Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Who/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review | The Who

The Who

edit
Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article passed GA about a year ago, receiving a million award in the process. Such an important and high-traffic band article really should be at featured article status, so this is the first step. Since the GA review, I've added a section on "Musical style", kept the narrative up to date to include their 2014 tour, and done some general copyediting, but hopefully with as many eyes on this as possible, we can make this a truly great article.

Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
@SNUGGUMS: - anyone out there? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay, Ritchie. Here's some starting comments.....
Infobox
  • Are the listed subgenres of rock really needed? Since they're known as a rock band, we can just simply say that.
Some are, some aren't. Power pop is cited explicitly, and I think hard rock probably could go in somewhere around Live at Leeds to explain the contrast between itself and Tommy. Let me come back to this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "an English rock band formed in 1964"..... that formed
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For much of their career they have been regarded"..... needs a comma after "career"
Are you sure about that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most important British rock acts"..... English, let's be more specific here
I would rather stick with "British", as that is what the sources use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the world's best-selling bands of all time, having sold more than 100 million records"..... why is this not mentioned within the article body? Should probably be under an "achievements" section or something in body.....
  • "hit singles" in "A string of hit singles followed" is WP:PEACOCK
I don't think it is - it's factually correct. Their follow-up singles could have been chart flops, but they weren't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try splitting "The Who resumed regular touring in 1999, with drummer Zak Starkey, to a positive response, and were considering the possibility of a new album, but these plans were stalled by Entwistle's death in June 2002" into two sentences
Whereabouts would you consider a good splitting point? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
Background
  • The founding members passing an exam isn't really needed, just say they all attended the same school and grew up in Acton, London
(Without wishing to sound like a grizzly old fart who was programming on the ZX Spectrum before Katy Perry was even born...) The eleven plus exam was the cornerstone of the Tripartite system of education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from the 40s to the 70s and was an important stage of anyone's life. The result of passing or failing the eleven plus could completely change a child's future as it determined which secondary school they went to. (Just compare Norton Knatchbull School to The North School). Passing the eleven plus was a notable achievement (only about 1 in 4 did) and allowed all three to have a better shot in life. Had any of them failed it, the Who as we know it would probably not have existed. Fletcher's book on Keith Moon devotes a couple of pages to this topic (Moon failed his). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "so" from "He was unable to afford his own instrument and so built one at home", and place a comma after "instrument"
Removed "so" but I don't think the comma is necessary Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a more accomplished musician"..... experienced musician would be more encylcopedic
Gone with "better" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1964–1978
Early career
  • There should be a space after the comma in "in late April at the Oldfield,the band met Keith Moon"
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First singles and My Generation
  • Do we really need "first singles" in the section title?
I think so, because prior to Tommy, the Who were a singles band, as were most acts in 1965, and their hits (like everyone from the Beatles downwards) did not put singles on LPs. It's only really about 1968 that albums became more important. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Quick One and The Who Sell Out
  • For those who don't recognize Daltrey and Moon's faces, it would be helpful to indicate in the photo caption which is which
Looks like this has been done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant to include things like "(right)" and "(left)" in the caption Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was in the filename. Oops. Done, and popped another picture in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had held off recording it"..... just say delayed recording
Gone with "avoided" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a fairly disastrous tour"..... I think unsuccessful will do
Reduced to just "a tour" with an explanation of what happened. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy, Woodstock, and Live at Leeds
  • "In August, he gave a major interview to Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner in which he described in intricate detail an album project he was working on, the plot of which eventually became the Tommy album" is quite a mouthful. Try simplifying to something like "In August, he described to Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner in detail what would become the Tommy album".
Redone this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later on.....Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: - sorry about the delay, I got sidetracked with real like and AfC. Any more for any more? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. There is indeed more, but it's not going to all come in one go.
Lifehouse and Who's Next
  • "both tracks' keyboard sounds were generated in real time by a Lowrey organ, and on 'Won't Get Fooled Again', it was further processed through a VCS3 synthesizer"..... while 'Won't Get Fooled Again was processed through a VCS3 synthesizer
Done 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, and linked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quadrophenia, Tommy film, and The Who by Numbers
  • Elaborate on "Moon's behaviour was becoming increasingly destructive and problematic"
Done, though I would like a second opinion as now it goes into a little bit too much detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "screamed verbal abuse at him"..... reads awkwardly, "screamed at him" or "verbally abused him" would probably be better
"screamed at him" will probably do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filming began in April 1974 (including 1500 extras at Portsmouth Polytechnic for the 'Pinball Wizard' sequence) and lasted through until August"..... concluded in August.
