Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Who/archive1

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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

The Who

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Who are one of the most important rock bands to have an article on Wikipedia, with over a million views a year. I started work on improving it in autumn 2013, getting it to good article status. Since then I've been gradually working on tightening up the prose, the sources and the layout, and the article went through an extensive peer review a few months ago. That has now finished, so I think it's time we had a look to see if it can meet Featured Article status. I await comments with interest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wasted Time R

Lead

Comments. While the lead is factually accurate, it's too much a narrative of releases and events and I don't think it captures what is really important about The Who. A significant percentage of readers never look past the table of contents in an article, and so the lead has got to serve as a self-standing description of the group. Here are some of the things I think are missing and some of the things that could be removed:

• The lead doesn't describe the group's sound – in particular, the two things that made the group most unique, Townshend's power chords on guitar and Moon's frenetic drumming.

I think the best thing I can do here is pull out something from the introduction of the three main book sources (Marsh, Fletcher, Neill / Kent) and see what they have to say. There's a slight difference on emphasis as the books probably assume you a little about the band to start with, whereas this article should assume no prior knowledge whatsoever. Obviously anything new here needs to be reflected into the body (probably under "Musical style and instruments"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• It only barely alludes to Townshend being the group's songwriter. In fact he is an acclaimed one, and the lead could briefly mention his recurring themes such as age and Meher Baba-based spirituality.
• It should briefly mention the group's focus on pop art in the early days.
• It should briefly describe Tommy as the allegorical story of a deaf dumb and blind boy.
• It should briefly describe Quadrophenia as a rock opera that mirrored the group's four personalities in a look back at the mod movement.
• Something should briefly be said about the volatile personalities in the group and the infighting and hotel room trashing – more than most groups, this was a vital aspect of their existence at the time.
• More needs to be said about Who's Next since it's their most popular/best selling album. The lead should mention the innovative use of synthesizers and say that "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" rank in top-rock-songs-ever lists.
• There's no need to name every album they released in the lead. A Quick One and Who Sell Out don't have to be mentioned by name – instead you could say their early albums experimented with conceptual forms, something like that. I really like Who By Numbers, but at the end of the day it's not a part of the Who story that people most need to know. There's no need to mention by name both of the Kenney Jones-era albums – nor is it necessary to say in the lead where Jones came from.

I think this fell out an earlier review (either GA or one of the PRs; can't remember which) where somebody said all the albums needed to be listed. I agree with you on this point, and I would say that the important singles should be mentioned; "I Can't Explain" - first hit, "My Generation" - first big hit, "Happy Jack" - first US hit, "I Can See For Miles" - first big US hit, then albums from Tommy through to Quadrophenia, maybe "Who Are You" and I think that should suffice. What do you think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier, "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" should be mentioned. Mentioning the album Who Are You is useful because it implicitly mentions the title song as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've redone this bit - have another look and see what you think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the changes regarding what is named and what is not named are for the better, but I don't agree with all of the characterizations (the significance of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is not that it was a "hit", Quadrophenia is not a "celebration" of anything ...). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• The lead says Endless Wire was in the top ten of the album charts in the UK and the US - but that's not a metric used for any of the earlier albums (in recent years all it measures is first-week splash). Sales certifications is more appropriate for albums, and in the US it didn't even make gold.

Should we just say it was released and leave it at that? It's the only album they've released in the last 30+ years, so just mention of it should be sufficient in the lead, wouldn't you think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that change suffices. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• The lead should omit future speculation - whether they release another album ("TBA (Summer 2015)" in the Discography section should be removed) or whether they really do retire from touring, time will tell (rock artists are notorious for multiple retirements).

The body did mention this at one point, but the counterpoint source used was the Daily Mirror, so it had to go. I don't know who added "TBA (Summer 2015)" - wasn't me, honest - but that can go right now! As it is I've trimmed the lead down to just mention The Who Hits 50!, which I don't think had been named when that went in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the general problem with the comments on the lead is that I feel it is right on the edge of what is acceptable at WP:LEADLENGTH, so if facts were to be added, something else ought to be taken away to restore balance. Indeed, The Beatles and U2 seem quite acceptable as FAs to have a three-paragraph lead; although the Who has arguably been more active and released more significant work, maybe we should follow suit? I've redone it, cutting down the history to what I think are bare essentials, and adding something from the "Musical Style" and "Legacy and Influence" sections which were under-represented. To be honest, I think the best way forward is for all interested parties to say what they think are the important facets in the lead, then when we have consensus, we can put something around that. How does that sound as a way forward? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with lead length; I think this one should be four paragraphs, not three, given the length of the article. (Other FA articles aren't always the best guide; the lead for Katy Perry manages to never say a single thing about what her music is like or what her artistic persona is!) The part that begins "They have made major contributions ..." is good, and I suggest expanding it with power chords as a compositional, innovative synthesizer use, songwriting themes centered around age, identity, and spiritual meaning, and whatever else you come up with. This is your chance to tell the reader what made the Who different. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't diss Katy Perry too loudly otherwise SNUGGUMS might come up and give you a bit of a slap, but it certainly would be good to get their opinion here. In the meantime, I've put in the use of synths, since doing a bit of work on Won't Get Fooled Again itself has tripped up its obvious contribution. Lyrical themes are another good point to add, specifically that the Who did not do boy / girl love songs at all; although that needs to be added in the article to - the best source I have is the Live at Leeds reissue CD notes that play up "My Generation", dismissing the Beatles and the Stones as "still writing love songs during this period" (which, being late 1965 is actually questionable, but the basic point is sound). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find Wasted's comments to be offensive/dissing at all, Ritchie, don't worry. However, I couldn't really think of a good way to incorporate that detail in her lead when working on the article (I got it up from a DGA to GA this past June, and up to FA in August). Wasted, I do welcome you to give specific suggestions on how what to say where in the lead for her article and/or perhaps edit it accordingly yourself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's it for now, will add more later. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Body

