Talk:The Carpenters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lack of "The" (again)

I see there's been several discussions over the years about whether this should be moved to Carpenters. I can see the argument for that title to redirect to Carpenter [EDIT: or Carpentry, the same as "Carpenter" currently does] , but what's wrong with Carpenters (band)? That would be the usual way of dealing with this, would it not? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. This article should be named in the same kind of way as the Eagles (band) article ~ except that I would not call the Carpenters either a "band" or a "group" as they were a duo. In my view there needs to be at least three members in a band or group. I propose moving it from its current name. What do others think is the best article name? Afterwriting (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• The band name just simply is NOT "The Carpenters" - it is definitively without exception just their last name - i.e. "Carpenters". After reading all of the discussion in the debates, I can see where folks are arguing against the name change however, their arguments appear to be based on several misunderstandings re: Wikipedia policy and the use of the word "the". As others have said, we don't refer to similarly named bands as "The Eagles", "The Chicago", "The Van Halen", "The Tesla", "The Stevie Wonder", or "The Commodores" UNLESS they actually use "The" within their name. I am working to start a new debate with more concise argument supporting the name change. Aleding (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Carpenters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061021165145/https://www.detroitsymphony.com/main.taf?erube_fh=dso&dso.submit.getOrchMember=1&dso.memberId=204 to http://www.detroitsymphony.com/main.taf?erube_fh=dso&dso.submit.getOrchMember=1&dso.memberId=204

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  05:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that Carpenters should continue to redirect to Carpentry, the article about the skilled trade. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The Carpenters → Carpenters – This is the correct name - see discussion below Schotterebene (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Moved this discussion to the very bottom. George Ho (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposed title already redirects to carpentry so if this is moved we would need to decide if this article should be titled Carpenters or something like Carpenters (band) with carpenters remaining as a redirect.--69.157.255.109 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose current proposal. No evidence yet of primary topic over a primary redirect to carpentry. If it is to be moved, it should be instead renamed Carpenters (band). As an aside, the OP references this discussion, which I noticed mentions the Eagles (band) article. In that case, a 2013 proposal to move it to Eagles was rejected. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Carpenters should continue to redirect to Carpentry. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose not the primary topic -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – "The Carpenters" is actually the WP:COMMONNAME. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close as malformed since carpenters refers to carpenters. No enormous objection to Carpenters (band) but evidence presented above doesn't yet support it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this specific proposal, but would definitely support a move to Carpenters (band), in line with Eagles (band), Eels (band), Editors (band), etc. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Done: Moved to "Carpenters (band)". Thanks and best regards, --Schotterebene (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your renaming attempt. When this discussion is over, you or I can propose the parenthetical disambiguation. But please don't do it again. (Reply delayed by Wikipedia's blacklist system) George Ho (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. File:Carpenters - Walk of Fame.jpg presents a good case for keeping the current title, though I'm open to arguments for moving to Carpenters (band). Wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • 21:30, 27 May 2007 Anthony Appleyard moved page Carpenters (band) to The Carpenters (as requested)
  • See also
    • § Carpenters v. The Carpenters
    • § THE Carpenters
    • § Carpenters
    • Talk:Carpenters (album) § Requested move

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Their own Homepage should be credible:

• http://www.richardandkarencarpenter.com/

--Schotterebene (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by a page mover) Omni Flames (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The Carpenters → Carpenters (duo) – Saul Grant changed the title to the proposed name. Fortunately, I reverted it back to the present title. This needs legitimate discussion while the article is move-protected to prevent further undiscussed changes. I don't want to do this as previous RMs oppose "Carpenters", and I mean "Carpenters" without parenthetical disambiguation. In this RM, we shall choose either the present natural disambiguation or the proposed parenthetical one. Take your pick. George Ho (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Support move. In this instance it's easy to be accurate, and we should be. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And having been alerted to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name), I see the guidance is clear: use "The" if, and only if, it is an official part of the name. For Carpenters, it isn't, as is covered in the article, with citations. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What the band decided should be a factor in this decision, yes; however, how a lot of their albums appeared, how their name appeared on their Hollywood Walk of Fame Star, as well as how they were known in the public eye are also factors. The only time they would not be referred to with the definite article (The Carpenters) would be when an indefinite article is used. One wouldn't say, "A The Carpenters album...", but then, one wouldn't say, "A The Beatles album...", either.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose (EDIT:Per Paine Ellsworth below and his pointing out exception 1)Support, the groups name is 'Carpenters' as shown on their album covers. Looking at them I just want to feed her soup or something. Randy Kryn 11:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• I know what you mean, Randy. This video and the follow-up vids pretty much say it all! So many people, myself included, were devastated by her condition and death. She had an unassuming voice that reached deep down to your inner being. Some other singers were as good, but there were none better.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  17:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This one stranges it up nicely. I've been asking around informally and everyone so far knows them as 'The Carpenters'. The n-gram is useless on this, probably as a direct result of the video I've linked, where the fix was in from the outside influences involved.... Randy Kryn 19:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, you and the rest here deserve to hear the "real" Karen. She enjoyed singing the "odd" song even more than the pop ones, for example, one of my all-time favorites that never really made it big. She managed to work this song, written by her brother and another writer, into at least one of her albums, though. It's called Crescent Noon, and here it is.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  22:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Was in my 20s and 30s during Karen's heyday, and from that day to this I've always thought of the duo as "The Carpenters". It is definitely the common name for the group. Their name verges on requiring the "long e" sound in the definite article – THE Carpenters. This falls under exception #1 in the lead of the no-leading-article guideline and perhaps exception #2 as well. See also the group names at Names of groups, sports teams and companies. No, "The Carpenters" is the name we all knew them by, it was the name by which they were always introduced in their numerous public appearances, and it is the name by which they should always be remembered.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That page doesn't actually support what you're saying, though. All of those band names do officially have a "The" and in that instance we do not remove it. Similarly, we do not add a "The" that isn't there; in fact the paragraph immediately after the list of names says so very clearly: "This only applies if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website. Conversely, some bands — such as Eurythmics, Eagles, Pixies and Odds — do not have the in their names, even though they may sometimes (or even often) be referred to as "the (Name)" in everyday speech. In all cases, default to the form of the name that is actually used by the band themselves, and use "(band)" to disambiguate if necessary." --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point. In looking over their album covers, I find several of either usages. Many just have "Carpenters"; however, several more have simply "The Carpenters", "the Carpenters" or even "The Best of THE CARPENTERS". So my oppose !vote still must stand. OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  22:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC).

• Oppose. Normally I don't agree with using a definite article in titles, but here, just like The Beatles, it's just so obvious as not to be worth even discussing. There are always exceptions to any rule and this is one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – as before: "The Carpenters" is the common name. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - If this discussion concludes that Richard Carpenter was consistently wrong about the name of his own group, it's easy enough to decide that he is not a reliable source and strike down those citations, but who's going to tell him that he's been getting it wrong this whole time? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What? Have your walnuts gone kapow or something? He's not wrong about omitting "The". It's disambiguating the band by the natural disambiguation, fully supported by majority here and sources. Can you prove that "The Carpenters" is not the optical title, i.e. best or most favorable title per policy? George Ho (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

We have a perfectly good method of disambiguation that does not involve promoting inaccuracy. We should use it. --07:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to you Walnuts go kapow, this among many other facts shows that this article title is by no means an "inaccuracy". Inaccuracies would be as follows:

• Richard Carpenters → The Carpenters
• Karen the Drummer → The Carpenters
• The Corpentars → The Carpenters

Those are true inaccuracies that would need changing. It is actually the omission of the definite article "the" that, in this case, would be an "inaccuracy".  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  11:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That Walk of Fame star is a pretty disastrous failure of fact-checking on the part of whoever commissioned it, but if Wikipedia isn't better than that, what's the point? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Walk of Fame used to charge 25,000 dollars American for the privilege of having a star (you can put one in front of my house for ten grand, a bargain), so the fact checking would have likely included Richard Carpenter. If a star is wrong (misspelled, the wrong name, etc.) it likely would have been replaced. So this is as good a source as any for the common name of this group. Randy Kryn 12:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

These days (I have far fewer left than I have been privileged to have lived) one of my foremost ideals is to improve this encyclopedia. Since I actually lived back during the times of this group and greatly admired them and especially Karen Carpenter, I can tell you without any shadow of doubt that to change this article's title from the group's common name, The Carpenters, to anything else would not improve Wikipedia, and in fact would do just the opposite. If you continue to disagree in the face of all this opposition, then it is imperative that you study the group even more closely, and also the times in which their music helped "soothe the pain". I do believe that you only have Wikipedia's best interests in mind; however, after reading this entire discussion, if you still want to change the name, then how could you possibly have this encyclopedia's best interests at heart? Please forgive me if I seem maudlin. I really don't understand what would motivate the stance that you want to continue to defend? Your opposition has cited the guideline, with the exceptions to the "if and only if" rule, that supports this common name, so there should be no more "ifs, ands or buts" about keeping "The Carpenters" as the title of this article!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I prefer accuracy over pandering to misconceptions. This isn't Conservapedia. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that what you are proposing is inaccurate. Andrewa (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you just had to be there to understand.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC).