Gone with "carried on until August" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who Are You and Moon's death
  • "he bumped into the Sex Pistols' Steve Jones and Paul Cook"..... met with
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their performance was so weak that the footage was left unused. Moon's playing was particularly lacklustre"..... I'm not convinced this is entirely neutral
That's what's in the source. I've counterbalanced it with an online interview from Daltrey about the gig. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "poor performance at Kilburn. Their performance was strong"..... same as before
They wouldn't have done the May '78 filming unless they had to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's best to keep Moon's age in his own article rather than here
Seems a bit silly to just have "He was 32" to a whole source. Removed that, but left the source in as it does back up the previous claim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far, coming along pretty well..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead

edit

See I'm little late here. Here's the review (from bottom to top):

  • refs 37, 268, 269, 273–no need for capitalizing the article's name
After other changes, I think the citation numbers are all out of sync, but I assume this is because the titles had VERY ANNOYING SHOUTING in them. Should all be fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 'Awards and accolades' could use some expansion; you can write whether they have won a Grammy, or that the band has entered the American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, for example.
Before I started work on getting the article to GA, this section was basically what List of awards and nominations received by The Who is now, and I just kept the opening paragraph. I think this needs rewriting from that list article, but it shouldn't be too taxing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit more work on this. I've collapsed "awards and nominations" to a subsection in "legacy" and copied a few more accolades over. Most of the other stuff in the awards spinoff article are either not particularly reliable or about specific albums. I'll have a scout around for anything else that is of unquestionably high importance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • second paragraph of the 'Legacy and influence' could benefit from some copyediting. The quotes read monotonically to a certain degree; all of the musicians are repeating themselves by saying "The Who are the greatest band of all time!". Why not paraphrase some of the quotes, or incorporate in what way the group influenced the bands that followed (musically, lyrically, visually, etc.)
I've made a start on this. Some of it can move into "Musical style" (eg: the note about power pop), some of it can be trimmed down. I need to do some more work on this, principally as you say by using quotations and concentrating on sources that deal with music as a whole. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

edit
Lead
edit
  • Isn't there some rule that we're supposed to use a recent photo (for BLPs, I think).
Not as far as I know (but that doesn't necessarily mean anything) - the lead says "their best known line-up...." and lists the members in the picture, two of whom are deceased. Given this, I'm surprised nobody challenged it, but coverage in books and sources suggest the (not quite) original four is where the article should spend most time, and I think the picture should follow suit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For much of their career they have been regarded: what about now?
The last source marking this claim is dated May 2013, which I think is recent enough not to invalidate the claim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • more than 100 million records: what about cassettes, eight-tracks, CDs?
You can't say "albums" as that doesn't include singles (and before Tommy the Who were singles first, albums second), "albums, singles and EPs" is too long, "albums, cassettes, eight-tracks, CDs, reel to reel, librettos, sheet music" is too long, and "units" is industry jargon that the layman reader won't understand. What word can you use? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"having sold more than 100 million copies of their recordings"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • single billed as the High Numbers the single was billed as the High Numbers?
"billed" is redundant. Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • specialising in auto-destructive art by destroying guitars and drums onstage: I'll have to read the rest of the article, but did they really specialize in such a thing? It makes me think of Hendrix---he had a reputation for smashing and burning guitars, but only actually did it something like three times.
The Who smashed their gear occasionally through 1965, most of the time in 1966 and 1967 (eg: Montrey, Smothers Brothers, the montage of equipment smashing on The Kids are Alright film), and tailed it off in 1968 because it was getting two expensive. Certainly on their first US tour, Townshend was smashing five guitars a day. In short, yes. (all in Marsh's book, can get specific cites with page numbers if required). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But "specialising in"? Maybe "featuring"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support by pirate radio and television: but not mainstream radio? How did they manage to get on TV?
In 1964, the only "mainstream radio" in the UK was the BBC (independent commercial radio did not exist until 1973), and its coverage of pop music was extremely limited. They got on TV because they had a single in the charts and they got the record deal for the single through somebody seeing them gigging at the Marquee and writing a rave review about it. They then became closely identified with ITV's Ready Steady Go throughout 1965 and 66, hence the "television". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I won't be the only one who has no clue about these circumstances (no commerical radio?) Perhaps in the lead it should just be "radio", and then "pirate radio" in the body, where it can be explained. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in 1964 we didn't have commercial radio, we'd only just gone up to three black and white TV channels, you needed shillings for the electric meter, I had to get up at half ten at night half an hour before I went to bed, work down mill 37 hours a day for tuppence a year and when we got home our dad ... sorry, I'm rambling. I've removed "radio and television" entirely, while the pirate radio connection is important, I don't think it'll hurt to restrict it to the body. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not worth mentioning that Tommy and Quadrophenia were rock operas (and double discs)? "Rock opera" is a term associated with the Who, isn't it? I might also mention that Quadrohenia was recorded with quadrophonic sound in mind.
