Talk:The Concert in Central Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article The Concert in Central Park is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Albums (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rock music (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Dementia13, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 16 July 2012. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Concert in Central Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am a slow reviewer, so if there is a desire to have the review done soon, then let me know and I'll withdraw now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements rather than make long lists, though sometimes I will make a general comment, especially if there is a lot of work needed. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you back, SilkTork! :) The Concert in Central Park is a great album, and if you haven't listened to this album before then I suggest you make good for it in future :)--GoPTCN 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

Pass
  • Stable. Query about audience size appears to have been settled. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • MoS: Layout and language are fine. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Broad coverage. Yes. Pretty comprehensive coverage. Very informative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Prose is clear, readable and informative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Article has appropriate inline citations which lead to reliable sources. It's frustrating that the two main texts though on Google Books are not readily available to read - one is in German, the other does not have the relevant pages scanned, but all other facts checked are fine. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately there are no comprehensive English sources, and that German book describes this concert very concisely.
Yes, fully accepted; I was just making a personal comment that I found some of that information difficult to check. No worries - the sourcing meets GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Query
  • Images. Copyright tags are OK, but I am not sure the Ed Koch and the two concert images are appropriate as they are not contemporaneous, and are anyway not needed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As long as they have copyright tags and are illustrative and encyclopedic, I don't see how it damages the article.
Because a) some of the images are slightly misleading in that they are not of the concert but are of a concert and b) they are not needed so they are not adding information to the article, but are taking up attention. GA criteria for images says "images are relevant to the topic", and there is room for interpretation in the word "relevant" - would a picture of the HBO logo be relevant, because they broadcast the show? A picture of Central Park? New York City? Ron Delsener? Michael Doret? Woodstock? Diana Ross? Etc. It appears to me that a picture of the mayor of New York is very incidental, and when that picture is not actually connected to the concert, and is not even taken in the same year, then that seems to be pushing relevant too far. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed the pictures--GoPTCN 11:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Query how much of the background regarding the state of the park is needed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe it is a comprehensive account of the background.
Adding details about the founding of the Central Park in 1857 would make it more comprehensive, but would that also be needed? The question here is how relevant the material is to the article, which is about a Simon & Garfunkel concert. The information in the background section is not needed for a general encyclopedia entry on the concert - it is more suited for an in depth book on the topic. This: By the 1970s, Central Park, an oasis in the city that functions as New York's "green liver", had deteriorated. Only sparsely tended due to lack of money, the lawns of this former showpiece became rundown, cluttered with trash or were destroyed through vandalism. As the park was not well policed, the crime rate increased. The drug trade flourished, and due to the high rate of violent crime, walks in the park were regarded as inviting a mugging—or worse.[1][2] At the start of the 1980s the city lacked the financial resources to spend an estimated US$3,000,000 to restore the park,[1] or even to maintain it, with closure of the park a serious consideration.[3] In 1980, the Central Park Conservancy a nonprofit, was founded to fundraise for park renovation. Wealthy individuals donated money, and artists took a stand for Central Park.[4] can be compressed to the important details and inserted into the first sentence of the next section, thus: In the early 1980s, Gordon Davis, who as Parks Commissioner was responsible for the New York City's green areas, and Ron Delsener, one of the city's most influential concert promoters, developed the idea of a free open-air concert in Central Park, which, due to a high crime rate, was then in serious decline and in need of financial assistance to restore it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The background section is needed and is common in albums articles. The reader wants to know why they make a concert and the background of the park. The section is detailed and interesting.--GoPTCN 11:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I shortened it.--GoPTCN 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Fail
  • Lead needs building up to cover the concert itself, per WP:Lead. The lead should be a summary of each of the major sections in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I expanded the lead a bit.
I've played with it some too to perhaps tweak it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
On the question of the background, perhaps a little expansion of the later preservation portion of the article, that discusses what the money went to or mentions some way in which the concert led to greater public awareness of the problems with Central Park, it would balance that out.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I added two paragraphs, one about Ross's performance, the other about the funds by preservationists. --GoPTCN 15:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks GOP!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The lead opens by saying that "The Concert in Central Park" was the name of the concert as well as the album. Is there a source for that, as I just took a look and found one of the posters (which I will load up shortly), and that poster says "Paul Simon Art Garfunkel Free Concert Central Park". If a source cannot be found, perhaps it could say: The Concert in Central Park is an 1982 album by the folk rock duo Simon & Garfunkel recorded at a free concert in Central Park, New York City in September 1981. - the actual day is too specific for the lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I would agree. Any idea if the poster was registered for copyright, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I am assuming it was copyrighted so I have loaded it as non-free media and tagged it as such. If it is later found to be in the public domain it can be moved to Commons. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Done.--GoPTCN 11:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

This is a well written, well presented, informative, pretty comprehensive and well sourced article which meets GA criteria. I have a quibble about some of the images, and feel the lead could be more informative about the concert itself and the preparations for it. On hold for seven days for this to be addressed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And query if the background information is needed in such detail. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Pass[edit]

This is a very useful and informative article. Well done to everyone involved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you and Wehwalt plus other users who cleaned up the article! :)--GoPTCN 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
And to GOP for gathering editors together to do good work and never forgetting that leadership among writers means being foremost in the work.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit request[edit]

Hi. I'm reviewing this page per the request put in with the Guild of Copy Editors. I see a couple of things that aren't clear, and as I come across more, I'll post them here:

  • "Planning and rehearsals for the concert took about three months in a Manhattan theater.[6] The three weeks of rehearsal..."
Which is it: three weeks or three months? Three months of planning, and three weeks of rehearsal? Specify.
Corrected to three weeks. I think it was a mistake.--GoPTCN 21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

* "Furthermore, Simon was suffering from calcification of tendons in one of his fingers caused by an injury, and could not play guitar for two hours."

