Talk:Paul Kelly (musician)/Archive 1

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

BAD[edit]

This is a very disappointing wikipedia article. It doesn't come close to doing justice to Paul Kelly's accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, go gather some reliable sources, sit down with a cuppa tea and get rewriting! 172.129.169.242 (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment summary page[edit]

The article still needs development, so it is not yet time to change the quality rating - but Paul Kelly is a giant in the Australian music scene. He occupies a place akin to Bob Dylan's place in the USA music scene. I would assign him at least a "Mid" importance rating, and he may well merit something higher.--Samuel.harding (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C class:

  • Green tickY All the start class criteria
  • Green tickY A reasonably complete infobox, including appropriate photo where possible
  • Green tickY At least one other section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
  • Green tickY A discography containing all studio releases, including year of release
  • Green tickY A "members" section listing performers.
  • Green tickY Independent in-line references supporting major/controversial claims

B class:

  • Green tickY All the C class criteria
  • Green tickY A completed infobox, including appropriate photo where possible and associated acts
  • Green tickY A full discography list of official releases, including year of release and chart history where known
  • Green tickY No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
  • Green tickY No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS

Self-assessed and hence may be biased;Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred these comments from the Assessment summary page. They no long relate to the current status of the article and so belong in this archive.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed major editing[edit]

Dan arndt (talk) and I are collaborating to bring this article up to B-class. Interim edits may look disorganised and incomplete as we proceed: I expect to start major edits from 18 August. The whole process is expected to take days/weeks.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now at B-class but we intend on continuing our work here to push the article towards GAN. I'll be creating a separate Paul Kelly Awards page with a link from the main article. Eventually a separate Paul Kelly discography will be created too. Other changes to his main article will occur to improve its content, readability and nail all claims with reliable independent in-line references.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A separate awards page has been created with a link in the main article. Likewise a separate discography article has been created with studio albums left in the main article. I'm now checking over the main article for errors, unreference claims and other improvements before proposing it for GA.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now been nominated for GA status - currently awaiting review. Dan arndt (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

It passed. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future FAC?[edit]

Sometime in the next month or two, I expect to propose this article for FA class. As a move in that direction I have recently tackled the article and made numerous copyedits and reorganised the references. I'm now checking it with FA tools.

Toolbox

Signed by--shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that the GA review was done by a now-banned sockpuppeteer, usually a thorough GA review can resolve plenty issues that may arise later. Hekerui (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed copy edits top to bottom. Punctuation and sentence structure were the main elements requiring correction. Good luck with your FA nomitation! --Diannaa TALK 23:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dianaa, thanks for that effort. I'm still working on the Lead: hoping to trim it down a little more.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the Lead a little. I think I've covered all the PR comments. After Dan gets back from holiday, I expect we'll put it up for FAC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC archived. Where to now?[edit]

FAC was archived on 26 June 2010. As far as I can tell the following matters of concern are still pending:

  1. "where is the critical evaluation; where are the descriptions of his influence.. Where are the discussions in reliable sources of his albums, their effects on Oz music etc etc? This guy is one of the most important figures in late 20th century Australian popular music. I'm pretty sure a lot has been written about him, and it doesn't generally appear to be here." (Hamiltonstone on 18 June)
    1. In response to the above comment, I added some material to the article to address these concerns. I then asked for an indication as to whether the concerns had been addressed.
    2. "I'll come back to the article later [...] Might be a few days before I get to do a proper read-through." (Hamiltonstone on 21 June).
    3. Thus far there has been no further indication of the outcome of this read-through.
  2. "just looking at the article very quickly, the lead seems to be unnecessarily long. It needs to be trimmed down at least by a paragraph. There are/were also some places that didn't follow the Music Manual of Style - I fixed a few, but there may be others. For future reference, use Checklinks to see if any of your external links are dead." Y2kcrazyjoker4 on 25 June)
    1. There are, I believe, three separate issues here. Firstly is the length of the Lead. According to my understanding of WP:Lead, an article of 30,000 or more characters ought to have three or four paragraphs. The main text of the article has a length of about 34,000 and consequently four paragraphs containing 2900 characters (about 9%) does not seem over-long to me. Furthermore, User:Tony1 (in the archived FAC) checked the Lead and stated, "I haven't read the bottom half, but I'm inclined to support WRT Criterion 1a" I take this to mean that the Lead is okay as it is.
    2. Matter of Style issues? As indicated in the FAC submission, the article went through a Peer Review and was checked by a Copy Editor. Wikipedia is not perfect and mistakes may remain even with all this checking. If anyone can see any further MoS errors I would be very grateful. Note: in fixing the MoS errors Y2kcrazyjoker4 re-linked terms for genres in the infobox which were specifically mentioned by Tony1 as not needing linking and which I had de-linked only days earlier. Clearly this linkage is not consistent in music articles.
    3. Checklinks. As indicated on this page in Future FAC? section above, I checked all the links in March. They worked then but transient conditions on the internet have led to the decay of some links. From the FAC archive, on 18 June Ucucha identified urls that needed cleaning up: these were fixed up by 23 June. The day before any renomination to FAC I will use checklinks on this article and this should minimise any future decay problems.

