Jump to content

Talk:Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title

Glad to see this article cruising to a "keep" at the AfD. May I suggest that something like "Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix" seems to be more in line with our usual naming conventions? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if kept I'll definitely re-name it to the exact title you mentioned above. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree about name. Nice article about a little-known incident. Rothorpe (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedits, Rothorpe! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Source

Here's another good source I found about it that is not used in the article that I can see.[1] Doc talk 05:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And that links to another source. So, the Rolling Stone ran at leat three articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Nice find, Doc! I won't be editing the article any further until after the AfD is closed, since I don't want any more of my efforts to be deleted. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I added the source, Doc9871, thanks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Additional contemporary news reports, while admittedly not going into any great detail, are out there. Like this bit from The Milwaukee Journal[2] that could be used, along with this, this, and this (where in the latter they tersely mention the arrest six paragraphs into the announcement of his death, and again as the last sentence). Doc talk 21:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, on the preliminary hearing: when looking to add contemporary newspaper sources I found this. I wanted to use it because of the "full of teen-agers" in the courtroom bit; but then I noticed that the article may not have him at the first preliminary hearing (which occurred Monday, May 5, 1969, according to this news item). It's certainly possible, as lawyers often appear for clients in routine matters. Doc talk 06:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
No, Hendrix was at the May 5 hearing. I have other sources for the courtroom full of fans. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

GA

Do you think it's a wise manoeuvre to put this up for GA just after a "no consensus" close at AfD? I had a quick look and it does superficially seem to meet the basic criteria and be worth a pass, but the timing appears to be, well, not particularly coincidental. Wouldn't it be worth waiting a month or so before putting it up? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? By a 2 to 1 margin the article was not deleted. It should have been kept, but as usual the closer took the easy way out. Can you cite a policy or guideline that suggests articles recently out of AfD should not be nomed at GAN? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
If an article qualifies then the timing of any other previous actions are irrelevant, and it seems to more than qualify to me so go for it. Centpacrr (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
(ec) There's no reason at all - I contemplated doing the same for University of Michigan Men's Glee Club but never got round to getting it beyond B class. It's more just a hunch that people not satisfied with the AfD's outcome will start to pick at bits of the album and affect it's stability. Still, if you still want a GA, I'll see if I have time to look through it in more depth tomorrow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ritchie! I don't think there are any issues with stability; nobody has contented any of the material. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give this a go. I've just read the whole article top to bottom and it's a great piece of writing that puts a whole slant on Hendrix's life that I never really appreciated before. One quick thing I want to comment on is I think the image captions need adjusting to put some more context into the bust and its trial. How is a 1973 picture of Toronto airport specifically relevant to the article? A few terms could use more explanation; we know who Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell are, but not everyone will, for example.

I'll go through the article in finer detail tomorrow and make specific in-depth comments. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've clarified who Redding and Mitchell are, and I've added some detail to the image captions. Hope this resolves your concern. Thanks again for taking on the GAN! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, specific comments (please note I edit-conflicted, so some of the image caption stuff might now be irrelevant)

Lead

  • The infobox picture could do with a little more context as to how specifically it relates to the article ie: "Hendrix's booking photo at the time of his arrest in Toronto, 3 May 1969"
  • From a usability point of view, having the wikilink to Hendrix in the title instead of the first use half a sentence later means it doesn't stand out on my browser. I can't think of another article that links to a sub-term in its actual title text.
  • Might it be worth dropping in a bit about the charges and trial's notability. The mentions of a possible cover up that's detailed in the body, and its general lack of coverage compared to, say, the Stones' Redland bust in 1967, would be worth dropping into the lead.

Background

Arrest, performance, and arraignment

Preliminary hearing

Second Toronto arrest

Trial

Initial suppression of media coverage

Conspiracy theory

  • The section title is POV (if you'd asked the police and authorities at the time they'd have outright denied it). How about "Reaction" or "Public response" instead?
    • I'm not sure about this one; neither "Reaction" or "Public response" is accurate to the section, IMO. I think that theory makes it clear that its not a proven fact, but I'm open to suggestions. The section is about a possible conspiracy to make rock stars look bad, so it seems appropriate to me. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Was Wayne Kramer talking specifically about Hendrix's arrest or drug busts in general?
  • "and soon afterward Eric Clapton and Stephen Stills were also" - how about "were too" instead?

