Talk:Van Morrison/GA2

GA Review

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

I read this article a while back - Am familiar with the subject - Will try to read and review this weekend. --Scott Free (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Before beginning the review, I'd like to suggest a few modifications due to BLP policy concerns -

1- Redo the first intro paragraph - try to make it more general and neutral in tone - especially remove the curmudgeon reference or move it somewhere else with more explanations. Agadant (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken my eye off things a bit. I've just noticed that the lead has been substanially changed from the one that was nominated for GA. I'm now looking into addressing the issues raised and hope to have a format later today. SilkTork *^YES! 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, SilkTork, i did change the lead back to where it was mostly previous to your editing because I must have become confused about what peacock terms are and if they can be used if referenced. These words and phrases are just a few that were cited by the reviewer as peacock terms: catchy, prolific, acclaimed, popular, highly visible public profile, Morrison remains popular with the public, best-known, well-known songs, Ray Charles successful album. ——You were occupied elsewhere and I had much work to do here as requested by the reviewer, so did the most conservative approach. I thought perhaps sublime, curmudgeonly, the sentence: His live performances at their best are seen as transcendental and inspired; while — some of his recordings, such as the studio albums Astral Weeks and Moondance, and the live album It's Too Late to Stop Now, are acclaimed as among the greatest ever made. I didn't know if we can use terms in the lead not wanted in the body of the article by the reviewer - that's what confused me..Wasn't trying to step on any toes, just take out what I began to see as peacock terms or too much praise....Agadant (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I personally think the lead is good now especially since the word curmudgeonly has been defined. But I'm not sure about Warner Bros. giving him only two days to record because there was an abandoned third session (on a different date) that took place and some disagreement as to whether anything was used from this session. Agadant (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

2- Rework the Bang Records contractual obligation recordings passage (refs. 75-76) - for more neutral tone - problem words 'highly unusual' - 'nonsense'. I'm sure a better ref. than #75 can be found.

3- Work on the Ted Templeman passage (refs. #106-107) for more neutral tone - Consider removing #107 - I'm pretty sure he later recanted on that statement.

--Scott Free (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey - nice work on the changes, folks. I've done a prelimary run-through of the article and it looks pretty good, pretty solid, an amazing amount of work, obviously, has been put into this. I think it deserves the GA rating, and then some. I do feel though that there are a fair bit of little wordings and such, that give a cumulative tone that affects the neutrality, and would need to be worked on. Maybe 3 to 6 minor points per section. I'll be posting them on a section by section basis over the weekend, so if those things can be worked on, I could fill out the final evaluation form, say, in a week or two.

There is one area, that I think needs a little more work. 'The Celtic Soul and Caledonia' sub-section in the Music section. The information is perfectly fine and relevant, but with the emphasis it's given, it sort of looks like there was an original initiative taken to gather different facts and concepts to form a distinct observation. So there's a possible original research issue there, or at least a neutral point of view issue. I would suggest merging that sub-section into the style and/or songwriting sub-sections. (I think that the material is already the result of a previous move; so maybe thats what happened, the move was a good idea, but in this case, I think the re-factoring needs to be pushed a little further.)

Cheers,

--Scott Free (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It now expands the "Celtic soul" as a genre referred to in the lead but previously perhaps that was not clear. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - that could work - It's an improvement - I think there still needs a bit of re-factoring to make the genre section more comprehensive- like importing some of the genre passages from the style section and exporting a few of the Caledonia passages. For example, the concert mantra phrase could easily fit in the singing section - the publishing and production company stuff could go back in the main article or even in the personal section.

Lead Section

Here are some recommendations - 1st par. 'and allowed him the artistic freedom to record Astral Weeks' just say he recorded Astral Weeks.

'established Morrison as a major artist, and he then built on his reputation throughout the 1970s with a series of critically acclaimed albums and live performances' tone this down - just say something like Moondance did well and he recorded and toured a lot after that.