Some comments regarding the article body, in roughly appearance order:

• "Daltrey maintains that his subsequent musical career saved him from a dead-end working man's job,[9] and in 1959 he started the band that was to evolve into the Who." That's an important point about The Who, but the phrasing is awkward. Maybe here give the 1959 fact, and later in the article mention Daltrey's belief, because that was core to his arguments with Townshend in the mid 1970s. (see Marsh as source)

I've moved this to 1975, where Daltrey and Townshend had what can only be described as a major public brawl in the NME, where Daltrey made it clear that the Who had saved him from being a sheet-metal worker and he felt Townshend was unprofessional. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Cliff Bennett and the Rebel Rousers should be linked as such.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Johnny Kidd & the Pirates should be linked as such.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The article needs to have a description of "My Generation" the song! It's their early signature song and the stuttered vocal and the "Hope I die before I get old" are both super famous then and now and need to be mentioned.

Done. Marsh also considers the key change significant, so I've added that too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a side box that quotes the whole "People try to put us d-down" verse through to "Hope I die before I get old". It deserves that level of prominence in the Who story. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been resolved by means of the audio clip. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• The article should have a brief description of "Substitute". The identity confusion lyric is another theme of Townshend's and it shows how he early on was writing on unusual topics.

Done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• A brief description of what the "A Quick One" concept was about would help.

Do you mean the title track? The background of the album is already there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a brief description of what the title suite is about. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• A little more description of what Tommy is about would help - allegory of mass cults, of rock stars, etc. And "We're Not Gonna Take It" might be mentioned as the most well known song on it after "Pinball Wizard".

Interesting comment this as I remember the GA review also says "we could do with a bit more Tommy". Are you sure your background is the case as documented in sources though - certainly my impression is that the plot is vague and what there is derives from spiritual enlightenment via Meher Baba, plus a bunch of other songs that were kicking around at the time. I think I might have held back a bit on this section as otherwise I could write far more of it, being my favourite period on the group. In the event, I took Tommy (album) to GA instead which seemed to satisfy my "itch". I'll have a look over there and see if there's anything that really stands out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article can say that the plot is disjointed but the work is clearly about this and that and another thing, although even Townshend himself was not able to consistently explain it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced that Tommy is clearly about anything one way or another - indeed, I would say that the most significant element of the plot is that it's vague and confusing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• As I said above, sales certifications are a better metric of album success than chart position, so you might mention the sales for Who's Next. And as I said above two, you can give best-song-ever list appearances for "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" as well as saying they are staples of classic rock radio.

I've done quite a bit of work on Who's Next recently (it's at GAN now) and moved some stuff over from there that covers this area. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There's still more that can be said here. It tells me that someone plays a violin solo on "Baba O'Riley" but nothing regarding what the song is about or the minimalist influence that is responsible for half its title. And the article should mention somewhere that Townshend sang lead parts now and then during the Who's career, with the "teenage wasteland" refrain being a good example. And if I didn't know already, this article wouldn't tell me that "Won't Get Fooled Again" is an 8 1/2-minute epic about questioning political involvement that features what many have said is the greatest synthesizer in rock, the greatest drum entrance in rock, and most of all the greatest scream in rock. These are things that the reader of this article should know even if they don't click through to any album article or any song article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree - if you asked the Sex Pistols what their favourite Who songs were, they wouldn't be anything off Who's Next, but they'd be the mid 60s singles. The 69-71 period is my favourite era of the Who, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it dominates everything else. Obviously you can't say such loaded POV terms such as "the greatest synthesizer in rock" in a GA, let alone an FA, so you'd have to go to good sources and qualify who said what, which would start to introduce topic drift just to get the claim to stick. Even then I don't think there's enough non-fan opinions to make it stick. Having done a quick straw poll around friends, I get the impression that for non-Who fans and non-rock fans, it's best known today as "that theme from CSI". I don't think I'd even include that much information in Who's Next article itself. I think the best thing to do is ask a friend who isn't a particular Who fan and see what their response is - that would give us a good idea of what the reader requirements are. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no competition here - the early singles were innovative and greatly influential as you say. I'm sure you can come up with sources that describe the scream - a Google Books search shows a bunch of them. Just to take one off my shelves, John Swenson in the New Rolling Stone Record Guide (1983, page 544) says "His [Daltrey's] scream at the climax of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a moment of pure rock transcendence." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's already in the article, the caption with the audio clip (under "Musical Style and Influence"), that uses a caption from Marsh's book, that says "the greatest scream of his career", with a sample to show it, and also showing the organ / synth, Moon's drum roll and Townshend's power chord. Sums it all up nicely. Also, the article is over 60K, which is right on the limit of WP:SIZE. So we have to use summary style, which we do as Who's Next and "Won't Get Fooled Again" are spinout articles, as expected. However, I think superlatives are still a bit too POV for an FA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Robert Hilburn should be linked.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Quadrophenia description should briefly mention that the album and its musical scheme reflects each of the four personalities of the group.

Done. I think a description of what the themes are and what personalities they reflect belongs in that album's own article, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. But your addition doesn't quite make clear that the four different personalities of the Who members are also the four different aspects of Jimmy's personality that he is struggling to reconcile. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• There's too much detail on the session musicians for the Tommy film - doesn't have that much to do with The Who and can be handled in the soundtrack article.