The trouble is, "Tommy" the rock opera could be confused with the orchestral version, the film, the musical, or something else. I'll have a think about "rock opera" (and it goes back to 1966 for the Who). I don't believe Quadrophenia was specifically planned with a quad mix, do you have a source for that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm saying---"rock opera" is a term strongly tied to the band, but the lead never mentions it. The Quadrophenia arilce quotes Townshend in the lead: "The whole conception of Quadrophenia was geared to quadraphonic". The infobox there also claims the album was prog, which is an awful broad interpretation of prog, if you ask me. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quadrophenia is assessed as C class, has numerous cleanup tags and needs serious work. I wouldn't trust anything in that article. I will improve it some day (unless somebody else does). I've put "rock opera" next to Tommy as the two terms are unquestionably related. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • was released in 1979 along with the retrospective documentary: this makes it sound like the releases were related to each other. Were they?
Not really. Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 that drew mixed reviews: was the fact that it drew mixed reviews significant enough to mention it in the lead? Was it a big deal?
From Rolling Stone : Much to the horror of their fans, the five-man lineup of 1979-1982 had suddenly swelled to 15 people. Making matters worse, Pete Townshend played acoustic guitar all night. Steve "Boltz" Bolton handled electric duties. It didn't sound much like the Who, and fans derisively labeled it "The Who on Ice." A search for "The Who on ice" (inside quotes) brings back similar strongly negative reviews (although not all are as reliable as Rolling Stone). No other Who tour before or since got such negative press coverage, so in that context, "mixed reviews" is, I think, generous. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "mixed reviews", then, an accurate (or helpful) way to describe it? It makes one wonder why it's even being mentioned. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because the tour was substantially different and there were no tours for years either side of it, but to be honest, I don't think it really matters for the lead. As an added bonus, we can loose a comma, which generally makes the FAC regulars happy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a tour of Quadrophenia in 2012: sounds like they toured a place called Quadrophenia
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • before announcing their retirement in 2014 after a final album and accompanying live shows.: yet Townshend and Daltrey are still listed as current members in the Infobox
Reworded so this makes more sense - they've announced they will be doing a final tour but they've done a "final tour" 30 years ago, so until multiple sources say the Who has irrevocably and permanently split, or one or both of the founding members dies, then we can change the infobox, but per WP:CRYSTAL, not before. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background
edit
It is, but "founding members" doesn't sound out of place, so let's go with what will fit with most readers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daltrey, Townshend and Entwistle,: given that this is their first mentions in the body, I'd used their full names, and link them
The problem here is that I have had previous reviews telling me the opposite, ie: WP:LASTNAME applies for every second and subsequent use, lead or body (see Talk:The Yes Album/GA1.
WP:LASTNAME doesn't actually say anything about the lead, and Funkmonk was actually telling you the same thing I am. WP:REPEATLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." That's not a requirement, but it's definitely a very common approach, especially considering the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Ther's inconsistency in that you link, for example, albums, songs, terms such as auto-destructive art, and basically everything else linked in the lead except for the band members. If you feel strongly enough about it, I'm not about to oppose it at FAC, but I do think it's good practice. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on The Yes Album, by the way---one of my favourites! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that not too long ago I got reverted with a summary of WP:OVERLINK / WP:LASTNAME after putting a name in both the lead and the body. However, I'm blowed if I can find it, so ... full names in and lead and body it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cliff, had played saxophone: but had ceased by the time Townshend went to Acton? If not, drop the "had".
"Had" removed (sources documenting him playing professionally up to at least the mid 1960s, well into the Who's career). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Townshend's father, Cliff, had played saxophone and his mother, Betty, had sung in the entertainment division of the RAF during World War II, while Entwistle's father, Herbert, played trumpet, and his mother, Queenie, played piano.: fairly long sentence, might be worth copping in two. "saxophone", "trumpet", and "piano" are WP:OVERLINKing.
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and so built one at home: holy shit!
It's perfectly true (or at least verifiable to two official endorsed band biographies). What the article doesn't say (but one source does), though, is that the glue gave out on the first gig and it collapsed in pieces. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • both left school aged 16: as in they dropped out, or they graduated?
The source says, verbatim, "At the age of sixteen, John and Pete left Acton County School". It means "graduated" in the sense they reached the minimum school leaving age without getting expelled, but that's more US English. "Left school" (with the implication that the subject got to standard leaving age and started work) is recognisable British English. These days with kids going off to get a BTEC in hairdressing it's starting to become anachronistic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is there some way to word this to make it clear they didn't drop out? Because, like I said, that's the impression the wording gives to a North American (WP:COMMONALITIES). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ran this past my other half yesterday (who grew up in the US), and the long and short of it is the UK does not have the equivalent of a High School Diploma, the closest thing being compulsory subjects at GCSE, and (certainly in my case) after my last exam, I never went to school again (and in Moon's case, he simply stopped going and looked for work). Anyway, back on track, I've simply said "After Acton County", as what they did after school is more important (in Entwistle's case, the job allowed him to buy a proper bass, Townshend has repeatedly said that art school changed his life). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • fitting in as an outsider: as a geographical outsider, or personality-wise? A North American would assume the latter.