• Oppose. They were and are overwhelmingly known as The Carpenters... album artwork etc notwithstanding. Andrewa (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox image size

To editor Mlpearc: I don't understand your edit summary in this edit: ...let the infobox handle image size as it was designed to do.... This infobox was "designed" with an image-size parameter, and the size seemed to be just fine as it was. I bring this here as a courtesy rather than to revert your edit outright because I generally respect your edits; however, I don't understand why you would change the image size, especially with an edit summary that appears to be incorrect???  Temporal Sunshine Paine  19:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Yes, the parameter is included with the template, but it is not needed here. Please see the template's documentation Template:Infobox_musical_artist#image_size and image size can be adjusted in user preferences. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, now I see what you meant. Cheers!  Paine  02:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem Paine Ellsworth. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 02:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Arrangement of Close to You

Addressed in Wikipedia:Peer review/The Carpenters/archive4
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article currently states that "Richard [...] wrote an arrangement from scratch without being influenced by any earlier recordings", sourced from Schmidt. I don't know what the source states exactly, though the article statement seems a little misleading, given what Richard states in this documentary (from about 13:45), regarding the instruction from Alpert to retain the distinctive piano flourishes after the first bridge. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Guder

The information is being referred to again to make sure it's understood about the Guder situation. That information is covered in earlier text, but those reading the article shouldn't need to search for the information re: Guder if it was missed above. We hope (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Surely readers don't need to understand the details again? Just a reminder will suffice. It's not as if the info about Guder is miles up the page. Should we assume our readers can't remember that far back? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is quite long and detailed; I believe the sentence should stay as is. It wasn't one of their well-known songs that instantly rings a bell and they weren't known for songs in this type of vein, so it's unusual. We hope (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is unusual information, which is why it's memorable, and why the repetition stands out. The article is at least 70 paragraphs long; there are only 7 paragraphs between the ones containing the repeated Guder info. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Still not convinced as this was discussed at the PR today before any of it was added. 12 We hope (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man recommended that the info be embellished; that's not the same as saying it should be repeated. I'm not advocating wholesale removal, but just including a reminder rather than a repetition. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think others who may be interested in the article should have an opportunity to give an opinion. User:78.26 was discussing understanding who Guder was at the PR page today; let's see what he thinks. We hope (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

For some reason the ping didn't work, but thank you. I see where PaleCloudedWhite is coming from, but I prefer the expanded wording. The shortened wording makes it appear Guder viewed them as musical lightweights, whereas the expanded makes it clear they were fired. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not the point; the point of having the shortened version is that the extended info is already in the article a bit higher up the page. But if that's what you all prefer, so be it. However, the indefinite article ("an attack...") really should be replaced with a definite one, seeing as the text has already specified what is being referred to. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Over 90 or 100 million records sold?

In the article it says over 90, but The Carpenters discography says more than 100, with a ref. to their official website. Can that be used as a reliable source, so the numbers shall be change to 100 in this article too? Or should it be changed to 90 in other articles? /PatrikN (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@PatrikN: The "Over 90 million" comes from an offhand comment in the Daily Telegraph, so I would say over 100 million cited to the official website is the more correct figure. If I didn't know better, I would say the 90 million was put in unsourced and somebody tacked the reference on later via a quick Google. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Carpenters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I'll review this article. It's long and complicated, but the topic is important and it should get back to FA.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Fairly well-written article. I'd say the prose in its 1st half is better than the 2nd. For example, I'd weave in the content from the short sections into other parts of the article. I'll be more specific later.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Follows the standard structure of a music article. Some sections are too short, with 1 or 2 sentences. See my suggestions below.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I don't have the offline resources you use, but I'm willing to AGF that they're okay. I'm only concerned about 2 sources. The Carpenters' webpage: you might want to try and find other sources for what it supports, mostly because of WP:SPS. Also, I suggest removing ref 32; it's badly written and you have another better source for it. The dating system you use (mmddyy) is fine and consistent, although personally I approve the ddmmyy system. But don't change it on my account! ;)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I just ran this article through the copyvio detector, and it didn't fare well. I suggest that you run it yourself, and then make the appropriate adjustments. I compared the 1st ref listed, and much of it was titles of songs and awards, but it's always a good idea. If you go through it and make very little changes on that basis, I'll AGF and accept it.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Very thorough and complete.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It'd be very easy to go off into excessive detail about the Carpenters' illnesses, but you don't. I wonder, though, if you could discuss more about how Karen's death brought more awareness about eating disorders. (This is just an idea; I won't hold you to it.)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article is obviously written about a fan, of course, but remains neutral nonetheless.

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   There are recent controversies about the "the", and this article suffers from routine vandalism (not surprisingly), but it seems to be managed well.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are good.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See below for more suggestions.

Suggestions

• The prose is fairly strong; like I say above, the quality doesn't decline until late in the article.
• The Singles: Agnes had always considered Richard to be her favorite child, which did not sit well with Karen. This sentence confuses me. Did Karen just found out that Agnes preferred Richard over her, or was it something that had just come up in their family dynamic? If so, why? What does "did not sit well with Karen" mean?