Okay. I left in Kenny Jones as his tie to the Who is much stronger, and Elton John as he had the hit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• But an important effect of the Tommy film is that it gave Daltrey a new power base in his arguments within the group. (See Marsh as source)

Are you sure about that? I thought it was more to do with Lambert and Stamp being fired as managers, who Townshend sided with far more than Daltrey. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've been looking through the Marsh book and I can't find what I remember being there. So ignore this until and unless I do. 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Where is says "(except for Daltrey, who retired to bed early)", you should add that Daltrey always did that, to protect his voice and because he was the most serious in the group about their professional responsibilities. (See Marsh as source)

It doesn't specifically say it at that point (p.432) but it is worth adding somewhere earlier. I'm just not sure where. Certainly it was evident by 1967 that he wasn't get involved in hotel trashing and never did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Daltrey punched out Townshend a different time, in a studio session, didn't he?

Did he? Hmmm, have to have a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I was confused, what you describe is what I was thinking of. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• In "The Godfathers of Punk" you should delink Punk - links within quotes are bad from and it's linked right after that in the sentence anyway.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• You could say that the songwriting on Who By Numbers" presaged Townshend's solo career approach.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• You could add to Moon being absent from "Music Must Change" is because he couldn't handle the 6/8 time signature.

I think that's done, though I can't find what the MOS says about describing time signatures (if anything). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You could use {{music|time|6|8}}, though it doesn't seem to be recommended anywhere (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music recommends using the {{music}} template, but doesn't mention time signatures). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• In the description of the Quadrophenia film, it's misleading to say it starred Sting. He down in the billing and basically has a small part, but one that made an impact with. Phil Daniels is clearly the star.

I swapped the sentences around, and changed this to "played" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that the Shepperton performance was Moon's last is in the article twice.

I've changed the second one to "the Shepperton concert" (the second mention is important in context that it's on The Kids Are Alright) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Join Together album should be linked.

Done. I tend to forget about adding wikilinks because half the time I get a message from DPL Bot telling me I've done it wrong ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The article should briefly identify Zak Starkey as Ringo's son and mention Moon being a friend of Starr back in the day and teaching Zak drums.

I'll pull something out of Fletcher's Moon biography that says this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Where it talks about Townshend playing acoustic guitar it should emphasize that he excelled at this - witness "Pinball Wizard" among others - and it should add that Townshend used a flamenco technique in his playing of acoustics.

Done, though I've gone for the slightly milder and less POV of it just appearing on albums from Tommy onwards more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Where it says "at the MGM Grand Garden Arena." the period should be a comma.

I've taken out the full stop altogether. Every time you remove a comma from an article, Eric Corbett cheers Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The Beatles were fans of the Who and appreciated their live sound when on tour." - unclear whose tour you are talking about.

The specific bit in the source is "the big sound they had discovered on tour while listening to groups like The Who". Changed to "appreciated their sound". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• It might be worth noting that The Who never won a Grammy during their main career, only maybe in retrospect.
• Did Entwistle really ever play keyboards on a Who record (as opposed to one of his own)?

Yes, he is credited as piano on the liner notes for Who's Next and for synthesizer on Who Are You. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Right you are. Guess it's been a long time since I looked at the back cover of my Who LPs! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Footnote 193 uses The Who's official site as a source. Generally not a good idea if you can find a third-party source for the same material.

Yes, I've started taking out the official site elsewhere, as I've discovered it goes out of date very quickly (being revamped every six months or so) and has a tendency not to transfer to the Wayback Machine very well, so they have a high risk of becoming unverifiable very quickly. I'll make a point of removing all citations for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced this with Marsh, but there are several other references to the official site, mostly (then) contemporary press releases added in Wikipedia's lifetime. I'll have to revisit this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Footnote 54 uses use the fn:pageno format, but that isn't used for the books and seems inconsistent. You could just include the three pages of the liner notes that you use in the base cite.

As this only cites "My Generation"'s chart position, I think the best thing is to pull that from a book instead. Then only page 5 of the CD liner notes (basically describing Live at Leeds) is used, negating the need for {{rp}} Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's it for now, although I might think of more things later. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC) A few more:

• There should really be somewhere a capsule portrayal of The Who's stage act appearance: Daltrey strutting on stage, spinning the microphone on its cord in the air; Townshend windmilling the power chords and leaping in the air; Moon leaning over his drum kit, bashing it with abandon; and Entwistle standing still, passive and expressionless.

I am starting to go towards agreeing with this, and the last paragraph in "Musical style and equipment" could accommodate this. The tricky bit now is to find a good source that summarises it as being a general overview of the band's entire career, rather than one specific era - not to mention the fact that the group have 35 years of post-Moon activity, not all of which can be written off as being insignificant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• There's a good quote on the group that you could use in Marsh's entry on The Who in the 1980 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll, page 286: "Their spats and feuds, public and private, were the essence of Who mythology."
• The article should mention that The Who were the halftime act at Super Bowl XLIV in 2010, since that is a very high-profile appearance in the US.

Seriously? I can do (it probably got trimmed out during a purge I did before I took the article to GA) but I don't really think it compares with the Marquee, Monterey, Woodstock or the Isle of Wight. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. It definitely compares with some of the events already listed in the post-Entwistle era. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Done - since Rolling Stone said the gig was in front of 100 million people, I agree it should go in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• In "Legacy and influence", no links inside the quote in the side box.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's it for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick holding reply, thanks for the comments so far. I've just been a bit busy elsewhere this week (both on and off wiki), and I have a few GA reviews I need to finish off as priority, but hopefully I'll get round to tackling all of this lot soon. I think mainly sorting out the lead looks to be the difficult bit; everything else doesn't look too insurmountable providing I find a spare evening or two and round up my collection of book sources. More later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I did realize a major omission though:

• The article needs some audio clips. Looking at comparable FA articles such as The Beatles, U2, David Bowie, Jimi Hendrix, they all have between two and four audio clips in them. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of audio clips - not so much their presence in articles but rather the requirement to get the FUR right. However, it will solve a number of issues - a "My Generation" sample would allow us to caption it with the "Hope I die..." lyric and provide a much needed break in the text in a section of the article where images are sparse. Then the riff from "Pinball Wizard" would document the acoustic playing, and the end of "Won't Get Fooled Again" (about 7:42 - 7:47) would sum up synths, Moon's drumming, power chords and Daltrey's vocal projection all in one hit. How does that sound as a first draft of ideas? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Some new comments from me that I didn't think of previously.