I would say both - he came from a different area and was of a different social class. Does that make sense? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you might want to make that explicit. North Americans tend to move frequently---I went to three elementary schools in different municipalities, and it never made me an "outsider". It would not cross a North American's mind that such a thing would make one an "outsider" unless that was explicitly stated. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "fitting in at school". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Through Townshend's mother, the group obtained a management contract with local promoter Robert Druce, who started booking the band as a support act, and they became increasingly influenced by bands they were supporting, including Screaming Lord Sutch, Cliff Bennett and the Rebel Rousers, Shane Fenton and the Fentones, and Johnny Kidd and the Pirates.: another long sentence I'd like to see cut up.
I've reworded this bit, and cut out a few other superfluous terms. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • more of a lead instrument: in what way? He did solos?
That's what the source says, verbatim. I think the problem with the sources is they assume you've heard the Who's music before reading the book and trust you're familiar with stuff like this and this (is the last two of those a reliable source, I wonder)? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the actual video might---not so confident a promo would be acceptable. What I meant, though, was about his playing at the time in the narrative. Was he playing all over the place then, or did it develop over time? Does the video say, I wonder? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled out a few more book sources to talk about Entwistle's style, though most of it's ended up in "Musical Style" as you might expect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early career
edit
  • By the time the Detours had evolved into the Who: is this evolution? They dropped the one name and took on the other
Changed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (also did a "noted" per WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED elsewhere) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the band met Moon for the first time: first mention in the body, so should be full name & linked
See above comment Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • but wanted a full-time role: wanted a full-time role with the Beachcombers?
I think he just wanted to play music professionally, regardless of which band. Reworded in any case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's worded, it could be parsed as "he wanted a full-time role [with the Beachcombers]". Maybe "he wanted to be a full-time drummer" or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - that article says they formed in the late 1960s when the Who were well up and running. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another break here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


First singles and My Generation
edit
  • He signed the group to his production company: do we have a name for this?
I'll have a hunt round for sources. You would have thought an original label for "I Can't Explain" would have it, but it doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a (one-sentence) explanation of pirate radio would be helpful. If you don't know the history, it sounds fringe & underground, & unlikely to contribute to Top Ten Success.
I've dropped in a brief explanation of why pirate radio was important, and changed the link to the more descriptive pirate radio in the United Kingdom. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single also reached the top 10 in the UK: if it was rejected for the US market, then what does "also" refer to?
Removed (it refers to being their second top ten hit)
  • who enjoyed clubbing: meaning they enjoyed clubbing together?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean "clubbing" was unclear, I meant following "The Who were not particularly good friends either, apart from Moon and Entwistle" it wasn't clear if Moon and Entwistle were good friends because (or so) they clubbed together, or they just happened to be friends, and tangentially both enjoyed clubbing. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lambert and Stamp claimed...while Talmy claimed: "claim"
Fixed, although to be honest, exactly what is the issue with "a claimed x but b claimed y" other than "The MOS says so"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale at WP:CLAIM is "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • it saw a proper remix: as opposed to what kind of remix? Also, there are reviewers who maintain that "saw" here would be inappropriate anthropomorphism (I don't buy it, but don't be surprised if it comes up).
Reworded. I think a proper remaster would be the right term here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaction Label: is "Label" part of the label name?
Mistake, fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and replaced with "Waltz for a Pig": was the "Substitute" single replaced with "Waltz for a Pig", or just the B-side?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • collection of songs called "Quads": does "collection of songs" man something like an EP? In that case, should "Quads" be italicized?
I would guess so. 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A Quick One and The Who Sell Out
edit
  • Moon detonated his drum kit: this was live, wasn't it? I might mention it.
The music was mimed, but the explosion was obviously real. 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I mean, wasn't it broadcast live? This seems to strongly imply it: "...nationally televised performance of "My Generation" with a literal bang that singed Pete Townshend's hair, left shrapnel in Keith Moon's arm and momentarily knocked The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour off the air." A filmed performance wouldn't knock anything off the air, I imagine. And those other details might be worth mentioning (shrapnel in Moon's arm?) Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below. The Smothers Brothers show was released on The Kids are Alright film and several other Who documentaries. Needless to say it's been bootlegged all over YouTube (just do a search for "The Who Smothers Brothers" and you'll find one), and you can easily see the explosion and resulting carnage, but it did not knock the show off the air. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • but had been banned that August: the album, or pirate radio?
Added link to Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 and reworded (the ban happened first, then the album was recorded) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a mini rock opera called "Rael" whose closing theme ended up on Tommy': meaning the closing theme appeared on both albums?
Yes - it's musically identical. It also turned up in the Live at Leeds performance of "My Generation". Do you need a {{cite audio}} for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant it's not clear if this meant the ending was dropped from the album and then included on Tommy. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this so it makes more sense and explains exactly what songs use the same music. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about Hendrix upstaging the Who with their own schtick at Monterey?
