Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Concert in Central Park/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 17:31, 20 June 2012.

The Concert in Central Park

 * Nominator(s): GoP T C N  13:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

500,000 spectators visited this free (and legendary) concert to help rebuild the park. It is the 7th most attended concert ever and marked a temporary reunion of the influential duo, Simon & Garfunkel. The article was copyedited by User:Wehwalt, User:Yngvadottir, User:Jmg38 among others. I believe it is a comprehensive article, the pictures meets criteria, well-written, well-reearched and follows the MOS. Happy editing! GoP T C N 13:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Support I did a copyedit and helped out at the GAN. I will continue to copyedit, but I think it's a strong candidate with an article that resonates with me as that album is very much a part of my youth. Rather than final prose comments, I will take the liberty of editing directly (most likely tonight).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: GreatOrangePumpkin. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment (thorough review later):
 * The number of songs is confusing. Lead has "The show consisted of 22 songs". Section Events has first "Overall, Simon & Garfunkel played twenty songs: ..." and later in the same section "17 songs + encore of 3 + encore of 1" (paraphrased = 21).
 * 2 were not played. The lead does not state they played all 22 songs, but just that the show consisted of 22 songs. And the track listing was confusing as some ip included the duration of the two songs . Also you are correct; they played 21, not 22. I changed that.-- GoP T C N 15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Events: "... encore [from] three songs." => "... encore of three songs." sounds better.
 * Done


 * Section title "track listing" (for recorded songs) doesn't work well, as the article includes titles, which were specifically not on the album - would "Set list" (for the concert) be the better section header here?
 * Agree, changed to "set list"


 * First sentence of Track listing has "... in this album". It's a new section and previous text mostly covered only the concert. So "... in the live album" or similar would be more specific to refocus on the album itself. GermanJoe (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for your comments so far. -- GoP T C N 15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Ling
 * Aftermath section: a few comments below, but actually I think this section is simply too long. A lot of discussion about topics that should be in some other article(s).
 * "Immediately after the concert, Simon and Garfunkel were disappointed." In what?
 * "For a long time they both performed only individually." Vague. Was it two decades, or...? – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Individually, meaning here and then
 * "For a long time" is vague. And I don't know what "here and then" in your response means.– Ling.Nut (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look at the whole Preservation of Central Park section carefully. "promised to donate 250,000", "rain evolved into a rainfall", "was near to be" etc. But actually, I do not think this section is germane to this article, and suggest removing it completely, except for one or two sentences about S&G, which could be relocated. – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will wait for suggestions
 * I have two suggestions, though they are mutually exclusive: First, I suggest you simply delete the section, retaining one or two of the more relevant sentences. Barring that (and I do sincerely hope that you do not bar that!), I suggest that someone should have a go at an additional round of copy editing, starting from the bottom of the page and working upward. – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Critical reception
 * "Stephen Holden, in The New York Times the day after the concert, and in Rolling Stone magazine concerning the live album, praised the performance." Move verb phrase to position behind subject for crispness/clarity/balance.
 * Done
 * "romantic-sweetish pop musician Garfunkel and the gloomy, rock 'n' roll-leaning Simon complemented each other perfectly, despite their different styles" Is this close paraphrase?
 * It is indirect speech
 * "He felt that the new arrangements for the Simon songs clearly improved them" Unnecessary pronoun: He felt that the new arrangements clearly improved the Simon songs... Also: "the Simon songs" == songs penned by Simon, or Simon's songs, or...