• It would be worth mentioning that The Who were an unusually self-reflective group thanks to Townshend. In other words, he spent a lot of time thinking about what it meant to be the Who and what their role should be towards their audience. This shows up in the later parts of Tommy. And it's no accident that the Who appear as a character in the Quadrophenia story. This is a consistent theme of the Marsh book and this almost obsessive self-reflection on the part of Townshend is one of the things that made the Who different.
• The portrayal of Moon isn't quite right in this article, which makes him out to be the stereotypical overindulging, self-destructive rock star. Which is was, but he was also a classic British eccentric, often completely dressing the part of various extravagant characters and the like. That's partly why the British press labelled him "Moon the Loon". There's a good quote on one of the photo plates in the Marsh book about this, which I don't have in front of me right now.

I felt this belonged more in Moon's own article, but what I think might be a good idea is to create a new "Personal relationships" section that discusses how the members of the Who and associates got on (or, rather, didn't). I think we ought to cover the paradox that is that the Who always seemed to hate each other and were always leaving, yet the classic band stayed together for as long as it could. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs a separate section - the infighting is really intertwined with the history of the group. The article on Moon can go into his persona as an eccentric in more detail, but it also deserves mention here to give a fully rounded portrayal. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Are there some respectable critical voices that dissent on the Who, who think they are overrated? If so, their views should be alluded to in the article. Unfortunately I can't think of any offhand but maybe others know of some. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Elements of their career that have been covered negatively (eg: 1968 Australia tour, Quadrophenia first tour, "The Who On Ice") are in the article, and from the early 80s to the late 90s I don't think the Who were as popular as they were or are now. Possibly a lack of strong criticism stems from Townshend being the first one to criticise the band before anyone else gets a look in! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a point with that last bit. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review from Nikkimaria

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to remember the GA review looked at images carefully to the extent that two got deleted on Commons as a direct result. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from John

Support, subject to getting a few audio clips as above. Prose looks ok, sourcing looks good (though I haven't done any spot-checks). --John (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Still tending to support but I would like to see the valid concerns of Snuggums and Curly addressed. --John (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

You've done quite well, Ritchie. Before anything else, I should say to you and John that audio clips should never exceed 30 seconds per WP:Manual of Style/Music samples. Of the ones currently used, File:Won't Get Fooled Again.ogg is 33 seconds long, and File:My Generation sample.ogg is 35 seconds long. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Good point, well made. In fact, looking at the MOS, both My Generation and Pinball Wizard can be no longer than 18 seconds long. If John doesn't get to it first, I'll get my Audacity shears out and fix that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Good point indeed. I have trimmed the samples. --John (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Now onto the review..... It's rather redundant to list both rock and subgenres of rock Which bit is this referring to? If it's the infobox, meh - don't mind what goes there, I got fed up of people edit-warring over the "genre" infobox tag :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, the infobox Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Taken it down to "rock" and "power pop", the two obvious ones I would definitely note in the lead and in "legacy" that they are among the best selling-bands ever with 100 million record sales I thought we had problems with this area of the lead as outlined in the talk page, but it appears that was for more broader claims like "the holy trinity of rock" or "the best group ever" which don't stand up to scrutiny. I'll work that in somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Hadn't seen the talk page discussion :P. The sales should definitely be mentioned, though I added "best-selling" bit because the page previously linked lists those with 75 million+ records sold. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) The trouble is, that source probably isn't good enough for an FA, I'd want something more official. A quick google for "the who" "100 million" gives a different source that says they have sold about 100 million. I think we should defer this for the minute until we find the best source possible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC) From what I could find, The Independent also supports 100 million. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Okay, that's now in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "The release of Who Are You in August 1978 was overshadowed by the death of Moon on 7 September"..... I'd just go with "in September". I can do, but perhaps we could even more simply say "The release of Who Are You in 1978 was overshadowed by Moon's death shortly after release" - how does that grab you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Fine with me Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC) "By 1982, Townshend had become weary of touring and this led to a split at the end of the year" → "Townshend had become weary of touring by 1982, leading to the band splitting at the end of the year" I think there's a subtle difference (he got weary of touring first, then the band split up afterwards) - how about "After Townshend became weary of touring, the group split in 1982" - shorter and hopefully less ambiguous Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Go with that Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Details on family and passing the eleven-plus exam belong in members' individual articles, not here I can't agree with this. I've heard this argument before about people who didn't grow up in the tripartite system in the UK, but the eleven-plus exam could completely change your career. Daltrey, Townshend and Entwistle may not have gone to Acton County Grammar and met each other, Townshend would not have gone to art college, and the Who as we know them may not have existed. Fletcher's Moon biography spends a few pages explaining the importance of this. It's not just with the Who - Coronation Street's Ken Barlow had a class gap between him and his father because he passed the 11 Plus and his father didn't. Perhaps a footnote for younger and non-UK readers would clarify this? Also, the family mentions are only important if they show a musical influence (which is why Daltrey and Moon's parents are not mentioned). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Footnote is worth a try Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) If it's possible to sum up the tripartite system and its significance in a sentence or so, I think it should ideally go in the body. If you're going to shunt the explanation to an endnote, probably the bit about the 11 plus should go there, too—its significance will otherwise go over the majority of readers' heads. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Okay, well I've thought about this and I reckon if that just saying the fact they went to Acton County Grammar is good enough. If you didn't pass the 11-plus, you wouldn't have gone there. If you know that, you do, if you don't, well click on the link to the grammar school and hopefully you'll find out. As far as parents go, I've trimmed it down to the Townshends, but I think they should stay because Cliff Townshend is a notable musician and Betty did the very early bookings and driving for the Detours c. 1961 - so there is a direct link to the band. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC) "despite being significantly older than the rest of the band, and married, was a better musician, having been playing semi-professionally for two years at that point"..... "a better musician" is NOT a neutral description at all. Something like "a more experienced musician" would be better. I've gone with "proficient" as this is the exact word used in the source Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "The next morning Daltrey chose the Who"..... I'd put the time frame at the end of the sentence Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Remove the hyphen from "film-makers" Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "My Generation became the highest charting single the group have achieved, reaching No. 2"..... highest charting in UK, I assume? This song peaked at #2 both there and in Australia. Added "in the UK" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "reached No. 4 in the charts"..... this sentence seems incomplete Added UK Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "mod was in decline"..... what "mod" is this referring to? Changed to "becoming unfashionable" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) That doesn't answer what the "mod" is Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) It's mod (movement) - I've made it a little clear. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC) BBC should not be italicized Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "The album reached No. 1 in the UK and No. 1 in the US" → "The album reached No. in both the UK and the US" Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "the results were disappointing"..... POV Changed to "the group were unhappy with the recordings" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Ann-Margret received a Golden Globe Award for her performance, and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress" belongs in her own article, not here. Focus on what the band members won. Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Guinness Book of Records → Guinness World Records In 1976, it was called the "Guinness Book of Records" though, what's the normal procedure here Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) The book should definitely be italicized, and I'd link it to Guinness World Records. 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) You should use the 1976 title and pipe it to the current article title (and italicize). I've done that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Cheers Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC) "Moon was so unfit"..... unhealthy is a better word choice and more specific Done (I think somebody copyedited this from my original "out of shape") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "their career showed them capable of covering other styles"..... awkward phrasing/questionable tone Changed to "but they took influence from several other styles of music during their career." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) One ref has a connection error How strange - I did a check last week for dead links (witness a whole bunch of "rm / fix dead links" from about a week ago from me). Anyway, replaced with a book. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Overall, outstanding article and quite close to becoming FA material. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I have to tip my hat to John's meticulous copy-editing that immediately preceded his support !vote Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) It really did benefit the article :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: I think all your concerns have now been addressed, can you check? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support a truly fine piece of work. Well-deserving of FA! Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

