Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elvis Presley/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

Elvis Presley

 *  Top six editors blocked or no longer active. Notified WP Rock music, ‎WP Las Vegas, ‎ WP Mississippi, ‎ WP American music,‎ WP Tennessee, WP Pop music, ‎ WP Elvis Presley, ‎ WP Musicians 

Review section
This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (partial, limited) image review There are no obvious issues with the images currently in the article, but about half of them are claimed as PD-US under "pre-1963/1977, no copyright renewal". Given the previous image review was performed by one of the socks, the absence of a renewal cannot be presumed accurate and should be audited by someone qualified (which is not me, sorry).The one that potentially raises some red flags for me is File:Girls Girls Girls Poster B.jpg. The upload is in sufficiently low resolution to preclude reading the (1960) copyright notice that is present on the original, almost as if it was intended to pass a fair use check (that it wouldn't need if it was really PD), but the given source for the image has a much higher resolution version available here (where the copyright notice is legible, including the names of the physical persons holding the copyright). The image was also uploaded by one of the socks.Again, I didn't find any obvious problems, but once good faith can no longer be presumed, there're enough red flags to suggest thorough checking. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * General comment: This is one I'm not concerned about. It has a lot of (independent) eyes on it, disputes are readily discussed on the Talk page, and there is ongoing effort to keep the sourcing of high quality and stop the never-ending scope creep and trivia creep. Over time some undesirable passages have snuck in but DCGeist actually undertook a cleanup effort in early January. Despite the socking issues, he did a fine job. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, so that means you think it still meets or nearly meets FA criteria? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to dig a bit more before I make a declaration. Between the socking and Xover's evidence that there may have been deliberate copyios, I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with assuming good faith about anything this guy did. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I read through this article a while back; I wasn't in "reviewer mode" but I certainly didn't think "who on earth thinks this is an FA", so I can't imagine there's that much wrong with it. Your best bet is to ping 7&6=thirteen as he's good at fixing Elvis-related articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, I did not promote this article, but I did archive it once, so have asked at WT:FAR whether people think I should recuse from review. As with all of DCGeist's articles, the WP:SIZE issue is a concern for me, and I never saw any reason he was excused from a perfectly doable compliance with WP:SIZE.  This article is HUGE, and unnecessarily so.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to recuse. I recall you voicing your size concerns and they are still present. Every time someone finds an eggplant that looks like Elvis they want to add a paragraph to the article. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Laser brain on this comment and the others. The article gets a lot of careful attention from reliable editors, so I think it merits its FA status, but it errs on the side of inclusion (though the "eggplant Elvis" crowd would beg to differ). Contributors tend to be fans, and they sometimes lose sight of the appropriate scope of an encyclopedic biographical article. I would vote that it be edited for length, but not demoted. Pstoller (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have concerns with the comprehensiveness criteria (1b) of WP:Featured article criteria: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. From a glance, this article doesn't even mention many of his film roles within article prose after Wild Country, which is a glaring omission when he starred tons of movies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article includes a complete filmography plus a link to a second article, Elvis Presley on film and television. Even that much is arguably redundant. It is neither necessary nor productive for a biographical article to discuss details of every film in which a primarily musical artist appeared, especially when those films are formulaic and held in low critical esteem. One may as well ask why every song Presley recorded is not discussed. The answer is, it's not necessary in order to say the article "neglects no major facts or details." Pstoller (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we have to go into all of the production bits or casting process, but the films at the very least should be mentioned by name, especially when their soundtracks spawned hits for him. As for music, I'd say the same with album titles. Snuggums (talk / edits</b>) 04:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I repeat: All the films are mentioned by name at the bottom of the article in a complete filmography. This is in addition to a link to a separate article devoted entirely to Presley's films and TV appearances that also lists all the film titles. There are likewise separate articles for Presley's complete singles discography, complete album discography, hit albums only with chart information, and all songs recorded by Presley, in addition to the partial single and album discographies in the present article. The reason there are separate articles is that, without them, this article would be too long. Thus, adding that information back into this article would be counterproductive. Pstoller (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply mentioning them in a filmography section isn't enough if they're not cited anywhere in the page. It otherwise looks like one is using WP:CIRCULAR referencing by trying to use another Wikipedia page as a source. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First, the other Wikipedia page is not employed as a source: it's a separate article devoted to detail on a subsidiary subject, just as the discographies are. External sources provide the information in both articles. So, it is not at all WP:CIRCULAR, nor does it look like it. Second, if listing all the film titles within the article is not sufficient, then what would be? Again, these films are widely regarded—critically, popularly, and historically—as being without significant individual merit, either as cinema or as examples of Presley's artistry. The article text thus deals with them categorically. That is the the appropriate framework. Otherwise, an already overlong article would become considerably longer still by expanding on the creative nadir of Presley's career. An article, even a feature article, cannot go into detail on every aspect of its subject's work or life, but at best provides a comprehensive overview. To gain a decent understanding of Presley's cultural significance or personal character, it is entirely unnecessary to call out Kid Galahad, Harum Scarum, or Change of Habit. In fact, to manage this article (which, without counting filmography, selected discographies, or notes, is already pushing 100kB) per WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:CONTENTFORKING, I would recommend deleting the included filmography, as it's entirely redundant with the linked filmography article. Each of those films in turn has its own article, just as all the albums issued during his lifetime and over half the songs contained therein do. All that information and more may belong on Wikipedia—but not in this article. Pstoller (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Moving to get a better sense of current status for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one fascinated that this has been open for nearly three months and I'm just the first to comment?  danny music editor  oops 16:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is very little interest in the FAR process any more. If the original nominator isn't around for whatever reason, these usually drag out for a few months and then end up being delisted. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever, then. The only opinion I have is that it's mighty long and some of the article should definitely be pruned.  danny music editor  oops 00:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , that's long been a concern for this article and it's come up a lot. There are lots of sub-articles we could move content into if you have any specific suggestions. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delist. Tagged for attribution since March 2018. DrKay (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed those tags, as the quotations are included in the cited source pages. I'm not sure what was requested there, but I think it's standard practice that if a quotation is given without "Roger said..." that it's from the cited source. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (second) Media review. One fair use image replaced. One image deleted. No obvious problems found with the other files. DrKay (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Source review and spotcheck of about half-a-dozen footnotes (just over 1% of the total) found no problems. At 18,000 words, it is on the long side, but prose is fine. DrKay (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears solid.  WP:LENGTH is a concern but it is difficult to see where the article treats any issue with verbosity or provides coverage of any niche issues.  Seems like there is just a lot to discuss, but it grips the reader well.  I checked a handful of facts and a couple of references.  There are 7 unused sources, most of which have become unused since c. 2015.  But it looks like some passages have been spun off from the main article; eg the discography was moved to a stand-alone list.   AGK  &#9632;   10:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.