--Scott Free (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Early life par. 1 'referenced in the autobiographical songs' I think Morrison often denies that he does direct autobiography, so it's better to say something like those events have possibly been alluded to in the semi-autobiographical ...

'However, he had been developing his musical interests from a very early age.' Remove or else expand with references.

--Scott Free (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to change if for the betterment of the article but I'm not sure I can clearly see why this would be necessarily so with your new suggested changes for the Lead Section and Early life. Let's get more consensus. I would be interested in SilkTork's opinion on this also. Agadant (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My notes on the above recommended changes: #1. I think the referral to "artistic freedom" is important to note that Morrison if given the opportunity was not inclined to be a pop-hit artist as pushed by Bert Berns. (he has pointed this out in many interviews) #2. ..established Morrison as a major artist —It's not out of order to note this happened with Moondance and the 70s. #3. However, he had been developing —that is referred to throughout the early life section and with references. Agadant (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, comments and input are welcome. In general, the changes I'm proposing aren't contest-based (although I am taking into account the specific subject) it's more in terms to improve on the neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, and clear and accurate reference-quality aspects so it's about how the information is presented.

1- I agree that artistic freedom for Morrison is important - I think it needs to be clearer with a more specific reference or quote -

2- I think the tone is a little too celebratory - the world 'acclaim' appears too often

3- I think the 'very early' needs clarification and reference - was he musically precocious? how old was he? an example?

Changed the lead, removed these three from lead -

Them

Par. 1 typo - The first phrase has two periods

Par. 2 ' Performing without a routine, the band absorbed their fuel from the crowd's energy.'(issue - it's not clear what that means) Remove or clarify with references.

Par. 3 'garage punk classic' (issue - ter m is a little unencyclopedic ) Remove

'which went on...' (issue- grammar) Replace with 'that went on...'

Start of Solo Career

Par. 2

'signature song' (issue- is Brown-Eye Girl his signature song? was it his signature for that period or in general? I thought it was Moondance) Remove or provide reference.

Par. 3 'Chronicled...' (autobiographic issue) change to something like 'is thought to allude to'

'gigs' (issue- I think the term is a little too slang) change to something like 'concert booking'

Astral Weeks

Par. 1

'...considered to be his best work' (issue - a little too hyperbolic) change to 'often considered..)

'..the most authoritative lists...' (issue - a little hyperbolic) remove or change to 'many'

Also, to balance the tone a litte - remove some of the praise and replace with more pragmatic info - like how the album was recorded or some comments from the producer or the session musicians.

Details such as how the album was recorded, which songs came from which session, who chose the musicians, -even when the third session (#2 in occurence) took place and whether anything was used - are in disagreement from one biography to the next and also the musicians have varying accounts of the sessions. John Cale was quoted as the ultimate authority for years (even by Lester Bangs in 1979) as saying he was there in the studio and VM recorded by himself closed off in a booth with his guitar and all the other music was added later. (Since proven untrue). So choosing anything from these topics is to be subjective and present one view as the authority. Or else go into all the different versions and discuss them in the AW section. That is why quotes from prominent critics were used to try to describe in a condensed manner why the album is different and so acclaimed by critics and fans alike. In the rest of the article Astral Weeks is only brought into the text when it has to be for clarification purposes, such as when it appears in the Performance Style and Vocals sections. If you say VM never performs from a preconceived set list to be accurate you then have to say except for the recently performed AW songs, etc... Speaking only for the times I referred to AW, it was always to use it to clarify and to give the reader a better understanding of VM and his performance style, vocal techniques, stream-of consciousness songwriting etc. that make up who he became as a unique musical artist. A reader would not get this from his stint in Them or his most famous song, "BEG" or from any of his other albums taken as a separate example. Hope this explains the material choices better. Agadant (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

--Scott Free (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral language has been an issue with this article and we have been attempting to deal with it - but still bits of breathy praise are missed here and there. Thanks for pointing them out. SilkTork *^YES! 19:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've read through the active talk page, and I'm in general agreement with your 'pre-assessment' work. I think it's in the right direction.

