Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix/archive1

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 GrahamColm 10:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix

Featured article candidates/Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix/archive1

Nominator(s): GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}, Cullen³²⁸, and Doc talk 18:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the events surrounding Jimi Hendrix's 1969 arrest, trial, and acquittal for drug possession. We are nominating it for FAC because we believe the article is well-written, well-researched, and comprehensive. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This well written article, now approaching 3,800+ words, is clearly well sourced (57 footnotes citing 20+ published sources including 18 books), lists six additional books and four documentary films, and includes not only coverage of Mr. Hendrix's arrest, booking, indictment, and trial, but four illustrations and sections on how these affected his career, a discussion of media suppression associated with the arrest, and a conspiracy to set Mr. Hendrix up for the arrest, all of which are highly relevant to his life and career. This is a important addition to WP's material on this high profile iconic musician and pubic figure whose work is still revered by millions 44 years after his untimely death at age 27 which covers in considerable detail this seminal event in the history of his life and career not described in the main article on him. From the point of view of an editor who has not contributed to the article itself other than vigorously opposing the recently closed ill conceived AfD, I believe that it fully deserves promotion to the next level. Centpacrr (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

Feel free to disagree with anything here.

"Further reading" sections are meant to contain material on the subject of the article. Technically, all of them are about Hendrix in general, not about the bust—I mean, and interview from 1967? Talk about anachronistic. I'd delete the whole thing.
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops! It looks like you've deleted all the categories in the process. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always a good idea to colour quote boxes—teh MoS doesn't forbid it (I think), but it's a potential accessibility issue (especially when using a colour that reduces contrast).
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

We're told twice in the lead alone that Hendrix was "the world's highest-paid performer". I'd drop it from the opening paragraph, as I think it fits the context of the fourth paragraph better.
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "the Crown" should link to Crown attorney
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't make a difference, but I'd meant: [[Crwon attorney|the Crown]]. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and singing some mock opera": is this "some" in the sense of "an amount of", or in the sense of "just some guy"?
- Its the former. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could it be rewritten to remove the ambiguity? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the journalist Sharon Lawrence": you could drop the "the"
- Well, that's how I naturally write, but Cassianto has repeatedly asked me to include the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the correct style is to include the definite article, otherwise we run the risk of reducing the prose to something that can be found in any tabloid newspaper or celebrity magazine. We are, after all, supposed to exemplify the very best English the community has to offer. Cassianto (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Cassianto:: There's nothing in that blog post that applies here, and I have no idea what tabloids have to do with the issue. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Seriously? The Tabloid style of writing is sloppy, lazy, and shows journalistic writing at it's very worst. If you cannot differentiate between that and good, encyclopedic prose, then I worry not just for you, but for the project as a whole. Cassianto (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) @Cassianto: I don't doubt that "tabloid style of writing is sloppy, lazy, and shows journalistic writing at it's very worst", but it's also sloppy logic to assign guilt by association over what it is purely a style issue. Tabloids own this style, do they? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        IMO, If you compare The Daily Star to The Financial Times, then you will certainly see a decline in the former's writing quality! ;) Cassianto (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Talk about missing the point! I hope your not suggesting a dumpster tabloid would suddenly become a literary delight if you sprinkled it with a few "the"s—the issues those papers have have nothing to do with this particular style issue. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If I may, this is a US vs. UK issue. In the UK, it is correct to write "the journalist Sharon Lawrence". In the US, we write "journalist Sharon Lawrence". But this is a Canadian article, so I don't know which is correct here. Is the rest of the writing more like UK style or US style? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The article's written in US English. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Ss for clearing that one up, I had no idea that this was a UK v. US thing. Gabe, in that case, once we have established Ssilvers Canada question, feel free to correct to the preferred style. CurlyTurkey, sorry for the mix up. Cassianto (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries, Cassianto, but for the sake of clarification, am I to understand that this convention is incorrect in AmEng, or is this a matter of editorial discretion? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        To be clear, neither this or the main Hendrix article have ever been "Canadian" articles nor have they ever used Commonwealth English, date formatting, or any other form of Commonwealth usage. Mr. Hendrix was a native born (Seattle, WA) US citizen and resident. The fact that his drug related arrest and trial took place in Canada has no bearing whatsoever on the form or style of English used in either. Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[left]Cassianto and Ssilvers, I was wondering why, if the use of an article is required in BritEng, is this construction acceptable: "In 1955, the drummer Ringo Starr was discharged from Hospital. Soon afterwards, he befriended the guitarist Roy Trafford and having fallen behind his peers scholastically was rejected by University." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct Brit. English. American would be exactly the opposite: "In 1955, drummer Ringo Starr was discharged from the Hospital. Soon afterwards, he befriended guitarist Roy Trafford and, having fallen behind his peers scholastically, was rejected by the University." It is useless to ask "why", which assumes that regional grammar and spelling variations are logical, which they are not. You simply have to know. Based on Centpacrr's comments above, I have changed the usage to American English throughout. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

link Associated Press
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"the bassist Noel Redding was tipped of": "the" reads really awkwardly to me—I'd drop it. Also, "tipped off" may be too informal for an encyclopaedia
- Again, the respected FAC reviewer has asked me numerous time to include the article. I think Rothorpe, who I have deep respect for, has also advised me to include the article. I swapped "tipped off" for "warned". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the Whisky a Go Go": let's tell the reader what the Whisky is
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"to which he replied: "No".": In this case, even with logical quotes, the period would go inside if the original quote terminated here.
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest, performance, and arraignment

