Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roger Waters/archive2

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 promoted by Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [1].

Roger Waters

[edit]

Roger Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets FA criteria. — GabeMc (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion, I left alinged the quotebox. Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images I would like File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg to have an WP:OTRS ticket, high quality images form this era are a rarity and I would like to be 100% certain that it is properly licensed. I think the article may be better if the images were alternated left-right to balance the article as was done with the first three images. I am particularly impressed with File:Roger_waters_leeds_1970.jpg, that was a job well done! Fasach Nua (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested an OTRS ticket for File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg, per your suggestion Fasach Nua. Thanks for your time and suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get a response and forward it to permissions-en, give me a chime and I can verify the permissions and attach the tag to the image page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image: File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg, now has an OTRS tag attached. — GabeMc (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 19:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments 2c source formatting This was an invited review. Some small fixits are required. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Further reading, author name problems with "Miles; Mabbett, Andy (1994)"; Are you sure it was a dash and not a colon with MacDonald, Bruno (1997)
    References, Generally: Locations missing, you get a choice to use locations for all or none.
    Notes. Misformatted "Blake & 2008 90-114"; Conflicting formatting of Allmusic with italics or without "DeGagne, Mike." and ""Roger Waters: Billboard Singles"."
Thanks for your time and suggestions. I fixed the Mabbett name in further reading. The MacDonald book title actually uses elipses, not a dash. Added locations for all refs. Fixed the Blake 90-114 cite. Removed the italics from Allmusic.
  • Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the second Allmusic cite should list DeGagne, should it? If you have time look at both of them, one is a review written by DeGagne the other is a chart from Billboard. — GabeMc (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope to take a close look at this nomination later this week. If I don't start leaving comments here or making tweaks to the article itself by Saturday, feel free to ring me up on my talk page. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should the 'Waters' starting the second paragraph of the lead have an apostrophe i.e. Waters' as it is possessive case? The image next to 'Equipment and instruments' is displacing the header, not sure if there is a MOS guideline on this but it's been brought up before in other reviews and it does look untidy to me. He is mentioned as using Rotosound bass strings but it is not cited, you could use this perhaps? I have a Precision Bass almost identical to the one shown (only difference is it that it has a black/white laminated pickguard plate). I could take photos and upload them to Commons and you could choose if you would like to use any of them, perhaps a close-up of the machine head end which clearly shows the name and the red-cotton wound ends of Rotosound strings, he is a bassist after all! Would it be considered overlinking to use Fender Precision basses as is done here? Just the plain Fender Precision Basses would do the same job? In aircraft articles we don't write Boeing 747 because you get a link to the manufacturer in the article that you are actually after. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and specific suggestions. I did my best to incorporate your points, and yes, a picture of your bass would be helpful to illustrate the point, particularly a close shot of the machine heads. Thanks for the cite to Rotsound as well — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you probably went a touch too far and left out the Fender name in the linking! I took 40 photos of my bass this morning, probably only five usable, I will upload them to Commons tomorrow if I get a chance but it remains your call if you want to add any. My bass got a good polish and I played it for the rest of the day! I had a little go at the Rotosound article as well, it's not an FAC requirement but we should try to improve articles that link to nominations up to a reasonable standard. I looked for the image/header guideline and there doesn't seem to be one, perhaps there should be. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded them already at the Commons category, not very good but they are free in all senses! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nimbus, I included a great shot of the headstock, let me know if you had a different shot in mind, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I added Fender per your suggestion. — GabeMc (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I supported this article at its previous FAC after a number of issues I raised had been resolved. I have reviewed the article again and find that a number of edits in the interim have further improved the article. I have also spot checked the sources that are available online or on Google Books and found no issues with the sourcing or close paraphrasing of the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source comments
  • What's up with ref 17?
  • Ref 22: Only needs one p.
  • Ref 42: Only needs one p.
  • Ref 135: Only needs one p.
  • None of the "References" ISBNs are valid
  • None of the "Further reading" ISBNs are valid