A FA reviewer asked about this, and it never got addressed. It's unclear: he couldn't play guitar for two hours in a row, or he had to wait two hours before he could play? Dementia13 (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit: the context suggests the former, but you can't go away and assume, "Oh, the reader will understand". No, as the writer, it's on you to make it crystal clear.
Found the reference and fixed it. "Two hours" was a direct quote and should have been paraphrased: he wasn't so much trying to be specific, he just meant that he couldn't play a full set. Dementia13 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

* "The military rhythm of "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" was replaced with a swing Latin arrangement that included brass.[13]"

This phrasing seems awkward, because "swing Latin" is not a style or genre. Is it a Latin-inflected swing arrangement? Is it Latin jazz with a swing feel? Would Latin jazz or Afro-Cuban jazz be a more appropriate link for that?
Edit: I found the reference on this one, and it uses the word "swinging". To call something "swinging" is much less specific than to say that it's actually performed in a Swing style. "Swinging" can just mean that it grooves: I've seen it applied to Molly Hatchet, a far cry from the Louis Armstrong or Benny Goodman implied when you say "swing". Dementia13 (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Despite the need to adapt to Simon and his style, Garfunkel enjoyed some of the songs, and was glad to perform a duet version of Simon's "American Tune".[4]"
This is a weak sentence, and it's hard to fix without access to the reference source. "Garfunkel enjoyed some of the songs" is too vague, it needs to say something more specific. The first part of the sentence is an idea that's good to include here: it was difficult for Garfunkel to adapt. Unfortunately, there really doesn't seem to be a reason why his difficulty adapting would affect his enjoyment of "some" songs or his desire to perform "American Tune", so the sentence is not cohesive: the two parts don't fit together. Dementia13 (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "more than at Woodstock,[16] the seventh-largest concert attendance of all time.[22]"
Which is the seventh-largest: this or Woodstock? Dementia13 (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The source [22] doesn't cover this comparison anyway (according to it, both had similar numbers). I am not sure, if a comparison with Woodstock is appropriate at all, they have two vastly different concepts. GermanJoe (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Woodstock could be an appropriate comparison due to its cultural significance to the generation of fans with whom Simon & Garfunkel are most popular. There's also this: the world saw Woodstock as a pleasant surprise, because a half-million youths gathered for a concert, and the event was a success. Attendees enjoyed themselves, and against observers' fears, the event didn't devolve into a chaotic, bloodthirsty riot. Now, roughly a decade later, a similar-sized happening is transplanted from that rural setting into the middle of a park with the reputation of being a good place to get mugged, in an already chaotic New York City. Plus, it was open to the public, not a paid concert as Woodstock was. The potential problems are very similar, and if a riot developed, a crowd of that size would cause far more trouble in the city. There's a strong parallel between the successes of the two events, and this point could be developed. This simple comparison of attendance figures doesn't add any real information, and it kind of changes the subject: the article's about the Central Park concert, why now start talking about this other thing? I'm leaning toward cutting that bit because it's unclear and apparently unreferenced, but that's not to imply that the comparison doesn't belong. The idea has potential, if handled properly. Dementia13 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There are two problems with the "seventh-largest" statement: first, that statement becomes obsolete every time a larger concert is held. Second, it doesn't indicate where this concert ranked on that list at the time. That might be a more relevant fact, and never needs to be updated. Dementia13 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "At twilight, the backing band went onstage,"
Who was the backing band? They were part of the event, they should be named. Dementia13 (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
It had no names :) It consisted of session musicians.--GoPTCN 21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, I misread that as "opening act". You're right. Dementia13 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

* "In total, Simon & Garfunkel played twenty songs: "

Again the inconsistency regarding how many songs were played: is "Maybellene" the one left out? Dementia13 (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The question came up at FA too. It's probably "Late in the Evening" causing the problem. The song was played again as a reprise. So while 21 "numbers" were performed, only 20 completely different "songs" were played. GermanJoe (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense, but "Maybellene" is still unaccounted for. Maybe that's why an earlier version of the article gave 22 as the number of songs. The medley puts two songs in one number, and brings the song count back up to 21. Dementia13 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