I thought I added a quote from Tony Fletcher's book about Hendrix being "so much better than the Who it was embarrassing". Maybe it was another article. Let me come back to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added quite a bit more information about the 1967 tours, which account for the comments re Monterey and the Smothers Brothers show above Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there something about Townshend refusing to have the Who follow Hendrix? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that - it was more that the Who wanted to go on first and argued. I don't think Hendrix cared. I've popped a bit in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy, Woodstock and Live at Leeds
edit
  • came directly from Townshend's studies of Baba: meaning he wrote them while studying with Baba, or they were inspired by Baba's teachings?
The latter (Townshend and Baba never actually met; there is some irony in a member of "the world's loudest band" being influenced by someone notable for taking a lengthy vow of silence)
You might want to state that---I mean, this comes not long after the Beatles went to India, so it's easy to assume Townshend was studying with Baba. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'd still like to see "interested in the teachings of Meher Baba" made more explicit. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and "Pinball Wizard" was written to attract the interest of New York Times journalist Nik Cohn: why?
Reworded so it's more obvious. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today, Gibson manufactures: this'll date.
They've been making Townshend SGs for about 15 years now, but I see your point. Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"subsequently" coud be interpreted as "not long after". Maybe "From 19XX, Gibson began manufacturing..."? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'd need a source for that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm taking so many breaks. If I forget to come back, give me a ping. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tend to be busy in real life, so I wouldn't worry about it too much - there's no deadline in finishing this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: I think everything's been addressed one way or another, or at least almost everything has. Shall we tackle the 70s? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifehouse and Who's Next
edit
  • tired of not getting enough of his own songs on Who albums: maybe "more" instead of "enough"---after all, what's "enough"?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • thought of a suitable follow-up to Tommy': could be interpreted as a sudden thought that came to him, or as Townshend spent time thinking of something
Reworded. I've gone with "how the Who could make a studio album" as Live At Leeds had been released at this point in the narrative. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • creating various layers of synthesizers: meaning he multitracked synthesizers?
Yes, you couldn't get polyphonic synths until the mid 1970s. What wording should be changed / improved here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • had a nervous breakdown, and Lifehouse was abandoned: I think it reads better as "had a nervous breakdown and abandoned Lifehouse"
Not sure. That implies Townshend specifically abandoned Lifehouse, whereas I think it was a group decision that the project was not going to work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the available Lifehouse material: I feel like "available" isn't the right adjective
Reworded (and taken out the adjective, thus side stepping the issue)
I thought it was, but a quick look at the source reveals it was the Record Plant on Seventh Avenue. Added "Record Plant" and changed link. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • in New York, which had to be abandoned: they had to abandon New York?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • were released as a traditional studio album, Who's Next': a release date would be nice
It was August 1971 (added and sourced)
  • reaching No. 4 in the US pop charts and No. 1 in the UK: "in" the charts and not "on" the charts? Is this an ENGVAR thing?
Changed to "No. 1 in the UK and No. 1 in the US". I don't think we need to say "in / on the charts" as it's not done anywhere else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Townshend was credited with "VCS3 Organ" and "ARP Synthesizer" on the cover.: this sounds more like info for the album article than for the band article
Removed (the previous sentence describes it in more detail) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • , produced by Moon: the solo was produced separately from the tracks? That raises a number of questions for the reader; personally I'd drop it and leave the details to the album article.
That's what's cited on the back cover - "violin on Baba O'Riley produced by Keith Moon". [1] Moon's own article (a GA) talks about the circumstances more. I've taken out "produced by Moon" from this sentence, but left the remainder. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • they opened the Rainbow Theatre: not opened at?
Reworded (now slightly shorter). Also rewritten so that the text doesn't say on 4 November they played at the venue for 3 nights. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quadrophenia, Tommy film and The Who by Numbers
edit
  • for the first part of 1972: how long is a "part"?
Clarified (also added name of abandoned album started in May 72) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • had left significant amounts of money unaccounted for: what, they left mystery money lying around?
The source says, specifically, "In 1972, Daltrey had New Action's books audited and discovered huge sums of money unaccouted for." I've toned this down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and examines the relationship with his family and the mod culture: Jimmy or the album examine this?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and rehearsals were interrupted due to an argument which culminated in Daltrey punching Townshend and knocking him out cold: "and" seems to imply that this was related to the tech issues or the synthesizers---was it?
According to the source, the group were rehearsing "5:15", the tapes malfunctioned, Townshend got cross and started having a go at whoever was in earshot, which happened to be Daltrey, who, being the better fighter, punched Townshend in self defence. How might we get that in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • described this gig as one of the worst of all time: worst gig, or worst Who gig?
Worst gig, full stop, according to the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the Canadian Mounted Police were called: I'm Canadian. I'd say it's unusual to shorten "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" to "Canadian Mounted Police". I'd either unshorten it, or use RCMP (or "the Mounties"---but I'm not sure if that's unencyclopaedic or not).