"to which Ruffino replied: "I work for him".": again, if the quote terminates here, the period shuld be inside.
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Metro police": link to Toronto Police Service
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
should be one "l" in "traveled" and "canceled" in AmEng
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"he would "get it done as quickly" as he could because": I'm not sure why this would be quoted
- Because its verbatim what the source quoted the officer as saying and I didn't see a great way to paraphrase the comment. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Rolling Stone reported": let's tell the reader that Rolling Stone is a magazine (rather than a TV, reporting agency, or some guy with a whacky name)
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Toronto arrest

"and its not normally my business to interfere": is the misspelling of "it's" in the original?
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

"as to whether or not": you could safely cut to just "whether"
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in order for the Crown to prove possession": overlinking—"the Crown" has already been linked
- I always link first in the lead, and then again on the first mention in the article body. Is that not correct. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you're right, I'd confused myself into thinking you'd linked it earlier in the body. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"that while in Beverly Hills": link Beverly Hills?
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" to which Hendrix replied, "Yes"."; stating: " "I feel I have outgrown it".": same thing with the punctuation & logical quotes
- Fixed the first one, but the second did not include a period after it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Curly Turkey, are you saying that I should include the terminal punctuation inside the quote marks in the second example because that would be the rational choice irrespective of the fact that the source does not have it there? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, never. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
link Torontoist (to Gothamist?)
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" I ever had" while flashing a peace sign.": I'd put a comma after the quote, otherwise it kinda looks like the remainder of the sentence is a summary of what he continued to say
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on Hendrix

"quite stressful for Hendrix": "quite" is superfluous
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"as "Hendrix's increasingly fragile peace of mind." ": here, the period would go outside the quotes
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hendrix told the journalist Sharon Lawrence:": we've already been introduced—drop "the journalist"
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial suppression of media coverage

"However, the New York Times ran a": that's The New York Times
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"published a decidedly sympathetic": "decidedly" is superfluous
- Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" from going out on the wire." best to link "the wire" here as you have in the lead
- Linked. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

This section title should be in the plural, as when we have "Adaptations" sections even when there is only one adaptation
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Wayne Kramer, the guitarist for MC5,": Patti Smith's husband was in the band, too, so Kramer wasn't "the" guitarist
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hendrix was not the only prominent rock musician who found themselves": "himself", or "themself" (try and get that through!)—either way it should be singular
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in legal troubles": I'd make that singular, too
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"him as "an inadmissible immigrant." ": that period goes outside the quotes
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Jeffery's assistant, Trixie Sullivan, speculated that the drugs has been planted by a disgruntled fan who was traveling with the Experience": Is there more behind this story?
- Do you mean: "what was his motive"? Because there is speculation that he made unwanted sexual advances toward Hendrix, but that seemed tabloid-esque to repeat. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's pretty tantalizing the way it is—and it leaves the reader wondering if there was a story behind the speculation, or whether it was just idle specualtion: "Uh, yeah, it was prolly, like, y'know, some disgruntled fan or some shit, y'know? Hey, are you gonna finish that joint?" Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Resolved? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the author Ritchie Unterberger": you could safely drop the "the"
- Again, that's how I would naturally write it, but Cassianto and Rothorpe have told me that is incorrect. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"although Hendrix "took his fair share of drugs" ": we're supposed to throw an inline cite after quotes, even if it means duplicating the cite at the end of the sentence
- I'm not sure about this one, as I've never put a cite in the middle of a sentence that already had one at the end and I've never before been asked to do that. Can you point me to the relevant guideline that spells this out? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure: MOS:CITE, in the second paragraph: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."
    - I can't see anything in there that mandates that an inline cite must appear immediately after a quotation, merely that the quotation must be cited inline and it must be unambiguous as to what citation supports it. Sometimes I pick a handful of portions from a more complete quotation to avoid excessive plagiarism, and put a single cite back to the reference at the end of the sentence. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm...I guess it doesn't explicitly say that there. I have been told more than once that it's necessary. I'll leave it, then, unless I came across a guideline that says it's necessary (of course, there's no guideline against it, either...) Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. Although I often see this method used, my personal preference has always been to cite the entire sentence at the end, following the terminal punctuation. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

