Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sex Pistols

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sex Pistols

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Sandy 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Promoted in brilliant prose days. Poor lead. Poor referencing; lots of citation needed tags (and more can be added). Abundant weasel words, POV, and original research. Not well written. Overuse of parentheses. I feel it should be moved to FARC quickly because I don't think it can be improved to FA quality in time. Punctured Bicycle 11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music. Oldelpaso 11:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)‎

Some work on referencing since the nom, but numerous cite tags and lack of inline citations, and issues above not addressed. Move to FARC. Sandy 02:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of inline citations are an issue (1. c. violation) with this article. Also, the inline citations there are need a vast cleanup so one knows who wrote the quoted article, who published it, its date of publication, ISBN (if a book source), the date an article was last accessed (if a web source) and so on. LuciferMorgan 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

About half of the requested citations have now been provided. At least some of them (the ones I added!) do meet the above criterion. I'll see what I can do about some of the rest. - Jmabel | Talk 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2A), referencing (1c), POV (1d), general copy issues (2). Marskell 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Here is a diff. Some work has been done on refs though ce'ing remains; Jmabel, keep us up-to-date. Marskell 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I feel the lead section is too small also. LuciferMorgan 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove The article is a carry-over from the brilliant prose days, so it has never been through a proper FA nomination. The writing quality is very poor. The article is not well-referenced; I've added many more citation needed tags. The lead is indeed too small. Does not exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. I think this article needs a complete rewrite. Punctured Bicycle 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak and reluctant remove. This article is quite bad and I see some inline citations, but they are insufficient.--Yannismarou 14:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While there are, indeed, quite a few statements in this article that could use citation and lack it, I'm pretty confident that there is little or nothing that is inaccurate. But some of Punctured Bicycle's requests for citation raise questions of what citations are for. They seem to me to come from a stance that our writers are supposed have no judgment or discretion. For example:

1. Do we really need a citation that Radio 1 dominated UK music broadcasting in 1977? This is something known to literally anyone vaguely familiar with the time and place. It may be possible to cite for, but at the time it was so obvious that no one necessarily bothered stating so overtly. It's like having to cite for the fact that the members of the band all breathed air.
2. Of the Pistols' last UK gig (a benefit for the families of striking firemen) should we really need citation for "the gig was considered by some as a vindication of their anti-establishment stance when they were, for once, united with what might be viewed as their true constituency, the dispossessed British working class"?
3. Even more so, should we really need a citation to refer to "the band's state of disintegration by this time", given that the band broke up three weeks later? Or for saying that The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle "was McLaren's fictionalised account on the band's history, claiming he controlled and manipulated the band from start to finish", which would be apparent to anyone with traces of a brain who had seen the film?

I believe we need to think long and hard about what we are actually trying to do here: not just in this article, but in Wikipedia. In my view, Wikipedia should not be some sort of game of trying to set new world records for level of citation. It should be about writing excellently written, accurate articles. It is entirely reasonable to ask for citations where someone with at least some knowledge of the topic has some doubts. It is wasteful of effort that could be better spent elsewhere to demand citations for the obvious at every turn. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The request is really for "Coming at a time when deference to royalty was still a predominant trait in both the establishment and the country as a whole, it caused tremendous public outcry"
2. Yes, of course we need a citation for that. Why wouldn't we?
3. Now that I look at it I think the "disintegration" part should be broken out into its own sentence(s) and expanded upon, or just deleted and saved entirely for the "breakup of the band" section. The article makes a massive leap from Never Mind the Bollocks to "disintegration" of the band without any explanation. I agree that the film is self-evident and doesn't necessarily need a cite (the "controlled and manipulated" triggered the citation needed alarm).

