Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Lovering

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

David Lovering edit

Check external links

Drummer of the American alternative rock band Pixies. Probably the trickiest article on a Pixies member to write (as there's not much written about him), but I feel I've written a comprehensive biography. I'm in the process of sourcing a free image. CloudNine (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support After a read I found no errors or omissions. Other than an unusually small number of citations (20) I can foresee no possible objections/complaints/requests/queries. It is not unbelievably eloquently written but its writing quality is satisfactory of FACr.--Keerllston 11:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (from the lead)"However, after the band's breakup, Lovering received fewer critical accolades for his musical output." - Is this supposed to imply that he wasn't any good? how many constitutes "fewer"? or even "a few"?--Keerllston 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It means Lovering received less attention and acclaim from critics after he left the Pixies, which is a fair statement to say given all the sources I've found. CloudNine (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had understood what was meant
          your comment makes me wonder whether it is OR
          What I referred to was the not very good phrasing, perhaps I was unclear.
          My issue with the sentence can be explained in two ways:
          First: Why "However"? However is for a relationship of objection, in this case to the previous comment that he was important musically to the band Pixies
          Second: I don't believe the contrast between the number of positive reviews prior to the number of reviews post a useful one, let alone one important enough to be in the lead, I doubt it's even in the body, not referenced, possibly OR.
          --Kiyarrllston 02:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment: Move to support in light of recent work. A fine article. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This a very strange sentence: Lovering had a mostly conventional childhood, although at the age of six he rode a unicycle through a Mormon church service for a bet. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought it was a strange sentence while writing it. I included the latter as sort of piece of trivia while I was first writing the article, but I think I'll remove it now. CloudNine (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [As an alt-music project member etc] I'm leaning towards support here, though some points need to be clarfied yet:
  • "Fuck or Fight" - How soon after the tour end was the hiatus?
  • I haven't got a specific length of time for this (sources state "soon after") unfortunately.
  • During this time, Lovering traveled to Jamaica - So what.
  • I've removed it; it's a shame most of the information specific to Lovering in his Pixies days is mostly trivia.
  • Re "loudQUIETloud", I got the impression he was on more than alcohol ;-)
  • Same. but I've not found anything more on that. I've skimmed through loudQUIETloud again, and found this: "In deference to the wishes of the his bandmates, David has vowed to curtail his substance abuse". I would put that in the article, but "substance abuse" isn't specific. Perhaps keep it in quotes or something?
Quotes would be fine. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frank Black vs Black Francis (might not be obvious that its the same person to a casual reader.
  • I think I've clarified this (on the first mention of Frank Black, I've stated who he is). Could you perhaps point out a particular example?
These are easily resolved; I'm amazed that you could get an article on a late 1980s drummer (no offence to drummers, I'm one myself) to this level. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's quite surprising that I'm able to take Joey Santiago and David Lovering to FA status.
  • Neutral - I'm striking my oppose because the article has been improved. I still think that it would be better structured if the Magic section were incorporated into the rest of the article. Karanacs (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The article seems fairly comprehensive. The prose is okay; not great, but I don't have a lot of suggestions for improvement. My main objection is that there are not specific citations after each quotation. Drop me a note when you've fixed that and I'll take another look and revisit my recommendation.
    • Need a citation directly after each quotation. I added several citation needed tags
      • They're cited to the next citation, which is a common occurence in academia and in many of the featured articles I've seen (and written).
        • Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_you_quote_someone, you really need to have the citation immediately following the quotation. It's okay if that means that the citation is repeated several times in a row. This way, if someone adds information from another source between the quote and the later citation, there won't be any confusion as to where the quote came from. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need publisher information for book by Frank and Ganz
      • Added.
    • I think you should incorporate the information in the Magic performance section into current section 1.3 (The Scientific Phenomenalist and other projects). I would also then remove the overall Biography heading and move the sub-headings up a level.
      • I'm not sure this is the best method of organization; his style of magic isn't directly related to the story of his life. I'd prefer to keep the current arrangement, as it reads better and is more consistent with the other band member articles
        • I think it would fit better in the other section because:
Although the earlier section calls him the "Scientific phenomentalist", it doesn't really explain why until the later section.
In earlier biography sections the article mentions some of his musical influences; for magic this is relegated to the separate section, which is not completely consistent.
Although the earlier section speaks about the fact that he is part of the Unholy Three and opened for Frank Black, the details of that is left to the later section, which makes the article seem to skip around to me.

Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your review. If you could point out some improvements in the prose, that would be great (I'd like it to be more than satisfactory.) CloudNine (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a great copyeditor, unfortunately. I think what you've got is okay, and if the citations are added I'll strike my oppose. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added the citations in question. CloudNine (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've now merged the two sections.
  • Oppose. The article needs a free image. It's pretty obligatory. NSR77 TC 14:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no its not. It would be preferrable, but not obligatory. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA guideline #3 says otherwise; I really am having a difficult time finding any current FA that does not have an image. NSR77 TC 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having difficulty myself, but I read it as 'where appropriate'. Maybe we should take up a thread on the WIAFA talk, rather than hash it out here. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've posted a request for relicensing to [1], [2] and [3]. Hopefully at least one person will put their photo under a free license. CloudNine (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my request is particularly difficult. CloudNine seems to have a handle on it. NSR77 TC 15:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now supplied a free image, thanks to [4] on flickr. CloudNine (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I now support this article. I have no other objections. Good work! NSR77 TC 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • There needs to be more discussion about his musical style and influences. It seems to me that a "Musical style" section is kind of a glaring omission here—was it intentional? Is there a dearth of sources/info pertaining to his style? I realize that his influences are covered to an extent in his biography, but all seems very sparse—considering the relevance of his style to the article.
  • I attempted to write a "Musical Style" section, but there are virtually no sources on his style (unlike more famous drummers), just several quotes that say how he interacted with the rest of the Pixies. At the end of the day, he's just not been written about as much as the rest of the band. CloudNine (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor issue - You should think about separating the "associated acts" with commas rather than breaks. I realize that this is contrary to other Pixies articles, but Lovering has so many associated acts that it really is too much to list using breaks. This should be changed; but it's up to you whether or not you want to change this format on other Pixies articles.

Grim (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll probably go through and change all the associated acts to commas when I get around to it. CloudNine (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a member of WikiProject Alternative music. I reviewed this article at Peer Review, where I already found it to be well-written and comprehensive. Since then, CloudNine has had to do few changes. I am confident that it meets Featured Article criteria as best as is possible given the notability of the subject of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; what is the correct spelling, it's listed two different ways:
  • Lovering reinvented himself as "The Scientific Phenomanalist", ...
  • Fixed. An oversight on my part.
    • Has Karancs revisited the citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes he has, but he's not stricken the oppose as he said above though. CloudNine (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • The lead could use a short summary of his biography.
      • Are you sure the first para is not a sufficient summary? It seems to sum up his career from joining the Pixies to resuming his role as drummer. What parts do you think I should add? CloudNine (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re-reading, and the lead seems fine. Maybe I had too much eggnog... BuddingJournalist 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lovering had a mostly conventional childhood, although at the age of six he rode a unicycle through a Mormon church service for a bet." "Although" is an odd connector here. Not too fond of the ill-defined "conventional childhood".
      • Grim's copyedit removed the clause (which I'm sure I had done before) and the connective.
    • "back to their place" What place?
      • As above, Grim's
    • "began rehearsing throughout 1985 and 1986" Conflict between began and throughout.
      • Fixed.
    • "Towards the end of 1990s," Do we not know the exact date? Or at least the year this happened?
      • I'll try and look for a date, (but does "I became interested in magic six or seven years ago" mean his visit to the magic convention?) but an exact date is not given in the source I looked at.
    • "I had to learn how to do it" Cite quotations.
      • Fixed.
    • "as he felt he "couldn't top the Pixies"" "As" is a poor connector. How does this relate to the rest of the sentence?
      • Fixed by Grim's copyedit.
    • "this whole tour careered into this drunken" So I imagine this is either a typo by the source or Black misspoke. Since we don't really know, I think the best way to resolve this is to just editorially insert "[careened]".
      • I think it's right actually. "To career" means to "move ahead, especially in an uncontrolled way", whereas "to careen" means to "rock from side to side".
    • Stylistic suggestion. Instead of introducing quotations with "He added/he commented:/He later explained:/etc." before the quotation (which is choppy and interrupts the flow of the prose), try putting the identifiers in the middle. E.g. "It was all caught on film," said Black. "But they re-edited this..." Much more natural, in my opinion. BuddingJournalist 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.
