. Also, one could argue that terms as basic as bars, liquor stores, and restaurants should not be linked anyway.
  • Prose. - "are subject to high prices and fierce competition". Consider: "are subject to exorbitant fees and fervent competition", or similar.
  • Prose. - "New Jersey has a history of taverns and alcohol production dating to its early colonial history." Consider: "New Jersey's history of taverns and alcohol production dates to its early colonial period.", or similar.
  • Prose. - "dating to its early colonial history. Early colonial winemakers". Consider: "dating to its early colonial period. Colonial winemakers", or similar.
  • Prose. - "for producing quality wine", consider: "for producing high-quality wine", or similar.
  • Prose. - "specifically German and Italians". Consider: "specifically Germans and Italians".
  • Linking. - As with above, "new opportunities for the state's wineries and breweries", these linked terms appear earlier in the lead, and should be linked on their first mention in the lead, and first mention in the article, but I wonder if these common terms should be linked in the first place, per WP:OVERLINK.
Statewide statutes and enforcement
  • Prose. - "As of 2013, the current director of this Alcohol Beverage Control division is Michael I. Halfacre." Swap out "this" for "the".
  • Typo. - "towns in New Jersey began issing liquor licenses" "issing" → "issuing".
  • Prose. - "The 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which ended Prohibition, permitted the states to regulate matters related to alcohol. Immediately upon the end of Prohibition in 1933, New Jersey instituted the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, which established and granted rulemaking powers to the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control." Consider: "In 1933, the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution ended Prohibition, permitting the states to regulate matters related to alcohol. New Jersey instituted the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, which established and granted rulemaking powers to the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control." Or similar.
  • Prose. - "The Alcoholic Beverage Control Law also established". Consider: "The law also established", as ABC has already been recently introduced in the prose.
  • Prose. - "alcohol manufacturers only sell to wholesalers, who only sell to retailers, who only sell to customers." Consider: "alcohol manufacturers may only sell to wholesalers, who may only sell to retailers, who may only sell to customers."
  • Overlinking. - "the department was incorporated into the Division of Law and Public Safety under the New Jersey Attorney General's office.[13]" The NJ AG is previously linked in the sub-section.
  • Scare quotes. - "New Jersey's statutes define an 'alcoholic beverage' as". There is no need to put alcoholic beverage in quotes here.
  • Typo. - "established a three-tier alcohol distibution system". distibution → distribution.
Municipal control
  • Prose. - The first two sentences are redundant, rework.
  • Wordy prose. - "Retail (for consumption or distribution) licenses are allocated in proportion to a municipality's population. Licenses permitting on-premises retail sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages (i.e. bars and restaurants) are allocated at a ratio of one license for 3,000 residents. A "package goods" license (a distribution license) is available at a ratio of one license per 7,500 residents." Consider: "Retail licenses for consumption or distribution are allocated in proportion to a municipality's population. Licenses permitting on-premises retail sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages (i.e. bars and restaurants) are allocated at a ratio of one license for 3,000 residents. Distribution licenses are available at a ratio of one license per 7,500 residents."
  • Prose. - "Because of the law gives significant latitude in a municipality's regulatory powers", consider: "Because the law grants a municipality significant latitude in regulatory powers," or similar.
  • Template issue. - "regulatory powers, As of 2013, 37 of the state's". Your use of the {{as of}} template is causing a mid-sentence capped letter.
  • Missing preposition. - "565 municipalities are "dry towns" that prohibit the sale alcohol".
  • Update, add context, clarify. - "In 1981, the town had 37, one for every 218 residents". Is this the most recent figure, or the all-time peak?
  • Done (03MAR13) by adding "comparatively" (for the 1981 figures) and "in 2000" (to clarify a when for the 22 license). I do not have enough information to make a claim of "all-time peak" or other superlatives. I am limited by my sources. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague modifier. - "court decisions have generally exempted military bases". Consider replacing or removing "generally" as a vague modifier.
Liquor licenses and permits
  • Punctuation. - "New Jersey law provides for 29 distinct liquor licenses divided into five classes, as follows:" Omit comma following "classes" as excess.
  • with an enumerated series after a nonrestrictive clause, you always set it off with a colon, so the form "...into five classes, as follows: Class A..." was correct. DavidinNJ removed the comma, but the comma-colon usage was entirely correct.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, TMK, "as follows" is a dependent clause, and we should not use a comma to separate a terminal dependent clause from the rest of the sentence. Nevertheless, this is a decidedly minor punctuation issue that certainly isn't an actionable objection. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (04MAR13) Resolved by changing to "divided into the following five classes." DavidinNJ (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2013
  • Gabe...just fyi (since David's revision renders the issue moot)...you would be correct if and only if you were refering to dependent clauses that were restrictive appositives. This isn't one of them, it's non-restrictive. Non-restrictive clauses always are separated by commas.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation. - "with the spirit of this chapter to issue a license but the contingency has not been expressly provided for". Place a comma before "but", per WP:QUOTE, this minimal change to typographical errors in quotations is allowed/encouraged.
  • Vague modifier. - "ABC licenses are generally issued for one year". As with above, avoid the vague modifier, "generally".
Availability of retail liquor licenses
  • Excess article. - "and at a social events run by non-profit organizations". Omit the indefinate article preceeding "social events".
  • Article use. - "by becoming an sales" "an" → "a".
  • Run-on. - "The sale of a new license is usually conducted by public auction and through the intense competition", add a comma before the coordinating conjuction, "and".