 * Done
 * When presenting the reviews, the article sometimes seems to speak with Wikipedia's voice by leaving content unattributed. I know you are trying to avoid too many "he said, she stated" etc., but... perhaps another approach?– Ling.Nut (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why another approach?-- GoP T C N 07:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Concert
 * "Particular parts of songs, in which the lyrics refer to the city of New York or the concert, were met by the audience with applause, for example a line from Garfunkel's ode to his home city in "A Heart in New York", which describes from a New Yorker's point of view the first glimpse of the city when returning by air and also refers to the bad state of Central Park" Vague expressions like "particular parts" and "bad state"; arguably a run-on sentence; etc. Writing needs to be sharpened.– Ling.Nut (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done some fixing up of the lower sections. GOP, there are a couple of hidden comments in there for you to address, as I do not have the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments (GermanJoe) an interesting read, some prose and content issues, but no unsolvable problems: I hope, those points help with the FA and will gladly support after some more tweaking. GermanJoe (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead "The concept of a concert had been proposed ..." ==> a bit unspecific, there were concerts before in Central Park. Probably the benefit aspect needs to be pointed out again as important part of the concept.
 * 2) "...worked with Delsener to decide..." ==> awkward combination, they worked together on the concept and they decided together, but "worked to decide" doesn't catch that meaning.
 * 3) "... (one due to a fan interruption) ..." ==> disturbs text flow and leaves the reader asking for more information. Suggest to remove that bit completely here (or give more details, but i believe it's not that important in the overall lead context).
 * Ok, removed.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "Despite the success ..." ==> Would that part better fit in the last lead para (needs slight rephrasing)? It covers part of the "aftermath".
 * 2) "..., the duo decided not to perform together." ==> Actually they did perform together later, but not regularly as a band (needs rephrasing). Also "why?" would be good to explain here (ongoing tensions, different styles, ...).
 * Reworded-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Quotes in general ==> i found a few occurences to check: make sure, all quotes are 100% identical with the source or mark editorial changes, where needed (see MOS:QUOTES). Also quotes are not capitalized at start, if they form a correct sentence with the surrounding text. Yet another "also": quotes have only full stops in the quote itself, when the source has them. Otherwise the punctuation is outside the quote.
 * 2) A concert for the park "Shortly after the release ..." ==> just checking, are all following sentences (with some strong statements) covered by ref 9?
 * I checked the source and yes it covers that information-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Planning and rehearsals "...(with Simon getting the greater amount of time) with the ... with the ...." ==> 3 "with ..." and the brackets need rephrasing. As the plan was dropped, the "amount of time"-bit could probably be removed, it seems to have had no influence on the decision according to the article.
 * 2) "Despite the need to adapt to Simon and his style, Garfunkel enjoyed some of the songs and was glad to work with him on a duet version of Simon's "American Tune"." ==> any more background info on what he enjoyed specifically or why? At the moment this is a rather emotional statement, would be good to expand it with a bit more factual information.
 * 3) "... more than at Woodstock,[16] the seventh-largest concert attendance of all time. [22]" ==> Source 22 (and the Woodstock sub-article, for what it's worth) estimates Woodstock at 500.000 as well. Even if it's sourced, the "more than" is debatable. 2 "estimates" with both 500.000 can't be more than each other. Also the comparison with Woodstock seems to carry a lot of praise, bordering non-neutral POV. Why compare it with Woodstock and not with any of the 4-5 other similar-sized concerts? Finally: is source 22 (Rebecca Baker in MTVHive) a WP:RS?
 * To your second question: I think MTV is generally reliable, but I will try to find a better source -- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "...who introduced the performance with the sentence, "Ladies and gentlemen, Simon and Garfunkel!" ==> like every moderator since the dawn of concerts :). Unnecessary detail, stop at "performance." and remove the rest.
 * Well, I don't think it is unnecessary as they did not began immediately.
 * 1) "...The incident provoked associations ..." ==> by whom?
 * By the audience I believe -- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "...it did not appear on the live album because of the interjection." ==> Source for the "because ..."-part? Otherwise the reason needs to be removed unfortunately (WP:OR).
 * WP:OR is truly one of the worst policies here ;) (never liked it). -- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "The audience ..." ==> pretty emotional quotes, but then it was probably an emotional concert. Just saying, OK for me.