"the band were met at their plane": if this is in (North) American English, I believe "band" is treated as a singular noun
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hendrix drew inspiration from the Toronto incident while writing "Room Full of Mirrors" ": meaning the song was inspired by the bust? This is ambiguous
- Not exactly. The song was already being written when the bust happened, but Hendrix adapted some of the lyrics after the bust. I think I've clarified this now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Curly Turkey; it was very helpful. I think I now have a decent grasp on LQ, so thanks for catching my errant punctuation. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'd prefer to see the "the"s dropped, but I won't deny promotion over a personal preference. As long as nobody's stepping up to show where the MoS states each quote needs to be followed immediately by a citation, I'll just assume I was wrong (and if it turns out I'm right, it's easily fixed). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support provided Curly Turkey's issues are resolved - as I mentioned in the GA review, the prose immediately grabbed my attention and drew in me in to reading the entire article from top to bottom with great interest. That's pretty much exactly what I would expect any FA candidate satisfying criteria 1a to do. The referencing passes muster, with a good mix of contemporary news reports and retrospective pieces from several notable authors by publishers with a good reputation for producing rock music related works. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Support – a few comments as an addendum:

Background
- The group's roadies warned everyone to take precautions – perhaps a blue link for "roadies" for the benefit of those of us fogies with a mental age of 100+?
  - Linked. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Impact on Hendrix
- Quote box: "it's", rather than "its"?
  - Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, the US tour during which the arrest occurred would be their last" – "was their last"? I got a bit mixed up with the chronology here.
  - Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Initial suppression of media coverage
- Out of interest I looked to see what the British press had to say. I am distressed to report that The Times said, "Pop singer on bail: Jimi Hendrix, a Negro pop singer, has been arrested at Toronto international airport on charges of possessing narcotics and released on bail." (The Times, 5 May 1969, p. 4). Cringe-making phrasing! But the news got out in a small way in these isles.
  - Wow. Well, at least they didn't call him a Mexican-negro like some sources did! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories
- "I don't have any doubt in my mind that the right-wing government forces were behind all of that" – A bit odd, given that Canada had a left-wing government at the time, as did Britain. Nixon and the Republicans were newly in power south of the border, but who could imagine the Liberal Pierre Trudeau listening to that galère? By which I mean, really, that this reads like the overheated imagination of someone who knew nothing about the matter, and I wonder if the quote is worth including.
  - Well, I agree that the comment sounds paranoid, but it sets-up the following material well, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Shapiro and Glebbeek refute this theory" – careful with "refute" – it means to disprove rather than merely to dispute.
  - That's a good point; fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
- Note 8: missing a word after "a", I think.
  - Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive, as far as I can tell. Difficult to imagine anything is omitted. As to balance, the "conspiracy theories" section presents only the conspiracy theories with nothing from sources who take an opposing view, but all things considered I think that's fair enough given the explicit title of the section. No problems about balance anywhere else in the article. Very readable and widely referenced. – Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support, Tim! As far as "presents only the conspiracy theories with nothing from sources who take an opposing view", there isn't an opposing view that I am aware of; all the reliable sources agree that someone set Hendrix up. The only question is who. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the national government of Canada at the time was Liberal, the then Mayor of Toronto, William Dennison, as well as the Mayors of other Canadian cities, were known to be antagonistic toward "hippies and deserters from the US military" flocking to Canada with Mayor Dennison saying that "a few hippies and deserters are Toronto's only problem."

According to the book "Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada" by John Hagen (Harvand University Press, 2001) at page 141: "The mayors of Canada's largest cities used the law (War Measures Act) in a backlash against American war resisters. Mayor William Dennison of Toronto claimed that "a few hippies and deserters are Toronto's only problem." Mayor Jean Drapcau of Montreal charged that draft and military resisters were part of a "revolutionary conspiracy." Mayor Tom Campbell of Vancouver declared, "I don't like draft dodgers and I'll do anything within the law that allows me to get rid of them." All three expressed a willingness to use the War Measures Act against war resisters. Mayor Campbell was the most explicit, telling the Toronto Star, "I believe the law should be used against any revolutionary whether he's a U.S. draft dodger or a hippie."* During this period American war resisters understandably became concerned about police harassment and cooperation between the RCMP and the FBI."

While not a "draft dodger", Mr. Hendrix could have certainly fallen within the category of Americans that could have been targeted as prominnt "hippies" when entering Canada. Centpacrr (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was certainly not a sticking point for my support, and I am perfectly satisfied with these explanations. What I admire about this article is that even to a reader like me who starts off wholly uninterested in the subject it leaps off the page and you want to go on reading. It is a pleasure to support its promotion. Tim riley (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim. If you supply me with a link to the contemporaneous article from The Times I'll happily add it to the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it is a great pity, but the online access to the Times archive is via my local library, and entering the URL confronts the user with a demand for a Westminster City Library password. This is so useless and irritating to practically all our users that I find it better not to include the URL in citations. For what it's worth, the URL is this, but I don't think it will be much use. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - I will be promoting this candidate in a few minutes. I checked the images and I saw no issues. We have that mug-shot of course, but after much debate on several occasions, there has not been a consensus delete it and the FUR seems complete. Graham Colm (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.