  • One word or two? - "typically obtained from existing licenseholders". Should "licenseholders" be one word?
  • Scare quotes. - "to obtaining only two 'package goods' licenses." 1) if a "package goods" license is the same as a distribution license, then use the later. 2) there is no need for scare quotes around package goods.
  • Prose suggestion. - "Because the number of Class C retail licenses for bars, restaurants, and liquor stores is limited by population and often by municipal ordinances, licenses are typically obtained from existing licenseholders who choose to sell, or when a new license is offered as a town's population grows." Consider: "The number of Class C retail licenses for bars, restaurants, and liquor stores is limited by population and often by municipal ordinances. Licenses are typically obtained from existing licenseholders who choose to sell, or when a new license is offered as a town's population grows."
  • Prose. - "As a result, the price for a retail license is quite expensive and often prohibitively so." Consider: "The price for a retail license is often prohibitively expensive", or similar.
  • Prose. - "usually conducted by public auction and through the intense competition a town can reap the benefit of several hundred thousand dollars of revenue". Consider: "usually conducted by public auction, the intense competition can benefit a town by generating several hundred thousand dollars of revenue ", or similar.
  • Done (04MAR13) Rewrote sentence: "The sale of a new license is usually conducted by public auction. The intense competition can benefit a town by generating several hundred thousand dollars of revenue from the highest bidder." DavidinNJ (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague. - "Unlike in many other states, supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations in New Jersey rarely sell alcoholic beverages." Many states allow supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations to sell beer. Consider: "Supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations in New Jersey rarely sell alcoholic beverages", or similar.
  • Done (04MAR13) Rewrote two sentences to state, "Supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations in New Jersey rarely sell alcoholic beverages because state law prohibits any person or corporation from possessing more than two retail distribution licenses." DavidinNJ (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "This is largely because New Jersey limits any person or corporation to obtaining only two "package goods" licenses.[36]" Consider: "This is because New Jersey prohibits any person or corporation from obtaining more than two "package goods" licenses", or similar. Again, if "package goods licenses" is synonymous with "distibution licenses" then I would use the later for clarity and consistency and drop the unneeded scare quotes.
  • Done (04MAR13) Rewrote two sentences to state, "Supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations in New Jersey rarely sell alcoholic beverages because state law prohibits any person or corporation from possessing more than two retail distribution licenses." DavidinNJ (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scare quotes. - "to create a separate 'restaurant license' allowing".
Dry towns
  • Subject verb agreement. - "Local ordinances in Ocean City prohibits restaurant patrons". "Prohibit" should be singular.
  • Prose. - "As of 2013, only 37 municipalities in New Jersey remain completely dry towns." Consider: "As of 2013, there are 37 dry municipalities in New Jersey", or similar.
  • Prose. - "For example, the seaside resort town of Ocean City has historically been dry since it was founded". Omit historically as a redundant descriptor.
  • Prose. - "municipal leaders frequently have placed this", consider: "municipal leaders have frequently placed this".
  • Done (04MAR13) I rewrote this sentence: "Because of a desire to attract new businesses and increase property tax revenue, towns that prohibit alcohol sales frequently have public referenda on whether they should remain dry." DavidinNJ (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While it is common in colloquial American English idioms, it isn't considered correct to place an adverb (like frequently) betwixt the two verbs being modified (in this case have and placed).--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hours of operation and other licensing regulations
  • Dangling modifier. - "Besides prohibiting nudity in bars and clubs,"
  • Wordy. - "Besides prohibiting nudity in bars and clubs, it is illegal to sell liquor below cost, charge a flat fee for unlimited drinks (except for private parties and on New Year's Eve), offer any promotion that is contingent on drinking a certain amount of alcohol, allow patrons to remain after closing time, sell liquor at a drive-through window, or have a 'ladies' night' or any pricing which is regarded as discriminatory."
  • Done (04MAR13). I broke this sentence into 3 sentences: "Licensed establishments may not offer nudity. Because of concerns about excessive drinking and drunk driving, it is illegal to sell liquor below cost, charge a flat fee for unlimited drinks (except for private parties and on New Year's Eve), offer any promotion that is contingent on drinking a certain amount of alcohol, allow patrons to remain after closing time, or sell liquor at a drive-through window. Bars and clubs are prohibited from having a 'ladies' night' or any pricing which is regarded as discriminatory." DavidinNJ (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link/clarify. - "in Newark and Jersey City, no hard liquor package goods may be sold before 9 am and after 10 pm" Has it been previously established what "hard liquor" is? If not, define/clarify.
  • Wordy prose. - "liquor stores are specifically given the right to sell package beer and wine at any time on-premises sales are allowed", consider: "liquor stores may sell beer and wine during any hours that on-premises sales are allowed", or similar.
  • Vague. - "New Jersey regulations for liquor stores and bars are fairly strict."[according to whom?] In relation to what? Establish some context here if possible.
  • Done (04MAR13) I changed this to "New Jersey regulations for liquor stores and bars are extensive." Considering the laundry list of rules that follows, I think "extensive" is appropriate. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Words to avoid. - I noticed: three "Howevers", a "Furthermore", and a
  • Prose. - "ABC regulations permit a bar owner or employee to give away a free drink "on the house" as long as it is not advertised", omit "on the house" as an excess scare quote.
  • Clarity. - "Liquor stores are allowed to have beer". "Allowed to have", or "allowed to sell"?
  • Clarity. - "non-profit organizations with a special permit can have both tastings and tasting dinners". Similar to above, "can have" or "can hold/host".