I've rewritten this sentence. The essential gist is that the family expected Richard to be a concert pianist and was the "star", while Karen was just "the other one". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Horizon: By this time, Karen was visibly unwell... Again, unclear sentence. How was she "visibly unwell"?

Basically, the audience could see her on stage and tell that something was wrong. I've rewritten this bit to clarify. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hiatus: Is there any explanation for why Richard became addicted?

I think it was just pressures of work, and probably putting more than what is in the article skirts a little bit too close to WP:BLP, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please find a better and more reliable source for the Grammy photo shoot, if it's possible.

There are two sources cited - Randy Schmidt's book and an archive copy of Cashbox - what's the issue with either? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess my question is if Cashbox is a good source. If you insist that it is, I'm fine with it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Karen's death: Why was she divorced?

I don't have the books I originally used to improve this any more, but I don't believe any of the high-quality sources go into any detail. I think Karen just threw herself headfirst into marriage thinking it was a "grown up" thing to do and move on a bit from their family-friendly image, and it inevitably backfired. However, it sounds a bit too tabloidish to go into this depth. Given Tom Burriss' name was changed in the film, and Richard isn't too keen to bring him up in the duo's history any more than necessary, I think we've got the right level of adherence to WP:BLP as it is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Influences: I don't believe in one-sentence sections, as per MOS:PARA. Perhaps you can put it in the next section, about Richard's musical style, since he was "responsible for the group's sound"?

I didn't add this (it might have been when I was on a brief wikibreak earlier this year and not paying attention), and it's not cited to a particularly good source. Removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Public image: From the start of their career, the Carpenters were coached in interviews... Who coached them and why did they listen?

The management and the record company; they listened, because they realised there was a market for middle-class conservative clean-cut apple-pie Nixon voting record buyers which the underground and psychedelic bands popular in the late 60s didn't cater for. I've added a bit to the paragraph in question. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note h: Why is their opinion about marijuana important? Perhaps you can explain; for example, you can say that their views on drug use where more liberal than their image would suggest, and why. Did they have other liberal views, like what did they think about Vietnam and civil rights? You say that they "privately" favor the legalization of marijuana, but they state it in People Magazine. They talk about other things in that article, too; why not include them?
• Logo: Again, this section is too short. I doubt that you'd be able to expand it, so I suggest that you fold it into another section, perhaps in the "Carpenters and A Song for You" section or in the "Promotion and touring" or even "Public image", since it fits with their squeaky-cleanness.

I've merged it into the main history, since the prose deals with it in context, and the logo can act as a lead image to that section. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)*

• Karen's anorexia - research has uncovered the fact, fairly recently, that eating disorders are much more common in female children who were born in the spring, the reason being that the last trimester was during the winter when the mother's vitamin D level would be at its nadir, the worst month to be born in is March, which was indeed when Karen was born. Here is a link from Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201107/season-birth-and-anorexia.

That's all; not a lot, and most of it picky. I will pass to GA once the above issues have been addressed. Thanks, that was fun, and not as complicated as I thought. It was fun; I love the Carpenters and am not ashamed to admit it! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick holding reply; as suggested on my talk page I am not on-wiki much over the next couple of days, so it’ll probably be the weekend before I get a chance to look at these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that you've addressed the main issues; I was really reaching for things, so I appreciate your willingness to take my few suggestions. I fixed a missing semi-colon and fixed the caption for the Carpenters logo. Nice job; you're good to go for a GA. Congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, thanks also to We hope and The Rambling Man for their previous groundwork in this article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Long Beach people

I have been unable to find valid sources for some the following information. I have gleaned all this from Youtube interviews and footage, blogs, etc, regarding the many key people that Richard met at Long Beach State and continued to work with for many years.

While studying at Long Beach Richard met music teacher and choral director Frank Pooler, he also met John Bettis, Gary Sims and Dan Woodhams, who were all in the group Spectrum with Richard and Karen. There Richard also met singer and woodwind player Doug Strawn. Richard and Strawn (and at least one other person) worked together playing music at Disneyland. Strawn played on many Carpenters’ studio recordings. Sims, Woodhams and Strawn also played in the live band (Sims - guitar, vocals. Woodhams - vocals, percussion, bass. Strawn - electric clarinet, vocals). Strawn and Woodhams appear on both official live Carpenters albums. The 1972 video footage of the Carpenter’s live show in Melbourne, Australia has Sims, Woodhams, Strawn and Pooler. Pooler is conducting the live orchestra! When Richard introduces the band he says that Pooler taught them all to recreate the harmonies from the studio recordings, as the studio harmonies were by Richard and Karen only. The 1972 live harmonies were Richard, Strawn, Woodhams and Sims, backing Karen. Richard and Pooler later co-wrote “Merry Christmas Darling”. Design (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)