Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Kinks/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 SandyGeorgia 18:59, 12 December 2009.

The Kinks

 * Nominator(s): I.M.S., MadHatter

I am nominating this for featured article because I have substantially expanded the article over the past few weeks, slowly adding references and text. I have looked over the FA criteria, and it looks to me that this article meets them. I hope that whatever problems reviewers find here are small and fixable ones; please state your concern and I will attempt to address them as soon as possible. Many thanks for your time. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Primary contributor knows about nom, no dab links or dead external links, images all have good alt text, and date formats appear consistent. Moved my comments and related replies to this nom's talk page to save space—all are resolved. --an odd name 05:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alt text clearance moved to talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support (1, 2 and 4 - cites and images not checked). Great work&mdash;a comprehensive article and an engaging read. A couple of minor points picked up on the last read through:
 * "The album contained only seven full seconds, the remainder being instrumentals" - not sure what this means; is there a missing word?
 * "In early 1986, the group signed with MCA Records in the United States and London Records in the UK. Their first album for the new label, Think Visual," - that was two new labels by my reckoning. PL290 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support! That mistake with "seven seconds" was something I wasn't aware of - it must have been a mistake the copyeditor made. I'll fix these errors in a second... - I.M.S. (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Added an "s" to "label", and changed the sentence in the Percy section to: --- I.M.S. (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I'm part-way through my first pass of the article, and my first impression is that it looks good. I've made a couple of minor edits, and I'm starting some comments here.
 * The majority of the album consisted of instrumentals, and did not receive ...
 * "Before signing to the label, drummer Willet left the band" - needs recasting or possibly combining with an earlier sentence since it was the band, not Willet, that signed to the label.
 * "They also performed and toured relentlessly, headlining package tours with the likes of The Yardbirds and Mickey Finn, which caused tension within the band." - please clarify whether the tension was caused by the relentless touring or the company of those latter acts.
 * "Some legendary on-stage fights erupted during this time as well. The most notorious incident was at The Capitol Theatre" - suggest "legendary" is not really encyclopedic here, and "most notorious" needs a cite or needs to go.
 * "Solo work" section - I don't think this really belongs in the band article. It's only a few paragraphs anyway; suggest removal.
 * General - per wp:Mos, em dashes should not be spaced.
 * That's all for now... time permitting, I will continue to add comments as I read more. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe I've addressed all the issues... thank you for taking the time to review it! - I.M.S. (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead needs further work. See WP:LEAD for guidance. Consider its structure, and the role of each paragraph. Currently the last paragraph simply takes up the history again and drifts to something of an anticlimax. An effective and commonly used approach is to keep the history summary to the middle paragraph and devote the final paragraph to the material about awards and recognition. Also the lead seems unable to make its mind up whether the band is a thing of the present or the past. The infobox assures us they remain active, but although "The Kinks are an English rock group", we're told that "Their music spanned a wide range of genres" and "Ray and Dave Davies remained the two permanent members of The Kinks throughout it's run" (also watch the possessive there).
 * Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead is definitely taking shape. It still needs a bit more work! PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As an example, the two statements, "The Kinks continued throughout the 1970s and found little success" and "Due to a lack of success ... the group split in 1996" both need to acknowledge the wider context, i.e., the band was indeed successful in the 1960s. To make the point, "but found little further success" would make all the difference for the first one. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * The Kinks continued recording throughout the 1970s, creating theatrical concept albums, but found little further success. The band eventually experienced a revival...


 * And:
 * Due to the commercial failures of the band's past few albums as well as creative tension between the Davies brothers, The Kinks split in 1996.