  • Support - I just gave this article a heavy copyedit. If anyone has a problem with any of my changes please let me know. I had to remove a bit information that wasn't totally relevant or encyclopedic. However, I now believe that this article is pretty close to "distribution quality". Hopefully this copyedit will lead Karanacs to reconsider her opposition. Grim (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the copyedit! You've solved a lot of issues with the article. CloudNine (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note (since this featured article candidacy hasn't been added to for a while) that this nomination has received three supports and one weak support, with no opposes. CloudNine (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support. I'm concerned about the prose. Examples:
    • Lovering had a mostly conventional childhood: what does this actually mean? I'd be dubious even without "mostly", but with the qualification I think it has very little meaning left. Do you mean, for example, that he grew up in a middle-class suburb? Or that he had a stable family environment? I think it would be better to drop this sentence and put in some directly factual statement of whatever can be said about his childhood.
      • Removed. I'm looking for more verifiable information on Lovering's early years.
OK. Would be good if you can find more, but if you can't, you can't. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His favorite band during during this time was Rush. According to his friend John Murphy, Lovering was always very "drum oriented". In his high school yearbook entry, Lovering stated his three main ambitions: to be in a rock band, to be an electrical engineer, and to tour with Rush. The line about Rush being his favourite band seems a bit gossip-magazine, until the end of the sentence, when we realize why it's relevant. How about restructuring these sentences like this: He learned to play drums during his teenage years, and joined the high school marching band; according to his friend John Murphy, Lovering was always very "drum oriented". In his high school yearbook entry, Lovering stated his three main ambitions: to be in a rock band, to be an electrical engineer, and to tour with Rush, who were his favorite band.
      • I've rephrased it as you suggested. Thanks!
OK. I made one more tiny tweak. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • after graduating from Wentworth: can you supply the year he graduated?
      • Done.
    • Murphy suggested that Lovering audition for the band, who were still in need of a drummer. Lovering had stopped drumming by this point and was initially not keen on their material, but after playing along to several of the band's songs, he agreed to join the Pixies: This reads a little oddly. The actual sequence is presumably: (1) he is persuaded to attend the audition; (2) he plays along with some of their songs; (3) he is not keen on their material; (4) they offer him the job; (5) he considers and accepts. The current version names 3, 2 and 5, in that order. Assuming I'm right about what really happened, how about this rewrite: Murphy suggested that Lovering audition for the band, who were still in need of a drummer. Lovering had stopped drumming by this point, but attended the audition, playing along to several of the Pixies' songs. He was initially not keen on the material, but when Black and Santiago asked him to join the band, Lovering agreed.
      • I think Karanacs' copyedit has made this clearer. What do you think?
It's a bit better. I'm not going to withhold support for this, but I do still think it sounds a bit strange to say he disliked the material and then listened to it. Up to you if you want to tweak it some more; as I say I expect to support regardless. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression the three Pixies played the material to him (which, upon writing this, I realise I should add to the article), he then played along, and then he joined.
Hopefully it's much clearer now.
Yes, that does it. Thanks for bearing with me on this one. Mike Christie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article The Purple Tape says there were seventeen songs on the demo tape, not eighteen; is that correct?
      • Clarified in The Purple Tape. Some day I'll probably merge it with Come On Pilgrim and improve it.
OK; all I cared about for now was that it was correct here, and it looks like it is. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is probably obvious to you (since you know the Pixies so well) but it's not to me: what is Lovering's contribution to the band's songwriting in general? You mention that he co-wrote "Levitate Me"; did he ever write anything else for the Pixies?
      • It doesn't appear he wrote anything else (not even "Make Believe"); should I clarify this in the "Levitate Me" sentence?
Yes, please; that would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.
Struck above; but perhaps you could expand it to "(his only major writing contribution to any Pixies song)", just to completely clear? Mike Christie (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "steady and accurate style": it doesn't appear that this is sourced by the footnote later in the paragraph. Can you confirm? I do think you need to find a source for this: it's a subjective opinion on his drumming. You don't need to find a reviewer or critic who uses those exact words, just someone who decribes his drumming in terms sufficiently similar to those words.
      • I've found a choice quote for his drumming style, so I've replaced it with the exact words. (Is the quote sufficiently similar to the original description of his style to keep the original though?)
I think so -- you now have somebody cited for a description of his style so I think the similarities are close enough. More sources would be good for this sort of thing but what you have is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've replaced it with the previous description.
    • the relationship between the band members became strained: is anything known about Lovering's relationships with the rest of the band, in particular? Bands split for a lot of different reasons; often there is one particular personality clash, but sometimes everyone in the band gets sick of everyone else. Can anything more specific be said? And is there anything specific about Lovering?
