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 Karanacs 17:51, 18 May 2010 [1].

John Lennon[edit]

John Lennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A self-confessed "loudmouthed lunatic musician" with a reputation for disruptive behaviour, hardened cynicism and physical violence; a searching, gentle soul who, before being murdered in 1980, made an indelible mark on humanity with his compassion and his iconic songs. The founder of the Beatles was both, and more. With acknowledgement to Casliber (since I can think of no synonymous phrase that approaches this one), have at it! PL290 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images. What is the point of File:John and Cynthia on car.JPG, and can we get an wp:otrs on File:Lennon&mccartney.png Fasach Nua (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image fails wp:nfcc and thus it's inclusion causes the article to fail FAC, the otrs in this instances is a quality assurance system, to ensure images come from the specified source. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have a concern over an image; please state which of the two cited images you refer to, and the grounds for your assertion that it "fails wp:nfcc", so that appropriate corrective action (if any) can be identified. PL290 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns over both images, the image failing nfcc, is the only image nfcc applies to Fasach Nua (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach Nua, I am sincerely grateful to you for your willingness to contribute time and effort to this review (and to recent image reviews at FAC generally; a much-needed and valuable contribution). However, in the present case you have not yet provided any specific rationale that can be addressed. I admit I am surprised that you ask the point of Lennon's wife's image. Your doing so led me to try and read between the lines of your question, as a result of which I identified and implemented an improvement to her fair use rationale. You remain silent on whether your concern was in fact in that area, and, if so, whether the action I took as a result of my guesswork has addressed it to your satisfaction. May I ask you again to please state your specific grounds for concern, in order that any corrective action that's needed can be identified (please see the FAC review process and the review FAQ for further information about stating actionable objections). Thank you again for your contribution. PL290 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first image that I am concerned about is File:Lennon&mccartney.png, to get a high quality popular culture image from this era is very rare, and we need to be 100% sure it is free, therefore I would like the uploader to confirm that they own and licence the image as described using the WP:OTRS system.
  • The second issue is the picture File:John and Cynthia on car.JPG in which the images is to show what the two individuals looked like, an additional image of John Lennon is not needed as there is plenty of free images it the article so fails WP:NFCC 1 for this purpose. The second function is showing what Cynthia looked like, and to know this in any great detail is not necessary to understand the concept of John Lennon, thus failing WP:NFCC 8.
I hope this helps clarify the issues Fasach Nua (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of these issues, I have now removed both images. PL290 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer File:Lennon&mccartney.png kept, and appropriately verified, it is an exceptionally good picture Fasach Nua (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it would be nice to keep if possible, but I agree with your assessment that this now appears very unlikely. I've sent an OTRS request anyway, and if it does turn out the image can be kept after all, I'll reinstate it in the article. PL290 (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fasach Nua, I've looked again at WP:NFCC and I want to ask you to reconsider your interpretation of criteria 1 and 8 as applied to File:John and Cynthia on car.JPG. Firstly, since there is no free equivalent picture of Cynthia, the image meets criterion 1. The fact that John appears in the picture too is surely irrelevant. Secondly, on criterion 8, I feel you misapply the word "topic" when you say, "showing what Cynthia looked like ... is not necessary to understand the concept of John Lennon, thus failing WP:NFCC 8." The topic of the section is Cynthia. Please let me know your further thoughts on these points, as I would like to reinstate the image if possible. PL290 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image can be compliant with NFCC1 if you were to crop the part of the image containing John out of it per NFCC3b, as for your other comment the topic of the article is clearly John Lennon, however a cropped image may be appropriate for used in an article on the topic of Cynthia Lennon. 