• I still have a number of unaddressed comments on the talk page. Perhaps I should move them here, but for now I have a few new comments on the lead:

I haven't got round to looking at those, but pretty much all of them are requests for additions for content, which, on a 62K article that is on the limit of WP:SIZE I wouldn't be happy without a consensus, particularly as some (such as Jimmy Page playing on "I Can't Explain" which Marsh says is false, or adding non-notable tribute bands) I think would introduce problems. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if Page on "I Can't Explain" is disputed, then it should be left out, but some of the other stuff should go in—especially the naming of the band. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, the bit about Townshend and Barnes coming up with the name is in the article. I have put in Page as playing on the B-side, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant about Entwistle or Moon coming up with the name Led Zeppelin. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

How does that relate to the Who more than, say, Ann Margaret (which got removed)? I do want to add something about Moon leaving the Who in '66, but I can't remember if this ties in with that incident. If it does, it can go in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Their best known line-up consisted of lead singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist Pete Townshend, bassist John Entwistle and drummer Keith Moon: this wording might best fit a band that had a revolving door of members that went through a "classic" period (think Yes). This lineup is not just the "best known", though---it's the canonical one

Have you met the Best known for IP? Somebody's changed to "classic" but I'm not really comfortable with that, classic to whom? What does classic mean? Is it something to do with classical music? Can anyone think of a better word? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• The Who developed from an earlier group, the Detours, before stabilising around a line-up of Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and Moon.: I might drop this from the lead, or at lest shorten it to the first half as we've just been told Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and Moon were the classic lineup.

Yes, let's drop it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• all written by Townshend: it's not clear from the wording that Townshend also wrote "I Can't Explain". Since we're shortly after given "lead songwriter and visionary Townshend" I might drop "all written by Townshend" anyways

Dropped Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• from a hit-singles band into a respected rock act: it's not clear why "hit-singles band" and "respected rock act" would be mutally exclusive

I'm not sure what you mean, but to give you some examples, Herman's Hermits are a "hit-singles band" while Jethro Tull are a "respected rock act" (deliberately picking bands the Who have toured with). Does that clarify things? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see how a band may be classidied as one or the other, but I'm not convinced they're mutually exclusive. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This might need more context. Certainly "pop" and "rock" became quite different during the late 60s. I'm not sure what to suggest though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There were singles-oriented artists and album-oriented ones, but those don't correlate with being "respected". The Animals, The Young Rascals, and Creedence Clearwater Revival were all singles-oriented artists from this era. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fletcher's Moon biography has quite a good comment on this circa .p152, talking about the 1965 NME Poll Winners Concert - "a temporary coming together of every notable act in the country before they diverged, some progressing into rock bands that would give the music the depth required .... others to tread water as pop groups ... until they eventually faded" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We're going off-track a bit - what changes need to be made to the article here? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• 1969's rock opera Tommy: from this wording it comes off as "just another rock opera"; probably want ot mention the "rock opera" as a Who thang

I'm not sure what you mean? I'm concerned anything more than just saying it was a rock opera would be POV Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if there are proposed precursors, the Who are still the band credited with the first successful rock opera[2][3][4][5][6][7] Might want to mention the Tommy influence on Jesus Christ Superstar as well.[8] Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

