Talk:Captain Beefheart/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  SilkTork  *YES! 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
I'll be looking at this over the next few days, then I'll make some initial comments. I saw him live at Knebworth in 1975 - though I don't have a clear memory of his performance!  SilkTork  *YES! 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lucky! And thanks, much sooner than expected. Sir Richardson (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sooner because it's an interesting topic. I don't do reviews in chronological order - it tends to be whatever takes my fancy! And I tend to only do reviews these days, when I have just nominated an article myself - and I'll read through the list and grab those that take my interest.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hit list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Further comments
The article looks good at an initial glance - plenty of material and plenty of references, and seems to be nicely structured with no obvious layout issues. I'll be making comments here as I note something that bothers me as I read through. Naturally this will tend to be negative - but that's the nature of what we are doing - looking for the negative things so we can put them right.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be good to see a reason for Beefheart's notability in the opening sentences as per WP:Lead.
 * There are two references to "dictatorial" in the lead which are not then developed in the body. WP:Lead offers some excellent guidance on writing the lead.
 * All contentious statements, such as: "Shiny Beast (Bat Chain Puller), released in 1978, was largely regarded as a return to form", and "This influence has seen Van Vliet often cited as a protopunk musician "should have cites. We need evidence of who regards Shiny Beast as a return to form, and we need to see where he is cited as a protopunk. Some of the words here also need toning down - see Avoid weasel words
 * "Forming with The Magic Band in 1965" - what does that mean?
 * The writing is not always clear, and the information is not always getting through. The information about the "Beefheart" name, for example, is started in one section and then continued in another (so it's not even clear why there is a section break), and the information is confusing - there appears to be several reasons for the name, yet they are not discussed in an organised manner where the reader can get an understanding of why the name was chosen.
 * "Current life and painting" are probably best in two sections - and some consideration could be given to a "Live performances" section as that is fairly common with FA and GA music articles.

To do:
 * 1) Go through and make sure that all statements are sourced. If sources cannot be found, and the statement is potentially contentious, then it should be removed.
 * 2) Read WP:Lead and rewrite the lead with that in mind.
 * 3) Split personal life from the painting section - create two sections: "Personal life" and "Painting"
 * 4) Put dates on history/career sections
 * 5) Consider creating a "Live performances" section
 * 6) Research which music genre Beefheart is most associated with and select that - currently there are too many in the infobox.

I'll help out with some of the writing. Any questions, please ask. I'll put this on hold for seven days to allow time for the above items to be addressed or discussed.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Magic Band
I noticed the tag saying that there had been an AfD decision to merge Paul Blakely into this article. I looked into that and realized that there wasn't a section devoted specifically to The Magic Band. I saw though that there was a link to The Magic Band, which is a stub article that would be better off being merged into this one - and noted that there is a merge tag already on that article. It would make sense as this article is beinb sorted out, to deal with those two as well. I suggest creating a Magic Band section, and merging in The Magic Band and Paul Blakely into that section.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Update
I see there's good work being done on improving the article. Well done. There are still statements and paragraphs unsourced and items mentioned in the lead which are not developed in the main body. I'll extend the hold for seven days, and I will try to get some time to help out.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Images
I love the paintings. They will each need a Non-free use rationale. While I can see that one image might be justified as an example of his work, two is pushing it, and anyway having two images sandwiching text is against MoS guidelines. I suggest have one image, and to strengthen the use of the image in the article, find a source that comments directly on the painting.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that with the one image, which now has a full Non-free use rationale, the image of the painting is acceptable.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking again
I'm going through the article again - looking to see if we can put this to bed. I'm leaving notes and questions in the article. I intend to work closely on this over the next few days to see if we can push this to a closure. A note can be removed when the issue has been addressed. The idea is that there will be no notes left in a few days time!  SilkTork  *YES! 10:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On hold for seven days