 * 2) "After the ending of the 17th song, "The Boxer", which included a stanza not included in the album version, ..." ==> Minor point, but the order of events is a bit off here. The decision to not include the stanza was probably made later after the concert? Its removal would better fit in the "recording section", where it happened. Question out of curiosity: Did the original 1969 song include the stanza or not?
 * There is an additional stanza in the song, that was played at the concert, beginning "Now the years are rolling by me, they are rocking evenly ..." which presumably indicates the passage of time for the narrator since the song was first written. It does not appear in the 60s version.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Critical reception "The New York Times critic concluded, "It was a wonderful concert." ==> The very positive review is already shown in lengthy detail. That emotional summary adds nothing new. Remove.
 * Removed-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "For those who grew up listening to Simon & Garfunkel this LP represents a trip down memory lane." ==> See above, remove. Of course positive statements should be included, but focus on those, which actually offer some kind of argument or background information. "That concert rocked!!" is not a review.
 * Removed-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Aftermath "Immediately after the concert, Simon and Garfunkel were disappointed." ==> I think, that point is still not addressed. Disappointed with what? OK, Garfunkel's thoughts are elaborated, but what about Simon?
 * Well, the interjection during one song, I assume-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Second para of "Abandoned studio album ..." ==> i somewhat agree with Ling.Nut, please recheck the whole para. The article is not about the bands career, so everything, which is not directly related to the concert or its album and film, has to go. "Borderline cases", which provide some interesting context or background, are OK, but should be mentioned as briefly as possible without further details (see guidelines for summary style and article scope).
 * I trimmed it a little bit-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Preservation of Central Park ==> i actually like that section. It gives some interesting additional information about the park's preservation, which was the concert's main reason after all. It's short enough and fits as the closure of the article.
 * Thanks for your review. I will first go through the easiest points.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To follow up: I think the Atermath section should be comprised wholly and only of its first paragraph, plus the paragraph in the Preservation of Central Park section. Lose the Preservation of Central Park section header. Then you have an Aftermath section with two paragraphs. – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the general sentiment, but would rather save a few bits of information from the second para: The world-tour and new album should be briefly mentioned - they are an immediate follow-up of the concert. But most of the details can be removed, we don't need to know every single station or the number of spectators (that information should be in the band's main or a tour article). Then the "final" breakup with reasons and the events around the second Central Park concert could be briefly mentioned to finish the outlook on future events. The Madison Square Garden information is not closely related to the article topic, so i would loose the last sentence completely (again more fitting for the band article). Two subsections or one? Not sure actually, would have to see how the sections look after tweaking. GermanJoe (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it a bit and sorry for the harsh comment, LingNut. I was in bad mood at that time. -- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not your fault; it's mine. In certain specific circumstances, my supply of patience hovers near zero. This can be irritating to other editors. Unfortunately, teasing apart the marginal benefit of different approaches is not always easy (again, under certain specific circumstances). – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FN3: since this is a vanity press, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * Have you looked were it is used? One to claim it is a tourist attraction. Also I am not sure why you find it unreliable.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Since it's a vanity press, it's considered a self-published source, which means for it to be reliable the author has to be an "expert" in the field. I don't know this author, so I'm asking you whether this is met. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ranges should use endashes
 * Done-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FN11: pages?
 * Done-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FN23: publisher? What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * I can remove it as the section does not need any sources -- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether website names are italicized
 * Not sure where you found non-italicized websites-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FN38, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether online newspaper articles are given access dates
 * I found only one without accessdate, so added.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FN51, 75: page(s)?
 * Unfortunately I don't know the page-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for books
 * Can you explain why you think they all need locations or not?-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether they do or don't, but right now only some do, which is inconsistent - either all or none. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dead link tags should be addressed
 * I fixed two but can't fix the Japanese-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of your refs put website name in front of title - why?
 * Where?-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FN68: publisher?
