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 not promoted by Karanacs 13:48, 27 September 2011 [1].

The Kingston Trio[edit]

The Kingston Trio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Airproofing, Sensei48 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is neutral, well-written and well-sourced and detailed. The subject had a huge impact in the music world in the early fifties and influenced many contemporary artists. The article covers all areas of The Kingston Trio's career. Airproofing (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei48 should have been consulted before (not after) the nomination (See FAC instructions); unless Sensei agrees (and quickly) that the article should be at FAC, it should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He and I messaged about it after it was successful for GA. But you're right, I just assumed he was ready anytime and that was wrong of me. Airproofing (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note From Sensei48: I appreciate the nomination for FA status from Airproofing. I am the primary editor of the article in its current form, and I might have held back on submitting it for a while until some of these issues could be addressed. However - as exhaustive as the process may be, I happen to have the time now to address expeditiously concerns raised on this page. For that reason primarily, I think that the process will be best served if the article remains here for consideration and not withdrawn, at least at this time. I can work through problems raised (as with Fair Use rationales below) and address on this page some other concerns related to specific sources. I look forward to a creative critiques whose primary goal, as mine was in formulating the article, is to give proper due to this seminal but under-recognized band. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added and improved sources at perhaps a dozen points in the article.Sensei48 (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unfortunately I don't feel this article currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

—I have added and upgraded about fifteen citations in response here.

More needed, for example "Shane returned to Hawaii following his graduation in late 1956 to work in the family sporting goods business."
  • I'll be happy to add citations wherever a reviewer believes them needed, but that's going to be a subjective call. There are 123 citations in this article currently, far more than many recent FAs. Many of the FA reviews currently pending present a complete list of places where a citation is needed. That would be helpful here so that we don't have to go at it piecemeal.

—"per cent" is done; removed some wikilinks; "etc" is neither specific nor helpful.

Additional issues to address include WP:EASTEREGG, capitalization consistency, WP:DASH/WP:HYPHEN, "percent" not "per cent", and italicization among others.
  • traditionally and correctly, it is "per cent." Either usage is acceptable in U.S. English as long as it is consistent.
  • Dashes can be addressed, but without a specific list of perceived problems with italic, capitalization and and what wikilinks exactly are eastereggs - and the vague "among others" - improvements are going to be virtually impossible.
The only link I can see that may resemble an "easter egg" is 'their first album' which links to their first album. Where are the others? Thanks. Airproofing (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— done as noted below.

—this was rewritten; several other points in the article as well to insure WP:NPOV.

More needed, for example "yet another Kingston Trio commemorative model guitar" (which may be supportable, but currently isn't)
  • edited to "a KT commemorative model guitar" supported by the source.

— Done.

More needed, for example "Guard, Reynolds, and Werber were unanimous that they should invite Shane to rejoin the now more formally organized band" - unclear and awkward phrasing
  • Simplified to "Guard, Reynolds, and Werber invited Shane to rejoin the now more formally organized band"

— Done.

More needed. For example, which is correct: Billboard Magazine or just Billboard?
  • Either. For consistency, going with Billboard.

— Done.

More work needed - for example, compare FNs 2 and 3
  • done; both now conform to template.

— Done.

More work needed - for example, FN 30 is missing publisher and retrieval date
  • done

— Done.

More work needed - for example, you cannot cite sources that are in Further reading, so any and all sources from that section that you cite must be moved to a different section
  • cited material removed and new further reading added

— Addressed in notes on sourcing below.

Suggest withdrawal to allow time to deal with these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my withdrawal suggestion but not my oppose, as I feel many more improvements are needed here. I've responded to some points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in response to both your reviews here, changes to the article have been made completely and promptly. It would be appropriate to present a list of those "many more improvements" so that they can be addressed with equal promptness.Sensei48 (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note On Sources From Sensei48: a. [2] replaced with book; b.[3] replaced with group's official site; c. [4] and [5] replaced with books. These sites - [6] from the proprietor's overall website, and this section [7] from [[8] provide invaluable resources not easily available or not available at all elsewhere, especially articles contemporary to the group's high point of popularity. Two of the publications cited in the article, Frets Magazine and Show Business Illustrated have been defunct for many years, and Downbeat does not have a complete archive available. The KT Place and Liner Notes sites have .pdfs and transcriptions from these magazines of important articles that are virtually impossible to find elsewhere, except in the hands of collectors.

—All three dead links have been replaced; in two cases, the cited websites were simply re-formatted.Sensei48 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed intralinear responses of mine, per WP:FA review guidelines. Every point of objection raised here was amended in the article within 24 hours. The sourcing issues are addressed above.Sensei48 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very weak Oppose --Efe (talk) 05
05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


Minor issues should have been addressed prior to the FAC. These include but not limited to compliance with MOS. Examples are written below:

  • Printed publications should be in italics. Billboard should be Billboard. Also, you don't italicize magazine as in Billboard Magazine. --Efe (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Done.

  • The use of # sign is unreadable. Either use number of no. --Efe (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Done.

  • "Sloop John B," commas should go after the closing quotation mark. See guide. --Efe (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

— Done.

  • Dollar signs should be identified either US or whatnot dollar. --Efe (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Done.

On major issues.

  • On fair use, provide descriptive captions so that the reviewers can decide wether it really is fair use. Otherwise, that should be removed. --Efe (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Done.

  • On prose, "that he agreed to manage them providing they replace Gannon", you mean provided? --Efe (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Done.