(I'm working with a printed copy done on Friday, so there might be some slight differences with the current version)

Moondance

Par. 1 'Morrison became established as a major artist, further building on his reputation throughout the 1970s with a series of critically-acclaimed albums and live performances.' (Issue - see lead section comments - plus acclaimed is a peacock term, to use Wikipedia parlance. Par. 2

'he released a succession of acclaimed albums' (Issue - peacock) remove acclaimed

Par. 3

'catchy title song' (Issue - catchy sounds subjective) Remove catchy

Par. 6 - 'introspectively poignant' (Issue - the phrase is so sort short, that even though referenced, the tone seems subjective) Remove

Par. 7 - 'marked the beginning of a very prolific period of song making.' (Issue - it's kind of vague and subjective) Remove or replace with something like - a return to previous record making output or a more active output)

Par. 8 -' been so influential to him'(Issue - too personal in tone) Remove so

'The opening track, "Kingdom Hall" (delving into Morrison's own childhood experience around Jehovah's Witnesses)' (Issue - autobiographical - change delving to something like evoking, remove own

'stood as a precursor to the religious turn in his next album, Into the Music.' (Issue- sounds subjective -) Change to something like - evokes a religious thematic that begins to appear more frequently in subsequent albums

par. 10 'dominating his music from this point forward.' (Issue - sounds a little too overstated) Change to something like - became an important thematic in subsequent work

'popular movie, Michael.' (Issue -peacock) remove popular

Here's a good guideling section, that I think would be helpful with the editing -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WTA#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid

--Scott Free (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

An example of a really interesting, descriptive and well-written article and also a FA rated one is U2, which I've often referred to as a guide in my own writing. (Quite tired now) Agadant (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the U2 link - I better understand the style now - I find the U2 has very bold, casual style - it pushes the envelope, but I'm cool with it - and it did go through a lot of scrutiny to get there.

Common One par. 1 'his own muse into uncharted territory and merciless reviews.'(It's referenced, but the tone seems a little too subjective) Change to something like being more experimental, with mixed album reviews.

'the most esoteric and controversial album in his discography' (tone a little too subjective) add considered to be one of the

'consisted of only six songs,' (subjective phrasing) remove only

'Subsequently, the critics would reassess the album more favourably with the success of "Summertime in England" and other tracks that seemed to reveal new meaning in live performance.' (needs ref.)

par. 2 'returning once again to his Belfast roots. '(What does this mean?) Remove or clarify with references

'popular single' "Cleaning Windows",' (peacock) remove popular

'documented one of Morrison's first jobs after ' (autobiography - change to something like evokes or alludes)

par. 4 'Much of the music Morrison released throughout the 1980s continued to focus on the themes of spirituality and faith as his compositions moved towards New Age territory.[126] His 1983 album, Inarticulate Speech of the Heart offered a special thanks to L. Ron Hubbard; however, after eighteen months of taking courses in Scientology, Morrison became disillusioned with it.' (This has several BLP concerns) Remove references to New Age, Hubbard, and Scientology - Better to remove the whole paragraph or just say 'Much of the music Morrison released throughout the 1980s continued to focus on the themes of spirituality and faith.'

par. 6 'served as new evidence' (a little stiff) change to something like -continued to explore the theme of

'various creeds such as Scientology.' (BLP) Probably best to avoid singling out Scientology - Remove -

par. 7 'After releasing the "No Guru" album, Morrison's music appeared less gritty and more adult contemporary' (a little stiff) change to something like 'Morrison began to move in a more adult contemporary direction with ..'

par. 9 'Morrison's familiar theme of the religious/erotic once again evidenced itself. (a little stiff) change to 'Examples of the juxtaposition of religious sentiment with erotic feeling, a recurrign theme in Morrison's work, are present in this album.'

best of

par. 1 'highly visible public profile' (peacockish) change to something like - more visible