Okay, you might be able to help with my understanding here. I though the RCMP were the national police, at a higher level than the provincial or municipal police, so you had the standard Montreal PD, then the RCMP above that - the implication here being that they caused so much destruction that they required top level enforcement. It's not in the article, but according to one source, Moon trashed an antique painting and he, Townshend and some roadies rammed a table through an adjoining wall, before sending it out of the window. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds about right to me; I didn't think about that, but yeah I guess calling in the Mounties for trashing a hotel room sounds pretty over-the-top. Perhaps because it involved high-profile foreigners? The details of law enforcement are definitely well outside my expertise. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth just briefly qualifying the status of the RCMP (eg: "the highest level of Canadian law enforcement") - since I had to ask, anyone else outside Canada probably would too. They did destroy irreplaceable antique furniture! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to suggest something like [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police|federal law enforcement]], but the article on it says "It is unique in the world as a national, federal, provincial, and municipal policing body". I have no idea what the difference between "federal" and "national" is, and I had no idea they also functioned on a provincial and municipal level. I guess that muddies the water a bit---even if your sources calls them national police, they may have (naturally) simply assumed they were acting at a national capacity (until a few minutes ago, I would've, too). Maybe just leave it at Royal Canadian Mounted Police (expanded)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this: "the RCMP does not provide provincial or municipal policing in either Ontario or Quebec". So I guess [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police|federal law enforcement]] would be accurate. And if they destroyed antique furniture & paintings, wouldn't that be worth saying so? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so, now done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to a standing ovation from the audience: seriously?! It's been twenty years since I last saw it, but I remember it as horrifying
It's in the source here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not accusing you of making it up. It just blows me away. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the 70s for you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • $2M in box-office receipts in its first month: MOS:NUMBERS says "M" may be used "after spelling out the first occurrence", but (a) the "first occurence" is in the lead; and (b) I don't think it's a good idea in an article in which big numbers like this don't appear frequently
  • reaching number 2 on the Billboard albums chart: sometimes there's "No.", sometimes "number"; should choose one or the other
Should all be "No." + non breaking space + number - that's my preferred format. I blame IPs.
  • were restricted to a one-off show: "restricted" sounds like someone actively disallowed the shows; I imagine from the context that they just didn't have time
  • a one-off show at Charlton Athletic Football Ground in May: worth redlinking Charlton Athletic Football Ground?
That's The Valley (London), but it's not linked on first use. Now fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • lightened by "Squeeze Box", another hit single: how did "Squeeze Box" lighten things? By being a hit single, by being light in tone?
I've reworded this entire sentence, and added some other examples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • reintroducing Tommy to the set: songs from Tommy, or performances of Tommy?
Clarified Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entwistle considered the Who's live performances to be at their peak at this time.: any word on what the other members thought?
Townshend was fed up with all of it. Added that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another break---sorry. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: - okay, I think I've covered all the points now. I'm busy over the weekend, so there's enough time to tackle as much of the remainder as we can manage. Thanks for all the help you've done so far, hopefully if a few others chip in it'll make the FA review a much easier ride. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who Are You and Moon's death
edit
  • While recuperating: a surprising choice of words, given that we're told his reason to take time off was to spend time with his family.
Removed
  • he discovered that Allen Klein: who? And why would this disillusion him?
If you knew the first, you'd know the second! [2] Reworded
  • who both liked the Who: just "liked"? Weren't the Who a primary influence? I seem to remember Lydon making snide comments about the band doing "their Who things" or something.
I don't think I've got a source that goes that far, and the case of the Pistols (who were year zero, all the past is irrelevant etc etc) they were unlikely to come out and say it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he passed out in a doorway: just like that? Was he drunk?
Might have been more than just drink, but without a reliable source and since he's still living, I'm not sure what else we can do here?
  • Moon was so out of shape: what, he'd gained a lot of weight? It says so later, but you might want to make it explicit here; for those who know how he ends up, "out of shape" could mena something to do with his consumption habits
I've gone with "unfit", but I'm not sure that's the right word to use - but the Kilburn footage has been released and this demonstrates why they were not exactly on top form
  • Having not played: "Not having played" seems to roll off the tonguue more smoothly, I think
  • The film was shelved: because of the shitty performance? Best to make it explicit
Reworded to solve both of these issues Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • biggest and fastest seller to that date: was it surpassed by a later recording?
I'd be surprised if it was - this was pretty much the end of their mainstream recording career. What would you suggest? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1978–1983
edit
  • can ever take his place".: Is there a period in the original? Given this is quoted as a full statement, if there's a period in the original, the period should go inside the quote.
Fixed (also the quotation spans over two pages) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the Cannes Film Festival in France, in Scotland, at Wembley Stadium in London, in West Germany, at the Capitol Theater in Passaic, New Jersey, and in five dates at Madison Square Garden in New York City.: this reads unnaturally, as it alternates between <specific place> in <country>, and just <country>.