I'm still attempting to improve this article so that it becomes a Featured Article and appreciate any assistance.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:
  • The lead (and upon a further look, the article) just seems too long for musician biography article. I haven't read the article start to finish, but at the very least, the lead should be trimmed down. For example, some of the information about the specific peak numbers of singles and the charts his works appeared on are inconsequential for a lead. You can say "his most successful/most well-known works include...." or you can give a summarization of his career by saying "this release in xxxx year was the most successful of his career, and years later he released so-and-so type of album." But the way the second/third paragraphs are now, it is too detailed a discography for a lead (e.g. it might be helpful to look at the level of detail used for current FAC music articles, like U2, Rush (band)). Furthermore, the lead seems to be written in a rather curious order. Why have a summary of his life/music career as the last paragraph, especially coming after you have already talked about the most successful works from his music career? In my opinion, you should move the last paragraph so it is the second. That way, it gives better context to the specific mentions of singles/records that were successful.
  • I'm not sure why genres of music would be de-linked, doesn't make much sense, since folk and rock are prominent genres of music. The specific issues I was referring to while the FAC was active were things like referring to an EP of his as "Extended Play" (instead of referring to the EP by name) and Wikilinking to it as if that were the actual name of the release, and the inconsistent usage of italics/quotes for with the names of albums/songs. If I was able to identify some of these things late in the FAC nomination, then there probably needs to be another review of the article done before re-nominating.
  • No problem - links go down occasionally. That is why it is a good idea to use WebCite to archive important websites. And why you should regularly use Checklinks during a FAC to make sure no websites go bad at the most important time. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Thanks for the additional advice. I've moved original paragraph 4 to number 2 in the Lead. I'll now work on renumbered paragraphs 3 and 4. Aside, I already looked at U2 and Rush articles but tended to focus more on recent FA solo musicians and on Australian music FAs.
    1. I've had a go at combining paras 3/4 and trimming them down. Consider:

      Kelly's most successful singles are "Billy Baxter", "Before Too Long", "Darling It Hurts", "To Her Door", "Dumb Things" and "Roll on Summer". "To Her Door" was his best local hit in 1987, while "Dumb Things" appeared on the United States charts in 1988. National albums successes include Gossip, Under the Sun, So Much Water So Close to Home, Comedy, Wanted Man, Songs from the South, Words and Music, ...Nothing but a Dream, Ways & Means and Stolen Apples. The 1997 compilation Songs from the South is his best charting album, while highest charting studio album is ...Nothing but a Dream in 2001. Kelly has won eight Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) Music Awards including his induction into their Hall of Fame in 1997. In 2001, the Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) listed the Top 30 Australian songs of all time, including Kelly's "To Her Door", and "Treaty", written by Kelly and members of Indigenous Australian band Yothu Yindi. Aside from "Treaty", Kelly has written or co-written several songs on indigenous peoples' social issues and historical events. He has provided songs for many other artists, tailoring them to their particular vocal range. Women at the Well from 2002 had 14 female artists record his songs in tribute.

