Talk:The Who/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 16:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this one, but it may take some days to finish due to the sheer length. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Already now, I can see that several paragraphs end in sentences without end citations. Please fix this throughout, I think there are almost ten of these issues.

Should all now be fixed. Apart from one, these mostly fell out of copyediting. The single offender was the information about the 1989 tour, which I've replaced with two Allmusic reviews. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also, have the issues raised during the first GA reviw been fixed?[1]

I've just checked, and they should all now be resolved. I copyedited and re-sourced the entire article, so a lot of the issues were irrelevant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The most notable line-up consisted of singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist Pete Townshend, bassist John Entwistle, and drummer Keith Moon." How about saying the original line up? I would say this is basically what people think of when they think of the Who, this is not like Deep Purple, which had a gazilion line ups with different fan bases.

I can't say that because it's factually incorrect! The original line-up is Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and drummer Doug Sandom, and Neill & Kent's book state they did about two months of gigs billed as The Who before Moon joined. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it could be said in another way. How about "best known", "main", or "signature" line up? For some reason, "most notable" gives me the idea that there were several line ups existing at almost equal lengths of time, just not as successfully, tough that was not the case. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone with "best known". There is an IP who likes going around removing "best known" from leads claiming it violates WP:NPOV and edit warring aggressively over it (see Cleo Rocos' entry in WP:LAME), but we'll worry about that as and when (or even if) it happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hah weird! How is "most notable" a less POV term? Just because it sounds fancier? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Some people just want to right great wrongs..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, nice, that guideline came in handy here: [2] FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The release of the album Tommy in 1969" Could we note it as their fourth album here? Until then, the lead doesn't mention any album, so the unitiated might believe it was their first.

Done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I find it a bit odd that two inconsequential 1980s albums are mentioned and linked in the lead, when the three pre-Tommy albums aren't, I'd say they are much more notable, at least My Generation.

I wasn't sure, but the first two albums hit the top ten in the UK so they can go in. I've shuffled the lead around so it now mentions every studio album. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the intro at least mention their album-based films?

Yes, I think so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• If the two last suggestions add too much content, I suggest removing the list of early hits from the intro instead. I see no reason why these should be named, they're not more important than their later hits, which are not listed at all.

I'm not sure I agree. The band were very much a singles act in the early years (as were most bands) and several sources point to Tommy as being a specific point at which they went from being a "singles" band to an "album" band, saving their career. As it is, I've trimmed other bits out of the lead to keep the size down. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you've already added the other stuff, there's no problem, because my suggestion was more of a trade off... FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see some unnecessary white space that could be removed with slight rearrangement of images. For example, last image could be moved to the right, no reason Jack Black should take up so much space (he gets more than the adjacent one of Townshend!). He could be given the upright parameter to make him stretch less down. The left/right position of the two images under A Quick One and The Who Sell Out could be inverted, and the white space removed. The guitar under the next heading could be moved to the right, so not to interfere with the title below.FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Done (I think), though bear in mind some readers look at Wikipedia via a mobile app, where the concept of "white space" does not exist. I don't actually like the guitar image at all - it's dimensions are all wrong - so I've removed it. I'll see if a free image of the Woodstock site is available. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You could rotate the image to make it less ungainly? FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Image licenses look fine, except for those extracted from old billboards. I'll bring it up on Commons and see what's up. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that a photo published in the US before 1977 without any notice or information about who owns the copyright means it lapses. Anyway, we'll see what happens on Commons. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Zak Starkey be listed in the infobox as at least a past member? His involvement seems to have been pretty consistent, in spite of not wanting to be labelled as a "full-time member", he appears to be a de facto member.

Before we do this, I would like to find out why someone (not me!) put in a comment saying "do not add touring members". My concern is once you add Starkey, then somebody will want to add Rabbit, then the horn players on the '89 tour ... and suddenly the infobox is twice as big and takes up the entire screen :-/ I felt Starkey deserved a mention in the lead as he's unique amongst touring members to turn down a offer to go full-time (as sourced to Townshend's blog). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the Who were mainly a four musician band, I'd think a drummer would be of a very different status than for example a member of a horn orchestra. "The band" and its members would logically always refer to these four, not their backing orchestra. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a discussion that is best taken to the main talk page and resolved via consensus, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a deal breaker in this at all anyay. FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• "played professional engagements from the very beginning" Sounds a tad too formal for this purpose, reword?

Changed to "gigs" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "from the more working-class Shepherd's Bush" Working class area? "Mainly" could also look better than "more". Seems a verb is missing between working class and area name.

I've reworded this bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• The title "With Moon" seems rather redundant as a subheading and feels tacked on. It's not as if this is a BC/CE situation. I doubt any biographies make this distinction either.
• Likewise, "After Moon" should be clearer, "after Moon's death", and there is no reason everything after should be subheadings to this.