I did not add the citation needed tags as part of a game. Inline citations are required of featured articles. I feel that the majority of my requests are reasonable. It is not obvious to me that Le Bomb was one of their potential names, that Bruce Foxton of The Jam accused them of plagiarism, that they held a secret tour in August 1977, that they are planning a Japanese tour in the near future, that "There is no future ... and England's dreaming" is a de facto position statement for British punk, that Rotten bluffed the breakup of the band, that Vicious was beaten by the bodyguards he hired, and so on. Punctured Bicycle 09:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The examples given in the last paragraph, I agree with you, need citations. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Have resolved about 80% of Punctured Bicycle citation requests (good work there bike, btw), but a remaining section - "Influences and cultural legacy" - though crucial to the article, in it current form is purly orgional research, & POV. I can't cite that stuff, move that it's deleted, at least until rewritten. The whole article, while contaning an exhaustive & well detailed history of the band, is ridden with trivia and needs serious toning down, copy editing etc. I'll try, but i'm not the best copy editor, Coil00 23:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice effort. Just a remark: Inline citations go straight after the punctuation and without a gap without the punctuation and the citation. If you can't citate this section, write it for scratch with your own sources. This is my suggestion.--Yannismarou 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this has now been pretty much brought in line with current standards. I would think that at this point the burden should be on those who think if falls short. - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove unless original research and citation issues are addressed, and I agree with others that the prose still needs some polish. Sandy 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per Sandy. I still keep my remove vote, until the problems in section "Influences and cultural legacy" are addressed.--Yannismarou 08:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Second look subsequent to additional work done:
    • The references have been sufficiently expanded to encompass bibliographic information, but they use an inconsistent bibliographic style. That is not an objection, but it would help to clean them up, using a consistent style.
    • Are all of those External links good and reliable sources, or are any of them just adverts? Refer to WP:NOT and WP:EL.
    • Discography: what source does one use to confirm the #'s ?
      • I have an encyclopedia of music somewhere in my attic, it may have the postitions - will try and dig it out Coil00 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC). My attic does not contain the positions. - Coil00 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Is this OR? The lead should summarize the article, but I can't find further mention of this in the article. "While their English contemporaries such as The Clash were perhaps more politically motivated, The Damned more versatile, and Buzzcocks had more astute pop sensibilities, "
      • I had had the same thought and removed. The Pistols are more iconic than the Clash but I don't know if they've had "more recognition." In any case, personal judgements don't belong.
    • I can't determine a source for the entire incident in EMI and the Grundy, beginning with the sentence: "However, it was the band's behavior that gained them their first national exposure:" Since it includes "(ie, they had consumed a large amount of alcohol)", it seems to require a cite. The ie isn't good prose: if we are to retain this article as FA, considering it was promoted during the Brilliant Prose days, I'd feel better if Tony analyzed the prose.
      • I tried to improve a pretty awful run-on sentence and placed a fact request. Marskell 16:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Influences and cultural legacy seems like OR, and is uncited.
      • Note the internal link to "satire boom". "The Pistols communicated directly with a more vernacular audience" should be clear from the rest of the article. There are some cites lower down, though specific band mentions (Rancid, The Libertines, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club) should be cited along with Oasis. Marskell 16:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is just a cursory second look, to give some examples of concerns I still have: I can be convinced if Tony has a look at the prose and anything that looks ORish is referenced. Sandy 15:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this process a lot, but do I understand that we will remove it from being a featured article if even a single sentence has an issue in terms of citation? - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a keep, pending a bit more work. I'm not a 100% on the writing yet, but I just made a couple of edits and will try and do more to make sure it's at 1a. It's comprehensive and moves at a nice pace without tangents or too much fan aggrandizement.

The sentence with the two cite requests in influences is syntactically very bad, and does indeed require sourcing. There are a couple of other spots that could also use a source, but they can probably be eliminated in a copy-edit. Taken in sum, this is sourced to about the degree we have expected of most. Marskell 10:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Although reluctantly, I turn my vote into keep, because the article has been much improved.--Yannismarou 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

During the repair work quite a lot of text had to been removed (including by myself), leaving the article quite uneven in places. Suggest that as well as the continuning copy edit, certain sections are expanded, esp. the lead. Also, looking through the edit history the article is fairly unstable and a magnet for trivia and cruft. If it does pass this review, it'll need close watching.

A lot more still needs to be done, and I'll vote keep, pending per Marskell above - Coil00 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Per your edit summary and comments here, hold is probably the best note. No harm if work is going on. Marskell 22:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Update I'm through my copyedit of the body. I'll give it one more read through, but I'm fairly satisfied on 1a. As noted by Coil, things had to be removed to avoid OR (this includes the bit that was bothering Sandy, which I just got rid of pending sourcing) but I don't think 1b has been compromised. This covers what it should cover. Two things:

The Never Mind the Bollocks section needs a sentence on critical reaction. The sentence re the stolen riff is tacked-on to the first paragraph and should be moved (which riff exactly?).

If anything exists in this regard, a sentence on the Royal Family's reaction to God Save the Queen would be interesting.