But what about S.F. Sorrow? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And S. F. Sorrow was preceded by The Story of Simon Simopath Tommy popularized the term, and the term is associated largely with the Who. Who else put out rock operas with the impact of Tommy or Quadrophenia? Notice how everyone compares Zen Arcade to Tommy or Quadrophenia or---oh, nothing else. It sure ain't because the album sounds like the Who—it's because the Who virtually own the term. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Curly Turkey here - it doesn't matter exactly which came first, mention "rock opera" to any general rock fan and the two they will first mention are these two. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So what changes should be made? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go as far as Britannica, which opens their oarticle ont he band with "the Who, Who, the [Credit: Jim Summaria (http://www.jimsummariaphoto.com/)British rock group that was among the most popular and influential bands of the 1960s and ’70s and that originated the rock opera.]"—but I'd definitely throw in a line (say in "Legacy") that they are credited with popularizing the rock opera and that the term is strongly associated with the band. Then I'd mention that in passing in the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• abandoned in favour of 1971's Who's Next: Who's Next was made up of material left over from Lifehouse, wasn't it? From the wording it sounds like they tossed and Lifehouse and took on a separate project instead.

Well My Wife was nothing to do with it, the key track, "Pure And Easy" wasn't on the album, and Lifehouse itself was supposed to be much more than just an album. Anyway, I've reworded things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• You might want to mention it when albums are doubles

I'm concerned this would add too much information to the lead that is already quite big - I'm more in favour of removing things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it does give the impression of just how big these projects were. It's surprising that it's not even mentioned in the body, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mention in the body, not the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Something about album length would be useful. I've added that to Tommy but not for Quadrophenia until I can find a source that talks about the relevance of its length. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's such a source that talks about the significance of there being four sides to the album, thus it needed to be a double. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the Richie Unterberger source. He's using quotations that are also in Marsh's book, documenting the decision to drop Rock is Dead - Long Live Rock due to it being too close to "Who's Next Part II" and Townshend deciding to do something else. That's not actually talking about Quadrophenia as such. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• The group continued to play live regularly, including the Quadrophenia and More tour in 2012 and the Who Hits 50 tour in 2014.: fine for the body, but naming these tours in the lead I think is RECENTISM and UNDUE

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• They have been cited as an influence by several punk rock and mod bands: and hard rock and heavy metal in general

That will need to go in the body and cited to reliable sources, though Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• • I gave you a bunch of sources on the talk page. This is something the article really needs—as it stands it gives the impression that their main legacy is the impact they had on punk, which is seriously unbalanced. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do here is be bold and add to the article, then I can check the sources and the context and make a balanced opinion on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think someone else mentioned it above, but something should be said about their sound, and something about power chords

I'm really not sure what exactly can be said here, plus their sound is quite varied when you listen to all of it (eg: I Can't Explain vs The Song Is Over vs "Guitar and Pen" vs "Underture" on Tommy vs Sunrise on The Who Sell Out). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure there's variety, but the great big, extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords of "I Can See For Miles", "Pinball Wizard", "Baba O'Reilly", and "Who Are You" are about the first thing that comes to many people's heads when you mention the Who, and a central part of their legacy. That would be a major oversight if left out of the lead. You could always mention that there was a variety while noting the sounds typically associated with them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are "extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords" on "I Can See For Miles". Of the four songs you mention, for me the first is the psychedelic-fused guitar and drums, the second is the acoustic, the third is the synthesizer and the fourth is also the synthesizer. So I'm sorry, but this sounds just like expressing a POV which we can't use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The verses of "I Can See for Miles" are all power chords—great big crashing power chords that are great fun to windmill to—and Townsend promoted the song as the loudest single ever.[9][10][11] (and here's a great quote: "The loudest record I know is certainly The Who's original single of 'I Can See For Miles', which is so overpowering that my dog buries her head in her paws if I take it out of the sleeve"

I've come across the June 1994 issue of Guitar World, which proclaims "'I Can See For Miles' was pivotal in makin the power chord a central part of the rock guitar vocbulary" (p 47). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And on p 57 "these rot/fifth, root/fifth/root chords are known as 'power chords'. As the Who grew in popularity, power chords became synonymous with the name Pete Townshend". There's some other good stuff in there. I'll come back with a few suggestions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Need to mention something about their stage show: Daltrey swinging his mic, Townshend doing his windmills

I think this would make the lead too long. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It could hardly be less important than the fact that one of their hit singles was used as a TV show theme. I think a lot of people would be surprised to see nothing about it—this is a band with a reputation, and their stage show is a central part of that reputation. I could see dropping "The Who developed from an earlier group, the Detours", "a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 and a tour of Quadrophenia in 1996," and ", thwarting plans for a new album" in its favour. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, sorry. Can anyone else express an opinion on this? There is a bit more about the mic cable stuff in the body now, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see leaving out the mic cable stuff, but windmilling? I see that at far more leadworthy than any of the three snippets I mentioned above. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What specific changes do you think should go in? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• including the theme music for the television series CSI: recentism and UNDUE again; ten years from now readers will be thinking "CS-What?"

I'm afraid you're showing your age there! CSI has been around for 14 years and is described on "the most popular dramatic series internationally". I did some market research amongst peers off-wiki to ask them what songs by the Who they recognised and a common theme from under 30s was the CSI themes. Plus this article is linked from the lead of CSI's main article, so do you consider mention of the Who there to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE? For a younger generation, it's important enough to add as a footnote to the lead in order to jog their memory. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm showing more my lack of interest in TV (though my wife does watch CSI). I'll admit I'm perhaps not qualified in that particular area and let others decide if this point is really lead-worthy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken out, so I'll take that as a consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