  • unassigned, or festival seating: "unnassigned, or festival, seating"? Otherwise it reads as "festival seating" vs "unassigned"—unassigned what?
"unassigned" in this case means nobody gets a ticket for a specific location; however the rest of the sentence describes what festival seating is anyway, so it's irrelevant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • on MTV on its first day of airing: on the video's first day of airing?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • realising his role as a visionary: I think "realizing" is one of those words to avoid
Had a go at rewording this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, Jones' consistent and precise drumming was very different from Moon's wild and unpredictable playing.: is this supposed to imply Townshend was pining for Moon's playing?
  • There was resentment, too: resentment from the rest of the band? This is an unannounced shift from the Townshend perspective
It was specifically Daltrey and Entwistle. Jones had generally nothing to do with arguments and stayed out of them. I've added a quotation from Entwistle to enforce this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "farewell" tour of the US and Canada: why the scare quotes? And why not Britain?
Because history has shown us it wasn't a farewell. Indeed, later in the article, there is a reference to a newspaper article mentioning this in the light of their current farewell tour. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ending in Toronto on 17 December: whoo, T'ranna!
  • paid for himself and Jones to be released: do we know how much he paid?
Not yet, but I'll look for a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • as White City: A Novel : this is an album, and not an actual novel? Might want to make it clear
Reworded to solo albums (as they all were) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: What did you want me to do?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone else, suggest anything and everything that would make the article fail an FA review. Bad prose, missing facts, dodgy formatting, content that could be misunderstood - anything, really. I've been out all weekend so I'll deal with comments in the week to come. I would like to get a brown star but the man hours it seems to require always seem to be prohibitive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the same. I don't have a reliable source saying that they had actually split up in 1998 - there's just no reference to them doing anything. It's exactly the same situation as the first half of 1977 - they hadn't split up, but they did no work and they were on a rest. Because the surviving members of the band were in their 50s by this point, a year off before deciding to come back with a great tour is nothing unusual. So yes, it's unsourced original research, unsuitable for an FA => revert.
I'll be forever kicking myself about the 1999 tour. I'd seen reviews and coverage of the "Who On Ice" '89 tour, and reviews of the 96-97 "Quadrophenia" tour, but remember thinking they would never do anything like the classic 4-piece hard rock version of Tommy from 69/70 ever again. So when a friend said "do you want to see the Who at Shepherd's Bush" I declined saying, "They're no good without Moon and they're past it." Then I saw footage of the band, and was amazed that a band in their mid-50s could be that good and emulate previous success. Then Entwistle died. So I've never seen the Who live. Ho hum. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reunions
edit
Okay, this is where things get a little more difficult as my book sources of choice (Dave Marsh and Neill / Kent) run out, so I will have to be a little more creative in sourcing additional material... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't there something about Townsend stabbing his arm with a whammy bar in the early eighties, that led to him toning down his performances?
That was the '89 tour. Sources here and here, but I don't think either give us sufficient information that an FA requires. Was the concert in Washington, Washington or perhaps Washington? The Who Tour 1989 says it was DC, but it (like most of the Who tour articles) were written by somebody who thinks factual accuracy and reliable sources are things that other people fuss over. >:-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • at Bob Geldof's Live Aid concert: having two links back-to-back like this makes it look like this is "Bob Geldof's Live Aid". But at this scope, is it even worthwhile to mention Geldof?
No, just Live Aid will do. I think the event is well known enough on its own merits to not warrant that level of detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1989 tour
edit
  • to preserve his hearing: it looks like you mention Townsend's tinnitus late in the article, but it should've been mentioned by this point—the reader at this point has no idea that Townsend's hearing was already severly damanged, so the wording seems to indicate he was just turning into an old fart. Do we know the year he was diagnosed with tinnitus? It's probably worth mentioning earlier in the article the Who's reputation for being loud to give this proper context.
  • some critics slated the over-produced: is this an ENGVAR thing? Doesn't "slated" mean "schedule for"?
"Slated" means "Strongly criticised" or "Panned". I've toned this down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine: does Erlewine belong to the AllMusic staff, or was he just writing for AllMusic?
According to his own article, that's what he's primarily notable for. AllMusic have published print works such as The All Music Guide to Rock, which is one reason we generally accept them as a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-formation
edit
  • see the band back on form: I wasn't sure if this was a typo—is it BrEng to say "back on form" rather than "back in form"?
It is eg: "I've had the flu the past week but I'm back on form to start work this morning". However, since it empirically causes confusion, I've reworded it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oasis' Noel Gallagher: when you say this out loud, do you say Oasis' or Oasis's? If the latter, then that's how it should be spelled
According to MOS:POSS, there are a number of options, but consistency is the most important. Elsewhere in the article I can see "Middlesex Schools' Symphony Orchestra", "Kenny Jones'", "The Stooges' Ron Asheton Remembered" (in a source). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Tomas Erlewine described the Albert Hall gig as "an exceptional reunion concert".: a pretty blah comment. Is it really worth quoting?