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This is a very good article and an interesting insight into a part of Hendrix's life that I was previously unaware of, and which neatly ties into the general culture and reaction to rock stars in the 1960s. All the issues here are relatively minor things, so I'm putting the review On hold pending fixes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent review, Ritchie! I think I've now addressed all of your concerns, but if I missed anything please let me know. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Just the UPI abbreviation, which I've done myself, so it's a pass. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ritchie! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to GabeMc and the rest of the authorship group of this article for taking it from creation to Good Article status in less than two weeks despite the efforts of a small group of deletionists who expended "undue" amounts of effort to try to get it purged and deny access to the information it contains to both the Wikipedia community and the many readers who will visit it to learn about this seminal incident in Mr. Hendrix's life. It was a difficult parallel struggle, but in this case "substance" was thankfully able to trump the misapplication of process in this case and not the other way around. This is not the way these kerfuffles always work out on WP so it is especially nice when they do and the Project is allowed to be able to be expanded and improved. Let's just hope that one of those who still find the subject of this article to be "insignificant" and/or not "not notable" don't now try to get it "reassessed" and the GA designation revoked. That would really be just too petty and disingenuous an act to consider doing but you can never tell I suppose. Centpacrr (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Centpacrr! I had hoped for a keep closure, but alas that would have been controversial I suppose. Still, without your sensible comments at AfD I'm not sure we would have an article to speak of now. So, I really should be thanking you! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I had thought that based on the totality of comments and huge number of supporters a clear keep would have been the correct closure as well but c'est la vie. I think that the current excellent state of the article (including the GA designation), however, pretty much inoculates it from any further such gratuitous attack. If my comments in the AfD helped in some small way to give you and the other contributors to the article the time to build it then it was well worth my time and effort to me. I just wish that the deletionists out there would take a more constructive view of what it takes to develop an online, community built encyclopedia.
  • Unless an article is clearly false, intentionally deceptive, self serving, vandalism, or objectively not created in good faith, my view is that the standard for deletion must be very high and the presumption always fall in favor of retention. This is not the first one of these battles I have fought and I don't expect it will be the last. Unfortunately these extended obdurate "discussions" (this one alone was over 22,000 words long) also are one of the main things that drives good and productive contributors to leave the project. (I have come close to that myself on several occasions.) Anyway I hope this one is over and I can go on to more productive use of my limited time to contribute to the main space as opposed to tilting Don Quixote like at windmills in deletion discussions. Centpacrr (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, congratz! You did a great job with it. It's funny how these things work out sometimes! I suppose a GAR where it is delisted would now be needed before another AfD ;) The image that started it all will probably get sniped at again somewhere down the line; but it's got a much better home now. Cheers :) Doc talk 00:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc, but FTR Cullen328 helped quite a bit. They made numerous additions that really brought this interesting story alive, and they presented research that inspired me to develop the bones of the article. Cullen deserves much of the credit for this. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Heh - I should have said "y'all". Gratz as well to Cullen! Doc talk 01:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
GabeMc, Doc and Cullen, this is exactly how in my view the Project is meant to be built: by one or more contributors who become interested in a particular topic for whatever reason (and in this case almost completely serendipitously), and then start and develop an article, or add to an existing one. Unfortunately as in this case sometimes those positive efforts are countered by a small but determined cadre of deletionists who seem to feel that their mission in life is not to build the Project, but instead to find ways to wikilawyer policy, guidelines, or just make stuff up to justify deleting such contributions in the name of policing the project for encylopedic purity or other speciously self-invented reasons. The original target of this particular campaign three years ago was the Toronto police booking photograph ("mugshot") of Mr. Hendrix which, as the only contemporaneous image in any way associated with his arrest, is now perfectly suited and appropriate for its current use as this article's infobox photo which should (hopefully) render it no longer the subject to yet another (sixth) attack. Fortunately in this case it has worked out for the best for the Project and its readers as the photograph is still available and in place appropriately illustrating a well written, reliably sourced, and highly informative article. Centpacrr (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind remarks, GabeMc and Centpacrr. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It's been an interesting ride so far. Would there be an objection to me adding a This user helped promote the article Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix to Good Article status. to my user page? While I didn't actually help promote it, per se, I did have a slight hand in its creation... ;> Doc talk 03:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I say go for it. This has been as much a battle to keep content as a writing project, and you were there on the barricades all the way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen. Doc, you were as much a catalyst for this project as any of us; I'm glad that you want to share the credit, or blame depending on who you ask! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
At the barricades of freedom! Cheers to all, once again! I will always be impressed with how this evolved and worked out - for the best. Doc talk 05:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Nice to be away over a week and come back to this. Bravo! Jusdafax 02:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
While I have never personally contributed anything to either this or the main Hendrix articles themselves (my interest instead is in preventing good images and articles from being gratuitously deleted from the Wikipedia Project), I concur with the above sentiments. Centpacrr (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations to GabeMc, Cullen328 and the other major contributors to this article for its achieving Feature Article status. Let us also hope that this will forever dissuade those who thought it constituted a subject so tangential and insignificant to Mr. Hendrix's life and campaigned to have it purged from Wikipedia that neither they or anybody else will ever dain to nominate it for deletion again. Centpacrr (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Cudos

This an outstanding effort of both research and writing! Hats off! Learner001 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks everyone for this great article! ZuluTheGreat (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_drug_charges_and_trial_of_Jimi_Hendrix/Archive_1&oldid=1086312492"