Talk:Cynthia Lennon/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ravpapa (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) --Ravpapa (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good article. It is a bad article. It raises numerous issues of considerable gravity, including questions of plagiarism and problems of violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons.

This is not to say that it could not be a good article. The potential is there. But it requires a pretty thorough rewrite, and a change of focus.

In this review, I will first discuss the big issues raised by the article. I will then include a point-by-point review of the GA criteria. I will then suggest how this article could be rewritten as a truly good article.

Major issues

Plagiarism: Much of the article is a mere summary or paraphrase of Cynthia Lennon's book, John. Some of this paraphrase is so close to the original text, that it raises questions of plagiarism. Consider the following sentence from the article:

It had a one-ring cooker, a one-bar electric fire, a single bed an old armchair, and the hot water meter needed one shilling for enough hot water to take an ankle-deep bath in the shared bathroom.

Here is the text from the book:

For fifty shillings a week I had a grubby room, with a one-bar electric fire to heat it, a tiny one-ring cooker, a single bed, an ancient chair and a moth-eaten rug. I had to put a shilling in the meter if I wanted hot water for a bath in the shared bathroom, and even then the water was barely ankle-deep...

These two quotes are much too close for comfort. This is not the way to write articles for the Wikipedia.

Policies on Biographies of Living Persons: In her book, Cynthia Lennon makes many statements about Lennon and others which could be considered defamatory. These statements are repeated in the article as fact, and are uncorroborated by any source other than the book.

Take, for example, Mimi Smith, Lennon's guardian: Smith is portrayed pretty much as violent and hysterical, throwing things (a chicken and a mirror), hurling insults, and more. I don't know if Mimi Smith is still with us, but if she is, she might well contest these statements. Let's just hope she doesn't contest them in a court of law.

This is not to say that you can't quote Lennon in making these statements. But you have to attribute them specifically, and perhaps even in direct quotes from the book. And you have to make an effort to corroborate them, or present the other person's view of the matter. You can't simply state things like this as bald fact.

Problems like this are rife throughout the article. Lennon's portrayal of John himself, of Lennon's father, of Brian Epstein, and others. You can't simply rely on Cynthia's book when making statements about these people that could be construed as defamatory.

Mimi Smith has been dead since 1991. Lennon's father, Brian Epstein and of course Lennon himself have all been dead for years as well. I hardly think WP:BLP is a major concern in this article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right (though there are some comments about Yoko Ono that might be considered problematic). Nonetheless, I think that when you include statements that are clearly derogatory about people, you have to rely on more than one source (especially when that source has an axe to grind).

So it isn't really a BLP issue as much as one of lack of sources. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Criteria

Well-written

This criterion is divided into two: the first requires that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct". Well, it is.

The second half requires that "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation". The problem here is specifically with the lead. The lead, according to the style manual, should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points." The problematic phrase here is "explain why the subject is interesting or notable." Why is the subject interesting or notable? I mean, who cares? Who cares that Cynthia Lennon was accepted to Junior art school when she was 12? Is this really a critical fact in her life?

Cynthia Lennon is indeed notable and interesting, but not because she went to art school when she was 12. She is notable because she was John Lennon's first wife, and because she wrote an autobiography which offers an intensely personal view of the artist, a view that portrays him as passionate, sometimes violent, philandering, heavily into drugs. It describes a relationship that began with sex in dark alleys and friends' rooms, a hasty marriage with pneumatic drills hammering in the background, a life of glitz and gold Porsches, and a gradual drifting apart between the girl who portrays herself as a somewhat staid, homebody type who always shied away from drugs and liked cheese on toast, and the jet-setting artist.

But none of that is in the lead. Essentially what the lead tells us is this: if you are too cheap to buy the book, read this article.

Factually accurate and verifiable

The article is verifiable as far as it goes: that is, if you look up the reference in one of Cynthia Lennon's two books, you will find that what the article says is what the book says. But that is not enough. You need to go out and search for other sources that describe Cynthia Lennon and her relationship with John. You need to corroborate the content of those books with independent sources. You cannot simply assume that everything that Cynthia says about the man she divorced is true.

I think you also need to include some critical reviews of the books. I am sure that they are out there and not hard to find. And probably some of them are by reviewers who personally knew Cynthia and John, and will have interesting things to say about them and the books.

This article has far too few sources.

Broad in coverage

Coverage of Cynthia's life is very detailed - too detailed for my taste, but that's a personal opinion. What is missing, as I said above, is critical material from other authors.

Neutral

It is hard for me to say whether the article is neutral or not, since I don't know if there is any controversy to be covered. My offhand guess is that some people mentioned in the books disagree, and possibly violently disagree, with things said about them. Their views are not represented. But then, maybe there are no such disagreements.

Stable

It is stable.

Illustrated

It is illustrated.

Where should we go with this article?

I gave a hint of this in my comments above. What is significant about Cynthia Lennon is that she has given us an inside view of the personality of the man that gave us Yellow Submarine and countless other icons of our culture; that she knew him intimately in the years when he changed the way we heard music. Her insights into Lennon's character can be invaluable to us. That is what needs to be the focus of this article.

You need to remove or completely rewrite all the insignificant details that are mere paraphrases of her books. You need to focus on the insights she provides us into Lennon, and you need to support those insights with other sources.

What did you think, that writing for the Wikipedia was easy?

I personally believe this review was written by a sock puppet. The language and complaints are the same, and the review was not laid out as per normal.--andreasegde (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My signature appears at the beginning of the review. It is put there automatically by the reviewing template. But just so you know, I am --Ravpapa (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So, do you know C.A. Russell? Or are you? The truth would be nice...--andreasegde (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope (as far as I know.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, what have here is a classic case of bias. It was reviewed by a person who has absolutely no interest in pop music at all, or The Beatles (not everyone likes them, y'know.)--andreasegde (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Other people have commented about the over-detail in this article, including myself and I still see that in this article. Instead of contemplating that as constructive criticism, Andrea takes it very personally and reacts defensively. She is too POV regarding this subject, and should considering removing herself from the process of writing on this topic if she can't deal with the feedback. 165.189.169.138 (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut, cut, cut...

It will be done, as ordered, but it won't make this article any good at all. Cynthia Lennon had/has a life as well, and this article shouldn't just be about Lennon.--andreasegde (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been cut from 41,021 bytes to 28,319 bytes. I could have cut some more, but that would have meant taking every mention of Cynthia Lennon out.--andreasegde (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)