Wikipedia

Talk:Paul Kelly (Australian musician)

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Shaidar cuebiyar in topic October 2022 edits
Learn more about this page
Good articlePaul Kelly (Australian musician) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 2, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
June 26, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
September 27, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 27, 2024Featured topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Earlier discussions

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Manually archived at Talk:Paul Kelly (musician)/Archive 1 by --shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Work to do

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From my understanding of the second failed FAC the following may still require fixing:

  1. Book sources need page numbers.
    1. Who's Who of Australian Rock
    2. Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop: has an on-line checkable version.
    3. Australian Chart Book 1970–1992
  2. "seemingly unorganized prose. There are short and long paragraphs that tend to break the flow."
    1. I'm not sure if I got all these up to standard required.
  3. "In general, formatting could be more consistent."
    1. I'm not sure if all such instances have been covered.
  4. "Multi-page documents need page numbers in citations, as do magazines, journals and newspapers for which no web links are provided"
    1. Other than the book sources above, I think I've got all these but I'm not sure.

All up, some assistance from other interested editors would be much appreciated.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Preparation for FAC3

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Start with the toolbox at right.

Toolbox

shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Updated pipe to current location.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Paul Kelly and Sian Prior

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

According to The Age the couple were happy to pose together on 24 October 2011. In November, User:Yonipr made four edits implying the relationship had ended but these changes were reverted and I asked on the User's talkpage for Yonipr to provide a reliable source for these changes. Since that time I have searched news media for any statement citing either Prior or Kelly that they had separated.

Subsequently similar edits have recurred from time to time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

The latter edit had a summary which said, "Paul Kelly and Sian Prior separated in late 2011. She wishes the information on this page to represent this truthfully. Multiple attempts have been made to correct factual errors on this page, and requests have been made by Ms Prior to Wikipedia". I explained on User:202.161.23.238's talkpage why I reverted the edits and asked for a source. This edit summary implies that the user is associated with Prior. I have still have not seen any statement in the news media verifying the separation. I request other editors to help see whether they can find such a source.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your first sentence pfctdayelise. Pick just about any couple (eg. Julia Gillard and Tim Mathieson) who have not been seen in public together in the last 24 hours. It's reasonable to assume that they are still in a relationship until we hear of news to the contrary. Gfcvoice (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's a ridiculous comparison. There's no way that Paul Kelly's personal life is reported on in a way that is comparable to the Prime Minister's. You admit that this is an assumption, so why is the burden of proof ("citation needed") on those who want to err on the side of privacy in order to respect Prior's privacy? This is not even her bio! WP:BLP states: BLPs "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". This also applies to Prior. --pfctdayelise (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Salamanca Place photo

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure that the replacement photo supplied by Happy Waldo is better for this article:

  • Identifiably shows people including a busker and various market patrons.
  • Focuses on Salamanca Market and not the street itself.
  • Numerous logos and advertising signs are unnecessarily prominent.
  • Alternative text description is no longer accurate.

I would like to discuss this matter before returning the earlier image.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Busker and signs reinforce that this is a place of music and "warehouses ... converted into galleries, shops and cafés". I don't think the photo focuses on the market as it appears some way in the distance. People are too small to be identifiable, and I could only make out one logo. Tweak the description? Also I think it's more appealing to look at, the other one is bland with an eye-singeing HDR quality. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
The busker is identifiable, as are at least two pedestrians (those walking toward the photographer). Some shop logos can be discerned. The market appears to start immediately to the right with a side view of a patron. Very little of the street itself is shown: just the footpath. I don't get the idea of it being a large square, which is what I imagine a Place to be. If this image is to be kept for this article then User:HappyWaldo can provide a better alt text.
Admittedly the former image has too much brickwork out front – maybe it should be trimmed at the lower edge? Albeit it is a bleaker looking image it does show the warehouse nature of the buildings better, it provides a broader view of the street scape – however cafes and art galleries are still visible. Note: If you look at the maximum resolution you might see a sign to 'Kelly Steps' at the first corner; but I'm not sure if this is a related reference or just co-incidental so it's not included in the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Espy photo

edit

I have upload a new photo of the Espy. I think it's better than the one currently used on Kelly's page. Change or not to change? - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is a good view of the entrance but a little narrow compared to the existing one. The current photo shows more of the edifice and includes the notice 'Patrons Must Be Seated at All Times', which is likely to relate to the performance nature of that area of the hotel. In this case I'm less concerned by this replacement provided a good alternative text is provided.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Plagiarism?