In progress ... more to come. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. - The article is well-written, well-researched, and comprehensive. Perhaps a few minor prose issues remain, but certainly nothing significant enough to delay promotion to FA. Great work. Thanks for this fine contribution to the project Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by John

It's an interesting and seemingly complete article. I was easily able to find typos and spelling errors in it. I was also easily able to take out a lot of verbiage which wasn't really adding anything (eg multiple instances of "years of age"). "However" needs to be used with great care. Images shouldn't be hard-coded without good reason. I am almost ready to support this, but it'd put my mind at rest to see another copyeditor take a pass at it. --John (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Grammarxxx

  • Establishments offering BYOB are not allowed to charge "any admission fee or cover, corkage or service charge or advertise inside or outside of such premises that patrons may bring and consume their own wine or malt alcoholic beverages" (missing a period). Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done At the beginning of the drinking age section, I added "21 years old" once. I don't think we need to have "21 years old" or "21 years of age" for every instance of 21. We formerly had that, and it seemed too verbose. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's largely a matter of opinion, but I agree with DavidinNJ and with John who reviewed it above, the fact that it's 21 years old is firmly established and doesn't need to be repeated ad nauseam.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • Quite a few dup links according to Ucucha's script -- some may be justified owing to the article's length but pls review and see what can go. Certainly reasonably common terms like fingerprint don't need to be linked twice, perhaps not even once.
  • Do we really need a comma after "e.g."? I generally see it without, or is it an AmEng thing?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Grammatically, it's in that category of clauses like the comma-bearing non-restrictive appositives. But I agree, usage should be consistent one way or the other. Of the six major style guides (Chicago Manual of Style, Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, The Guide to Grammar and Writing, Lynch Guide to Grammar, Fowler's Modern English Usage) five advise the comma use. Only Fowler disagrees. Please advise which you would prefer. --ColonelHenry (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a comprehensive look at an obscure piece of pre-Indonesian literature. Lie Kim Hok was one of the earliest Chinese Indonesian writers and is known as the father of Chinese Malay literature, but his oeuvre has been little studied. This, his first major work of fiction, seems to have been the most discussed so far. It's also ironic, in my opinion, that the work which brought him so much fame was also the one which essentially ruined his legacy. Why? Read the article :-). As a side note, if promoted this will be our first featured article on a work of literature from what is now Indonesia. I'd like to thank all the PRers as well: Sarastro, Dwaipayan, Wehwalt, and Arsonal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with my own edits. My concerns about article structure were resolved after the peer review. I have one question, though: The lead uses the plural syairs while the last sentence of the Reception and legacy section uses the plural syair. Do we use the plural inflection on Malay/Indonesian nouns when they are written in English? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 13:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I've managed to scrape up one more question! I think this is the same material (albeit in French instead of Indonesian) as the Zaini-Lajoubert reference you're already citing. However, this journal article is from 1994, and the compilation you're referencing has a 1996 publication date, so I suspect that the French version is the original material. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zaini-Lajoubert, Monique (1994). "Le Syair Cerita Siti Akbari de Lie Kim Hok (1884), un avatar du Syair Abdul Muluk (1846)". Archipel (in French). 48 (1): 103–124.
  • Personally, I think I'd cite the original French journal article (especially as it is available online), rather than a dead-tree translation. But either one is fine with me so far as the FA criteria go. Nicely done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I commented at the PR and my concerns were addressed there. An interesting, well-written and well-researched article which I followed despite knowing nothing about the subject or backgrounds. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (sources and available authors provided, PD-age), one minor tweak done.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Leg before wicket

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LBW is one of those horrible cricket rules many people have heard of but can be heavy going for the non-cricketer. Part of the reason for its complexity is its rather unusual history, and hopefully this article explains both the rule and why it came about. It has had the once-over from some cricketers, it is currently a GA and it had a very useful PR, which included the views of two non-cricketers to check its comprehensibility to outsiders. Any further comments gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • for someone who's grown up watching and playing cricket its still a little heavy to read, but I dont have any suggestions on that will read again. The first thing that really stands out are notes 3 & 4 which describe the on/off side for right and left handed batsmen, both use the phrase "from behind the wicket" suggest that maybe it needs to also explain what is "from behind the wicket" or chose a more clearer description of something like "from the batsman' perspective looking towards the bowler".
  • the choice of photos in particular of Bob Wyatt doesnt fit most of the material around that area leaves me asking why Wyatt, what so important about him in particular in relation to the LBW laws. By comparison there's a lot more(more then twice per words used) in that section attributed directly to Bradman, or associated with Bradman(bodyline). Bradman's specific proposal is mention where as Wyatt was identified a just one several critics who wanted the rules to return to the pre-1937 version. Gnangarra 10:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to disagree on this one. Bradman is only specifically mentioned once in the section, and he was not really too vocal about lbw (as opposed to, for example, the front foot no-ball rule). Bodyline is also only a passing mention, albeit important, and I'd really hate to use yet another Bradman image. It seems almost every cricket article (including many of which I am guilty) includes a photograph of him. Wyatt is actually mentioned twice as an opponent, and was a leading critic of the "new" rule. Perhaps that does not quite come across enough, but I think he is as useful an image as any. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing what I can do about this, but it is slow going. My other fear is that a diagram may be even more complicated than the text, unless multiple ones are used. And I have reservations about multiple diagrams. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • just a query, on note 6"... from 2002 both umpires had to be from a neutral nation", what about the third umpire especially given that this article refers to use of technology, should it not also be included in the note. I've had another read since the othwer adjustments have been made, it still a little heavy to read but I thinks that more a factor of the rules complexity than any specific prose issues so I'm happy to Support this one Gnangarra 06:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support and comments. The only reason the neutral umpires are mentioned here is because the study looked to see if their use had impacted on lbws. It did not mention 3rd umpires, so I don't think there is any need. Also, technology is referred to later on in some depth. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I was one of the non-cricket reviewers at the PR, and I'm satisfied that the writing is clear enough to be understandable for people like myself who don't have great knowledge of the sport. The prose, sourcing, and other elements all meet the FA standards as I see them. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indopug

Comments

Reading from below:

  • The "technology" and "trends" sections begin identically.
  • Isn't % discouraged in favour of percent?
  • According to MOSNUM: "Percentages are usually written with figures, e.g. 10 percent or 10%": Either is fine as long as there is no space between the number and the symbol. For the purposes of this article, I think it is sufficiently technical to warrant %. ("The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings.") Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "captains of county teams were statistically more likely" - why?!
  • Basically because captains wrote up reports on the umpires after each match or at the end of the season, depending on when we are talking about. An influential captain could instantly end an umpire's career if he disagreed with him. Unfortunately, I cannot find a source which says this apart from one or two specific examples from before WW2, and nothing about more recent times when this rule continued. To me, this makes perfect sense that a captain could have such influence, but it may not to anyone else. Does this work, or would it be better to remove it? I'd like it in, but not if it is just dangling. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it in, and add the WW2 examples as a note. IMO you can be a little more casual in the notes, so you can say that you haven't found anything about today. By the way, does Miller's captains study apply to the present-day as well?—indopug (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the pre-ww2 stuff, which also extends a bit beyond. All Miller's statistics go to 2010 as stated in the article. There is some minor variation in the captaincy figures, but as with the other stuff, nothing especially worthwhile if we are keeping it tight. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A majority of the studies in the last section are about an umpire's biases. For this you need to know what wrong decisions were made in favour of the home team, rather than simply compare the total no of lbws of both teams. Yet, "it is impossible to determine from these studies if any of the decisions were wrong, particularly as the lbw law can have different interpretations". So I'm not sure about how sensible these studies are in showing a correlation. I think you should thus scale down this section, whose claims are trivial at best (all the increases seem to be slight) and illogical at worst.—indopug (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've cut this right back. I think it needs to be there for reasons of comprehensiveness (since people are, however oddly, studying this) but hopefully this is a bit more coherent. Even if it says that the studies don't really say much. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment about comprehensiveness: isn't this article too anglocentric? What of other cricket-playing nations, including the biggest current market of them all? While I agree that the likes of Asia had little influence on the laws game historically, surely there must be some local variations of lbw there? For eg: how do Indian umpires approach lbw in highly turning wickets of the Ranji Trophy? What about bouncy South Africa and West Indies (of yore)? Maybe a general pitch-based study of lbw decisions would be useful. Of course, all this moot if you've exhausted the sources and there's nothing about any of this.
  • The only thing I've got is a sentence on lbws being less likely on the subcontinent. I've added this, but everything else is very anglo-centric. From a historical point of view, it was all England. Unfortunately, there were no local variations that have been reported on and I have rather exhausted the sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean more likely in the subcontinent? ("more statistically likely in matches taking place on the Indian subcontinent")—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Yes. The article is correct: more likely. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Development of the law
  • The Wisden Almanack refs should have a "reproduced at Cricinfo", because you aren't really citing directly from the 1936 book.
  • The paragraphs toward the middle of the section are too large and imposing, especially when the text is so technical. I also have a personal preference against single-para subsections, but it's just a preference.
  • Throughout the section there's an (IMO) unreasonable expectation on the reader to understand the laws and proposals based solely on quoted technical text that uses 18th and 19th-century language.

Origins

  • As stated above, could use a detailed explanation of the 1839 law, an understanding of which is necessary for the next two paras.
  • Excellent, I understand it now. Another thing to consider: you can have the full quoted law as a note to keep a record of a bit of history (I think you do this later on). You can then choose to remove the quoted bits from the main prose for further readability.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and attempted reform

  • To be honest, I can't really see what the big difference between these reform proposals and the 1839 law is. I think you need to explicitly explain what these differences are. Again, interpreting just the quoted text is difficult.
  • "citing as one strand of evidence the growing proportion of wickets which were falling lbw" - I'm not sure I get the logic here, if increasing no of batsmen are getting out lbw, why would you want to make the law even more anti-batsmen?

Alteration to the law

  • The four people in the first para need to be described, esp their nationality, since you're talking of a contest between two countries. Probably add a note explaining Bodyline.
  • Described the four people. I'm reluctant to get into Bodyline here. It's a complicated explanation, even as a note, and is not crucial to the thrust of the argument. I think it is better explained by the link. Again, I'd rather remove it than get bogged down. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "experiment/al" is overused.
  • "Then, in 1935..." this sentence does a good job of explaining how the new law is different. Consider adding "but the ball still needed to hit the batsman in front of the wickets" but I'm not sure it's necessary.
  • Yes. Noticed a couple more things:
  • "and that there were fewer drawn matches" reads oddly (make into new sentence?).
  • The Times quote is a little long; its first sentence can be expunged as we know that already.
  • Yes. Interesting chap. I'd prefer not to use "1839" as the laws changed several times in between those dates, so it would not be quite accurate (even in the law was the same). The sources usually go for "pre-1935". Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playing no stroke

  • Those italics aren't part of the original quote. Is that so
  • Correct. It was to emphasise it, but I don't know what the wikipedia equivalent of "emphasis mine" is! So I took these out and added a phrase to draw attention to the difference. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to go back to the previous way: [emphasis here]? Although WP:MOS doesn't seem to address it, it uses this wording throughout the text. I'm sure the MoS is written in compliance of itself. :)—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This wording was adopted from 1972 ... When the MCC revised the Laws of Cricket in 1980" - confused here. How can you play with rules that aren't in the MCC's Laws? Doesn't this contradict note 1?
  • It was really another experimental rule. There was scope for different parts of the world to have different rules at this time, and this new wording was simply adopted worldwide without being officially added for another 8 years. I've tweaked the wording a little, but such practices (using laws that weren't part of the Laws) was quite common. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The quoted laws are understandable here because the language is contemporary; this isn't so earlier)
  • Try to avoid repetition of "Laws" in the last sentence.