Is this what you had in mind?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks better. I might even trim it down a little more, as you probably don't need to say who Yothu Yindi is if they only collaborated on one song. I haven't looked at the charting numbers on his singles or albums, but you should make sure that any of his works that you mention in the lead meet some sort of threshold for inclusion that you determine (e.g. peaking/surpassing a certain level on the charts). In this case, you may want to be more selective on the albums, since there are over 10 mentioned. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"threshold for inclusion" is still in current article version, i.e. "Kelly's Top 40 national singles are his 1980s releases..." and "Albums successes include Top Twenty national hits for..." which were both removed to reduce the length of the new paragraph 3 in the spirit of your comment "information about the specific peak numbers [...] are inconsequential for a lead" and your example of how to introduce his most successful works. Aside: Paul Kelly discography gives his charting.
As for the albums, reducing the list to only Top 10 gives So Much Water So Close to Home, ... Nothing but a Dream, Stolen Apples and compilation Songs from the South. This seriously ignores albums that are significant in his career—without commensurate charting success—and a casual reader of the Lead alone will have no indication of their importance. I believe such a trimming gives undue weight to chart success as the determiner of his best works. If we go to Top 15 we lose two albums, Under the Sun and Words and Music, instead of losing six.
What about changing "and members of Indigenous Australian band Yothu Yindi. Aside from "Treaty", Kelly has written or co-written several songs on indigenous peoples' social issues and historical events." into "and Yothu Yindi members. Aside from "Treaty", Kelly has written or co-written several songs on Indigenous Australian social issues and historical events."
The re-wording looks fine to me. Keep in mind with including his biggest albums and singles that it does not have to be comprehensive. On the contrary, it should just be a brief summary. Even if you select a cut-off criteria for putting albums/singles in the lead, you don't have to put them all. You can say "Top 40 records/Chart-topping singles include...", which doesn't mean necessarily that they are all provided. Just determine a way to filter out some of his work so that the lead doesn't become a list. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next attempt at combining para 3/4:

Kelly's Top 40 singles include "Billy Baxter", "Before Too Long", "Darling It Hurts", "To Her Door" (highest charting local hit in 1987), "Dumb Things" (appeared on United States charts in 1988) and "Roll on Summer". Top 20 albums include Gossip, Under the Sun, Comedy, Songs from the South (1997 compilation, his best charting album), ...Nothing but a Dream and Stolen Apples. Kelly has won eight Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) Music Awards including his induction into their Hall of Fame in 1997. In 2001, the Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) listed the Top 30 Australian songs of all time, including Kelly's "To Her Door", and "Treaty", written by Kelly and Yothu Yindi members. Aside from "Treaty", Kelly has written or co-written several songs on Indigenous Australian social issues and historical events. He has provided songs for many other artists, tailoring them to their particular vocal range. Women at the Well from 2002 had 14 female artists record his songs in tribute.

shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  2. I'll leave the genres linked for now. As for the MoS issues I believe the ones you fixed were all my fault when I added the sound files—I should have known better—thanks for your work there. You indicated that there may be other MoS errors?
Those were the only examples I found, but their presence made me think that others could be present. They could have just been outliers, as you explained they were mistakes made when adding sound samples. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I haven't used WebCite yet. I've learnt my lesson re: checklinks and as indicated will run another one just before renomination.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post FAC - another comment[edit]

  • I commented during the first FAC that I thought the article was under-done when it comes to including what has been written by others about Kelly's song-writing, style and influence on Australian music. It has improved since then, but I still think the section "Musical style and song writing" relies far far too much on Kelly talking about his own style and not nearly enough on others' analysis of it.
I've now worked on this section adding more material from others on his influence, style and analysis of his song writing. Hopefully this point has been successfully addressed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the order of the final sections of the article. I feel as though the text of the article is being broken up by lists. I think "Bands and accompanying musicians" and " Awards" should come before "Bibliography" and "Discography". Actually, what I think is that there should not be "Bands and accompanying musicians" as a section at all. All of these should be (and I think are) mentioned in the body text, so the text under this heading can be deleted. Then there should simply be "Bands and accompanying musicians of Paul Kelly" as a link in the "See also" section. There are already 'main article' links to Professor Ratbaggy and Stardust Five. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the second of these comment: (i) deleted 'Bands and accompanying musicians' section although I saved a sentence on his December 2009 line-up for the '2000–current' section. (ii) moved 'Awards' to before 'Bibliography'. (iii) Placed a link in 'See also' section for 'Bands...'
I'll have to work a bit more on the 'Musical style and song writing' section to provide more analysis by others. This will take longer.
Thanks for the additional commentary.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future FAC2[edit]