'paying tribute to his long-time favourites. (tone a little casual) change to something like 'early musical influences'

par. 2 'warmly-received' (peacockish) remove

--Scott Free (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to feel like all vestiges of creative writing will be soon removed from the article to make it one of the most boring and unread on Wiki. I'll consider some of the changes you've suggested but my time is limited and this article was written over years and quick changes will probably affect the structure, referencing, etc. which overall may prevent it from passing a GA review without a lot of additional work. What is your inclination if your suggestions concerning the writing style are not followed. Will you fail it? You did say to begin with that it was at that time GA or better. (before any changes had been made). (Best Regards, Agadant (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if a reasonable amount of the changes are done in a way that I get the sense that there's a decent awareness NPOV, then I would consider it a pass. Writing style is not so much a problem, as longs as the information is clear. So far, the changes look good. However, there are two issues that I consider deal-breakers: BLP issues and No original research issues. Those require more attention. The 'Genre' section has improved, but I still feel it focuses too much on the Caledonia thing. Still needs more re-factoring, like maybe include some passages on R&B, Soul, Blues, Gospel influences, references to specific musical genres, to balance it out.

But I won't fail it if those issues aren't fixed, because the references are good and there's a lot of good work being done. In that case, I'll drop out, and you can get someone else to evaluate it. I'll post another section today, but the article is longer than I realized, so I should have the rest of the recommendations by Wednesday. Sorry for the delay.

Advice - It's probably better to play it conservative for now - it's better to prioritize establishing a good sense of NPOV over questions of overall style, content and structure. You can always get back to those if you want to go for a featured article review.

--Scott Free (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find time later today to work on NPOV words and put more material into the Genre section. On the subject of Caledonia, I have no vested interest in Caledonia at all but Van Morrison seems to be closely aligned with it and the article is pertaining to him and his musical influences. Therefore there is much material out there to tie together - not original research - anymore than writing about his vocal style is. He has recently been referring to it often in songs, etc. and therefore the creative spark was ignited to put a bit in the article about it and it all fell in place. When it was originally entitled Caledonia it fit together, now under genre, the pieces are disjointed and look like deliberate intent to force the issue into the article. (Which is far from my intentions) I agree that other genres need to be brought in, but I want to make it pertinent, interesting and well referenced and that takes time and a splurt of energy and determination. Sometimes not always present, especially when busy and tired. I'll do my best though. Thanks for your informative and polite reply and for your time on this article. Best Regards, Agadant (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy to help out. I can appreciate the difficulty of writing something that is encyclopedic, succint yet comprehensive while trying to keep it readable and engaging. It's not obvious. Not to harp on the Caledonia question, and I'm not saying that's it a cut-and-dried case and you raise some valid points, but just to be more specific, my concerns there would be in the area of synthesis.

The quote from Ritchie Yorke's book on the subject of Caledonia is: "Van Morrison seems to be obsessed with the word: he's used it to name his production company, his studio, his publishing company (Caledonia Soul Music} and his backing groups, the Caledonia Soul Orchestra and the Caledonia Soul Express. He frequently adlibs the word.....etc., etc., etc..... Page 159..." Yorke goes on for a page and a half about the significance of the word in VM's life.....and VM now has brought back the song "Listen to the Lion" in which as is quoted in several reviews "he uses it as a mantra". There should be freedom to use this material without issues of "synthesis" or "original research" as much as if one were writing about his "stream-of consciousness song-writing (at times), his scatting, his growling, or any of his idiosyncracies as is noted in the article. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In looking around on the matter of "Original Research" or "Synthesis", it seems like some editors consider it a heavy charge. I haven't because I know it is not relevant to this material as it shows a very important side of Morrison's musical influences and no conclusions were arrived at by me but only direct quotations were used to show the importance of the word to Morrison. Reliable sources were used for references. —And it is currently relevant as he sings "Caledonia" as a mantra in his recent performances and has revived the song "LIsten to the Lion".— If you still feel like there is basis for your previous concerns perhaps the issue should be addressed more fully. Here is the paragraph in full before any changes were made by others or as suggested by you. Thanks, and let's do clear this matter up for good. Article as of 2008-04-15 Agadant (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent years

par.2 'enjoyed a good critical reception' (a little too warm) change to something like 'received a ...' used it to 'an autobiographical song written as a tribute to his late father George, who had played such a pivotal role in nurturing his early musical tastes.' (a little too familiar) remove 'autobiographical' and 'such'

par. 3 - 'Morrison remains popular with the public:' (peacock) remove

'featuring the late Foggy Lyttle on guitar.' (sounds like he was already dead) remove 'late'