Effects of technology

  • I think the absence of talk of Hawkeye not accounting for different pitch and environmental conditions sufficiently enough is a big miss. I wonder if we should also explicitly mention the BCCI's reluctance to use UDRS.
  • Re India: This came up at PR, and I think I'm sufficiently persuaded that India need a mention. I've added quite a bit (further eyes on it would be appreciated!) on this. I also added something on criticism of the technology (mainly India's arguments) but I'm a little wary here. You mention "different pitch and environmental conditions" but I've never read of this as a criticism aside from in the earliest days, and even then not in reliable sources, or when Ian Botham is opining on Sky Sports. And I tend to take him with a large pinch of salt. I've never seen it convincingly argued by a credible authority that a computer cannot take into account pitch and environmental factors. If the ball has bounced, the technology can show where it would have carried on. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I thought env variations was the reason. To be honest, the newly added stuff is weighted towards DRS rather than lbw. Esp the last two sentences have nothing to do with lbw.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo: if you don't mind fair-use, you should add one of these. For eg: I see a Sachin image that illustrates both Hawk-eye and the UDRS.
  • I would be reluctant to add these. I have no opposition to fair use images, but would have some trouble justifying the use of these, to be honest. And I imagine several people may have a problem with using their images like this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I actually feel strongly about this one. Here's the image I'm talking about; as you can see the tabs on the left--wickets, pitching, impact--and the trajectory of the ball illustrate very clearly what the text is trying to say about what Hawkeye can do. Also this (Ind v Pak, 2011 WC) seems to have become a notable incident so you can maybe even use it to talk of a controversy (not insisting though).
  • As for having "a problem with using their images", it's clearly just a screengrab of a live broadcast at least watched by one billion people (and this point mostly holds true even if we choose another such image). Of course, we may have to find a better-sourced image than one from a blog to meet standards, but my point is it definitely meets WP:NFCC.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still prefer not to. As you say, that image comes from a blog; the incident itself could be added to the article to justify fair use, but I think it would be undue. Other images of hawkeye are from some media sites, but I really don't think they would add that much (although on the hawkeye article, it may be another matter) and is not actually necessary. What does it tell us about lbw? If we were to include one, I would prefer it to be a screen-grab which someone took and uploaded directly, but that is beyond my technology! I would have no objection to anyone else adding one. But I think I might be stubborn on this one! :) Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo alt: if you do, you should add this ("Since the 1990s, with the introduction of Hawkeye and UDRS, umpires have been more willing to give batsmen out lbw.") because, uh, this article desperately needs a colour photograph. :)
  • "inconsistency of approach to lbw decisions among umpires and match officials" I don't really understand this; how are match officials relevant in giving lbw decisions? And how can there be inconsistency when all umpires are to be backed up by the same technology?
  • This one is more about DRS than lbw, so I'd prefer to be brief. Match officials meant the 3rd umpire (avoiding repetition) but took this phrase out and tweaked it for clarity. The inconsistency comes from when decisions are referred. And sometimes the officials just get it wrong by applying the DRS rules wrongly. I could source and add this, but to me it is more about DRS and I'd prefer to remove this entirely than get bogged down. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definition
  • "even if it would have bounced before hitting the stumps" - why is this necessary to mention?
  • It is quite contentious. For example, a ball spinning sharply would often spin past the stumps; but if the ball, for example, hit the batsman on the full and would have bounced afterwards, it may have missed the stumps. But umpires are explicitly told to imagine that even the sharpest spun delivery would carry on straight. There was a little bit of fan/TV grumbling about this one when it was altered. And as it is explicitly stated that all balls carry on straight. This is kind of implied in the laws, and there are no reliable sources which really make this explicit. So, in short, it's necessary. Sorry, long rambling answer! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is well-written, but does the last para belong here? It is the most enjoyable bit of the article, and I wonder if it can expanded to a two/three-paragraph "Impact and perception" section (at the end, because even the current text seems like a good concluding para)? I know that in India there have been minor crowd riots due to wrong lbw decisions (Azharuddin in the 1996 Titan Cup in Bangalore against Australia comes to mind).—indopug (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Azharuddin riot from 1996, thanks for that one! I'm not sure about moving this. I would struggle to expand it beyond a list of riots (!) and, for me, it makes sense here rather than tacking it on the end. But I'm not completely set on this, and could be persuaded if you consider it an improvement. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember that well because my brother got a call that night from a friend who claimed "the nick onto pad was audible from the crowd"! ::*While adding more riots is unnecessary, I proposed moving it to the end because 1) it has nothing to do with the defn of lbw, 2) usually on Wikipedia we have receptions to things towards the end, and 3) it has the most flavourful writing (like that completely apt comparison to offside). I'm sure you could find all sorts of experts passing their (witty) judgements on the law. Also, if you can't find stuff to expand this, even sticking it in the last section (renamed "Trends and perceptions"?) is ok. On the other hand, in its current location this stuff gets in the way of a logical progression from understanding the law to reading about how it came to be.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's everything now. Again, thanks for the comments so far. I'm not sure there are many FAs about similar topics (i.e. sports rules), so my main worry all along has been to include everything that is needed and to make it comprehensible. Whatever happens at this FAC, your help has been invaluable. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, I'm just on a cricket high because of a certain recent whitewash.
Lead

Finally, we come to the beginning. I think the lead generalises too much, to the point that it reads vaguely. For eg: "Suggestions for improvements have included extending or reducing the criteria under which a batsman can be lbw."

  • to mirror the current article, I think everything from misunderstood to the quote should be moved to the end. Add the offside-rule comparison too so other-sport fans can appreciate the complexity.
  • if you agree to that, the now-small defn para can be expanded. "The umpire's decision, however, will depend on a number of criteria, including where it pitched..." I think the cricket-fan reader should get a more thorough explanation from the lead itself.
  • the second para is quite vague ( and I think history stuff should mention the three key dates—1839, 1937 and 1972 alongside the changes made in those years and their effect on the game. This doesn't mean lengthening the lead; the three generalising sentences at the end of this para will be replaced.
  • last para: needs to be something about Ball tracking. Could club with history if you don't mind spreading it to two paragraphs.
  • Since you say "The original caption was", don't modify the quoted caption. Keep "of lbw" outside in brackets.

