Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Johnston (singer)/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:15, 20 October 2010 [1].

Andrew Johnston (singer)

edit

Andrew Johnston (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because I thought it was worth a second nomination. All objections from last time were (or have since been) dealt with. He's literally done nothing for a year- the reliable sources have entirely ignored him, he's just popped up on the odd DELICIOUS REALITY TV blog. His official site occasionally promises there's something to come, but there's not even rumours of another album, so far as I can see, let alone anything concrete. It's illustrated, well sourced, pretty comprehensive, avoids anything gossipy... I think it would make a fine featured article. One other thing- I previously nominated it for deletion. I'm no expert, but would that be a first? J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:-

  • Ref 1: Is Orange really the source of this story? It looks as though they may have repoduced it from the Daily Mirror
  • Ref 20: Local newspapers should have location indicated
  • Ref 21, 25, 33 same point applies.
    • Noted that both the News and Star and Cumberland News are based in Carlisle. J Milburn (talk)

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments. Some comments as I go through the article:
    • "Before his success on Britain's Got Talent, Johnston was head chorister at Carlisle Cathedral. He had moved to Carlisle as an infant after his parents separated, and lived there in "poverty".[3] Johnston was bullied at school because of his love of classical music." Because this isn't in chronological order the tenses get a little strained: "had moved", for example. How about: "Johnston's parents separated when he was an infant, and he and his mother moved to Carlisle, where they lived in "poverty". He became head chorister at Carlisle Cathedral, and was bullied at school because of his love of classical music." With the chronological sequence you don't need to say "before his success". Joining the last two facts as I have done implies causation in a reader's mind but I think that's OK here; his choirsinging would certain have been classical.
    • My understanding of summary style is that you only use the "main" template in a section if that section and the article linked are about exactly the same topic. That's not so for the second series article; this section is just about Johnston's participation. In any case you have a link to that series in the first sentence, so I'd cut the main tag completely.
    • Per WP:YT there should be a note next to the external link to YouTube indicating that Flash is required; I've never seen this done so I can't give you guidance on format, and wouldn't oppose on this, but there's no harm in complying.
    • The Caroline Scott article is already linked as a reference; is there really any value in adding it as an external link too? I'd remove it. Conversely, the Liptrott article is not used; a glance through it seems to indicate that that's because there's really no additional information there. I think that could be deleted too.

I've switched to support above; my comments are quite minor, though I think the summary style issue is a genuine problem and should be fixed. None of the other issues are significant. Prose is clean, sources look OK, seems comprehensive. -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review and support. J Milburn (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I'm sorry but I find this lacking in the qualities of a Featured Article. First, there are problems with the writing. For example, the phrase "he is currently not recording to allow his voice to develop" is odd, and could be misunderstood (consider that "recording to allow his voice develop" might be read as one phrase, for example). There are strange word choices (for example, "regime"; do you mean "regimen"?). I found and fixed an MoS error on skimming; has it been audited for others? Second, it leans oddly to a heavy layer of detail about his personal life and relatively little writing on his musicianship. The information seems more drawn from media hype and talent show coverage than any serious journalism. If he is a musician, where is all the information about his style, training, and so on? You mention in passing in the lead that he went from a treble to a tenor, but then in the body you write that he went from a soprano to a tenor; this is confusing at best. The use of the term "soprano" in reference to a male is problematic and controversial in musical circles. It signifies poor journalism in the source and shouldn't be used. Please find some serious musical publications to expand on his musicianship and write about it accurately. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, I'm afraid I don't have the time to look into your specific objections right now (please don't close this in the next few days, I will get to these tomorrow at the latest) but the point is that there are no "serious musical publications" that discuss his work. There are a good few very high quality sources (for instance, from The Times) but they focus on his personal life, too. I don't know how familiar you are with reality TV culture, but Johnston's fame does not come so much from his musical prowess, but from being "that kid opera singer on Britain's Got Talent who got bullied". There is a lot more out there about his personal life (for instance, a lot of discussion of his relationship with his father) but I did not include that in order to avoid turning this into a gossip piece. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, for what it's worth, your MOS fix was not necessary. This was raised above. The relevant section notes to "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material", and gives the specific example of Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable." Full stops [periods] are perfectly acceptable inside the quote marks when they are part of the quote. J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid I don't understand your reply. I moved the period inside the closing quote because it is part of of the quoted material. The sentence ends there, doesn't it? You moved it back outside, in contradiction to the guideline you just quoted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh dear. Apologies, yes, I see you're right. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No biggie. It wouldn't have been the first time the vagaries of the MOS escaped me. Now about the sources: if it is as you say, maybe this can be buttoned up in short order. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have made the fixes you have suggested- I brought in a generally better source (The Daily Telegraph) to cite the fact he was previously a treble. Back to the point you were making about the sources generally- if I may be so frank, he is not a serious musician. He's a kid who appeared on TV and released a "popera" album under Simon Cowell. He's won no serious awards, the serious publications have ignored him. (Compare to Faryl Smith, who has had a little attention in more serious circles- she got herself a better label, for a start.) Allmusic has a tiny article about him, just recounting the basic information; almost all of the sources focus on him and his family. Take The Times- they didn't review his album, they had a long article about his relationship with his mother and his earlier life. Hell, the Mail quite openly says that he did well not for his music, but because of the bullying "sob story". See this and this, for instance. To draw a comparison (not meant to be in any way offensive, so apologies if it comes across like that) asking for the kind of serious musical criticism in an article of this sort is a bit like asking for in-depth analysis of character development in an article on a pre-school cartoon, or a discussion of the poetry of dance music lyrics. I've done my best, but, at the end of the day, it would seem this guy is more a reality star than a musician in all but name. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm removing my objection at this time. I've done some digging and I agree with the sentiment that the subject of this article is written about more as a reality TV personality than a musician, for better or worse. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have a few nit picks but these do not detract from my support.

  • History:
  • Does a point belong after the first "W" in "The Choral Music of F.W Wadely"?
  • Britain's Got Talent:
  • Could/Should "Piers" be linked?
    • Links in quotes are generally discouraged, but I see now Morgan isn't mentioned before then- I've added a link, as this would be by no means obvious to people who didn't know the show. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One Voice
  • "changing to him to a tenor" --> changing him to a tenor

Good Luck! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a joy to read and inspiring! Did you chose not to link the "Jeremy Suter" article because it's a stub with one reference? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just because I assumed it didn't exist. Linked now! J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Images. Unfortunately I have posted this late. I didn't want to support or oppose because JM and I recently disagreed about some Holocaust images, so it wouldn't have been appropriate for me to review this. But I feel I ought to point out that both images are posted on Flickr by their authors as all rights reversed. [2] [3] Could be they've not been released, or perhaps whoever released them forgot to change the Flickr tag. But it would need to be resolved either way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Andrew_Johnston_(singer)/archive2&oldid=1048167413"