'at the growing international celtic music festival' (vague) replace growing with something like -recently established

par. 6 - 'his highest UK charting ever.' (a little too emphatic) remove 'ever'.

'contains twenty-one of his best-known tracks.' (peacocky) replace with something like - 21 selected tracks

Par. 7 - 'Morrison's first Top Ten charting ever in the US' (a little too emphatic) remove 'ever'

--Scott Free (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Music

Live performances

Par. 1 'By 1972, despite being a performer for nearly ten' (a little non-neutral) replacedespite with - after

Par. 2 'The 1974 live double album, It's Too Late to Stop Now, is often regarded as one of the great live albums in rock history,[181][182](list don't specifically say that) find specific quote

It was recorded during what is often said to be Morrison's greatest phase as a live performer.[183][184][182][185][186]' (synthesis?) Find specific quote

(I don't think I wrote this, but synthesis is considered a serious charge by some editors!!! Agadant (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Par.3 'widely considered a landmark in concert film history' ('widely' a vague term) find a better reference Them

Par. 4 'Robbie calls out ' (too familiar) change to 'Robertson'

par. 5 'and his friends from the Band' (tone too familiar) change to -members from... & needs ref.

par. 6 'as usual, throughout the year rather than touring.' (not clear) change to something like - performing a series of selected dates rather than extended tours, which has became his favored approach to scheduling concert dates

"I don't really tour. This is another misconception. I stopped touring in the true sense of the word in the late 1970s, early 1980s, possibly. I just do gigs now. I average two gigs a week. Only in America do I do more, because you can't really do a couple of gigs there, so I do more, 10 gigs or something there." - This quote had been already placed below to clarify that sentence. Agadant (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

' well-known songs in ' (peacock) remove well-known

par.7 'is listed as an Amazon.com Exclusive ' (looks like an ad) remove -

Looks like an ad is accusatory in tone although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. You do need to be careful with wording such comments. I have always been very careful about commercial linking etc. so this is kind of out of line if I wanted to consider it such....Agadant (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My comments are always about the article, and not the editors, sorry to sound so terse, but there's a lot of material to cover, so I'm abbreviating to save time and space.--Scott Free (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would never put in a link for amazon.com but there is no reason why this can not be stated in the sentence as it would be allowed if it was a Universal or Warner Brothers or any other record distributor, in this case there is no other place that it is distributed and that is important information about the release.Agadant (talk)

ITUNES information on a release, for instance is very often listed on many articles. No one says "looks like an ad" when it is...Agadant (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Ok - maybe change to something clearer like - was released via 'Amazon exclusive'... --Scott Free (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

'rare live interview to longtime fan' (not clear) explain that Van rarely gives interviews - longtime fan (a little too familiar) remove

'The video of this TV appearance is shown on OfficialExileFilms channel, which features eclectic live performances from throughout his career as a solo artist.[219]' (a little promotional in tone) replace with a link in footnote or in exteranl links section.