 * What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think those would be much better. "Due to" can probably be bettered, to make it more of a description of events than an explanation. PL290 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it look alright now? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "In May 1967, The Kinks returned with "Waterloo Sunset", an emotional single with the melancholic observer spying two lovers meeting ..." - I could be wrong but it strikes me a single can't really be "emotional", or have a melancholic observer, per se; to become encyclopedic it may need spelling out more (perhaps "an emotional song written from the point of view of a melancholic observer ...")
 * Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Too hasty perhaps: "an emotional song with about an observer spying" doesn't quite make sense! PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How does this sound (I'll add it to the article if you like):

preceding unsigned comment is hereby signed by PL290 'bot': I.M.S. (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The tune describes two lovers passing over a bridge, with a melancholic observer reflecting on the couple, the Thames, and Waterloo Station.
 * A vast improvement! Except for tune. (The band would find it hard to convey such detailed information in a tune alone!) Song. PL290 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. Thanks for the suggestions! I appreciate it. I'll get to work on the choppy paragraphs in a bit. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "The song went on to become one of their most popular and best-known, with pop music

journalist Robert Christgau calling it ... " - rephrase to avoid Noun plus -ing
 * Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mix of UK, U.K., US and U.S. throughout - per WP:ABBR please use UK and US.
 * Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Golden age" section contains several two-line paragraphs which don't really make for engaging prose. Such "stubby" paragraphs often draw complaints from reviewers. Try to focus the essential material into decent-sized paragraphs crafted to hold the reader's attention.
 * Done. Combined - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still some remain (in that section and also elsewhere in the article). These short, choppy paragraphs interrupt the flow and should be rethought and combined. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I've rewritten/replaced/removed all of the inessential ones - I.M.S. (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1a: The article is still, in places, characterized by short paragraphs. It's not proseline, but please see that article anyway for the extreme case of what I'm talking about. Have a look too at a range of the current nominations at WP:FAC and see what effect you think paragraph size has on section readability. From a 1a point of view I feel things can still be improved if time is devoted to carefully combining paragraphs, crafting longer ones that capture and hold the reader's interest. The lower number of paragraphs per section that results also helps the reader to maintain a sense of progress and place within a section. PL290 (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it look alright now? - I.M.S. (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Having said which, the Village Green paragraph is too long and rambling. As this album was something of a breakthrough, dwelling on it to some extent is justified, but it needs to be shorter, more focussed and make the point of the breakthrough more immediately.
 * Done. Removed some clutter. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PL290 (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In the case of The Kinks, I would say that's the four founding members plus Dalton, though other positions are defensible.
 * Comments. My favorite British Invasion band. Needs a serious copyedit--does not meet 1a standard at this point. Queries on lead:
 * "In the remainder of the decade Ray Davies' writing skills slowly evolved". Did they suddenly stop evolving at the turn of the decade (i.e., before Lola and Muswell Hillbillies?) Are we sure that it's appropriate to characterize the evolution as "slow"?
 * "Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One, Muswell Hillbillies". If we're giving Lola's full title, than all the titles need to be separated by semicolons, else Part One is plausibly read as a stand-alone title.
 * "During the New Wave era, groups such as The Jam, The Knack, and The Pretenders covered Kinks songs and Britpop acts such as Blur, Oasis and Supergrass have cited them as a major influences". In the same sentence, we have one list with the serial comma and one list without. Please choose one style or the other and apply consistently throughout the article.
 * "The Kinks' influence has carried on until today". Not idiomatic.
 * "The Kinks are mentioned as one of the early bands that can be traced with a heavy metal sound". Improperly phrased and unclear. Do you mean to say that they have been identified as one of the earliest bands to play with a heavy metal sound (i.e., one of the first heavy metal bands), or that they are one of the seminal bands to which the later heavy metal sound can be traced (i.e., one of the most influential proto-metal bands).
 * "The Kinks were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame". The group has had many members; I'm sure not all were inducted. Please make clear who was.
 * "As self-professed Kinks fan Pete Townshend said for The History of Rock 'n' Roll: 'The Kinks were much more quintessentially English'". Awkward use of quote. Much more quintessentially English than whom? Than The Who? But the lead of an article on The Kinks is not the place to bring in The Who (or whomever). Suggest eliding "much more": "The Kinks were ... quintessentially English".