—indopug (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a rough draft of what I think the lead should be structured like. I didn't know how to summarise the 1972 changes.—indopug (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that addresses all my major concerns. Thank you for you efforts!
  • Following one last readthrough, since the article has changed a fair bit, I'll be happy to declare my support. (btw you missed a comment of mine above: in Trends, amateur is used thrice in the "Particularly before 1963" sentence.)—indopug (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • "when two prominent umpires disagreed"--was this during a match? Just appears that way to me because "the ambiguity of the wording was highlighted" makes it seem as though the issue suddenly came to the fore (like in the middle of a match).
  • I'd prefer to leave it as it is, to be honest. It was in two separate matches, and each gave a different "ruling" on what the law meant in their games. I think the current wording is enough to get this across without too much detail. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere early on in Development, you should make it clear that you are talking about English County cricket. Maybe also clarify in the second para of the lead by adding "English County" before batsmen in first sentence? (not sure of latter)
  • Added a little clarity to the main body, but it is tricky as there were few "county" teams in the early part of the 19th century, and the teams would have been rather different. For that reason, I'm reluctant to add that to the lead. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An increase in the size of the stumps..."--is this relevant? (not sure)
  • I think so, as they were looking for ways to curb batting dominance, and lbw was one of these ways. They also tried this in the 1930s, the ultimate experiment being the 1935 lbw law. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the sub-section titles in Development have years to indicate time-frame?
  • "Controversy and attempted reform"--did batsmen using their pads really constitute a "controversy"?
  • Yes! It really was a big deal at the time as it was "unsporting". In a later period, there was a massive scandal when Douglas Jardine, while at Oxford, was praised by a critic for padding up. The critic was lambasted (by 1920s standards) for some time for daring to suggest such a "shot" was ethical. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alteration to the law: the first paragraph seems confused. The fact of the batsmen's increasing pad-play is reiterated several times even though we already know this from the prev section. The order of sentences also isn't right. Root and Allen say the same thing (redundancy? combine in a single sentence?) but in between their sentences is Larwood's response (which should be clubbed with "controversial Bodyline tactics" sentence to explain Bodyline) and another method of batsmen's defensiveness (which we already know from the prev section).
  • Good point. I think my intention got jumbled somewhere along the way, so Root and Allen are now gone altogether. There should be new developments of a) actively kicking the ball away rather than covering up and b) letting the ball pass by harmlessly, both of which were dull, led to bodyline and concerned the authorities. Does this come across better now? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but Larwood still appears between batsmen being exceedingly negative. You can move it down to the Bradman–Bodyline stuff, but that might create new problems in the flow, as now it becomes divorced from the bowler frustration. So I think this is fine.—indopug (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initially there was an increase in the number of lbws, but batsmen became accustomed to the change"--probably belongs to the next para, where it can combine with less-successful batsmen and "Out of 1,560 lbw dismissals" sentences.
  • "including the professional Herbert Sutcliffe, known as an exponent of pad-play, and amateurs Errol Holmes and Bob Wyatt. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack noted that these three particular batsmen improved their batting records"--I think you can drop Errol Holmes, who seems minor.
  • I'd prefer to keep him as he was pretty big at the time, considered a future England captain and the one to lead the amateur renaissance. He was also the ultimate establishment figure, and remained so for many years. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Gerald Brodribb..." para--too many "cricket"s in the beginning.
  • Have you intentionally not linked leg-spin and left arm spin in the Times quote?
  • ""if no stroke is offered to a ball..." on second thought, this law is also wordy. If you can express it more simply in your own words, relegate the quote to the notes.
  • "When the MCC revised the Laws of Cricket in 1980,[41] the revised wording was added;[42] this version is still used as of 2013.[3]" → "The MCC added the revised wording to the Laws of Cricket in 1980;[42] this version of the lbw law is still used as of 2013.[3]"?
  • "when standing further away from the stumps" ambiguous wording; could refer to umpires too.
  • "International Cricket Council (ICC), responsible for running international cricket" any way to avoid the obvious repetition? "the world game"?
  • Second para of Trends: perceived umpire bias towards home batsmen is mentioned thrice.
  • "Controversial aspects of lbw decisions"--what about nicks?

That's it from me. The only major thing is the paragraph with Bodyline. Still I have no hesitation in declaring my

Support: Excellent effort on the article, which is surely a model article for cricket dismissals and perhaps even sports-laws in general. I also thank you for being so responsive to my suggestions.—indopug (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break

  • I don't see anything on the ball hitting the hand / glove as potentially being different from hitting any other part of the body. Maybe add (in Definition) when the hands are considered part of the bat, and contrast lbw with handled the ball (not likely in a game, but the distinction does exist). EddieHugh (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I mention it because "the ball must strike part of the batsman's body" could be taken to include striking the hand, leading the casual reader to think that a batsman deliberately hitting the ball with a free hand (and the other requirements being met) would be out lbw. This is a pedantic point, but it is about the lbw law... EddieHugh (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I think this is an unlikely conjunction of ideas. I also notice that there is no link between the two dismissals in the Laws of Cricket, so I'm reluctant to include anything on the grounds of OR. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can be bothered to get all the citations to link to the bibliography, if you want me to. Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the need. It is not as if there are hundreds of sources to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was about 30 before I finally got anywhere near understanding the intricacies of the LBW law; if only the nominator had been about decades ago to explain it so cogently! The coverage is clear, comprehensive, objective and first rate. This seems to me to tick all the FA boxes. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- did I miss an image review above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I gave one at PR, the images are still the same.
  1. File:Leg before wicket.jpg is fine
  2. File:Cricket - Wickets.svg looks okay, but seems difficult to follow. Perhaps having no text would be helpful.
  3. File:Ranji 1897 page 215 Shrewsbury playing back.jpg - When did Caldwell die (if available?); if he died after 1943 the image would not be PD in the source country
  4. File:Bob Wyatt Cigarette Card.jpg looks fine
Having alt text might be a good idea.
You shouldn't force sizes. Using "upright" will make an image smaller, but still allow them to scale.
I'm afraid that svg file is beyond my technical capabilities, and I would have no idea how to remove the text. Added alt text to the last image. A little bit of OR reveals that Caldwell died in 1915, so we're fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My detailed comments are found in the peer review. I remain intrigued by the sentence: "Batsmen from the subcontinent were less likely to be lbw wherever they played in the world": has any reason been suggested for this? Is there a particular subcontinental style of batting that makes them less susceptible to the law? Most curious. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reason is given (or suggested) in the source; there were some other vague statistical trends, but nothing really definite and nothing that gives a reason. They were even less likely to be lbw at home, as were Australian batsmen, but subcontinental batsman seem to be lbw less often wherever they play. Thanks for the support and comments at the PR. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review All sources used are of the appropriate levels of quality and reliability. Just a couple of format quibbles:

  • Ref 56: The mdash in the title doesn't appear in the source
  • Ref 58: Page range requires pp.