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I will then propose to crop the image for use in this article, since the point of criterion 8 is "contextual significance", so the word "topic" appears not intended to mean only "article topic", but topic of discussion. Cynthia is the topic of the section in question. I considered creating a cropped image as a second file, but the only other article using the image is Cynthia Lennon, where, per 3b, the crop is pertinent too, so I will update the existing file with a cropped version. PL290 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach, I'm no image expert, but that seems to be a very strict intrepretation of the policy. The subject of the section is the relationship between John and Cynthia, and the image shows them together. Cropping him out of it is kind of creepy. Which part of the policy are you using? SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping Jappalang (talk · contribs) for a second opinion on the image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with this message. PL290 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to go with a proposal to delete the image, unless its copyright holder agrees to release the photo in a manner compliant with the "free encylopaedia" notion (i.e. public domain or a Creative Commons license that allows commercial and modification) or the following is addressed. First key point: Cynthia Lennon is still alive, and per the first criterion of WP:NFCC, so it is possible to obtain a free replacement; she is not so reclusive that any ordinary Joe cannot hope to get a photo of her (http://www.flickr.com/photos/btellsluv4ever/3665794941/, http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcocampigli/3640885630/). Side note: hence, I also disagree with Fasach's statement that it can be used for Cynthia's article; such a photo cannot be used, unless some reliable source was pointing out something hard to describe of her at that particular point of time. However, the current article on her makes no mention of such commentary. As for whether a couple shot of her and Lennon warrants fair use in Lennon's article (since it is unlikely to get her at that age with a dead musician), it depends, but to me, the content of the article does not seem to support a need for this image to further help the readers' comprehension. As far as I can tell from the article, their relation was a fearful and sad one for her (Lennon's possessive and volatile nature, and the need of secrecy to avoid provocation of his fans). How would a picture of the smiling couple further illustrate this? No commentary from a reliable source, particularly one that pertains to the photo at hand, is given over the nature of the relationship shown in the photo? In short, I believe this copyrighted photo (of Lennon and his first wife) cannot qualify as fair use in any form with the current contents of the articles concerned. Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for this assessment, not least because it has identified a shortcoming in the article which I have now rectified. The early period of John and Cynthia's relationship was indeed a happy one, when, as described by Lennon biographer Bill Harry, they were "virtually inseparable" and spent long hours together in coffee bars and cinemas—a sharp contrast with the eventual pattern Lennon's circumstances and character brought to the relationship. I have explicated this aspect in the article text, and also restored the uncropped version of the image, which illustrates this more powerfully than the words can on their own. I believe this now meets the point you identified and, hence, the WP:NFCC criteria. PL290 (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm moving the rest of my comments and the responses to the talk page, because I understand that long FAC pages can put off other reviewers, and I have a few more points I'd like to raise. PL290, you should feel free to revert me if you disagree with this, and obviously the delegates should too. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Thanks, PL, that has made a difference, though writing the cites manually would be faster still. The other problem with templates is that it can make things harder for other people to tidy them. I several times tried to make the formatting consistent, but every time I tried I got the big red entries on preview, so I had to leave it. I'm not suggesting you change things at this late state, but for future reference it's easier for other editors to sort out problems without templates (in my view; others may disagree). SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very interesting article. I understand the comments about the structure and if someone were to change it I would not argue but I like it well enough to support as is. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has reliability of sources been checked? Hard to do when publishers aren't listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For news, this parameter should normally not be used; it is present only for backward compatibility with ((cite news)). In practice, |agency= or |work= should be used instead.
PL290 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the source review. All your points have now been addressed. The problem sources have been replaced, and all cite dates older than 2010 have been refreshed by checking access and updating the access date. PL290 (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More referencing issues:-
*59, 81, 118, 135, 161 and 169 are all cited to books, but lack page references
  • Please check page reference for [108]. (it says 3232)
  • [129] Kim 2007 - where is this defined?
  • [143] Seaman, Frederic, 1991 - where is this defined?

Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that—all now fixed. The cite that was 169 in your list was "supporting" the statement, "The Beatles Anthology (2000) also presented examples of his writings and drawings." Hence it had no page number. On reflection, that is rather a pointless citation, so I've removed it. PL290 (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kim and Seaman also removed? Check 179, should be Ryan not ryan. No further nitpicks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Ryan fixed. On Kim and Seaman: Kim was replaced by a Harry cite; Seaman was supporting a quote which was removed as, on closer inspection, it had undue weight in the context of Lennon's decision to return to the studio in 1980. PL290 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PL, this is the kind of thing that could use some fixing in the References section:
  • FBI Releases Last Pages From Lennon File. The Washington Post. 20 December 2006.
  • Fawcett, Anthony. John Lennon: One Day at a Time. Evergreen; 1976.
If there's no byline on the W/Post article, what I normally do is add it under T (the full title is The Washington Post), with the newspaper title in place of the byline. But I wouldn't add it under F just because the title began with F.
So I would write:
But in actual fact looking at that article I see it's the AP, so I would write:
SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Brian and SV for the time spent on the source review and the formatting suggestions. I've replaced the three questioned cites with better sources, alphabetized References, italicized the magazines, and added the Cynthia Lennon interview media. ISBNs and ancient cite dates now to be reviewed/fixed.
To respond to SV's questions (which, we must of course note, bring us once more to the rocky terrain of citation preference variation amongst editors!):
  • Regarding your question about ref names, that's one of the advantages of ((sfn)): not only do you no longer need to clutter the text with <ref></ref> tags (let alone the citation detail itself); you also no longer need to mess around with ref names. Simply repeat the citation. That is, if you have the citation ((sfn|Smith|2010|p=1)) in one place, and you want to cite the same page again, simply add ((sfn|Smith|2010|p=1)) again. The template takes care of it.
  • Within this short footnote system, different refs (such as Smith 2010, p 1; Jones 2009, p. 2) are not combined. It is considered unhelpful to the reader to do so, as that would simply produce a loss of definition.
  • I understand the position of those who favour hand-crafted references (and I don't deny that the approach has its benefits too), but I am swayed towards the use of templates because in my view, their benefit is greater. They remove a vast amount of citation clutter from the text, helping editors to see the actual material they're trying to copyedit, and (in varying degrees, depending on the template) they bring consistency of formatting, instead of relying on editors to get every full stop and so forth right. I note the suggestions made about formatting of entries, but I would prefer to stick to the standard in use, which is one of several accepted standards and is controlled by the template (it's that consistency benefit again). For book cites, author is shown first. The same is true of the other cite types when there is an author; otherwise, publisher or title comes first. You can find more about the template at ((vcite book)) if you're interested. I've reordered the entries in References accordingly so that they're displayed in alphabetical sequence. PL290 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PL, when you say "it is considered unhelpful," could you say who considers it unhelpful? From my own perspective, it's often a sign of a poorly referenced article when I see multiple footnotes after a sentence, or in the middle of one.
The disadvantage of using this system is that it makes it awkward for others to help you sort it out. There are still issues: for example "US chat show veteran Douglas dies. BBC News. 12 August 2006" is listed under U. "The Lennon-McCartney Songwriting Partnership. BBC News. 4 November 2005" is under T. "Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. London Gazette (supplement). 4 June 1965 [cited 7 December 2009]" under M. And several others. Sorry if this seems overly focused on details, but it looks a little odd, and it makes it harder for the reader to judge the quality of the refs quickly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, SV, there are only three places in the entire article where multiple inline citations appear together. (I've just checked.) In each case, it's for a good reason, i.e., the prose has just made clear there's more than one thing to cite. Considering it helpful or unhelpful to combine them is an example of citation preferences among editors, so all I'm saying is, I admit to being in the latter camp! The alphabetical sequence accords with the convention in use (see ((vcite book))). Thanks again for your continued help and input. PL290 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by the alphabetical sequence according with the convention in use. It's odd-looking to list some articles alphabetically according to title, but others according to byline. Which convention are you using? SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