 * That's just the lead, which tends to be the most carefully composed element of most articles. The services of a copyeditor need to be retained for a thorough working-over of the whole piece. I would be happy to volunteer, but I'm devoting what time I have to Tender Mercies, further along in FAC. I'll return in a week to see what progress has been made. DocKino (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Working on it... will post back here when completed. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed these issues. Please tell me if I've missed any. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please strike these issues - I believe I've addressed them. Again, please tell me if I've missed any. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved "Comment to AnOddName" to my section above to keep shit together. :) --an odd name 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—Good start, but needs work to become the standard of FAs like The Beatles or Joy Division:
 * List out the studio albums in the discography section (see the two example articles for correct format).
 * Mad Hatter went ahead and did this. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove members' birth info, that can be found on their individual articles.
 * Will do. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of info is potentially more suitable for Ray Davies article. In particular, I'm thinking that big blockquote about his depression.
 * Will do. I've already removed the blockquote. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody should be doing a more thorough sources/references review soon, but I find many problems from just a cursory glance:
 * Sure Allmusic is a good, reliable site, but using its one page biography as a source >30 times is inappropriate. I'm sure there are many books on the group, they should be used more frequently to cite stuff.
 * Will find other RSs. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I've replaced a few of the Allmusic refs and added another book I have as a source. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't link to potentially copy-vio article reprints on fan-sites. (Kindakinks)
 * Will remove. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Removed and replaced. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is Kindakinks a reliable source? I highly doubt that it is actually, I suggest using Billboard or Allmusic for the chart info instead.
 * Will replace. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Refs replaced. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please copy-edit throughout for WP:MOS errors. Also, plenty of incomplete references.—indopug (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just now gone through the article and done my best to copyedit it. If you notice some specific problems, please tell me and I'll try my best to address them. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, these issues have been addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indopug, will you please strike these comments, as I have addressed them. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interim report: Serial comma crisis! In the lead section alone: Again, please choose one style or the other and apply throughout the article. DocKino (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Their music was influenced by a wide range of genres, including R&B, British Music hall, folk and country." No serial comma.
 * "The group's original lineup consisted of Ray Davies (lead vocals, rhythm guitar), Dave Davies (vocals, lead guitar), Pete Quaife (bass guitar), and Mick Avory (drums and percussion)." Serial comma.
 * "They were accompanied by a frequently changing roster of bassists, keyboardists and backup singers." No serial comma.
 * "Albums such as Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Muswell Hillbillies and their accompanying singles". No serial comma.
 * "groups such as The Jam, The Knack, and The Pretenders covered Kinks songs". Serial comma.


 * The lead says the band was formed in 1964. The infobox says they became active in 1963. May we have these items agree, please? DocKino (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These issues have been addressed. I've recently been expanding and rearranging the lead section - at the moment, it is a work in progress (please see the discussion above with PL290). The rest of the article should uniformly feature serial commas. If you see any instances of this not being true, please tell me and I will address them. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Something needs to be done about the lists of "Members"/"Former members" in the infobox. There are various ways of handling this that are appropriate; not among them is the current presentation, in which the listed "Members" are the group as it existed between 1979 and 1984. Kwite Kinky! We can debate the best way to handle this, or simply follow the standard arrangement for defunct bands, which is to list everyone as "Former members", in the order by which they first became members of the group. DocKino (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping with the lead, DocKino! The "Members"/"Former members" box is something left over from when the article stated that the group was "active 2008 - present". I'll go ahead and combine it under "former members", like you suggested. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Combined. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Head's up: While the nominator's efforts to copyedit the article are appreciated, it appears I did not make my initial point clearly enough. This article requires the dedicated attention of an experienced, independent copyeditor. There are 1a problems throughout, far too many to list. I provided an extensive list of problems in the lead as an example, and while a sincere and productive attempt was made to address them, I still had to follow up with relatively heavy copyediting just to bring that brief element up to standard.