I intend proposing the article for FA, again. In preparation I have attempted to archive as many references as possible. Some do not appear to archive well e.g. about half of the ARIA refs, and are not archived. Updated information to 2011 has new refs supplied (with archives). I have placed a request at CopyEditors and will then ask for a Peer Review. The FA proposal should follow. Other editors are welcome to contribute to the overall process.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not ready for FAC yet. There are issues with unsupported claims and original research. I have briefly gone over it and what follows is a list of problems in need of address.
7. Dead link.
  • Original is a dead link but I've just checked the archive file and it works.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Author= Denton, Andrew
12. Horsburgh, Susan – f does not support claim that the songs were remakes.
23. c and f do not support claim.
  • Content at c supported by McFarlane ref. Content at f is supported by a Bramwell ref.
59. Not a reliable source.
  • Ref 58 supports claim re: Award win & new ref 59 from ARIA 1988 confirms Claudia Castle as director.
72. publisher= Julian Oddy
  • Done.
96. Does not support claim the North American version of ...Nothing but a Dream added all four tracks from the Roll on Summer EP as bonus tracks.
  • Now supported by a new Trove ref.
111. Does not support claim.
112. a: Does not support claim that Prior is Kelly's girlfriend, since 2001, b: or that, they met when she interviewed him for Sunday Arts on ABC radio. Does not support claim that Prior is also a journalist. c: Does not support claim that since 2008, Kelly has lived in St Kilda with Sian Prior, his girlfriend (2001–present). Need to find correct ref.
  • Ref [12] covers these points and is now adjacent to each sentence indicated.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix publisher for all Australian Rock Database refs.
  • Added (Passagen) to publisher.
1. Fix work.
  • De-italics.
4. Fix publisher.
  • Done.
47. Fix publisher.
  • Done.
93. Not a reliable source.
109.Not a reliable source.
110.Not a reliable source.
113. Amazon – Fix publisher.
114. Fix work.
115. Fan site. Not reliable.
118. Fix work and publisher.
120. Fix publisher.
121. Fix publisher.
123. Fix work and publisher.
126. Provide author, fix publisher.
Can't see author name, publisher is already given.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
130. Fix publisher.
132. Fix publisher.
143. Fix publisher.
153. Fix publisher.
155. Fix publisher.
160. Fix publisher.
165. Simplify note to: File is 289 pages.
166. Provide page.
183. Fix publisher.
184: Fix publisher.
Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except, 126, I think I've covered all of these but another's eyes could help.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following 115. A similar show was performed in a studio at Sydney Opera House in December 2006. WP:OR
Following 116. Foggy Highway consisted of a mix of new compositions and rearranged Kelly classics. The Canadian edition of the release included a four-song bonus EP of out-takes. WP:OR
New ref doesn't support claim that it is the Canadian version. Need better ref. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
119. publisher= Matthew David Elmer
  • Done
126. What makes this a reliable source?
  • Replaced by two new refs
143. Appearing with Kelly in Melbourne? Does this mean they joined him onstage? Anyway, the article isn't about Victorian Bushfire relief, consequently making the ref unnecessary.
  • Reworded the start of that sentence to clarify performers are independent from Kelly. I dispute your statement, the article isn't about Victorian Bushfire relief. The title is "Sound Relief Raises More Than $8 Million for Charity". It states that "$7,159,760 being donated to the Red Cross Victorian Bushfire Appeal". The middle section has "devastation of the current Victorian bushfires has left few unaffected" and later the article provides the various acts that appeared at both Melbourne and Sydney concerts.
145. Does not say 'More Songs from the South' tour.
  • Supplied another ref for the tour name.
151. Does not support claim.
  • Which claim is not supported by either 151 or 152? Ref 151 supports claim that Kelly, Charlie Owen and others were working on a tribute album for Maurice Frawley in April 2010. Ref 152 supports title of album, that Kelly and Owen "help guide the compilation" and that it was released in August 2010.
155. Does not support claim that Kelly was a special guest on Dylan's concerts in Sydney and Melbourne.
167. No link.