That's all for the references. CrowzRSA 00:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great suggestions, I fixed the refs you mentioned and fixed the issues with the isbns. — GabeMc (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the ISBN's give an error message is because both 10 and 13 digit ISBNs are given but are seperated by a comma which means they're treated as one long ISBN. Template:Cite book recommends using just the 13 digit ISBNs. Cavie78 (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the 9-digit isbn's per your suggestions, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Infobox: please delink all the occupations and instruments (musician, guitar...really?). That huge paragraph in Early period has a lot of information not relevant to this article—the Barrett details, Floyd's management issues etc. Haven't thoroughly read the rest, but I think there's a lot of stuff that is, similarly, more suitable for other articles ("he title was derived from the book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman."). I notice a bit of recentism and a general dip in quality of writing in 2005–present. For one, you begin to mention dates with more precision than before ("On 26 September 2005, Waters released Ça Ira", while "In 1983 the last Waters–Gilmour–Mason collaboration, The Final Cut, was released."). Also, please copy-edit for flow; "Waters opposes the separation barrier being built by Israel", jumps out of nowhere. Also, remember that there's no need to mention every single concert and tour he's done of late, and especially don't mention the dates on which he announced a tour ("On 12 April 2010, Waters announced The Wall Live tour").—indopug (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your specific suggestions. I have done my best to include them, and will continue to take your advice in general as I copy-edit the article. The article is improved due to your input, so thanks again. — GabeMc (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support like I did in the previous FAC. igordebraga ≠ 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I still think there is some cleanup that needs to be done to the article. A brief readthrough revealed several things that needed fixing, which included: Wikilinks to redirects, Wikilinks missing for important subjects, repeated Wikilinks, inconsistent adherence to the Manual of Style for tour names. I think a more thorough copyedit needs to be done to ensure there are no more remaining items of this nature. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You oppose on the grounds of a general dislike of the wikilinking? Per WP:FAC, can you please, "provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". — GabeMc (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I opposed because it doesn't appear that the article has been as carefully proofread or copyedited as it should be to receive Featured Article status - the wikilinking issues are just one symptom of this. The style issues are another. I was able to identify these items with just at a quick glance, so a deeper review is needed to make sure none persist. After further editing/reviewing, I may change my stance. I see no reason why a few fresh eyes can't weed out any lingering issues rather quickly. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to fix any specific issues you identify, but if you don't tell me, I can't fix them. — GabeMc (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Featured Article Criteria includes this requirement: "It follows the style guidelines" this refers to the Manual of Style where there is a section on linking. Reviewers are encouraged to raise this if they perceive a problem. Please don't bite them. Graham Colm (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to bite anyone, and I agree. — GabeMc (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the linking is this, for almost two months I have bounced back and forth between too many links and not enough links, depending on the editor. The MoS guidline on linking leaves room for subjective opinion. Per WP:MOSLINKS, "links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the openings of new sections, ...". — GabeMc (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can't find any redirects, so if an editor finds one, it is helpful if they tell the nominator where it is, not just that one exists, somewhere, in a 5 page document. — GabeMc (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as repeated links, per WP:MOSLINK, "But note below that as a rule of thumb only the first occurrence of a term should be linked."
However, the guidline also allows for linking, "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." But who is to determine what "a long way means". — GabeMc (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated links, specifically The Wall and The Wall Live (concert tour), were 2 paragraphs apart, certainly not "a long way". The redirects were "One of These Days (instrumental)" (which should go straight to "One of These Days (Pink Floyd song)" instead) and The Wall Live (2010–2011 tour) (which should go straight to The Wall Live (concert tour) instead). I understand concerns about overlinking, but when you omit links to Pink Floyd The Wall (film), "Another Brick in the Wall", and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame entirely, then I have to object. I just don't think that enough care was paid to this area of the article. I've fixed the items I've mentioned, but I'm not confident in saying there aren't more instances in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe, it doesn't appear you fully understand what constitutes overlinking. Important people like Syd Barret, David Gilmour, etc, need to be linked at least once in the body of the article. If you are counting the lead as the first mention of a topic, you would be incorrect. The lead should not be counted in regards to how many times something is Wikilinked - that count would start with the beginning of the article body. Things like this are what dissuade me from supporting a promotion of this article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a human doing his best. — GabeMc (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, link in the lede, and on the first mention in the article body, and in some cases, link again when it has been a long time since the article body link. — GabeMc (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I understand concerns about overlinking, but when you omit links to Pink Floyd The Wall (film), "Another Brick in the Wall", and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame entirely, then I have to object."
When did I do this? I am not the only editor who edits the article. — GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant this as a collective "you", not necessarily you, Gabe. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Y2kcrazyjoker4 for fixing the issues you identified, and clarifing what I need to look for. I appreciate your efforts, since, as you said, sometimes a new set of eyes can see what one set had been missing. — GabeMc (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have followed the development of this article since before its first FAC and I confirm my support that I added in the previous nomination. Waters and the Floyd are subjects that I have followed and have read widely about since my teens. In my humble opinion this contribution is one of the best articles on Waters on the internet. It is comprehensive, well-researched and the prose is engaging and generally well-written. Clearly, some minor glitches remain, but I don't see any severe enough to prevent promotion. Waters is a difficult subject to do justice to, despite being perceived by some as egocentric, he seems to be a very private person with little to say about his life outside his music and the shortage of sources reflect this. I think the nominator has made very good use of what is available and I offer my applause. I would, however, delete the picture of the headstock of someone else's Fender bass, which is at the end of the article. It looks daft. Graham Colm (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness - minor tweaks done. prose looks ok now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll be noting items that stick out to me here in a gradual fashion as I read through the article.