I would dearly love to see a Featured Article on The Kinks, but I believe this article was brought here well before it was ready. The odds of it rising to FA standard during this initial candidacy strike me as slim, but if it is to have any chance at all, the services of a skillful copyeditor ready to devote considerable time to it should be retained now. DocKino (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where can I find one? By the time someone got around to a request at the Guild of Copyeditors it would be too late. I must admit, as thorough as I try to be, I am not the best when it comes to searching for one version of an character throughout a page several hundred times. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See here: Peer review/volunteers--copyeditors at the bottom. The article never went through a peer review, did it? I think it would really benefit from that process, as well. DocKino (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * O.K. I'll ask one to informally go through the article and copyedit it. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am taking care of this request. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All set. I spent five and a half hours copy editing this article. Didn't really intend to take that long, but hey, what's important is that it came out well. If there are any additional concerns please let me know. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I think we can safely say this article meets all FA criteria now. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone support or oppose this? - I.M.S. (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the lead was edited to include Andy Pyle. I happen to think that's not a great idea, but as that appears to be the consensus between nominator and lead copyeditor, that's fine. However, this has consequences. If we're going to mention Pyle, who played with the band for two years, then we have to mention drummer Bob Henrit, who played with the band for twelve. It also requires reworking the keyboardists' bit. It's hardly possible to argue that Pyle is more significant to the history of The Kinks than, say, John Gosling, who played with the band four times as long and whose tenure included a couple of their most significant albums. DocKino (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While illustration is vital to Wikipedia articles, it's simply not good style in an article on a band that existed for 32 years to include two photos from a single concert, especially when they each show only one full-time member of the band--the same member. One or the other of the Toronto 1977 images should be cut. DocKino (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added some new photos and re-arranged the old ones. In a bit I'll get around to the info on Pyle - I think I might just go ahead and delete him from the lead. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How would this look:


 * An interim period followed, and the group tried out several new bassists before settling on Jim Rodford in 1978.


 * -- I.M.S. (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) It's not clear how are you imagining the entire passage would read. Please show what you have in mind, so we can judge it.
 * (2) The primary text says nothing about "try[ing] out several new bassists". Beside Pyle, who else was tried out? Please add some detail on this to the primary text.
 * Actually, several bassist were tried out before Pyle - I'll have to check my books to remeber their names. I think I'll go ahead and remove Pyle altogether (see post below) - I.M.S. (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (3) "An interim period followed" is entirely unnecessary. DocKino (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with you about not including Pyle in the lead - but what should we do instead? Should I just put that he was replaced by Jim Rodford? - I.M.S. (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's my view. I had edited a version that did that a while back. Here's a somewhat terser version that elides Dalton's going-returning-going episode in 1977–78:


 * John Dalton played bass with the band for part of 1966 after Quaife was involved in an automobile accident and replaced him when Quaife departed for good in 1969. Dalton was a member of the group through the late 1970s; Jim Rodford was eventually chosen as his permanent replacement.


 * I'm wondering again about the keyboardists' bit. Just to toss something out, what's your reaction to the following?


 * They were accompanied by a frequently changing roster of keyboardists, most notably Nicky Hopkins (for studio sessions only), from 1964 to 1969, and John Gosling, from 1970 to 1978.


 * I'm not adamant about this by any means, I just have a sense that since Rodford is worthy of mention, so is Gosling (he does appear in three of the article's images, yes?)...and then it's hard to mention Gosling without mentioning the more famous Hopkins, who did appear on most of the band's best-known albums. Oh, but how many of them...?
 * Just noticed this: In the "Line-up" section, you have Hopkins doing sessions from 1964 through 1969, which would encompass everything from Kinda Kinks (if not before) through Arthur. In the "Commercial breakthrough" section, however, it says he "first played with the band during the...recording sessions for The Kink Kontroversy" (thus excluding Kinda Kinks) and "would continue to play on the band's next two studio albums [after Face to Face]" (thus excluding Arthur). Please check your sources and make sure this is absolutely tight. If the implied album credits are correct, the current dates in "Line-up" are still not necessarily wrong--it is possible he played with the band in 1964 and/or 1969 on non-album single tracks, BBC recordings, or unreleased sessions. This may take some work and possibly a footnote or two to clarify any apparent discrepancies. DocKino (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think those suggestions would work great. As to the info on Hopkins; I was not aware of these discrepancies as they were not put in by me. I will try to address them as soon as I can. I am, however very busy at the moment. - I.M.S. (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * O.K. - I think I have solid evidence now that Hopkins came in first for the Kontroversy sessions (Hinman p. 68). He might have even played with them at earlier sessions as well, because Hinman states that Ray Davies made his acquaintance a few years earlier in Soho. I'll attempt to sort things out - I.M.S. (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've got a soft spot for The Kinks, or at least for their early stuff, so I'd like to be able to support this, but there are still a few too many rough edges in the prose. For instance:


 * "Many of the songs featured on the record had already appeared on solo versions on Ray Davies' companion album".
 * Done - I.M.S. (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "... the band's output remained uneven and their already failing popularity eroded further". I'm not certain that popularity can "fail".
 * Done. Failing --> Falling. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "It was an immense success both critically and commercially, charting in the Top 40 in America". Gettinto the Top 40 is "immense"? Seems a bit overblown to me.
 * It was an immense success considering the complete failure of some of their past work... I will, however, remove it if you aren't comfortable with it - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "... the band received heavy publicity". They might have been heavily publicised, or heavily promoted ...
 * I'll clarify this - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you've already fixed this. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "The tour fell apart as the group struggled to find a hold in the American concert scene". What does "find a hold" mean?
 * Find gigs, promoters, money, even people coming to see them. Again, I'll clarify this - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very sorry about the delay - I've been extremely busy outside of Wikipedia lately. I beleive I've clarified the above question you raised - correct me if wrong. I'm working on the others. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "... entry into the album charts at number one hundred twenty-two". It's one hundred and twenty-two. There are several other similar errors as well. In general this way of presenting chart positions (instead of just writing 122) seems rather laborious.
 * There are multiple, acceptable ways of spelling this, and it seems the copyeditor chose one of them. I'll work on it if you don't think it is proper, however. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No British English speaker would say "one hundred twenty-two". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - I've got the number issues sorted out. Numbers under 10 are represented with words; numbers above use numerals. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also not happy about using the Encyclopædia Britannica as a source.
 * Really? Is it not considered a RS? I'll remove it. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One general encyclopedia can't really use another as a source, reliable or not. We should in general be relying on secondary sources, not tertiary ones like EB. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I.M.S. (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically I think someone needs to go through the whole thing once more before it's ready, tidying it up. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, since this FAC has been semi-successful, but it's time has nearly run out, I'll try my best to improve it as best as I can. If it fails, however, I'll keep improving and take it back here in a week or so. Update: I just checked and it seems you're vigorously ironing out some of the mistakes within the article. I appreciate it! - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've been busy behind the scenes. ;-) If you can deal with the issues I raised above then I'll probably be able to deal with the rest and then hopefully be able to support. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Malleus's work today has led to major improvements in the article. I.M.S., I know there haven't been many books written on The Kinks, but I see there is one that has not been referenced: The Kinks by Neville Marten and Jeff Hudson. Have you encountered it? It's not searchable on Google, but it is searchable on Amazon. If there's anywhere in the article where the sourcing, or the information itself, could use some beefing up, this could be a good resource. DocKino (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that almost none of the citations of online sources include the dates of online publication. If the page shows a date, our reference needs to give it. (I know Allmusic pages don't have dates, but most others do.) While you go through the sources checking for that, please make sure you haven't missed the names of any article authors. DocKino (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I look more closely, I'm finding lots of issues with the online citations. In "Potential reunion", a Ray Davies interview with the Independent is sourced to a summary Rolling Stone piece, when the far more informative Independent feature is readily available online. In "Split and solo work", the band's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is sourced to an article that (a) does not support the assertion that the induction happened in the "autumn" (improperly phrased, as well; we use months instead of seasons wherever possible) and (b) does not support the assertion that all four original members attended. (That online article is also dated; this is one of the many citations that fails to provide the date.) Hall of Fame inductions are very well covered events, and it should be possible to find much higher quality sources for the pertinent coverage. I'm beginning to sense that a thorough review of all the online citations is in order. DocKino (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to work on these issues, DocKino - as I said, I am very busy at the moment. Many of these problems with refs seem to be ones that were left over from before I began work on the article. I thought I'd caught all of them, but it seems that some were swallowed up in the massive table of refs. I'll try to look over all of the refs as soon as I can, as well as add publication dates where I can. As to the book: no, I have not encountered it, but I appreciate you telling me about it. As I don't own the physical copy I will definitely take a look at it through Amazon book search. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an note that I am in the process of updating all of the references. It is very tedious, and it might take a while before they are completed. I'll post back here upon completion. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. In the interest of full disclosure, I've probably done far more work on this article over the last day or so than is proper for an independent reviewer. Nevertheless, I believe that it now meets the FA criteria, although it's quite possible that I'm swayed too much by my fond memories of the first time I heard "You really got me", about the only song of theirs I thought was worth more than spit. Thinking back though, I'm reminded of a fashion in jackets introduced by The Kinks, a sort of high-collared red hunting jacket (which I very nearly bought until a good friend talked me out of it). In their early stage performances every member of the band wore them, as you can barely see in this rather poor image. It might be an idea to include something on that if a reliable source can be found. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment While, thanks to Malleus and I.M.S., a lot of progress has been made in the past 2 weeks, I'm not sure it's quite there yet. In addition to the sourcing/referencing concerns I raised above, there are still some important gaps in the article's coverage. Here's a major one:
 * The "History" section entirely fails to mention The Kinks' debut album. DocKino (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll work on adding it. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the online sourcing problems appear to be endemic. I just went to the cited source in order to clear up this confusing passage: "One single, 'Only a Dream', narrowly failed to reach the UK chart, climbing to number 79." The cited source (Allmusic, "The Kinks: Charts & Awards") gives absolutely no UK chart information. I observe numerous other passages in the article describing UK chart positions that are baselessly cited to this same source. I don't believe we can feel confident about passing this article for FA until we know that nominator has vetted every single online citation--counting multiples, I estimate there are 155 such citations. I understand the process is laborious, but it's truly fundamental to the FA standard, and to our verifiability policy in general. This may require downtime and a second nomination. DocKino (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the original chart info was covered by one ref, but I was advised to replace it with an Allmusic one - it now only covers UK charts. I just discovered this as well - do you know of a reliable source with chart info? My books do not offer complete coverage for chart positions. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Would this be considered an RS? - I.M.S. (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another example of why this article would benefit from some downtime and a pass through peer review or GA vetting or both: In the second paragraph of "Commercial breakthrough", we learn about "the on-stage fight between drummer Mick Avory and Dave Davies...on 19 May 1965". In the third paragraph, we learn about "their first tour of Australia and New Zealand in January 1965". That's poor, confusing chronology. The article needs some careful, thoughtful restructuring that goes beyond the copyedit level, yes? DocKino (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Source comments What makes these reliable?
 * http://www.drumsoloartist.com/Site/Drummers/Mick_Avory.html
 * http://www.retrosellers.com/features69.htm
 * http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Mick_Avory.html
 * http://www.kindakinks.net/discography/showsong.php?song=50; http://www.kindakinks.net/discography/showsong.php?song=393
 * I used that lyric link to source the lyrics of the song. Is there ever a reliable source for lyrics? Are all of those other lyric websites considered RSs, such as metrolyrics.com? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ZW2YsxrIU&feature=related needs to be removed/replaced.
 * The youtube link was determined to be reliable earlier in the FAC, as it was published and uploaded by the Dave Davies sanctioned/owned Detune.tv - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The ref list needs a complete overhaul. I suggest you start with the following advice and I'll have another look in due time: RB88 (T) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Make sure every ref has a publisher.
 * Print media needs to be in italics and non-print media needs the italics removed, as appropriate.
 * Ensure all references of the same kind are uniform, i.e. books, web etc, and follow the same order of contents, e.g. name, title, publisher etc.
 * Many thanks for the suggestions! - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The prose needs a clean-up.
 * I wonder why this FAC page is so long. It suggests the nomination was premature. I've piped in the first sentence to avoid a repetition of Davies. In fact, there are so many of the two around, why not "The Davies brothers were ..." instead of "Ray and Dave Davies were the only members", on Line ~7?
 * I relocated the "hidden" year in music link to "See also", where it's much more likely to be clicked on.
 * "stayed in the ... existence" nicer as "were in the ... history"?
 * Remove "in the band" and "with the band" and "with the group"—it's quite clear what you're referring to.
 * "different" is redundant.
 * "during their career"—refers to the band, not individuals. Does a band have a "career"? There, "its history", or some other word? Can't think of one right now, but you probably can.