All said and done, I think the problem now is a balance between FA criteria 1b ("neglects no major facts or details") and 4 ("focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") which I think will require consensus. Plus any new prose will need to be checked against the rest of the FA criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not necessarily suggesting it as a source, but you may be amused to read this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Just in general, I think including a comprehensive depiction of what made The Who different and so highly valued is more important than worrying about the article length. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We just need to make sure whatever content is added meets the FA criteria and is closely copyedited for flow and sources checked over - jus' saying. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Did the development of the Marshall stack somehow get cut from the body? I could've sworn it was there before, but now the first mention of Marshalls is Hendrix's stack at Monterey. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I see it comes late in the article. Something about this needs to be mentioned in the general history of the band---it almost comes across as if Hendrix invented the Marshall stack the way it's introduced. Curly Turkey ¡gobble!
• Okay, I've been WP:BOLD and added I pile of stuff, though I understand your concerns about length. I don't think any of the stuff I've added is fluff, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, your additions all look good and exactly what we need to get out of the logjam - thanks! I've expanded on a few things. I want to add a bit more to the "relationships" section per the comment in there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd integrate the information on "personal relationships" section into "history"- not one band article I've ever seen has such a section, let alone those that are FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

• See WP:DATEOTHER-- typically the final year in a date range is abbreviated to two digits.
• Prose

• The Who occasionally re-formed for live appearances such as Live Aid in 1985, a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 and a tour of Quadrophenia in 1996, before resuming regular touring in 1999, with drummer Zak Starkey.

Drummer feels stuck on to the end of an unrelated thought.

I wonder if we should simply take Starkey out of the lead altogether. Although Starkey gets the most coverage in sources, no other touring members are mentioned, including Rabbit who's been touring keyboardist for the majority of shows since 1979. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NBSP reviewed needed throughout (sample 100 million in lead, top 50, 32 tablets, etc.)

I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NBSP. Places where numbers and the noun they modify need to be together should have a non-breaking space to avoid screen wrap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• He was expelled from school aged 15 ... expelled from school at age 15, or when he was 15?

Doesn't that mean the same thing? I'm confused Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dawson later left after frequently arguing with Daltrey. ... later ... after ... awkward

Yes that should simply be "left" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• WP:MOSLQ errors, sample was "so much better than the Who it was embarrassing." ... please review throughout.

That's a verbatim quotation from Tony Fletcher's book - what's the issue? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It has to do with how it's introduced into the sentence. Compare He said, "That movie's totally rad." to He said the film was "totally rad". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The punctuation on those should be outside the quote. Have a careful look at WP:MOSLQ for the distinction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting - my take on that is that the punctuation never goes inside the quotation unless it is part of the quotation. So in the example above, if the phrase "totally rad" ended a sentence in the source, I would put the full stop inside the quotation marks. I can't remember where I picked that up from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOSLQ on Wikipedia's convention for logical quotation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• In addition, Jones' consistent and precise drumming was very different from Moon's wild and unpredictable playing. Is that a fact, or an opinion that should be attributed to the author who holds it?

Changed to " Jones' drumming style was very different from Moon's and this drew criticism within the band." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• WP:SIZE: the article has almost 12,000 words of readable prose, and there do seem to be areas where some trimming might be possible. As one example, the "Guitars" section discusses Townshend in depth, when he has his own article. "Bass", on the other hand, is shorter and focused on the the group.

I think unfortunately this is a deal breaker; a majority of edits since the FA review started have been requests to add content (specifically against criteria 1b), largely from Curly Turkey and from a lesser extent Wasted Time R. As you can see, I have expressed concern over WP:SIZE but consensus is that had not been an issue. John has done a fairly substantial copyedit on the article already and removed some fat. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

John's copyedit was before I added any of the stuff I did. I think another thorough copyedit will help bring this down—as for the guitar stuff, some of it could go (I've removed the bit on Townshend's signature SG), and I'm sure it could be tightened up, but a lot of that stuff really is the band's legacy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read most of the article (just a MOS flyover), but overall I suggest MOS attention and some prose tightening with an eye towards trimming the article. I also quite a few samples of statements that are positioned as fact when they may be the opinion of a given source; a runthrough with an eye towards attribution of opinions would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't get behind MOS stuff, in all honesty it just give me a feeling to me to walk away and find something else to edit. Can you recommend some scripts, or can somebody else tackle this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you get everything else worked out, and only MOS issues are holding you up, then please ping me and I will run through. Of course, I'll keep my fingers crossed that maybe someone else will first, since it's time consuming :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what I can do. I'm not trying to argue against your comments, on the contrary they are good suggestions to make the article even better, just I struggle with getting time on here while trying to balance work, family and everything else that goes on, which makes committing the necessary time to work on FA quality prose hard to impossible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Dank

I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

More Turkey

Okay, I'm going to take a crack at trimming the article. I'll try to do it in small edits so anything you disagree with you can easily revert. I'm leaving the lead til I'm finished. I'll probably take a few days, as it is a long article, and there are other things I want to do, too. I'm going to leave a few more comments here, because I know you're eager to hear my lovely voice.