I'm going to wait for more comments before casting a final vote-like-comment. Marskell 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and this may be a Brit usage thing, but I removed spaced em dashes—I prefer them this way—as well as uses of single quotes for 'certain items' in the text. Marskell 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had another look: the top part is much improved, but I started to find very trivial copyedit things towards the bottom of the article. Let me know when it's time for another look. Sandy 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: The page has had a flurry of activity today. I'll wait one more day and see if any new copy issues have been introduced. Marskell 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look tomorrow (the 8th) then. Sandy 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Very small thing: I won't remove 'single quotes' anymore; I'm deducing this is a Brit usage, and thus is not an error and should actually be followed for this British topic. (I don't think, before editing this page, I'd ever intentionally typed "whilst" anywhere, as another example :). Marskell 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone should put up a tutorial somewhere :-) Sandy 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The lead is still short and unsatisfying. The second paragraph is like an island; none of the points are explained or expanded upon later in the article.
  • "Rotten and his circle of friends (coincidentally all also called John) adopted these accrutrements whilst already possessed of a similar style—a grungy version of the 'soul boy' fashion affected by fans of Roxy Music." This sentence is a mess. The parenthetical trivia should be removed. Accrutrements is not a word. The sentence is overly complex and pretentious, and the common reader probably would not understand it. Personally I have no idea what it is trying to say.
  • "'Anarchy in the U.K.' . . . served as a statement of intent—full of wit, anger and visceral energy." This sentence has no citation to support its claims. It is also needs to be stripped of its romantic tone.
  • "Despite a common misconception that punk bands 'couldn't play', contemporary music press reviews and live recordings reveal the Pistols to have been a tight, competent, musically professional and ferocious live band." One author's view is cited; either identify the author, or find and synthesize multiple sources if you want to generalize. However, I read the cited article and couldn't find evidence in support of the sentence anyways.
  • Gig to mean "concert" is slang/colloquial. This is a formal encyclopedia.
  • Shambolic is slang.
  • The use of sic is distracting and unnecessary.
  • "Always washing his feet". Is this an idiom or is it literal? In any case the potential confusion leads me to believe it should be removed.
  • "... although he later claimed to have been bluffing." Citation?
  • "The sale was criticised by critics as a 'sell out'." Again, this is one author's view; identify or synthesize. "Criticised by critics" is an awkward phrasing.
  • The influence/legacy section remains very weak and requires revision and expansion. "The Sex Pistols remain influential, both for their musical style and in terms of their effect on the British cultural landscape. The Pistols communicated directly with a vernacular audience." A quote where Lydon expresses the band's aims is entirely insufficient for backing up the preceding claims, which are quite bold. Many secondary sources are available—both on the Sex Pistols and on punk music in general (which surely would discuss the Sex Pistols' influence)—why are they not being used? The lead stated "They are widely credited with creating both the UK punk revolution and the first generation gap within rock 'n' roll." This is not clearly elicited anywhere in this section. Rancid, The Libertines, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club—these are the strongest examples?
  • WP:FA: "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant." In general I don't find this to be the case. Punctured Bicycle 03:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Punctured Bicycle 20:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a keep, finally. I'm still going to scour it for typos, as work has just been done, but this meets 1a IMO. I have changed a few things per Punctured's suggestions: "generation gap" dropped because not mentioned later; "accrutrements" was a typo (should be "accoutrements") but changed to "apparel"; shambolic --> chaotic. Not sure about some of the complaints, though. "The use of sic is distracting and unnecessary." Why?

Re the lead: given repeated attempts to rm OR, it became shorter and shorter. I've added a paragraph detailing a few important points from the body. Coil and I discussed changing it further, so it can be beefed up but I think is fine as it stands. Marskell 08:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Don't use sic to show off with gotchas. Too many writers sic sics on the authors they quote just to show they spotted a trivial error. If your audience is unlikely to be confused, don't draw attention to minor booboos."[1] Punctured Bicycle 08:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a minor booboo in that when people notice they me be prompted to go to the link to find out where the error lies, which is a waste of time, or they might "fix" the sentence, which we shouldn't do with a direct quote. Sics are trivial when dealing with a quoted prose paragraph, but non-trivial when dealing with a direct quote, IMO. Marskell 08:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