I think so, because the gig was commercially released on CD and DVD, and it's the only fair way to give a positive appraisal of it without being POV. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the [[World Trade Center]] on [[September 11 Attacks|11 September 2001]]: I know it sounds silly, but you should probably be explicit about what happened on 11 September
September 11 Attacks is a vital article and fodder for POV pushers and conspiracy theorists. I don't mind linking to September 11 Attacks in full, and explaining what the rescue services were doing (that led to the charity gig) but anything more than that could be borrowing trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the paragraph about Entwistle's death could be moved to the next section? It flows more logically with the first paragraph of that section.
I'm not so sure. The "peak" years ended with Moon's death, and for consistency it would make sense for Entwistle to follow suit? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • tapes via themusic.com: worth a redlink? And are all the recordings tapes? I'd imagine more recent ones might be digital?
I've gone with "recordings", it's generally a better term. As for themusic.com, show me any coverage in reliable sources, otherwise what's the point of the redlink? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Palladino and Greg Lake, respectively, on bass: respectively of what? We're only given one instrument
Palladino played bass on "Old Red Wine" while Lake played bass on "Real Good Looking Boy" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • was released on 30 October 2006 (31 October in the US): I'd drop the US date at this scope
I don't remember that being there - removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • some songs of which may appear on a future Who album: is this still likely, now that they've announced their breakup?
Since the paragraph isn't actually anything per se to do with the Who, I've removed it. The paragraph that started "since Endless wire" was obviously once the original end of the article, and it shows. I've attempted to trim it down a bit to deal with specific gigs immediately following Endless Wire. Need to come back to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quadrophenia and More
edit
  • He is experimenting with a new: recentism
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The in-ear monitoring system was scheduled to be tested out at the Quadrophenia concert at the Royal Albert Hall on 30 March.: this is obviously dated
Removed, this doesn't need to be here anymore Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Who hoped to tour again in 2011, with "a new show," according to Daltrey, or possibly a retooled stage presentation of Quadrophenia ... The tour was officially announced in July 2012,: this has the feeling of being accrued sentence-by-sentence as events unfolded. It should be tightened up—for instance, there's no need to mention that they announced that they hoped to tour, and then actually toured. Just that they toured.
I've chopped this down. Anything saying the Who "may do this" or "may do that" should be removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will come back to this but I think we can probably trim the 2001 onwards down even more. It's obvious that people have just added bits and bobs in Wikipedia's lifetime and although I've arrested the decline somewhat, stuff that is reliably sourced has stayed in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Future plans
edit
  • I'm not a big fan of a whole section called "Future plans", as it will obviously date quickly.
I've gone with "The Who Hits 50" as that is now what sources are calling it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, some journalists were suspicious of this being a genuine "final" tour, with the Daily Mirror's Johnny Sharp pointing out that the Who previously quit touring, supposedly for good, in 1982.: is this speculation really encyclopaedia-worthy?
I think I added this at the time it was announced, but better sources have appeared for this since. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In April 2014, Townshend confirmed that the band was considering working on a new album, stating that, "I'm trying to [look] through my 20,000 hours of complete and utter disorganized music [to find possible songs]," adding, "I'll be pulling some songs out of [his long-gestating project] 'Floss' to give to Roger to see if we've got enough to make an album. It might be a big waste of time, but I'm hoping there will be an album.": is this really worthy of extensive quoting?
No. Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones reunited with ...: is this event really of such import that it deserves three sentences? If it had happened in 1984 instead of 2014, would it even have been mentioned?
I've trimmed it down to one sentence.
  • Overall, I think this whole section should be rethought—it needs tightening at the very least, and a lot of the information I think might be UNDUE or recentisms.
It's better than it was - see here - but yes, I'll need to take the scissors to this lot. One of the key problems is this is a very popular article and IPs and new editors turn up and add new stuff all the time. I think some of it has been edit warred over too. Rather than taking a draconian hand and reverting stuff on sight with a manner of ("Get orf moi article"), I've tried to find sources where possible and integrate it in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since any comments - any more for any more? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

edit
  • I don't know if I can give this the attention it deserves, but I will at least try and do an image pre-review and leave a few quick comments. Image review tomorrow, quick comments today:
  • The section #Awards and accolades is so short relative to the rest of the sections as to be invisible. The main awards article has a bit more detail; maybe at least have two paragraphs in the band article?
To recap events, originally the awards article was in here, and I split it before the GA review. I cut it down to one paragraph recently pending expansion, then S10787091 (talk · contribs) took an interest in it, though he seems to be new to Wikipedia and was having trouble sourcing. In any case, I've invited him in here to comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (is there an easy way of checking for this?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: - that script is essential, I'm surprised it's not part of the core feature set. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder where you'd get that proposed ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Who/archive2&oldid=1089069217"