• on hearing the guitar work of Duane Eddy, he moved to the bass: Eddy played guitar---in what way did he inspire Entwistle to give up guitar?
• a more proficient musician, having been playing semi-professionally for two years at that point: by mid-1961, hadn't Daltrey been playing semi-professionally for two years as well?
• Probably should mention the two-chord nature of "My Generation", which I think is a lt more notable than the key changes
• were not meant to be taken literally: the line seems to assume the reader knows that peole were taking them literally (and they were---stick it to the man!) Should clarify this.
• My Generation was released in late 1965: a momentous occasion like this probably deserves a month of release
• When "Rael" is mentioned it's prbably a good idea to mention its importance as a rock opera
• didn't there used to be a description of how the Marshall stack came to be? That really needs to be in the article, and it should be introduced in the history part so readers understand the significance of Hendrix showing up at Monterey with a Marshall stack.
• Townshend had stopped using drugs: but it was never mentioned he used them
• The description of "Pinball Wizard" is lacking---we're told it was written to impress a journalist, but we learn nothing of what it sounds like, its chart success, or the fact that it preceded the album's release. This is one of the group's best-known songs, and the article glosses over it. I'd ditch the journalist stuff and talk about the song and its success.
• with gigs at weekends: is "at weekends" a BrEng thing?
• the link for the Life quote is incorrect
• I assume the Who's reluctance to perform at something as big as Woodstcok was because of the hippie thing---should be explicit
• They decided a live album would help demonstrate how different the sound at their gigs was to Tommy, and set about listening to the hours of recordings they had accumulated. Townshend baulked at the prospect of doing so,: so, the band thought it would be a good idea except for Townsend, or did Townshend htink it was a good idea until he listened to the tapes? Never mind, I've cut all this.
• Two newspapers and the BBC consider Leeds one of the best rock albums of all time? Seems a strange set---isn't there a source that makes a more general claim about how the album is regarded?
• The show was abandoned for an "oldies" set: as in Who favourites?
• that former Beatles and Rolling Stones manager Allen Klein had bought a stake in his publishing company. A settlement was reached, but Townshend was upset and disillusioned that Klein had attempted to take ownership of his songs.: So Klein buying a stake in Townshend's publishing company meant he was trying to take ownership of his songs? I think this needs to be reworded or better explicated.
• he passed out in a doorway: the doorway of the club or elsewhere?
• if he could stand and walk: so he was able to stand and walk?
• By this point, Moon was so unhealthy that the Who conceded it would be difficult for him to cope with touring.: was this the reason for not touring, or is it incidental?
• wondering if he was no longer a visionary: God, this makes him sound so full of himself
• Should make explicit the connection between the Who's reputation for volume and Townshend's tinnitus.
• I notice sometimes you do "In Smallville, Kentucky, they" and sometimes "In Smallville, Kentucky they"; I also see a mix of serial commas and non-serial commas. You'll have to decide on which styles you want for the article.
• where Townshend injured his arm on-stage: I know I sound like a broken record, but I really thin kyou should state the nature of the injury
• they had acquired new equipment, including earpieces, that allowed Townshend to perform: the same ones recommended by Young and the audiologist? Never mind, I cut this.
• The Quadrophenia and More toured started in 2010 and lasted until 2013? Just double checking---that's one heck of a long tour for a bunch of old farts!
• "Irish" Jack Lyons said,: who? And why do we care? This quote has no context
• His trademark sound with the band has been a characteristic scream, as heard at the end of "Won't Get Fooled Again".: that's an awesome scream, but... is it really his "trademark"? How often does he let one out?
• favouring down strokes and: did he really favour downstrokes that much? This makes him sound like Johnny Ramone.
• The description of Jones' drumming doesn't make sense---it was a sharp contrast while echoing Moon's drumming, and Moon was his teacher?
• The Who have been called "The Godfathers of Punk": every band and its dog has been called "The Godfathers of Punk"...
• I'm thinking the whole third paragraph of "Media" could be summed up by simply mentioning the band's songs have featured in films and video games.
• More to come... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Whew!—okay, I've managed to shave about 7k from the article (more than 10%, from 66k to 59k). Ritchie333, please take a look at what I've done to ensure I haven't distorted the meaning of anything or dropped something you feel is important. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think these changes make the article worse. For example, Live At Leeds has been consistently documented as one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful live albums, deserving of a GA itself if I can get round to doing it, and it is now reduced to one sentence, saying "Live at Leeds was an album recorded at Leeds", which is a tautology. So, I don't think this FA nomination is going to close successfully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but am pretty sure that while people are able to withdraw, they can't oppose their own nominations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay I've cancelled out that but this review has just cemented my view that FAs and me just do not mix. Now, let me think about getting Genesis to GA instead (don't rush, I need to buy some books first). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If this doesn't succeed, you can always come back to FAC later on. This article definitely deserves to be FA sooner or later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, talk about disappointing. For the record, here's what I cut from the Live at Leeds paragraph–none of which contributes to an understanding of the album as "consistently documented as one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful live albums": it retains "The album is viewed by several critics including The Independent, The Telegraph and the BBC, as one of the best live rock albums of all time" and removes out-of-scope details such as the Hull recording, the number of tracks, and the CD bonus tracks released deaceds later (not only out of scope but out of chronology). I'm at a loss as to what you're objecting to, and I've already invited you to revert anything you disagree with. Are you officially withdrawing? I'm hoping the answer's "no". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks to me that the answer is yes, unfortunately, unless we hear to the contrary from Ritchie333 soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, withdraw this. I recently had to revert one of Curly Turkey's edits which added a lulu.com source, which I wouldn't accept for a GA, let alone an FA. I don't know what other errors are in the article. I feel it's better to leave this as a GA and move on to other things. The current tour will mean IPs and new users will add edits, so it may be unstable for a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's quite a shame that this had to end in a withdrawal :(, I'll help bring this up to FA standards if assistance is needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• The shrugging off weeks ago of the need for MOS corrections was not optimal; I hope Ritchi333 will read and review the suggested pages before any future FA nominations. And I appreciate the needed Curly Turkey trim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have to be honest and say they have made the article worse, though in fairness only slightly. I didn't "shrug off" anything and I apologise if I gave the impression I had. Rather, sometimes I feel as this is voluntary project that I don't get paid for, I just have to reach a point where things stop being fun and say, "sorry, I'm not up for doing this". Just the way things go sometimes. I think it's unlikely I will try any more FAs for at least a year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You make it sound like someone twisted your arm into bringing this article to FAC. None of the rest of us are getting paid for this either, and some of us have also put hours of work into this article, only to have our concerns ignored when raised. Yes, I'm aware I did an inadequate job: here's the article before I fucked it up, and here it is after I finally finished botching it. Please revert so you can get the shiny star. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.