They may check the source in futility, and they may unwittingly "correct" it. But it is much more likely that the error would simply go unnoticed if the sic was absent. Moreover, this is not a strict error (as in spelling and factual errors), it is just poor grammar; we are not in a position to police others' grammar. If you really are worried about editors inadvertently changing it, then put a note in an HTML comment (though I'd say the possibility of editors adding penises to the article is of greater concern). Punctured Bicycle 09:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep: By now all of the issues leading to this review have been addressed and resolved. This is a comprehensive, fully cited, factually accurate, and neutral article. IMO it is also well written, and meets FA criteria. Coil00 12:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Article says "The tour proved exhausting, badly-planned, and dispiriting. Over the course of the two-week tour Vicious . . . was beaten by the bodyguards hired to protect him, Rotten suffered a severe head cold, and the band's performances were plagued by bad sound and physically hostile audiences." The source cited does not support these claims at all. On a side note, the source paints a picture of the band's stage personality that this article, unfortunately, only hints at vaguely: "The sold-out 2,200 seat hall witnessed Sid Vicious clobber an aggressive cowpoke with his bass . . . The next show was in Baton Rouge, where Vicious got a simulated blowjob onstage from an enthusiastic Southern belle . . . They pogo'd, spit all over the stage and on each other, threw umbrellas, fruits, coins, eyeglasses, sweaters, coats, shoes, socks, tampax, a brussel sprout, scarves, chains, plastic guns"
    • I can't really find that either. There's certainly plenty of "colour" that can be found and cited otherwise.
  • Article says "Inspired by the performance, many of the attendees formed groups of their own, popularising punk music throughout the British Isles." The source cited concerns only Joy Division.
    • Subsequent sources: the Clash source mentions the Clash in relation to Pistols in the second sentence; the Siouxsie & The Banshees sources mentions the relation in the fourth sentence; the Fall relation comes in the 13th paragraph but does specifically mention a Pistols show. This does not rise to remove, though "many of the attendees formed groups of their own" should be removed and the two paras compressed.
      • What about the bold claim "popularising punk music throughout the British Isles"? Perhaps when the two paragraphs are combined it will become more apparent how incomplete the influences section is. (80% of it will be devoted to the Lesser Free Trade Hall performance. That's it? That's all we can say about their influence?)
  • Article says "After the end of the 'Anarchy Tour' in December 1976, EMI decided it was too dangerous for the Sex Pistols to play live in the UK and arranged a series of concerts in Amsterdam for early January 1977." The source cited says nothing about EMI deciding it was too dangerous for the Sex Pistols to play live in the UK.
    • No, it does not (but see 15).
      • ??? 15 is what I was looking at.
  • "Most of the bass parts on the band's later recordings were played by either Jones or Matlock, who, according to Lydon, had been redrafted as a session musician." Which of them was redrafted? Why is this "according to Lydon"?
    • Matlock, apparently, as a previous version stated. This was compressed. I'm sure Coil can cite it.
      • The point is, it's worded ambiguously, and it isn't necessary to use "according to" for seemingly uncontroversial claims.
  • "A&M dumped the Pistols" Dumped? Is that formal writing?
    • Seems an OK verb to me, in this context.
  • Why is Nancy Spungen not mentioned or explained until her death?
    • Because the blue link is there.
      • From what I've gathered Nancy was a significant influence (perhaps only negatively) on Vicious and the band itself. I'm not saying we should detail everything about her. I'm saying that Nancy must be introduced and explained earlier in the article, not just tacked on at the end: "Oh, by the way, Sid had a girlfriend named Nancy who died."
  • Why is the Bromley Contingent never explained?
    • Because the blue link is there.
      • They were the Sex Pistols' entourage. How is it that they are so tangential that they don't deserve any real estate in the article? And by real estate, I mean perhaps a sentence or two. The article picks them out of thin air without explaining who they were and how they came to be associated with the Sex Pistols.
  • "Following bad publicity from an incident at Heathrow Airport during their return, EMI finally had had enough and released the band from their contract." What is the nature of this incident?
    • 15 explains this.
      • Wikipedia doesn't.
  • The article says "Though matters took an uglier turn when young punk followers of the Sex Pistols became victims of physical attacks in the street by 'pro-royalists'. Rotten himself was assaulted by a razor-wielding gang of 'Teddy Boys' outside the Islington Pegasus pub (a music venue at the time)." The actual source says "Meanwhile, during a break from their recording sessions: Johnny Rotten, Chris Thomas (producer) and Bill Price (studio boss) are attacked outside the Pegasus pub. Johnny has his arm slashed open and suffers tendon damage." Besides the obvious incongruity between the article and the source, it seems that the boat incident and pub incident are not even connected (as the Wikipedia article implies). Punctured Bicycle 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The attack(s) on Rotton are well-attested. We need something specific to "Teddy Boys" that I can't find.