  • I always feel sentences such as "He is best known as the bass player, lyricist and co-lead vocalist of the rock band Pink Floyd" are pretty dire. Sure, it's his claim to fame, but I don't think any source would utilize the wording "best known". Why not combine it with the next sentence, ie. "Waters was a founding member of the rock group Pink Floyd, serving as bassist and co-lead vocalist. Following the departure of bandmate Syd Barrett in 1968, Waters became the band's lyricist, principal songwriter and conceptual leader" (also note that you explain that he is the bassist later in that paragraph, so you may not even need to mention that right off the bat).
Fixed.
  • The sentence "Waters has been married four times and has three children" just dangles at the end of the lead. Please integrate it into a large paragraph, or omit it.
Fixed.
  • Link "Labour Party" and "World War II".
Linked.
  • The quote about Cambridge could use some support in the prose. If you glanced over it, you wouldn't get the idea that he didn't enjoy his time there from the main prose. Personally, I'd recommend cutting the quote to what's necessary and inserting it into the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • I would argue that there's a little too much unnecessary detail in the "Formation section" that doesn't have to do with Water himself or isn't necessary for context. For example, we don't need to know that Chris Dennis was a dental technician with the Royal Air Force here.
I removed what I could.
  • The same concern shows up in the "Early period" section. Note that Waters isn't mentioned in the second paragraph until the end, where is marriage is discussed. His actual relevance to the Barrett situation (that is, he took over as songwriter), is actually discussed in the paragraph below it at the start of "Classic period". Consider moving some of this detail to Pink Floyd or the "Background" sections of relevant albums if it isn't there already.
I am not sure what to delete and still retain comprehensivness, though I am open to specific suggestions.
I cut some unnecessary detail and combined the two sections. It flows much better now, although you can certainly tweak it a bit. I noticed earlier that you removed a bit about Waters' first writing credit. You should probably keep that in. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the bit about Waters' first writing credit. — GabeMc (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you replace "Classic period" with something more objective/descriptive, like "Waters emerges as main songwriter"?
Fixed.
  • The whole paragraph about Wright's ejection from the band is off-topic. You can probably summarize the detail in a sentence for context. Remember, Waters is the focus here. Even if you aren't directly talking about him, whatever you do include needs to be directly relevant to him (how much Pink Floyd sold/how high it charted at a given point=relevant, a description of the The Wall album artwork=not so much). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one I disagree on, for this reason: Waters almost always gets most of the blame for "kicking" Wright out of Floyd, and this article shows that he was one vote in a democratic band that all agreed.
It would be better then to directly address claims that Waters is to blame for kicking Wright out as discussed by sources. As someone with only a passing familiarity with Pink Floyd (I can only ever name Waters, Gilmour, and Barrett off the top of my head), none of that came through from what I read. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"none of that came through from what I read", it's not supposed to, since Waters was not to blame, Wright was, that's why the paragraph is important, because it was, essentially, Wright's choice to leave Pink Floyd, though pressured by Waters and Gilmour to produce, something Mason corroborates. To clarify, the sources don't blame Waters, but the fans usually do. IME. — GabeMc (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the issue wasn't apparent until you explained it here. To the average reader reading the article, they too will wonder why exactly so much space is devoted to something not directly related to Waters. They don't have the context you provided here. Unless you explain that fans usually blame Waters for Wright's ejection in the prose with a source, you should trim the section down. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section directly above, "During the recording of The Wall ... " covers that doesn't it? Otherwise, I am not sure what to trim, it's only one paragraph, that tells the story well, IMHO. Feel free to remove any info you find unneeded. — GabeMc (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, it is already mentioned on the song page.
  • You can probably do away with "Amidst creative differences within the group, Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985, and began a legal battle with the remaining band members regarding their continued use of the name and material". If you choose to keep it, move it to the start of the paragraph below it and add a citation. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved, added cite.
Fixed.
I guess I disagree on this one, afterall, he performed The Wall, on the vacant terrain near where the Berlin wall stood 8 months earlier. And the symbolic importance of tearing down walls adds to the EV of why the performance is notable.
Find a source that diectly links the performance to the dismantling of the Wall, and it can stay.WesleyDodds (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about Blake, page 346 — GabeMc (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never liked that line either, removed.
  • The last paragraph in the "1984–1996" section becomes pretty jumbled near the end (For example, why is Jeff Beck's guitar-playing mentioned after the UK sales certification?).
Fixed.
  • Use specific dates sparingly. In most cases, month and year (or year alone) will suffice. For example the specific day the Dark Side of the Moon Live tour launched is unnecessary; what would be more relevant would be noting the duration of the tour.
Good advice, I agree, the month and year is enough.
  • "In March 2007, the science fiction film The Last Mimzy was released featuring an exclusive Waters song, "Hello (I Love You)", which played over the end credits". Rephrase to make the song the subject of the sentence.
Fixed.
  • "Gilmour's guitar-tech Phil Taylor replaced the white pickguard with a black one around 1976; this is visible on The Wall Tour, In the Flesh Tour, and The Dark Side of the Moon Live. He often plays bass using a pick but is also known to play fingerstyle. Waters uses RotoSound Jazz Bass 77 flat-wound strings,[133] and Samson wireless systems. Throughout his career he has used Selmer, WEM, Hiwatt and Ashdown amplifiers, also employing delay, tremolo, chorus, panning and phaser effects in his music. For The Wall Live tour, Roger is using a pair of Ampeg SVT 7 Pro amp heads and Ampeg PN 4x10 HLF cabinets side by side with one ready to go as a backup should his main rig fail." Much of this section appears to be uncited, and I wouldn't rely on the RotoSound website as a reliable source. I suggest digging through the archives at GuitarWorld.com to find information about Water's technique and gear.
If you could point me to any specific online sources (I found nothing on Waters playing or gear at GuitarWorld.com) I would be happy to include them, or, anything in this paragraph can be sourced to Fitch 2005, if you tell me what specfically needs to be sourced in the paragraph.
You should do an Internet search to double check for anything that might be available in print form only, which in turn might necessitate procuring back issues on eBay. Guitar magazines are really an invaluable resource for this sort of thing, so you want to make sure you aren't overlooking anything. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure I could source anything using the dozen or so books I already have. What specifically is the article needing web cites for? — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a comprehensiveness matter than a citing sources matter. You need to make sure you didn't overlook anything vital. Speaking of which, is there anything useful from the Classic Albums documentary series? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I own the DSOTM Classic Albums, and I don't think anything in particular needs to be cited from it. As far as "make sure you didn't overlook anything vital", I have read music mags for 25 years, and have been a die-hard Floyd fan for that entire time, if I missed anything, it wasn't that notable. — GabeMc (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., I have been editing this article for nearly one full year, during which time I have searched far and wide for any reliable source that might help, so beyond Floyd being my fav band for over 25 years, I have indeed searched online for sources this past year. — GabeMc (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just making sure, as I've found in the past other FAC nominators of music-related articles haven't thought to explore such sources before nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your detailed review, the article is much improved due to your input. Is there anything else preventing your support? — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just trimming of the aforemention overly-detailed sections. I'll have a go at it in a little bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It clicked, and I understood what you meant so I trimmed some more, I think you might like how it now reads. — GabeMc (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the References section, the Mojo links only link to images of the issue covers. Remove them.
Removed links.