This was meant to be informative to readers and give examples of his music as an educational source. (It's not my intention or function to be promotional) Removed. Agadant (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Collaborations

1st par (no ref.) needs ref. 'at opposite ends of their careers' (a little subjective) at least explain who is at what end

I thought this would be self-explanatory by the Wiki links..anyone if interested can quickly determine this. Agadant (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

par. 2

'Taking this concept of association further,' (a little non-neutral) change to something like - continuing in that vein,

'Ray Charles' successful album' (peacock) remove peacock or change to soemthing like - billboard top 10 or gold certified

--Scott Free (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've not got involved in this as much as I wanted to - I've been caught out at a busy time both on and off-wiki. However, reading through the above I feel that Scott Free is doing a good job. I'm embarrassed I missed so much myself when I went through the article. And I'm probably guilty of adding a few peacock terms myself. This is why it's good to have a GA review done - to have an independent eye look through the article. Yes, this is a long and dense article, and quite exhausting to get to grips with. So full credit to Scott Free for being so thorough, and to Agadant for being so prompt and responsive. SilkTork *^YES! 07:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with removing the "peacock terms" whether I was the editor who put them in or if I wasn't. Some of this article goes back to 2005 or even earlier. The only issue I have had at all is having to abruptly and (wihout consideration of all areas) change the writing style and content when doing so will perhaps change the referencing and make it non-applicable. One "issue" I do have is with the original entry of "Caledonia" being first termed possibly "Original Research" and now with some of the moved material having been renamed as Genre being pointed out as perhaps a problem in the area of "synthesis". I know that Scot Free didn't intend to make me feel defensive about this but it is a particular area that I have been extremely careful about in making edits. I've seen too many articles on Wiki where the subject matter tends to be dominated by the bias and special interests of the editors-resulting in constant edit warring and have tried my very best to remain at a distance from the subject matter. And for the record, I'm an American with mostly Belgian family roots in Europe— not Irish or Scottish—therefore having no connection or bias in either direction. Thanks to both of you for your dedication to getting this article to GA rating. I've always perhaps been too concerned with accuracy and referencing to pay close attention to peacock terms myself. Agadant (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good feedback folks. Right now, there's not so much a problem of synthesis; now I think it's more a question of undue weight. I think the genre section, proportionally, is a little too focused on the Celtic/Caledoninan aspect.

It's not so much a question of proving the importance of the Caledonia thing than proving the existance of a body of writing that attests to the importance of Caledonia as a significant recurring theme. So for it to occupy most of a sub-section, I'd expect to see at least six works that specifically refer to a pattern of the multiple and recurrent use of Caledonia denoting an important theme in Morrison's oeuvre.

First "Original Reseach", then "Synthesis, now "Undue Weight"? We need to drop this issue. (The issue is beginning to have "Undue Weight" in itself!) i'll add more to the genre section soon as he certainly has been involved in many and they should be mentioned: Right now, it looks like the Celtic/Caldonian Soul is over emphasized but I just have not had time to add more. (But I will soon!) Be patient a little longer.....Agadant (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started to expand the Genre section. Comments? Agadant (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Astral Weight section is a little conspicuous in terms of undue weight because it's a single work that is being higlighted within a generally chronological structure. But I can buy that because I know that there's a significant body of writings on Astral Weeks.

But I can't really give any more opinion on that because, I would need to look at how it fits in the revised article as a whole, and the revisions seem to be going good so far. So I'm going to finish up the comments and I'll need a week anyway to step back a bit to look at the revised article before doing the final assessment. --Scott Free (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Vocals

'is widely considered one of the most ' (the paraphrase a little wide here) change to something like - many rock historians attest to his voice being ....

Songwriting

'many of them ' (a little vague) change to something like - recurring themes include ...

'frequent theme of his music and lyrics has been a fascination with the healing power of music combined ' (a little subjective) change to something like - a recurring them ... remove fascination

'His lyrics are at times influenced by his' (a little informal) change to something like - his lyrics show an influence of Keats and Blake

'remove his lyrics from being regarded ' (not clear) change remove to preclude

Performance style

'His transcendental signature style came into full expression with his 1968 classic, Astral Weeks. This musical art form was based on (a little overstated) change to something like 'AW marked the beginning of a style based on...'