 * Hard to tell...-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N  10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of your web references are missing access dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some accessdates-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose—mainly 1a. The prose isn't yet of professional and engaging standard. Sample of errors, not exhaustive. (article needs a thorough copy-edit from fresh eyes):
 * Repetitively using the same word makes for clumsy writing—in the lead, "concert" is used 11 times, once for every sentence. Audit for this and other words throughout.
 * I removed three words but frankly I don't see what's the issue with repetition.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Prose seems disjointed. See the "summer of 1981" para, for example. "Simon's confidence had declined and he had sought treatment for depression" springs out abruptly, especially after we hear that he "was enthusiastic about the idea". Was his depression brought on by the failure of his film or the viability of the concert and collaboration? This needs to be fleshed out better.
 * Of course by the film as Garfunkel was in Switzerland at that time. Please read more carefully.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "(with Simon getting the greater amount of time) with the show concluding with the two". Also look to cut down on redundant wording "the greater amount of" could be just "more".
 * Yes, that was already mentioned, but I don't know any solution.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Have any of the biographies been consulted beyond their GoogleBooks previews? There are so few book sources used, that the comprehensiveness appears doubtful.
 * Believe me or not, but there are no more books or sources which trump the current one.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is cdstarts.de reliable? Surely there are better sources than a German-language CD-reviewing website?
 * charts.de is mainated by Media Control Charts, which is the official music charts in Germany.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Devoting an entire paragraph to Holden's NYT review is excessive. "In a few places ... Simon's voice felt a little thin, even after mixing, but that was 'actually refreshing'." - scare quotes + reads very strange.
 * I disagree. If a reviewer wrote an excessive review, then why not include it here? What is the issue?-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What was the official name of the concert?
 * No official name, but it is usually labelled as "The Concert in Central Park".-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The two cquotes in Events look very distracting, IMHO.
 * Well it is your opinion. They do no harm.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this is primarily an album article, IMO you should remove the set-list and add a more-standard Track-listing section at the end. BTW what does " "Mrs. Robinson" (Simon & Garfunkel) " mean? That song was written by Simon alone.
 * I changed it to set list per GermanJoe. It indicates who were the first performers.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * More than half of the article is about the concert and its benefit for the park. So i see the article scope more as a broader topic consisting of all related aspects (concert, preservation, film, album, reunion). Maybe the scope is a bit broad, but it is a logical choice of closely connected aspects. It's not "primarily" an album article imho. WP:SCOPE, while no formal rule, has some good pointers for this question. GermanJoe (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Flow of info can be improved: why does it take four paragraphs after the rehearsals are first mentioned, before we find out that they took place in a Manhattan theater?
 * I moved it to the top of the paragraph.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "and could not play guitar for two hours" - unclear what exactly this means; so he could play for three hours?
 * Not sure what you mean...-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Does the "Recording" section header refer to the verb-form or the noun? Usually in album articles, it's the former, so I suggest "Release" instead.
 * I changed to recording.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Aftermath: the second paragraph is mostly irrelevant to the Central Park concert. It deals with minutiae from the subsequent world tour.
 * It is relevant and informative. It does not deal with minutes.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Stuff that's missing: impact of the concert and album? Who did it influence? How is it looked upon now, twenty years since the event? Maybe you can expand the bit about its role in reinvigorating the park by adding a few choice quotes from officials and commentators?
 * It is easy to say what is missing but it is very hard to find such information. Also I removed what you have now wrote and probably won't add it again.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these are not exhaustive of the problems in the article. I think it needs to be withdrawn, and re-examined closely.—indopug (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect your comments but I don't think it deserves an oppose. You mainly commented on nitpicks although you stated that it fails criteria 1. It was copyedited by Wehwalt and co and I can't believe how it still fails it. As long as you do not raise more comments I can not trust your oppose. Regards.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't hurt to get another opinion, I'm not perfect by any means. Certainly the specific concerns would be worth looking at.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC).


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