Otherwise, no problems with sources. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose 16:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Common Starling

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Jim and I have been working on it since the beginning of the year and we think we have polished it up nicely to FA standard. We await your views, or as Jim succinctly put it, "... we'll throw it to the wolves". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Good. Some observations before support:
  • Common Starling (species), starling (family). Yes Brits may use a capitalised Starling to denote the species but this is Wikipedia and we acknowledge more than one species! I've fixed a few instances of this, but you need to check the whole thing carefully, for example at the bottom of voice I found this "When a flock of Starlings is flying together,"
  • The capitalisation of bird names is difficult in articles like this. Where "Starling" is used it is usually to avoid repeating "Common Starling" excessively but it is still referring to the species rather than starlings in general. Do I understand that you think it should then be "starling"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The summer breeding map colours are very hard to distinguish.
  • The feeding technique where the starling shoves its bill into the ground and opens it is called prying in taxonomy and probing in feeding.
  • The bit about the lining of the nest with herbs is way more interesting than the rather perfunctory treatment it gets here, check the abstract. Olfaction in birds is a pretty big deal.
  • Gleaning - I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
  • Duplication - you repeat the information about the Azores birds raiding terns, and the conservation impact/
  • no mention of this species consuming parasites off large mammals, or the fact that the prying behaviour I mentioned above is subject to learning and that youngsters are initially not good at it. I can add these things from HBW if needed.
  • The taxonomy sections mentions the closest relative being teh Spotless within Sturnus - these are probably the only two species in that genus. This also means that the morphological adaptation for prizing open the ground (the enlarged muscles are called the protractor muscles btw) are not unique to that genus, being shared by the closely related Acridotheres and Creatophora, and indeed several other genera, although it is most developed in this species, the Spotless and the White-cheeked Starling. Notably in these species it is paired with a narrower skull, and, according to HBW, the eye can be moved forward to peer down the length of the bill because of this.
More to follow after my copyedit run. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Sturnus_vulgaris_map.png: what base map was used to create this image?
  • File:SturnusPorphyronotusSmit.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:MozartStarlingTune.PNG needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support on prose and comprehensiveness. Comments will be reading through and jotting queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC) all appears in order - prose and layout look good. Big topic so I can't see any glaring omissions and can't imagine we'd be able to include every article on the species.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Old English "staer", later "stare" derive from an Indo-European root dating back to the second millennium BC, as does the Latin word. - couple of things here. (i) I find "are derived" (passive) more natural-sounding than "derive" (active) (ii) I thought the practice was to consider Old English as foreign in some ways and italicise the word - (?) (iii) when is "stare" - Middle English etc. do we have dates? (iv) any other discussion on what the indo-european root actually was?
  • The text implies that stare was the form in the Middle English period, becoming scarce in the C17, but doesn't actually say that. The existence of an Indo-European root is implied by the fact that the Latin, OE (and several old Germanic cognates) aree obviously derived from a common ancestor, but Lockwood doesn't speculate on this. Unless I can find another source, this may be as good as it gets. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The songsters are more commonly male although females also sing on occasions. - see I would have said "The songsters are more commonly male although females also sing on occasion." - the last word a sort of collective noun/adverbial thing....

Otherwise looks pretty on-target for FA status....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Snowmanradio