--Scott Free (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Influence

par. 1 'influence reaches even into the country music genre,' (a little hypey) remove -even

par. 3 'expressed that he held some grudges regarding his obvious influence on some of the more popular artists of his generation,' (IDK, this could be phrased clearer) something like - expressed his disapproval of the influence he has had on other artists

I removed this as he was only referring to one or two musicians in one interview in the 80s and I had shortened the material from a much longer editing job by a previous editor with almost the entire interview as a quote. (Against copyright rules). Agadant (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

lyrics - it would be good to footnote it with copyright info

What do you mean here? Copyright info on all his lyrics would vary according to his contract and record company. I believe since the early 70s he has owned copyrights to all his songs and recordings.Agadant (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the specific song lyrics that were quoted. Also, the Astral Weeks image would need the copyright indications as well. --Scott Free (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen this on Wiki where Copyright info was given if quoting a small section of a song on the artist's article. Can you show me an example? And the image was passed already before the review was started. Also it is in accordance with Wiki guidelines, I believe. Agadant (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The song copyright thing is just me suggesting to play it careful - it's probably too brief to really require it. I haven't seen them get referenced either, but in theory, they should be handled like any other reference material. The image should have copyright info, though - event though the template doesn't have a line for it. It looks like the article is shaping up real well - did I really make 60+ suggestions? :-) Keep up the good work!

--Scott Free (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

par.4 'Although he often expresses his displeasure (in interviews and songs) with the music industry and the media in general,' (needs ref.) I think it would be good to expand on this and put in personal life section.

There's an interesting passage in the Village Voice 'Astral Travels of VM' article: 'The fact that I have now talked with Morrison at length on two separate occasions about his music is nearly as rare an occurrence as the Astral Weeks concerts, the singer having spent much of his career dodging-and, occasionally, confronting head-on-the media. During an interview for Rolling Stone in the early '90s, he allegedly walked out of a Boston restaurant midway through, leaving the reporter to tail him down the street; in recent songs like "New Biography" and "Too Many Myths," he has been harshly critical of the myriad websites and pseudo-biographies that have peddled purportedly authoritative accounts of his life and work. Coupled with his recalcitrant onstage demeanor, this has earned Morrison a reputation for being "difficult," when, in fact, these may merely be the tell-tale signs of a performer who doesn't suffer fools gladly, pay lip service to sycophants, or buy into the conventional wisdom that someone who endures the pain of artistic creation is obliged to be "nice" when discussing his craft.'

I agree it would be interesting to expand and there is much material on his opinions of the music business and media in interviews but it would take a little time. Something to consider later, I'm sure. Agadant (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life

'Following the death of Bang Records owner, Bert Berns, Morrison encountered notable difficulties with Bern's widow, Ilene Berns, who blamed Morrison for her husband's death.[284] When Ilene Berns discovered that her late husband had not completed all the appropriate paperwork to enable Morrison (still a British citizen) to stay in New York, she contacted immigration and attempted to have Morrison deported.' (BLP concerns) Plus I think the Berns affair has been covered enough in the 'Bang' section - remove first sentence - change second sentence to something like - Facing deportation due to Visa problems, he managed to stay in the US..... --Scott Free (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for 7 day hold