Last paragraph in 1985–1991: Coloured Girls to Messengers section does not fit timeline. Paragraph needs to be moved or adjust the heading accordingly. Mattchewbaca (meow) 01:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That section's heading gives the period of Kelly's involvement with Paul Kelly and the Coloured Girls (PKCG) which was renamed as Paul Kelly and the Messengers (PKM). The time-line within the section starts with late 1984, when Kelly moved to Sydney and then formed PKCG in 1985. The second last paragraph has PKM performing their last concert in August 1991 and Kelly describing his reasons for their disbandment. The final paragraph details their posthumous release, Hidden Things in May 1992. All of this fits chronologically with the time-line. If the section were renamed as 1984–1992: Coloured Girls to Messengers, then that would be misleading as neither PKCG nor PKM existed in 1984 or 1992.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The release was in 1992, correct? Paragraph needs to be moved or adjust the heading accordingly. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De-link common terms:

  • Adelaide
  • opera singer
  • Milan
  • World War I
  • Perth
  • Brisbane
  • bass guitar
  • saxophone
  • drums
  • Philippines
  • Manila
  • heroin
  • keyboardist
  • Los Angeles
  • Alberta
  • Austin, Texas
Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 25 and 27 June, Diannaa completed copy edits of this article, wikilinkage of the above terms has been retained.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence in 1974–1984: Early career and with the Dots section is saying virtually the same thing as the first sentence in the next section. Merge the second one with the first and in doing so correcting the timeline of 1985–1991: Coloured Girls to Messengers section. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modified first sentence in 1985 sectn.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following caption needs clarification: Country yodeller, Melinda Schneider and Kelly collaborated on "Still Here". 16 December 2008. Did they collaborate on 16 December, 2008, or was that the date in which the photo was taken. Either way, lose the 16, December 2008 is suffice. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{Reflist|colwidth=20em}}. This is a browser friendly version of multiple columns: depending on your browser you may see no real difference. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already using this style, with value of 25em.shaidar cuebiyar (talk)

External links

Done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jo Kelly's son[edit]

Recently added material includes information on another Paul Kelly nephew (son of his younger sister, Mary Jo): "Her son, Lazare Agneskis, is a drummer and songwriter". I believe this information should be deleted for the following reasons:

  1. It is off topic. (see WP:TOPIC) Paul Kelly has numerous relatives but not all of them can be included in this article.
  2. Not reliably sourced. The stayaround.com website is a commercial site selling mp3, ringtones and photos.
  3. Possibly self-sourced? At stayaround.com, Lazare's label is given as Blue Pie Records, while his entry there gives the stayaround.com ref as Lazare's website.

shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I think that the inclusion of Lazare Agneskis in on-topic, with respect to the dynasty and legacy of Paul Kelly's family members who were, or are professional musicians i.e. Maternal Grandfather & Grand Mother (Opera singers), Son (DJ, songwriter), Sister (Pianist), Nephews (Dan & Lazare). Oh, and two of his wives were singers.
  2. I agree that the Lazare entry is poorly sourced. Remove it if you wish. Design (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Without a reliable source the whole sentence on Lazare should be removed. Could you find an alternate source as soon as possible: the article is up for Peer Review prior to FAC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Brooker[edit]

Alan Brooker was the main bass player in 'Paul Kelly and the dots' and should be mentioned in this article, please update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensational (talk • contribs) 03:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to update it yourself with the information. Wikipedia: Be Bold. If you have a source, it would be best to include that as well. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brooker is mentioned in the related article, Bands and accompanying musicians of Paul Kelly#Paul Kelly and the Dots .281978.E2.80.931982.29. The main article includes numerous members of various line-ups but it would become too long if all of them were included, hence the sub-article. Brooker is not the only former member not mentioned in the main article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sub article is fine, thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensational (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review prior to FAC2[edit]

I'm now submitting this article for Peer Review.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manual archiving[edit]

I've manually archived the above material. It relates to the article prior to failing its second attempt at Featured Article status.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Kelly_(musician)/Archive_1&oldid=1137073946"