Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Carpenters/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2017 [1].

The Carpenters[edit]

Nominator(s): Ritchie333, We hope 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Carpenters is one of those groups that has generated a mixed reaction, particularly from dyed-in-the-wool rock fans who only listen to "real" music. However, they had genuine musical talent, their material has stood the test of time, and they are not as looked down as they once were. Sadly, no amount of critical reappraisal is going to bring back Karen Carpenter, and listening to some of her best singing in hindsight is quite harrowing in places.

This article has had a couple of goes at FAC about a decade ago, so the time is ripe for us to give it another go. Since then, Randy Schmidt has written a critically acclaimed biography that deserves its place in the few really good books about the duo. I could probably get this through GAN without too much difficulty, but it does strike me that this is an important enough article that going for the gold star really is a worthwhile exercise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't think we should be showing the logo twice if it's non-free, although I wonder if it's simple enough for PD-text in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought that but nobody I consulted during various improvements or the PR brought it up, so I assumed it wasn't an issue. Commons:Threshold of originality uses File:Boeing wordmark.svg as a canonical example of a logo that has insufficient originality to be copyrightable, which is fairly similar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That particular one's simpler, but looking at some of the examples in the gallery I'm pretty sure we'd be okay considering it PD. Open to other reviewer opinions though. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleCloudedWhite: Please explain why you are reverting in content that is not supported by the sources given in a Featured Article Candidate? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. The source states:
"Karen Carpenter possessed a deep contralto that actually undercut her brother's saccharine fantasies. It can be a revelation (some would say "bummer") to listen to the Carpenters' megahits -- "For All We Know," "Rainy Days and Mondays," "Superstar," "Goodbye to Love" -- and realize that few had happy endings, as Karen Carpenter was eminently more comfortable singing about loneliness and uncertainty.
Even "Sing," the "Sesame Street" song, comes off as a forced smile, while the cozy "Merry Christmas Darling" finds her at her most disconsolate".
I paraphrased that as "Her voice was particularly well suited to conveying melancholy, and many of the duo's hits occupy this territory". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NYT article in question. The editor seems to have/have had quite a few bones to pick with this article as seen on its talk page-Arrangement of Close to You and Guder. What has been discussed and re-discussed have been magnified minor points. We hope (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@We hope: What is your point? Are you trying to suggest that my edits should be discounted because I am "picking bones" (whatever that is supposed to mean within the context of Wikipedia)? I thought the point of Wikipedia was to improve articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought the story was something to the effect "if you can't stand to have your writing altered, don't edit Wikipedia". There are 3 examples of where your writing has been either changed or reverted-two on the talk page and now one here-where you've complained. We hope (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which "story" is that? "If you can't stand to have your writing altered, don't edit Wikipedia" - is that Wikipedia's new strapline? How interesting. And I have not "complained". I have disagreed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, in the "musical style" section, I went for objective information that described equipment, instrumentation and direct facts. Since the article has been teetering on about 50K of prose, which is about the limit of what a typical layman reader can digest, it meant some of the more "fluffier" opinion-based stuff like this just didn't make it to the final cut put up for FAC. Sometimes that's just the way it goes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So when an article is submitted for FAC, opinion-based stuff is likely to be removed? Is that the FAC law? Even when the opinion is in a RS? I must make a note of that. But what about the other opinions in that section - such as "music critic Daniel Levitin called [Richard] 'one of the most gifted arrangers to emerge in popular music'", and "Record executive Mike Curb said it was Karen's voice that took the Carpenters above straight pop music into pop rock" - you haven't removed those. It seems rather strange to introduce an assessment of Karen - a much admired singer - with the line "Karen did not possess a powerful singing voice", and not counter that with anything more superlative than describing her voice as "warm and distinctive". And what is your basis for asserting how many bites a "typical layman" can digest? Do you believe readers should not be told about Karen being considered "eminently more comfortable singing about loneliness and uncertainty"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point of reference is WP:SIZERULE. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting how your first objection to my addition - which came a long time after I made the edit - was based on an objection to how I represented the source, specifically the use of the word 'melancholy'. Now, it's because the article is too big and just can't manage with this bit of info about a singer's talent at conveying emotion (which is the whole point of singing, otherwise we'd just have robots doing it). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a puzzle to see that here we have an editor (Ritchie333) removing - supposedly on the grounds of the article being too big to contain it, though this wasn't the first reason given - the only bit of info in the musical style section that mentions the tendency of the band's big hits (and the singer's voice) to successfully inhabit the sadder end of the emotional spectrum, whereas elsewhere in the article this same editor is quite happy to allow info about the inspiration for one minor album track to be repeated within close proximity of its first mention (in paragraph 8 of the main text we have "they were fired by a Disneyland supervisor named Mr. Guder for being 'too radical'. Bettis and Richard were unhappy about their dismissal and wrote the song "Mr. Guder" about their former superior", then 8 paragraphs lower down we have "the album also included "Mr. Guder", the song inspired by Disneyland supervisor Victor Guder, who had dismissed the young songwriters for playing popular music when they worked at the park". What can be the justification for this? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's of more interest to me is your sudden, intense interest in an article you cared to make a total of 6 edits to. It looks like it's not the article that's the issue here; so what is it? Is it a past disagreement with Ritchie as an editor or an admin and now you're trying to even the score here at FAC? We hope (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. It is the article that is of interest to me here. When I noticed work was being done to this article, I made edits that I believed improved the article. My editing here has nothing to do with Ritchie. I have previously criticised Ritchie on user talk pages. I don't "even scores" in article space. In fact I don't "even scores" anywhere. I can only assume that that is how you operate and that you are projecting your own standards onto me. For your information, I am interested in the Carpenters because, first, I like the band and own a greatest hits on vinyl, and second, I have a particular interest in Karen Carpenter because I used to be anorexic. I have made dozens of edits to her article since 2011, and have some insight into her pain. I hope you are very proud of yourself in repeatedly taking this discussion away from that of article content and thus making another editor (me) feel it necessary to admit to a past mental illness in an attempt to dissolve this absurd hostility that I have encountered while editing here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was this discussion you started which made things veer away from the job at hand: Whether or not this article is FA quality. You were not "forced" to admit anything-you are free to either speak about something or be silent about it. Your assumptions don't bother me in the least. We hope (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I propose the inclusion or exclusion of the above be discussed by others who will review the article. We hope (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion or exclusion of the above can be discussed by anyone; to stipulate otherwise is contrary to the supposed ethos of this site. I shall open an RfC if no agreement can be reached. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ian Rose, User:Sarastro1 Is it possible for the discussion after the Image review to be moved to the project talk page? It seems like a distraction to a discussion of whether this article is FAC quality. If so, as coordinators and editors not involved in the discussion, would either of you please move it there? Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is still off track for a FAC, so the request to move it still stands, thanks. We hope (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I don't think anything needs moving to the talk page yet, as the discussion is still on the article and other reviewers may want to view it. I would encourage nominators and reviewers to limit comments to the article and whether it meets the FA criteria. I am watching this and will move any further irrelevant comments to the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments not connected to the article or the FA criteria moved to talk


Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 4: Dead link
That's page 14 of Schmidt - how can that be a dead link? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the number was 54 – but the link is working now, so all's well. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 74: The link seems to go to a different page. I see no mention of the Carpenters
Looks like the RIAA changed their website so much, even the Wayback machine link is broken. Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 111: slight inaccuracy in title
fixed We hope (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 158 and 159 appear to be identical, and could therefore be combined
The news story was spread over 2 pages. #158 is for text on page 5 of the newspaper and #159 is for text on page 24. We hope (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 196: www.theamas.com – what makes this a reliable source?
AFAIK, that's the official website for the American Music Awards (ie: The A M As). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 203 and 206 both contain slight title inaccuracies
both fixed We hope (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 208: Dead link
link fixed We hope (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 211: Music-city.org – what makes this a reliable source?
Nothing, I think, but the information is fairly innocuous being a bland list of appearances on an album. I've switched it for an AllMusic source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, sources appear to be in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment this article is about the musical group that existed in 1969–83 known as The Carpenters, not about the Carpenter siblings per se. So their extremely detailed childhood (hospital of birth, parents' dates and backgrounds etc) doesn't belong here, as each of the two has their own article where this stuff can be dealt with in detail. Only stick to what is relevant for the rest of the article—the duo's musical evolution (preferably as a duo, not just each sibling's, as that too can go in the individual biography articles). Similarly for the Richard Carpenter Trio and Spectrum stuff, only stuff that is directly relevant to the subject of this article, the band The Carpenters, needs to remain.—indopug (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, knowing their musical background is important to know how the duo achieved their style, and their respective articles do go into depth already. As long as we keep it under 50K, it's fine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:FA?, the article needs to be "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". While I completely agree with you that "knowing their musical background is important to know how the duo achieved their style", names of hospitals and parents' birth/death places/dates doesn't do this.
Further, regarding the first sentence, even in AmEng "Carpenters were" is correct since "Carpenters" is in the plural; indeed on seven other occasions this very article uses "Carpenters were" but never again "Carpenters was".—indopug (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody else agrees with you. Sorry. It's been discussed to death. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've changed my !vote to oppose on account of unnecessary detail.—indopug (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • If you are using the Oxford comma, then there needs to be an additional comma in this part “ the soft rock, easy listening and Adult contemporary music genres” after the word “listening”. Same goes for this part “their music has since been re-evaluated, attracting critical acclaim and continued commercial success”. There seems to be a mix of a use and an absence of the Oxford comma throughout the article so I would make sure to choose one or the other.
User:Ritchie333, did you intend to go with Oxford or Harvard for the article? We hope (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (the Carpenter family moved to the Los Angeles suburb of Downey hoping), I would add a comma after “Downey”.
Done We hope (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think that you should add the years in which the following songs were released “The Girl from Ipanema”, “Every Little Thing”, “Strangers in the Night”, “Dancing in the Street”, “We’ve Only Just Begun”. and any of the other cover songs. This is up to you, but I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
I thought it was obvious from the context, for example, "Girl from IPanema" was not released, just an early live cover (which many groups have done). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the update. I was more so asking if you think that the date for the release of the original versions of the songs should be included. Though, now upon further inspection, I could see that would be too disruptive to the overall flow of the article so I think that it is fine as it stands. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about having the “Carpenters” in bold in the “Offering (Ticket to Ride)” subsection. It may be a stylistic choice, but I have never seen words put in bold in a FA before.
I've trimmed this down a bit; the bold does look a bit odd. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subheadings are for sections of their musical careers. The subheading before that is "Pre-Carpenters"; the one after it is "Post-Carpenters" We hope (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the caption of the image of “Karen drumming on stage”, I would add the year in which the image was taken.
  • For this part (to meet the President, Richard Nixon, ), I do not think that the commas are necessary.
changed this to "President Nixon" We hope (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the two images of Richard and Karen in the chairs, I would explain the context in which the images were taken (i.e. publicity photos from Billboard).
  • For this part (a "new" Carpenters' Christmas album entitled An Old-Fashioned Christmas,). I am not sure that new needs to be put in quotes.
done We hope (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you attribute who says the following (Her lower register was warm and distinctive)?
I don't think this adds much, so I've taken it out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the image in the “Public image” section, I would specify in the caption when the image was taken.

Wonderful work with the article. I honestly have never heard of The Carpenters before so this was an interesting read. Please let me know if any of my comments require further clarification. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments on my current FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sévérine/archive1? Either way, I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:photos. Most were taken from a special advertising segment of Billboard in 1973. It's marked "Special segment sponsored by The Carpenters." I just looked at the entire segment and I don't see any credit given for any of the photos; some are dated and some aren't. The one of Karen drumming has no caption at all, so no date was given. There's no information given about the "chair" photos either. The photo was edited for the ad see unedited copy, and I think I remember seeing a copy of the photo labeled as an A&M Records promotional photo. The photo in the "public image" section is on the same page as the "chairs" photos; that one also has no information listed about it. We hope (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me; everything is good with the photos. It is really cool to see photos from that time period! Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to check in on any progress with this or if any of my comments need further clarification? There really was not too much that I feel that needs correction to be perfectly honest. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Given this edit I am assuming that the nominators wish to withdraw this. I've undone it so that this can be closed properly; otherwise the bot will not run on it and we will gets lots of weird glitches in the red tape. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2017 (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/The_Carpenters/archive4&oldid=810192863"