      • The only specific details I have to do with Francis and Deal, Lovering isn't talked about much with regards to band relationships.
Was it Francis and Deal's relationship only that was the issue? Or were there other problems? If Francis and Deal are the main issue I suggest you mention their names at the top of the paragraph rather than the end; not doing so gives the initial impression that it was everyone in the band.
I get the impression from reading my sources that it was the whole band, but only the tension between Francis and Deal is really talked about. I'll try rephrasing it soon.
Given what you say, I think the current phrasing is OK -- it does accurately describe the situation. Mike Christie (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the final date of the Doolittle "Fuck or Fight" tour: Can you supply the date here? Doesn't have to be down to the day, just the month would do.
      • Done.
    • During this time, Lovering traveled to Jamaica. I think "during this time" means "during the hiatus", but I think the hiatus needs to be given dates. Naming the end of the tour supplies one date; the 1990 "reconvene" date is the other end of the hiatus. So was Lovering in Jamaica that whole time? Or just for a short vacation? Did he travel there to relax?
      • I've removed the Jamaica sentence. I'm in the process of finding some dates for the hiatus.
Good enough for me to strike; dates are a bonus if you can find them. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the band reconvened in 1990, Lovering moved to Los Angeles and contributed to their later releases, 1990's Bossanova and 1991's Trompe le Monde. I think this might be better as "The band reconvened in 1990. Lovering moved to Los Angeles but remained a band member, and contributed to their later releases, 1990's Bossanova and 1991's Trompe le Monde". This still isn't quite right, though. Are you mentioning his move to LA just because it happened, or also because it might indicate a separation from the band? If the latter, then we do need to connect it with something like a "but", as my suggested rewrite does; if the former, then I think it should be in a separate sentence, to avoid implying a connection. I think "contributed to" is also a poor choice of verb: it implies that he really only showed up to do a bit of drumming, but someone else really did the album. If he was a full member and those are albums by the Pixies, then you need something more like "The band reconvened in 1990. Lovering moved to Los Angeles that year, but remained a band member. The Pixies released two more albums, Bossanova in 1990 and Trompe le Monde in 1991, and <number of> singles, including Velouria in <year>. The B-side to Velouria was Make Believe, a song about Lovering's admitted "obsession" with American singer-songwriter Debbie Gibson; Lovering wrote "Make Believe" and sang lead vocals for it." This needs some more copy-editing but I think it's the right direction. I am assuming from the article that Lovering wrote "Make Believe", by the way; is that correct?
      • Most of the band moved to LA. I supposed that piece does need rephrasing.
        • Clarified, and made much simpler. How does it look now?
That's definitely an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lovering moved from band to band, drumming with Tanya Donelly's band on Lovesongs for Underdogs (1997) and Boston band Eeenie Meenie. until opportunities for new work dried up. Opportunities began to dry up, and Lovering gave up the drums and moved into a rented house that banned drumming. Some debris there from previous copy-editing that needs to be cleaned up. That "(1997)" is a little clumsy, but dates are definitely a good idea; any dates you can add to any of the events in this paragraph would be helpful.
      • Karanacs' copyedit of the paragraph has resolved this. I've also clarified a date here; I don't think Eeenie Meenie was a major project of his.
    • one track of The Martinis's The Smitten Sessions: Is that punctuation correct (Martinis's)?
      • Fixed to be consistent with the other Pixies articles.
    • In the reunion para, I don't think you can use "bottoming out" twice; I'd suggest taking out the first quote and finding a synonym, such as saying he was depressed or whatever is accurate. The phrase is too strong to bear repetition in that way.
      • Well spotted, and not intended. Replaced the first instance with "feeling depressed".
    • Why is the Magic Performance section separated from the section titled "The Scientific Phenomenalist and other projects"? Wouldn't they fit naturally together?
      • I'll probably merge them soon, since at least two editors have suggested this.
        • Merged.
Looks much better; there's a tense issue I just noticed though: you have "resided" but "performs" -- I'd think the past tense is right, since they're not still together (are they?). Also, the link to The Unholy Three is not to what you want. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed both those issues now.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks for the detailed review! I'll address your points throughout the week. CloudNine (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched to support, above; there's one point outstanding but I don't think it's necessary for FAC. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review. Your comments have really helped to improve the article. CloudNine (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/David_Lovering&oldid=1136458848"