((vcite book)) gives the details, and provides links to further info about it. PL290 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what must be happening here is that the template has unclear parameters, so you feel you're being consistent but it's producing odd results. What you need to do is decide what you want your refs to look like first, then fill in the template in a way that achieves that look. So for example if you want to write "BBC News. "John Lennon is dead," December 8, 1980," you have to fill in the template in a way that achieves that, and not list it under J because the template has placed the BBC at the end. You need to take control, in other words. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and I'll have another check. PL290 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it can be hard to do that with these templates, and I hope this input isn't driving you mad. The aim is to achieve a nice consistent look, so that the reader can quickly scan the References and see what's being used. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all :) and that's my aim, too. PL290 (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, I've looked into this further; I understand your suggested layout, but I'm not sure it's the only one. As far as I can see, the layout currently seen in References is common in WP articles when citing a source for which there is no identifiable author (often the case with web and news cites). If there is an author, that comes first, but otherwise, the publisher or newspaper name is not brought to the front, which you say you would do yourself. Picking FAs from Wikipedia:Featured_articles: of the first nine, three use citation templates (7 World Trade Center, Bronwyn Bancroft and Bodiam Castle), all exhibiting the same References layout as this article. As we keep reminding ourselves, the use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged on Wikipedia, so I would prefer this review not to become a vilification opportunity for one or other approach, if that's okay with you :) though I'm happy to continue to find opportunities to extol the virtues of templates! I have double-checked that the citation templates are being used correctly. The layout and sequence of References is a natural part of the approach being used, just as seen in many other articles, including the aforementioned FAs picked at random. I understand that it's not the way you would do it, but I hope you can now accept that it is another valid approach. PL290 (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of criticizing templates, PL (though I do), but concern about the way you're using them, which seems to produce inconsistent results. You've created a separate References section that lists works in alphabetical order. In some cases you use the first letter of the author's name, and in some cases the first letter of the article title. Even when the author's name is available you sometimes leave it out. On some occasions you name the publication, and on others you name the host that's providing the courtesy link but don't name the publication. None of the FAs you referenced above do any of those things. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's look at what can be done. Sorry if I misunderstood; let's leave aside the question of order of component parts of an entry then. So the three things you're concerned about are: firstly, sequence of entries in the References section. This is not controlled by templates, and I have no objection to changing that manually; it's easy to do, if you could state specific suitable alternative rules that you'd prefer to see. Secondly and thirdly, if you think you've spotted a missing author name where one is available, or a problem of hosting link vs. publication, please identify the specifics. (I see you mentioned Playboy as an example of the latter, so I'll look at that anyay; let me know if you are concerned about any others.) Thanks for clarifying. EDIT: SV, I've now changed the Playboy ref as you suggested, also adding its author, and gone through all the other authorless web/news cites to check for authors. This turned up one that should have had an author, which I've now added. That just leaves the sequence of entries in References, which I'm happy to change to your specification—indeed, I thought I had done just that earlier, but I must have misunderstood! :) Anyway it's very easy to move them around in that section. It's currently consistent (alphabetic by first word); how would you prefer it to be sequenced? PL290 (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever system you choose it needs to be consistent. For example, you have Encyclopædia Britannica. John Cage biog; 2008 (which is the way I would do it, but why abbreviate biography? Or just write "John Cage" or whatever title the EB gives it), but then "FBI Releases Last Pages From Lennon File". The Washington Post. 20 December 2006". And Frankel, Glenn, but John S. Friedman. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That behaviour is actually entirely consistent, within the citation convention used by the cite templates: news cites are formatted one way, and web cites another. That is evidently by design, according to the convention they follow. However, I have no personal attachment to that convention, and I am quite happy to adopt the one you suggest (in fact I think I slightly prefer it). To produce the more obvious consistency you seek, I have now defined all web-accessed sources (news or other) to be web cites, and repositioned them accordingly in the alphabetic sequence in the References section. Trust this is now all to your satisfaction. :) PL290 (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dead link here. Would be a good idea to check for any others. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as part of actions taken in response to sources review. PL290 (talk) 01:46, 11 May 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.
More