Overall I think the article is well-written and well-sourced (I particularly appreciate that unlike a lot of music articles, you are aware that there are books available on subject you are writing about and not just web resources). Some more poking around on the web can't hurt, though: there's the aforementioned Guitar World website (and back issues), plus you might be benefited by glancing through the The New York Times website (you probably won't have to scan for too much more material, since the books and magazine articles you cite appear to be very comprehensive). Address the points above, and I'll be happy to place my support. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed and specific review, I found it most helpful. I think I addressed as best I could, all the issues you raised above, except perhaps, the issue of too much detail in the formation and Barrett sections. I personaly feel the detail is needed to tell that timeline accurately, and am not sure what to take out without sacrificing comprehensiveness. — GabeMc (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the previous FAC, when discussion had lulled, SandyGeorgia told me to ping previous commentors. The activity had slowed on this page so I pinged, sorry if I bothered you. — GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I added alt text for each image, feel free to add any details you think I missed. Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the alt text that was added provided unnecessary details, like dates, songs being performed, measurements, etc. The purpose of alt text is to describe the image itself very briefly, not necessarily to explain the image. I've made revisions that cut down on this detail. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Y2kcrazyjoker4, the summaries are much improved due to your efforts. — GabeMc (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2010 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roger_Waters/archive2&oldid=1146338277"