I gave up and did it myself at the top. Rather a lot of copy-editing required throughout to bring this up to the required professional standard, given the FAC reviewing resources that have been sucked in already.
 * I don't see that the efforts that have been put into this article have been "wasted" of "sucked in". If it has improved the article and made it a more informational, educational, and enjoyable read for everyone, why, then, has this FAC been put to waste? I see no reason why this article has to have a star in the top of the page, although I would certainly like it to be. I think this article in its current state is a vast improvement on what it was a month ago. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Amongst ... among
 * Boost their record sales: whose?
 * 1996: another "hidden" link, better in the see also section. There are high-value link in the vicinity, so why dilute with what will appear to readers to be a lame year-link?
 * "honors"—why US spelling. Please see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style. Tony   (talk)  14:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Five NFC sound files is getting too many for WP:NFCC 3a, and Cr. 8 is not satisfied by some of them, including Come Dancing. Please reduce, probably to three. Tony   (talk)  14:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that there are four sound files on the page. Apparently "Come Dancing" was added yesterday, and I am not sure if I support that decision entirely. I do see reason to illusrate that particular point in the bands career. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is crass to characterize the efforts attracted by the article as the "sucking in" of "resources", unless (a) we wish to ignore the significant improvement that has occurred and (b) Tony has somehow read our minds and knows that we would have been spending the same moments we spent reviewing this article instead reviewing some other article. I feel violated, Tony. Please inform me the next time you are reading my mind. Thank you. (N.B. If copyeditors spent less time mind-reading, perhaps their copyedits would be less likely to introduce a grammatical error and two typographical errors in the space of one paragraph.) If the nomination was precipitate, it was also clearly sincere and the nominator has facilitated an enjoyable, productive working environment.
 * The use of four, or five, or perhaps even six audio clips to inform the reader about a band that released original material over a 32-year span is necessary, proper, and well within the bounds of NFCC 3a. I would oppose any elimination of song samples based on the specious argument that the criterion is violated because some ad hoc numerical limit, unfounded in policy, has been traduced. That said, the rationales for the clips could use some improvement--see, for some good examples, the rationales for the samples in the article on The Beatles. DocKino (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - image concerns and prose. I am not convinced of given provenance of the two 1970 photographs. It seem to me that they were taken at the same time as the one used on the Lola album cover here. Also two of the source statements say "Picassa Creative Commons" but I cannot find the license but I am not convinced that "Picasaweb Creative Commons user Geof" is entitled to release them, i.e. he apparently found them somewhere.. Same goes for the photograph of Dalton, Gosling and Avory. My prose concerns are essentially the same as Tony's above (we had an two edit conflicts). Graham Colm Talk 14:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've gathered about the "Geoff" fellow (I believe his last name is Lewis, from the URL of his photo album), he has been a friend and photographer of the group for quite a while. If he took the photos for the "Lola" session, I see no reason why he isn't entitled to release an unused one under a free license. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If he is the original photographer, and this can be proved, then there isn't a problem. But the current provenances are not acceptable for images in a featured article. Graham Colm  Talk 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to contact him and see if he is the actual creator of the image? Can the OTRS system handle that? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, sorry. Is the photographer credited on the original Lola album cover? Graham Colm Talk 18:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


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