Scott Free has given us plenty to work on and plenty to think about. The main issue of POV is fully accepted. As I have been occupied elsewhere for a while and have not had a chance to fully catch up with all the comments and changes, and as there is still work to be done on the POV issue, I think what would be helpful now is for the Review to be put on hold for 7 days to allow Agadant and I the time and space to address the POV issue. SilkTork *^YES! 07:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. No rush. I read the Dylan article recently, BTW, I think it's a good approach, good presentation. --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - (this won't affect the GA assessment) - Reduce the amount of footnotes to get it under 300 (300 is a little daunting of a plateau) - I don't think multiple refs are really necessary (except on controversial issues) and can be confusing. Also, if it's a tricky point, feel free to include little comments in the footnotes, and even indicate the specific paragraph for online articles, in certain cases). --Scott Free (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Some good points. Sometimes multiple refs are done for more than just support for a controversial point - they may approach the same comment from different angles, or provide additional supporting material that for brevity's sake is not included in the article. Sometimes, a less than reliable but accessible online source is provided for quick reference, along with the more reliable but inaccessible print source (none of the VM books are viewable on Google Books, and most libraries don't appear to stock them!). Comments in the footnotes is a good idea. SilkTork *^YES! 19:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Messing with the references is probably not the best use of our time right now. I go over references fairly frequently and check to see if the link is still active, etc..(There's one now that I'm aware of and am trying to replace) and yes, SilkTork the multiple refs were in all cases, I believe, only put in for controversial points or to reference the material more thoroughly. To reduce references we would have to read them to make the decision to take them out. That is one reason that I take responsibility for them is because i do have all the books that are cited in the refs. I've often wanted to find time to put comments in the footnotes but once again I think it should wait til a later date. Agadant (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what's happening in certain cases of multiple refs in a sentence, is that they're all being placed at the end of the sentence rather than directly beside the info. For example -

'In the 1995 MOJO list of 100 Best Albums, it was listed as number two and was number nineteen on the Rolling Stone magazine's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time in 2003.[88][89]'

Here the 88 refers to Mojo and 89 refers to RS - in this case it's fairly easy to figure out, but in other cases, it may not be so easy. There might be maybe a dozen sentences like that. No big deal, and it doesn't have to be worked on for the assessment, but I think that it would be important to fix at one point.

--Scott Free (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Scott. Glad to see you taking such an active interest in all aspects of this article and we always appreciate the suggestions. In the cases that you mention, I do remember that the rules as I read them at that time stated that multiple references pertaining to one sentence could be placed inside the sentence where they applied or all at the end of the sentence. The latter was given as the preferred way to keep from breaking up the text and making it awkward to read. I don't have time to look this up now and perhaps the rules have changed. Personally, in an article of this size with so many references unless against preferred rules, I think the article would be very difficult to deal with if the refs were constantly breaking up the text. Agadant (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You're correct about the footnote guideline - I haven't really looked into the footnotes that deeply - I just noticed that once in a while, it's not easy to understand what is being referenced. Here's a quick example, that I happened to notice -

Alan Light would later describe Astral Weeks as "like nothing he had done previously—and really, nothing anyone had done previously. Morrison sings of lost love, death, and nostalgia for childhood in the Celtic soul that would become his signature."[86][87]' 86 references the quote, which is fine- but what is the purpose of 87, which references a Lester bangs article?

--Scott Free (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott, I think it is a left over from a sentence referring to Lester Bangs and his impressions of the album that was deleted during recent changes made. I'll take it out. An example of what happens with too much quick editing. Are you pleased with my changes so far? If you notice any more references out of place or N/A, just let me know. Agadant (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So how's it going, folks? Is the article assessment-ready?

--Scott Free (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I addressed every issue in the body of the article to the point where I believe it is clean of POV and peacock terms per your requests and have also changed wording in most cases when you have suggested it. You certainly gave the article a thorough look-over and took your job as a reviewer very seriouslty and you have my admiration and thanks for a job well done. Agadant (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok - Thanks Agadant, I'll be sure to get the assessment done sometime over the weekend - all the best.

--Scott Free (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Very good article - Well researched, comprehensive, interesting.

1. Is it well written?

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

   Solid.

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

   Could use some more consistency.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   Very solid. I only know of one article on Wikipedia that has more quality footnotes, and it's one of the longest articles on Wikipedia. Eliade

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   The first par. of the 'Collaborations' section still needs a ref.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

   It could use some concision, to make it more readable. The Jay Cocks quote in the 'Performance' section might work out better in the 'Genre' section.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   It's OK now. There's still a tendency towards a hypey tone. But OK. The lead section uses the word 'acclaimed' three times.

5. Is it stable?

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

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congrats to all editors who worked on this. There was an exceptional amount of effort put into this, to everyone's credit. It's a valuable reference for Van Morrison on the interwebs.

--Scott Free (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)