* I completely agree with the FA reviewer's statement that the cquotes in "Events" are distracting. They break up the layout of the page, and stick out like a sore thumb. You say that they don't hurt anything, but they don't add anything, and the added distraction does hurt the article. Dementia13 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of style states that this was an inappropriate use of cquotes, but a good place to use blockquotes. I did the substitution, and it looks much better. The quotes now fit nicely into the page, and don't disrupt it. Dementia13 (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The paragraph that deals with the interruption of "Johnny Ace" is a problem. The wording is vague, and I don't have access to the references. "Associations" is used twice, but it's not clear what it means in this context. It seems that you're trying to use the word in a different sense than it's commonly used, and that a different word or phrase would better express what you're trying to say. Also: "Simon was not afraid" -> specifically, of what? Dementia13 (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
"Associations" also presents a POV issue, because it reflects a personal observation, it indicates that someone is giving a personal interpretation of what the action meant. It stands to reason that the incident alarmed observers, so there must be a published article that says so. Try a Google News advanced archive search, and look for articles published in the following days or weeks. Did I see some JSTOR tags in your references? If you have access to that, you must have access to a database that contains New York TImes articles. Dementia13 (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Done the latter. I don't know how to reword associations, and I don't really think it is a big issue. --GoPTCN 21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I can access the NYTimes database and I have JSTOR, just let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a big issue, because it makes no sense. Dementia13 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The live recording of the concert was released five months later, on February 16, 1982."
This might be an opportunity to add something: isn't it common to mention what formats an album is released in? LP & cassette stand to reason, but there might be some interesting oddball formats like reel-to-reel tape or audiophile LP involved. Dementia13 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It was mainly re-released in CD format, but also in LP and CC. I added this.--GoPTCN 21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "It was also successful in seven other countries."
More specifics are warranted. Dementia13 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Added two examples--GoPTCN 21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The issues stricken are the ones I was able to fix, but the others still need addressed. The copy edit is otherwise complete. Dementia13 (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyedits and comments. --GoPTCN 21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Track list - set list ?[edit]

One usage should be selected without mixing:

  • Track list (live album): The 2 songs not included in the album should not be in the list (aside from the explanatory remark). A track list, that includes missing songs not on track, is just confusing the reader. Durations should be album durations. The tracks should be listed following the album.
  • Set list (concert): All 21 performed songs incl. reprise need to be on the list. Durations as in live event, if possible (or album durations , if live values are not available, with a small note about it). Performed songs (not "tracks") should be listed following the live event.

I'd prefer the "set list" (the article is about the concert as main topic), but any consistent decision would be fine. GermanJoe (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The cancelled songs are indeed available on the live album, but without duration. Regards.--GoPTCN 10:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Quote from the article: 'The songs "The Late Great Johnny Ace" and the reprise of "Late in the Evening" were not included in the live album.' (emphasis mine). The track listing of www.allmusic.com shows 19 tracks. I am confused, how they could be "available" on the same product then. But anyway: if the situation is so confusing, it needs special clarification in the article to be accessible. GermanJoe (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
My mistake. The reprise was not featured. I removed the two songs. Regards.--GoPTCN 11:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Success in "other" countries[edit]

The album sold more than 1,270,000 copies in France, where it was certified Diamond. It was also successful in seven other countries, such as France and New Zealand. Would that be the other France that isn't France? TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

wording pickiness[edit]

The first sentence currently reads: "The Concert in Central Park is the first live album by American folk rock duo Simon & Garfunkel". This reads a little oddly to me (specifically the word "is"). Either of the following sound like more natural English to me: "The Concert in Central Park is an album by" / "The Concert in Central Park was the first live album by". I know we like to use "is" wherever possible, though, so how about the following:

The Concert in Central Park is a live album by American folk rock duo Simon & Garfunkel, released in February 1982 on Warner Bros. Records. It was their first live album, recorded in September 1981 at a free benefit concert in Central Park, New York City, where the pair performed in front of more than 500,000 people.

I think this sounds a bit more natural. I'm going to go ahead and make the change - I just wanted to discuss it here preemptively, I guess, since it's today's FA... --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

? I don't understand why you don't understand it. Please clarify. Regards.--Kürbis () 21:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not that I don't understand it. It's that it seems to me that most people would naturally say "was", not "is", in that context (and apart from the inclination to say "<x> was an album" because it's an old album, I believe). To me the following two sentences sound natural: "Concert in Central Park is a live album by Simon & Garfunkel." and "Concert in Central Park was the first live album by Simon & Garfunkel." I find it doesn't read quite right to say "Concert in Central Park is the first live album by Simon & Garfunkel", as the addition of the word "first" nudges the meaning somewhat toward referring to a specific past event (i.e. "when it was released, it was the first"). Or maybe I'm just being overly picky, hence the section title... I don't have a major issue with it, but I tried to reword it in such a way that avoided the problem entirely. --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand... I can say I am the first superstar, not I was the first superstar. The same here. It was the first live album is totally incorrect; it sounds like that something happened in the past but nothing changed since then. The record is still available everywhere. Regards.--Kürbis () 08:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it sounds totally incorrect at all. As for your example, when you say "I am the first superstar", it sounds to me as if there are no others. "I was the first superstar", on the other hand, indicates to me that others have followed. Maybe this discussion will shed some light on the issue. The question there is not exactly analogous, but there are some similar points discussed, and it is clear that not everyone agrees on exactly what the usage should be. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)