 * I had hoped to simply do a bit of minor cleaning up, check the sources and pass the article. However, there is a bit more work involved in this article than I first thought, and the closer I look at it, and check the reference sources, the more I am aware needs doing. There are various statements in the article that require citing, and even those that are cited may not be secure as the source may have worded the information in a slightly different way. It is difficult when editors are interested in the subject to remain neutral - the natural, unconscious tendency is to be positive. It happens. Reports that he has sold some paintings for up to $25,000 get written into the article as "a flourishing and now highly successful career" "it commands high prices" - these are opinions which are not given by any of the sources cited. The aim in an encyclopedia article is to give the facts and to allow the reader to make up their own mind. We do not interpret $25,000 as "high", "low" or "average" unless a reliable source says that - we just give the figure.
 * What needs to happen now is for the article to be closely examined to check that all material is sourced, and that where statements may be contentious or are inclined to praise, to check that the sources do say that, and that the source is reliable enough to be relied upon. Where a source, such as Jason Ankeny on AllMusic.Com, has been particularly enthusiastic, it is worth checking other sources to give a balance. Simply reporting the praise without reporting the critical is not helpful to a reader coming here for an informed and unbiased account of Beefheart.
 * I'm putting this on hold for seven days.
 * Check carefully and source all statements. Examples - "Peel's playing of the record on late-night radio in Britain was largely responsible for it reaching 21 in the UK charts."; "Van Vliet quickly formed a new Magic Band of musicians who had no experience with his music and in fact had never heard it."; "In several cases they had been fans for years, and had learned his music from records."; "Falconer stated the recent exhibitions show "evidence of a serious, committed artist.""; "Van Vliet also appeared on The Tubes' 1977 album Now, playing saxophone on "Cathy's Clone" and their cover of his own "My Head Is My Only House Unless It Rains"." This list is not exhaustive - just a sample.
 * Check that the sources do support what is said in the article, and correct where there is a difference (removing the statement if necessary).
 * Check that the language is neutral and factual.
 * There is some quoted material in the article. At times this feels excessive. See Quotations and adjust if appropriate.
 * I feel the structure, organisation and coverage of the article is appropriate for a Good Article. There's a lot of good information here, and in general it is written up very clearly. I'm going to read through the article again to check prose, but feel it should pass that. There may be at times a little too much detail in some of the sections, and that might need trimming back, but not enough to fail the GA criteria on focus. I feel it largely meets MoS for the lead and other elements that the GA criteria look at, so it is essentially the question of sourcing and neutrality that needs addressing. Keep up the good work.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Be careful folks. I've just looked and noticed that instead of becoming more neutral, the article is drifting back to pumping up the subject. While some sources do use the word "innovative" about Beefheart, rather more use the word "difficult", and the word "unlistenable" and worse crops up as well. After a trawl through various reference books I offered:
 * "Widely regarded as unusual and interesting, critics have had difficulty in pinning down Beefheart's musical style, though most see it as a quirky and idiosyncratic variation of blues music which, while not achieving mainstream commercial success, has proved to be influential on punk and experimental rock."
 * as a statement that appeared to sum up the consensus, and I gave a bunch of sources to support that. This has now been amended to:
 * "Beefheart's innovative musical style is a quirky and idiosyncratic variation of blues music, dubbed "avant-garde blues", which, while not achieving mainstream commercial success, has proved to be influential on post-punk and experimental rock, New Wave and alternative rock."
 * This is a more definite statement which actually diminishes one of the main aspects of Beefheart's music, which is that it is a little difficult to pin down, and critics don't actually agree. While I accept that "avant-garde blues" is a term that has been used about his music, it should not be presented in such a way that it makes it appear - as it now does - that this is an agreed and totally accepted classification. I am also unsure of the need or benefit of listing four music genres, especially in the lead. Two is fine - and post-punk and experimental rock were the most common ones I wrote down when researching.
 * We also have "child prodigy" in the lead, when it appears that the only evidence for this is Beefheart's own claims, and research done on his claims have shown that he didn't achieve quite what he said. Beefheart has weaved interesting stories around himself - and that is part of the fabric of the man. We need to offer up to readers the reality of the best research, and be careful of how we report matters. We do not suppress his own stories about himself, as these are now widely reported, but we do try to present them in a manner which does not affirm as truth statements that have been shown to be questionable.
 * I will not feel comfortable passing this article as a Good Article when there are doubts about the accuracy of the statements, and the neutrality of the content, so unless there is a move toward neutrality I will close this review at the end of the hold period as a fail.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Failing
I am saddened and disappointed that this article has gone even further toward painting an enthusiastic and slightly distorted picture of how Beefheart is perceived. There is too much POV in this article not just for a Good Article but for any article on Wikipedia. While I have put this on hold to allow people to make this more neutral and to remove POV, statements have been added such as "Van Vliet was spurred to form a new Magic Band". There's no source for this statement which appears to reveal Van Vliet's motives. We have the puff words from one over-enthusiastic review reinserted into the article - "'incalculable' influence", etc. - which do not reflect a genuine summary of a fuller range of critical appraisal. It is impossible to grant this a GA as the article stands as this has actually worsened since on hold. I note that material that I had removed has been reinserted without entering into a discussion. I feel I have explained the reasoning behind my editing as I have been conducting this review, and would welcome discussion to see what we can now do to improve matters. I have marked those areas in the lead that cause me concern.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Failed
I can see that there have been good steps toward balancing the article, and well done to those who have made it so; however, despite that good effort, it still inclines toward a preference to the positive rather than neutral. As such it is still an unreliable article and cannot be passed as GA. Also, there are still statements unsourced. I am closing this now as a fail. I would urge people to continue to work toward making this as neutral and accurate as possible, and then nominating it again - if people wish, I would be quite happy to cast my eye over it before nomination to check on neutrality.
 * I am aware that Beefheart's practice of romancing his own history makes things difficult for any editor, as such I recommend taking care, and using the most up to date sources which have conducted thorough research, rather than accepting as fact some of the things that Beefheart has said in interviews. This quote is worth bearing in mind:


 * The enthusiastic statements in the lead about Van Vliet's painting career are not supported by the four sources. Comments like this from : "Van Vliet may have succeeded in leaving his past behind," should be viewed for what it actually says - that it is possible that art critics are prepared to view Van Vliet's paintings for what they are, rather than that they are done by someone who is already famous - it should not be interpreted as Van Vliet being a successful and flourishing artist. "a distinguished figure in contemporary art" is not supported by the sources, nor is "critically respected paintings" (the closest might be "critically accepted", as in the sense that art critics have now accepted that Van Vliet is an artist rather than a rock star dabbling in art), and nor is "flourishing career in art".


 * The review mentioned above is worth looking at for the overall comments on Van Vliet's musical career. It seems fairly balanced, and includes a range of views. It is such a range of views that this article is currently lacking. Beefheart is a very complex character, and he divides opinion. Some more awareness of that needs to be included in this article.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great review. I think that's the first criticle I've seen of Beefheart's art (about which I know nothing apart from album covers) & it's 20 years old! Some good quotes from the man himself. Makes me very sad to think of him paralysed. Rothorpe (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I attempted to straighten out the introduction last night, but certain words have made a reappearance. Particularly I don't approve of 'dictatorial' (unfair - but there may be a quote that we could cite that contains it), 'blues-rock informed' (nonsense/journalese) and 'greatest' (weasel). Rothorpe (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)