Please go through the entire article and check it against our criteria. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to address the other issues raised here. Thanks for the review.Sensei48 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edits in response to the two evaluations above were completed within 24 hours. Using those reviews as a guideline, I've made about fifty more mostly minor edits to the article, generally punctuation in sources but in some cases substituting published sources for web citations.Sensei48 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my oppose to a very weak oppose (leaning neutral / support). The prose seems fine, however I am concerned about its compliance to WP:MOS. Recent changes made on the article includes proper placement of quotation marks / punctuation marks per WP:LQ, new names of internet sites / publications, linking and correct formats / names of publications, etc. You may get help from those veterans in MOS. And I can see lots of blank fields in inline citations; those can be removed altogether. Few more things on quick scan, can the article have subsections? I feel those sections 6 and 7 and different from the preceding sections in terms of information. The preceding sections could pass as history or something to that effect. Also, could you add years to those sections without (1 and 4) for consistency. --Efe (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work on this while you're busy in the real world, especially for the specific guidelines for improvement. I'll get on these right away and list progress here at this point on the page. Also appreciated are your edits to the article itself - they provide a template from which to proceed.
  • Dates and subsections: A bit of a challenge for sections 6 and 7 because they were written organically. However, changes made here on 9/22: dates for secs 1 and 4 and subsections added.
  • Ref formats: will go through each section and eliminate extraneous cats in the refs; section 1 completed 9/22.
more to come.
  • Making progress on 9/23: going through section by section, working on ref format and punctuation; ndash etc.
  • References have been cleaned up in text sections 1 through 5 on 9/24 and 9/25. Thanks to Efe for formatting and page appearance edits.Sensei48 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9/25 - I've gone through the whole article and done my best to regularize and edit references. If more work needs to be done with them - or with any other aspect of the article - please let me know. As far as I can see at the moment, the article meets all WP:FACR; certainly every issue brought up in this review thus far has been addressed.Sensei48 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always felt so as well, but most of the ones there came in as a result of the GA review. I have removed half of them, leaving in the ones that allude to a specific quotation or a fact not generally known or acknowledged.Sensei48 (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment': The fair use rationales on File:KingstonTrioTomDooley.ogg and File:KingstonTrioGreenbackDollar.ogg are a mess. Specific, detailed rationales are required for each use; buzz words under a generic heading don't cut it. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, but I'm afraid I'll need a bit more focus than "a mess." Here is the FU rationale for File:Gotta Serve Somebody.ogg, which appears in the FA Bob Dylan. Except for the easily added length of the original recordings, the rationales for TD and GD`are virtually the same. If instead you are referring to the fairly generic captions under the files as they appear in the article, please clarify. Those, too, would be easy to fix.Sensei48 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the rationales, and, as an aside, I've no doubt that there are substandard rationales used in other FAs. Each separate usage requires a separate rationale explaining specifically what is being shown by the file and why a non-free file is needed to show that in the article. There are various templates (Template:Non-free use rationale or Template:Non-free image data with Template:Non-free image rationale) that can help you to format this. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks for the template. The FU description as it stands was sent me by an editor whom I had thought to be expert in this area, which I am not. I'll get after replacing what's there now with a new rationale today. Sensei48 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a shot using Template:Non-free use rationale, though I haven't uncluttered the page of any other extraneous material. I'd appreciate your evaluation of my effort at your leisure. The article notes that the group's premier album included no secondary orchestral accompaniment, which was highly unusual even for folk recordings of the time and which has been cited in a large number of sources as part of the revolutionary nature of that particular song and the group's sound in general. Sensei48 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:KingstonTrioTomDooley.ogg and File:KingstonTrioGreenbackDollar.ogg have new rationales and are awaiting re-evaluation.Sensei48 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei48, your excessive use of bolding is making this FAC harder to read; it's not necessary to respond with bolding, which is typically reserved here for Supports and Opposes. Also, since you are the main contributor to this article, and are responding to comments here, should I add you as a co-nominator? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding rmvd - I had had intralinear responses italicized and then removed them because the FAR page directs responses to be placed after previous comment signature. Seems like it all could get confused here.
I had been under the impression that primary contributors to articles could not also nominate them for GA or FA. If that is not so, then I would be comfortable as a co-nominator. I am the editor who is likeliest to be amending the article per observations here, and the article history demonstrates the extent of the edits I have made in just the last week to bring the article into compliance.
On a related matter - I know that there is a time limit on articles remaining active as FAC. Since the subject of this article hasn't seemed to generate a lot of review interest, is it acceptable for me to invite other experienced editors to take a look at it? I posted a request for assessment at the WP:ROOTS project that includes the article within its purview, but there are other editors I have worked with who focus their work on music and history. Is it kosher to contact them? Sensei48 (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to ask for reviews, as long as you are careful to stay within the bounds of WP:CANVASS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've invited two editors I've worked with, one on history and one on folk music, to take a look. Don't know if they will or what they'll say - but I have confidence in their work and their objectivity. I am going to try to clarify my responses to the two evaluations above without bolding.Sensei48 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Any account of a 50-year odyssey like The Kingston Trio's journey through the hurlyburly of the top tier of the music world is going to be a difficult story to tell: it must include the evolution of the act itself, its place within the ever-changing music scene, the contemporaneous influence it had on that scene, and the legacy that only becomes visible with a 50-year hindsight. That's where this article really excels. There is nothing sadder than last week's hot group now consigned to playing small-time gigs, which is where I would have put The Kingstons until I read this article and considered its insightful treatment of the group's contributions after their first flush of success. It also does an excellent job chronicling the difficulties of straddling genres like pop and folk—a balancing act The Kingstons did with particular aplomb. This article is a terrific piece of work about an important subject: if it's not worthy of Featured Article status, then I don't know what is. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping the opposers and see if they are satisfied with the changes that have been made. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I invited both editors to revisit the article. Sensei48 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2011 (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