I think we need some sort of partition though, as otherwise the "History" section has 15 headings. Marsh p508 (the first chapter following Moon's death) starts off "Here ends the story of The Who. In its wake, a new one began..."' How about simply changing it to "1964-1978" and "1978-present"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice, yeah, I think that is a more standard thing to do, and gives a better chronological overview. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "so changed their name to The Who " Any elaboration on this? No reason for the name is given here.

There's a little bit in Marsh that I've added. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the long section about films is appropriate here. Not even the albums get such an in depth treatment. I suggest splitting it up in a Who filmography article, and summarising the info where it is chronologically relevant in the rest of the existing text.

I was contemplating creating a spinout article, but in fact this can all be easily copyedited into the "history" section. McVicar in particular is off-topic as it's primarily a Daltrey solo project with tangential involvement from the main group. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm only past the first section, so it will take a while before the entire article is reviewed! May take a few days, hope you don't mind. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Take as long as you need. It took me a week to GA review Madonna (entertainer) and at the end I felt mentally exhausted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "They had also jettisoned Druce as manager" Jettisoned? Isn't it a bit hyperbolic? Fired?

I went with "replaced" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise with " involvingcutting-edge fashions", unless it refers to something specific.

Removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• " distributed American Decca product in England." "Releases" instead of "product"? Sounds like they were packing meat or something...

I've rewritten this entire sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "the group have achieved to date" Shouldn't it be "has"? Group is singular.

Only if you're American! Since this is a British band, the article uses British English. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "when it saw a proper remix and CD reissue" I guess it was more of a "remaster" than a "remix"?

It really was a remix (as cited by Howard, and also the sleeve notes of the 2002 CD reissue) - the album had never been previously been issued in stereo and due to the legal problems with Shel Talmy that lasted for decades, the band could never get their hands on the original multitrack tapes to do so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "and mod was on the wane" Sounds a bit esoteric, add mod culture/style?

I've gone with "was no longer popular" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "fake commercials between songs" Fake seems a little harsh, made up/mock or something like that?

"mock" sounds good Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "which saw the national press turn on them" of what country?

I've replaced it with a specific paper and quotation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• There could be a sentence about the significance of Tommy when it is first mentioned, as "rock opera" and all that, now it is glossed over, with some rather vague press statements.

I've expanded a bit more in this area. I think it took a few months to become popular, it wasn't like Sgt Pepper where everyone stood up and paid attention the day it was released. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "kicked offstage by Townshend" Again a bit hyperbolic.

Hmm. I'll tell you how Marsh describes it on page 350 : "Townshend put one of his Dr. Marten boots squarely into Hoffman's ass, swatted him with his Gibson SG, and as the Yippie fell into the photographers' pit, played on." What words would you suggest? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, didn't realise it was to be taken literally! FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• " and portions of it appeared on the subsequent film" No easter egg links.

Replaced with "the Woodstock film" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "An unpleasant omen of things to come" Omen is again hyperbolic, sign/indication instead?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "On 2 May 1979, the Who returned to the stage" Another Easter egg link.

I didn't realise there was a link there. Removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "John Lydon was considered the role of Jimmy, but Townshend decided Lydon was too intelligent and too obvious a casting choice, and the role eventually went to Phil Daniels." Is all this explanation really necessary in this article?

Which bits were you thinking of taking out? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Just the recasting bit, not really relevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. It's an interesting fact, but one better suited to Lydon's own article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking it would make plenty sense in the article about the film. FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Bono of U2 said, "More than any other band, The Who are our role models." This is already noted earlier, one recurrence seems redundant.
• Likewise with: "the display describes them as "Prime contenders, in the minds of many, for the title of World's Greatest Rock Band."

I've fixed both of these by writing something else about their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame exhibit from the official source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like an arbitrary choice for an external link: http://john-bauer.com/thewho.htm

The moral of this story is, when you're reviewing a link, don't just think "oh, that'll be a critical analysis of the Cincinatti Disaster" but do click on the link and have a look at it. (Removed) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it looks great now, so I will pass it. More of these, please! Only remaining issue before a potential FAC I can think of is the copyright status of the billboards, but the worst case scenario is jut that they would have to be hosted locally here, so not much of a difference. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a good review. If you enjoyed this, run full speed to Keith Moon which is at FAC right now. Main things for FAC here are to use some more sources (Moon's article uses a wider spectrum of books), plus there are some facts that I know from unreliable sources (eg: the 1989 tour was done to pull Entwistle out of debt, Townshend spent a lot of the 80s and 90s claiming he didn't actually like The Who at all) that would be nice to properly verify and put in. It's all doable, and the aim is to get it as TFA for 2 May 2014 - exactly 50 years since the most notable best known line-up played their first full gig together. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice! I'll have a look, thought it had passed already. As for additions, did the whole "pedophile" business (which I never fully understood) have any effect/relevance to reunions of the band? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. It should be mentioned on Townshend's own article for sure, but a combination of WP:BLP and WP:DUE would probably prevent mention of it here. Most of the commentary on the last ten years is from online news sources, and not one of them brings it up in any substantial detail. Now, compare that to Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)