Most of the concerns are minor but there are a couple of major things, particularly how to present 1. There's ample sources for the general screw-up of the tour, but perhaps we should not present examples, lest we highlight "this" at the expense of "that." Marskell 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Replied to some above.) Some can be considered minor, but we shouldn't downplay their importance; collectively they amount to a great concern. Then there are the concerns which are great in their own right. The sourcing concerns, where claims don't even correspond to the source, are an obvious example. Comprehensiveness is another big one; the influences section is wholly incomplete, the article is vague about the band's stage personality or personality in general, the premises upon which they formed the band (their influences, their rejection of progressive rock) are never explained, Nancy and the Bromley Contingent are never explained. The writing quality is another big issue, though some seem to find it acceptable. It is difficult to explain what is wrong with the writing. Here's a random example from the lead: "They released just a single studio album", which should be "They released one studio album". Then there is a sentence like, "Over the course of the two-week tour Vicious, by now chronically addicted to heroin, was beaten by the bodyguards hired to protect him, Rotten suffered a severe head cold, and the band's performances were plagued by bad sound and physically hostile audiences," which needs to be broken down. Some paragraphs do not order the sentences logically. An example of this is the paragraph concerning the Grundy incident; it goes 1. aftermath 2. actual incident 3. things prior to incident 4. aftermath. The lead is another example of this. One's attention should not be limited to these examples; the writing quality overall isn't "compelling, even brilliant". In general it's boring and vague. The article has obviously improved greatly since the nomination started, but the question is not whether it has improved, the question is whether it is FA quality. To me the answer is no. The complacency towards this article in light of the problems is strange; if it were to actually go through WP:FAC, which it never has, I think it would be judged differently. Punctured Bicycle 02:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Complacent is just not fair. Given that you nominated, you know that this was the version to begin with. When logged in and looking at it, Coil has quickly responded to most every request. I'll admit that trusting sources often means trusting other users; in this case I do, because where I have followed them/searched myself they've seemed fine. Sourcing errors can be like typos: editing on top of someone else's edit can cause the mistake. Let's bear in mind {{sofixit}}.

In no particular order:

• Wikipedia doesn't explain what happened at Heathrow. Should it? We write summary style here and we've already got one mention of a band member vomiting :).
• For the example para I would suggest: 1) topic sentence 2) important points (the actual cussing) 3) lesser points (they were replacing Queen) 4) aftermath. This is an appropriate inverted pyramid, IMO.
• The "influences" section was deliberately pared down to have precise mentions of bands that have been influenced by them. This is just presenting a catch-22: vague ORish section, no; focused section, no. Also, do see the end of the "Never mind the Bollocks" first para: "It is commonly regarded as one of the most influential rock albums of the last 40 years, and has been described as 'simply one of the greatest, most inspiring rock records of all time'."
• On Spungen: the fact that she is not described at length, was one of the first pluses I had noticed in this article. The bluelink comment was not meant to be glib; if you want to read about Nancy Spungen, go to her article. From there, "Vicious' emotional dependence on her is said to have interfered with the Sex Pistols' performances and contributed to the band's breakup during their US tour" could be added here, if sourced (though it seems to me they broke up because everyone had come to detest Rotten).
• On the intro: if you believe other examples belong, suggest them, but I feel these are roughly the most major. God Save the Queen absolutely should be there.
• I removed "dangerous" as a possible OR inference. Various physical assaults and other things (e.g., a police raid on Rotten's apartment) can be sourced if we want details; there's obviously been a lot of myth-making re violence associated with the band but there was, evidently, violence associated with the band.
• Bromley contingent: we have "the group and their close circle of followers," and earlier "the [fashion] trend quickly spread, and was adopted by the group's followers." We can move the link up, if you like.
• That you find the writing "boring and vague" is not actionable.
• On an earlier point, I added another review to back up the competent playing bit. It's from Rolling Stone, 1977--actually a great read.
• I agree we should have a sentence or two on the "rejectionism"; in fact, I can probably use the source just mentioned to do it. Marskell 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Coil suggested we hold this again. I don't see why not, as the rule of thumb is "obvious momentum", which this has (there were additions to the influence section tonight and some more edits in general). I do believe this is generally within criteria, but Punctured has some actionable points above which should be addressed. One more week? Marskell 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whew. I wanted to spend time in it, but need a clear head and a fresh mind. Sandy 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. - Jmabel | Talk 22:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sandy 02:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tony 13:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A massive improvement with virtually all the concerns addressed. WesleyDodds 03:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note Consensus is forming , waiting for comments from Punctured Bicycle. Joelito (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - I can't find any reasons to vote 'Remove'. LuciferMorgan 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)