  • Should the article refer more specifically to Mycobacterium avium or avian tuberculosis rather than "tuberculosis"? I recall that avian Tb occasionally affects humans, mainly immuno-compromised humans; however, I think that by just using "tuberculosis" Wiki-linked to the Wiki article, which is mainly about human tuberculosis, is misleading. In the absence of a Wiki article specifically about M. avium, then I think that a piped link to the genus Mycobacterium would be more appropriate. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Captive birds can accumulate excess iron in the liver, a condition which can be prevented by adding black tea-leaves to the food": I am not sure what emphasis to put on this. Does this imply that haemosiderosis is a common problem in captive starlings? Snowman (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked to make it clear that this is a common problem with starlings (and apparently toucans and birds of paradise too). Low-iron diets have only limited success. The sources are a bit vague as to why it's not a problem with wild birds "In natural environments, iron accumulation varies with seasonal changes and environmental stress levels and is influenced by other dietary constituents." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The man-made structures are probably over-represented among the images but nests in holes are not so easy to photograph. I have changed one image in the article and added another which I hope covers both the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of the two chicks in the gap in a wall is pleasing. I have removed the other new image of a juvenile beginning to moult and showing some adult plumage and replaced it with an excellent Featured Picture showing a bird of a similar age. I think that the article needs an image of an younger all-brown juvenile. Young juveniles are noticeable in the spring (? summer) when they come into gardens to feed in a family flock. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found a place-holder image of an all-brown juvenile and shown it in the article. Snowman (talk)
  • Lets be more ambitious with image selection and placement, because it is a very common species and there are plenty of photographs on Commons and Flickr. There might be a suitable photograph of a nest with eggs, but I would like like to risk disturbing a nest myself, or perhaps a suitable painting of the eggs. I have seen a few images of all-brown juveniles on Flickr, but not one that is quite right for the article yet. The infobox image is an FP and should be shown on the page somewhere; nevertheless, I wonder if an image with the bird facing into the page and on a less distracting perch would be more suitable in the infobox. The latter half of the article has plenty of space for a few photographs. Are there any opinions of showing videos of starlings doing things in the article? Any suggestions to improve the artwork? Snowman (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Common Starlings follow an overall power-law dispersal kernel with an exponent around 1.5 and a 'good-stay, bad-disperse' rule of mobility sensitive to habitat quality.[76]"; jargon. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression (1): I may have a conflict of interest, because I have done a little editing to the article and attempted to review it; nevertheless, I have aimed to be objective. I have not done a systematic search for MoS issues. I have not done systematic spot checking of sources, because I am not suspicious of verification problems. The images illustrate a variety of the bird's plumages and activities quite well currently, but I think that it is likely that the artwork will improve after the article has attained FA status. I hope that more reviewers will will look at the article, because there might be MoS or copy-editing issues remaining. I am not suspicious of factual errors, so in-the-round I think that the article has reached FA status, or will do soon after a few more reviewers give support. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised and interested to learn a little about the Common Starling in aviculture and keeping it as a pet. Is there anything else on starlings in captivity, that would be relevant to add to the article? Would a pet starling try to stab its keeper's eyes with its pointed beak? Are there parts of the world where keeping starlings is popular? Is it illegal take one from the wild in some parts of the world? Snowman (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it's quite uncommon except for scientific research where its abundance and ease of keeping make it a good subject, there isn't a lot of information otherwise. In its introduced range it's legal to kill a starling, let alone capture it. It the EU, I believe that it's legal to capture starlings, don't know about Asia, but I shouldn't think it's protected anywhere. I don't know if there are any dangers, but I've never heard of starlings being particularly hazardous to handle (I suspect that you wouldn't hold one inches from your face though. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of a child holding a Common Starling close to its face and the starling stabbing the child's eyes with its beak. I have a footnote in a 1971 reprint of King Solomon's Ring that says that it is illegal to buy and sell a starling (and a list of other native birds) in Great Britain. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legislation has changed since 1971. Buying and selling birds without a licence isn't the same as keeping them, and as I said, most are in labs. You can't legislate for human stupidity, letting a child hold a starling near their face (or a bird of prey, or putting their fingers in a parrot cage) isn't something that can be sourced Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning its CITES status? Snowman (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there is competition for nest holes, do Starlings fight? If so, how do they fight? It is not immediately obvious to me how a Common Starling could fight off a rosella (medium sized parrot) for possession of a nest hole. Is there anything on this that is relevant to add to the article? Snowman (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starlings are gregarious even in the breeding season, and there's little to suggest fighting (as opposed to the usual squabbling) even for nest sites. Competition for nest holes doesn't necessarily involve fighting, it's often a matter of "finders keepers". Having said that, the source suggest that starling are usually successful (69%) in direct confrontation with the smaller Eastern Rosella, but not Crimson Rosella. The larger, more aggressive, Common Mynas are more of a problem to medium-sized parrots. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's even that, it's just jockeying for position in the large groups typical of this species. I've made it clearer now that starling will use almost any holes, but if their is a shortage, as with any other hole-species, some (usually the younger birds) don't breed at that time. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austrian ethologist Konrad Lorenz described them as "the poor man's friend"; This is a quote, so would it be reasonable to also provide an in-line ref for the work in which Lorenz said this in addition to the existing in-line ref. I am not sure what FA criteria or MoS says about this, but I think that it would help verifiability a little to more easily access what Lorenz wrote and what the context was. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book doesn't reference the quote, and I can't find the original source. Another book says "poor man's dog", but doesn't claim to be quoting Lorentz. It's not an MoS or FAC requirement to give primary sources, and secondary sources are preferred where there is a choice. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is from King Solomon's Ring and it is on page 59 in my 1971 reprint published by Methuen & Co Ltd. Lorentz says; "An extraordinarily understanding friend used to describe him [starling] as "the poor man's dog"." There is a picture of what looks like a Common Starling at the foot of the page. It seems likely to me that your secondary source has got something wrong because Lorentz is actually quoting someone else as saying it without saying who said it. I think that the article needs a correction. The point is that Lorentz says that the hand-raised starling appreciates personal contact and "friendship" and that one can not be bought ready made. He gives an account of raising a starling chick and a diet for an adult starling. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked to remove the impression that Lorentz was necessarily the first to say this and added your source. I don't want to get too involved in the keeping of starlings since it's a minor part of the topic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... how adept they are at picking up phrases and expressions, often mixing them up or using them on inappropriate occasions. "; how would a staling know when it is inappropriate to sing a sound? Lorentz goes into this on page 84 of King Solomon's Ring. He says that the starling mimics sounds when singing and that the sounds have no meaning. Hence, I think that Lorentz has a more logical explanation. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission: nestling's faecal sacs. Lorentz describes this saying that chicks defecate in the side of the nest facing the light and that the nest inside is kept clean. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's true for passerines, even tits and nuthatches have substantial coloured blotches and spots on the white background. Added a journal that says the blue colour is perceived well in poor light Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think that the comprehensiveness. readability, and artwork of the article is up to FA status. I have not checked conformity to MOS systematically. I have not spot checked sources, because I am not suspicious of factual errors. I am not very good at copy-editing English grammar. Perhaps, people who know more about starlings than me will do a better review. Snowman (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unpaired males begin to build nests in order to attract single females, ..." and the rest of the nesting section follows. I think I know what the section is supposed to mean, but much of this is ambiguous and vague. It could be interpreted that the male digs out the hole in the tree like a woodpecker. It is not clear that the straw and nest material is placed on the floor of a pre-existing nest cavity, or at least that is what I presume happens. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eggs are 26.5–34.5 x 20.0–22.5 mm (1.04–1.36 x 0.79–0.89 mm).[3]" I know what this is meant to mean, but it seems unscientific or odd describing a 3D structure with 2 dimensions. Are there any conventions about writing egg sizes? Snowman (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good thing you copied those dimensions because it enabled me to notice and correct the error! To answer your question, with a globe you only need to give one dimension and with a cylinder, two will suffice. A bird's egg is equivalent to a cylinder. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted. With a circle it would need to be clear that the dimension is the radius or the diameter. For a right circular cylinder the radius (or diameter) and length could be stated, with clarity about which dimension is the radius (or diameter) and which is the length. Would it be better to say something like "an egg 2 cm long and 1 cm in maximum diameter"? Snowman (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its gift for mimicry has been noted in literature ranging from the Mabinogion to the works of William Shakespeare." I do not know what is included in this range. Pliney the Elder is prior to this range chronologically. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- I suppose it was bound to catch my eye, but the Australia subsection begins "The Common Starling was originally introduced into Australia to consume insect pests which the birds were known to eat." Using "the birds" this way suggests you mean the starlings, but that'd mean starlings were introduced to Australia to consume insect pests that starlings eat, which sounds curious. Do you mean simply "birds", i.e. other species, birds in general? BTW, I'd say "originally" is redundant unless at some stage they were all eradicated and had to be reintroduced... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it is a bit convoluted, now "The Common Starling was introduced into Australia to consume insect pests of farm crops", also removed repetition of "important" in next sentence. Thanks for comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there you go, without mention of the crops that meaning didn't even occur to me (though that may say as much about my comprehension tonight as your expression)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2013&oldid=550227545"