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems like a significant portion of at least the lead (I haven't read the rest of this article) was taken from directly from http://maton.com.au/artists/paul-Kelly, without that source being cited anywhere and without that text being placed in quotation marks. I suppose that it's also possible that that site plagiarized this article as many sites mirror Wikipedia, but that seems unlikely for three reasons:

  • it seems to be a reputable website
  • the other pages on it seem extremely unlikely to have been taken from Wikipedia (since their text isn't the same as Wikipedia's present versions and doesn't seem like Wikipedia's style), so it would be weird for them to just copy one page and do the others properly
  • the tone seems much more like what would be on that kind of a site than what should be on an encyclopedia

I don't want to just blank the lead without being absolutely certain of the plagiarism, and I don't know the subject well enough to do a good job replacing that stuff, so hopefully some other editor with more knowledge of Kelly will want to take up the task of sorting out what is plagiarized and what to replace it with. Sorry to just dump you with this, whoever you hopefully are, but thanks for the excellent job I'm sure you'll do :) BreakfastJr (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for not blanking the Lead and taking your concerns to this page first. With my friend, Dan arndt, I have worked on this article starting more than 6 years ago. Our first big collaboration was in August-September 2008 where the article was taken from this to this. In the interim the article was assessed as GA. Dan and I subsequently twice attempted to get the article up to FA standard but we were not successful. Both GA and FA standards frown on any copy violations: they warrant an automatic fail, actual copy violations ought to be removed immediately. We both take seriously the problem of plagiarism.
My belief is that Maton has a mirror copy of a version of the WP article and not vice versa. A quick check over at Wayback Machine shows that the Maton page was first archived on 29 June 2012, see here. This is about nine months after this version, which Dan and I tried to get up as an FA. You'll see the similarities already exist.
Some of the other Maton pages appear to be from the relevant artists' home pages (e.g. Colin Hay) or their AllMusic bio (e.g. Keith Urban) rather than their wikipedia articles.
Wikimedia used to have a Duplication detector but it appears to be in-operational and I can't locate a similar website which could check for the direction of any possible plagiarism.
I'm concerned by your statement that "the tone seems much more like what would be on that kind of a site than what should be on an encyclopedia". Such a belief by reviewers would make it very difficult to get this article up to GA let alone FA standard. I disagree and believe that it is an excellent article which should be FA and I don't see where its tone should not be used in a wikipedia article.
In pursuit of improvement of this article do you have any specific concerns which could make it better?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Paul Kelly (Australian musician)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Deleted comments as no longer relevant – they related to its earlier status up to becoming B-class. Article is now GA and has since failed FA twice. The previous Assessment summary comments are now archived for interested editors.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Substituted at 01:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Kelly (Australian musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on Paul Kelly (Australian musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Paul Kelly (Australian musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

October 2022 edits

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

@175.36.109.202: has repeatedly edited this article to change the birth year of one of Kelly's daughters. In doing so the user has removed a ref tab to a reliable source (The Age newspaper) and added variously the following sources:

  1. Wordpress article, which has user-generated content and is unreliable for BLP informaiton. This edit was reverted by another editor.
  2. Sonic hype article, which is essentially the same as the previous. I reverted this edit.
  3. Google search results. Google's infobox also has user-generated content.

I request the above user to refrain from adjusting the contentious birth year until a consensus is reached by interested editors on which source is more reliable. The Age vs user-generated content.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Shaidar cuebiyar. I can't get to the first one, and the others are not good enough. I would request page protection if they keep reverting. However, in the spirit of WP:BLP, and WP:DOB, I would err on the cautious side and leave out the daughters' years of birth until and unless they are notable in their own right and the info is widely published. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I can go with that. Thanks for your advice.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
The daughters' names should probably go too. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Could you elucidate your rationale for this opinion?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, they are private individuals who are not notable in their own right. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Both daughters are performance artists. They have performed with their father and a cousin (also has a wp article), which has been reported in various independent reliable sources including their names. The sources I've seen do not provide enough in-depth material on them for a separate wp article (as yet) however they can be named in the articles on their parents.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Kelly_(Australian_musician)&oldid=1253642109"