Talk:Sea shanty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Featured Article candidacy

High fives all around! Now, what needs to be done to really make this article sparkle? I've added a couple of relevant quotations at the top of the page. Nightsky 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Anonymous editor 67.170.224.208 has changed the spellings in the article from "shanty" and "shantyman" to "chanty" and "chantyman" twice now. The information that I have is that "shanty" and especially "shantyman" are the preferred spellings. See. eg:
Doerflinger, Shantymen and Shantyboys,
Hugill, Shanties from the Seven Seas,
Hugill, Shanties and Sailors' Songs, etc.
Similarly, an unscientific Google search gives about 500 hits for "chantyman" vs about 200,000 for "shantyman." The S spelling is the more common spelling. Therefore, I am reverting this back to the "S" spellings. If 67.170.224.208 has other information, he/she should post it here before changing this page again and perhaps we all can some to some kind of agreement first. Crypticfirefly 17:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree. All the sources I have prefer "shanty", and "chantey" is listed as an alternate spelling in the first line of the article, so there can't be much confusion. Let's keep the spelling as it is. Nightsky 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

mistake?

"Blow the Man Down" is listed as an example under "long-haul" and "short-drag." It can't be both, can it? Foxmulder 15:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And if it can, some explanation of how would be nice. Foxmulder 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The explanation is that these are folk songs, and who is to say that "Blow the Man Down" was not used as a "short-drag" shanty by someone, somewhere. Any given shanty might be adjusted in tempo and even tune to fit a given task. That said, "Blow the Man Down" is normally categorized as a "long-haul" shanty, and it has one of the usual characteristics of a long-haul shanty: it tells a story over multiple verses. I've made the change, if someone disagrees perhaps we can discuss it. Crypticfirefly 01:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dana Citiation

I've removed the first Dana example as it references sailors "singing out" at their lines. Though the wording here does not make it quite clear, to sing out on shipboard is to call out on land. E.g., "sing out when that halyard's fast". Czrisher 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sea shanty singer's connection with 'The Simpsons'

Hi

I have recently developed an interest in sea shanties and I am wondering you could help me answer a question. Does anyone know the connection between a noted sea shanty singer and sailing captain and the title of an episode of 'The Simpsons'?

Thanks very much, Ghfj007 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tune to "Boney"

Anyone know it? I haven't been able to find recordings of the song anywhere. I've just been singing it to the tune of South Australia. Wobblies 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't sing it to "South Australia." (That's the folk tradition, right?) But if you want to hear it another way there is a recording of the song as sung by Alan Mills from his 1957 album "Songs of the Sea" available from Smithsonian Global Sound. It is pretty close to the ways I've heard it sung before. The Smithsonian page has a long enough free sample that you can get the general idea of the tune. Crypticfirefly 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As children we sang - well scuse me, but in jig time and in C

G F# G A G E C

G - A - F

F E D C B D G

G - G - E

Another side with allot of shanty lyrics

http://www.jsward.com/shanty/

Just though I should mention it incase any of you wanted to know..

Luredreier 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Town the oldest?

In a Renaissance Faire a cappella context, I came across the notion that the call & response "Plymouth Town" (there dwelt a maid) is the oldest recorded shanty, at least in English. As time allows, I'll see if I can chase down some cites, or someone else could get there first... Just plain Bill 13:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Are you refering to the song that also has the words "In Amsterdam their lived a maid, mark well what I do say!/In Amsterdam there lived a maid, and she was mistress of her trade./I'll go no more a rovin' with you fair maid . . ." Hugill gives the title of the song as "A Rovin'." In Shanties of the Seven Seas, he writes that the earliest book in English with the lyrics to shanties is Complaint of Scotland published in 1549, which gives several hauling songs. There is no music, however. As for "A Rovin'" he notes that some people claim that the words were taken from a song in the 1640 play The Rape of Lucrece, but he is not convinced of this having compared them. He also reports that "some say the tune [itself] is Elizabethan." In all, he cites three shanties commonly held to be 16th century: "Haul the Bowline," "A Rovin'," and "Whiskey Johnny." He says that there is little or no evidence for "Haul the Bowline" (though he says it was a more important line at that time than it was later), that there is not enough evidence for "Whiskey Johnny," and that "A Rovin'" may be of that era but as a land-based folk song only rather than a shanty. Crypticfirefly 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Men may leave all gramys That seylen for St Jamys"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.91.37 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Revisions, Fall 2011

Hi all, I am in the process of making some significant revisions and additions to this article. Hopefully we can get it so those "warnings" at the top of the page go away. Also, I am trying to give it a more historical tone, rather than the tone of "this is how 21st century lay people connect with the idea of shanties" which I think has been dominant previously. Will supply historical references that are older and/or more primary than the edited collections by song enthusiasts. Would also like to link examples that give more representation to people working within the tradition being described. I welcome help in getting the references all in the right places and the formatting and linking done right, as I am new to Wiki editing. DrBaldhead (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Recombining some sections

Considering recombining some subtopics to be more concise. "Further Reading" is going to basically be a duplicate of the "References" (?), so considering eliminating that section. The only sources it lists that are not/will not be in the references are some very relatively recent books that don't, IMO, add anything new (they are derivative of older sources). The "Samples" (video/audio) section would be less confusing/redundant and more eloquent if those samples were combined into the "Categories"/"Types" section, i.e. as illustration of the types. Is there any benefit in having the "Roll the Old Chariot" as OGG rather than as a link to the Library of Congress mp3? The latter would make things look more consistent. The "Literary reference" section will appear redundant after all the literature quoted to convey the "history and development." Is there any particular type of "literature" that merits its own section? Is it fiction? (most references are in non-fiction). If so, what time period is in mind? Perhaps I'll try covering the non-fiction as part of the history, and the later fiction (eg Stevenson) under "Popular Culture."DrBaldhead (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Whaling song

How do whaling songs fit into this schema, more info required. - FrancisTyers · 09:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Whaling songs" usually refers to off-duty (non-shanty) songs, but which happen to be about whaling. So far as can be determined, sailors on whaling ships used the same shanties for work as did merchant sailors. There are a few special tasks on whaling ships, but it has not been documented that any specific shanties were assigned to them. There are a couple big collections of whaling songs (Huntington, Frank), and between the 2 of them, hardly a shanty is mentioned. DrBaldhead (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs work

The subject is an important one, but there are fundamental problems with it. To name just a few:

• It is almost entirely unsourced. This is the biggest problem.
• There is no historical perspective on the development of shanties.
• There is little discussion of shanties' portrayal of sailor's life at sea (outside of references to specific tasks) or ashore, or how shanties reflect historical events.
• There is little discussion of important categories and subgenres like whaling songs or river or lake shanties.
• The considerable bibliography on sea shanties needs to be more comprehensive.
• The listing of an apparently random selection of recorded shanties which happen to be available on the internet seems of limited value.
• There should be at least a brief consideration of non-English language shanties.

Strawberryjampot (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with all of the above. Unfortunately it is a big job to fix this. I will try to see if I can find some sources to begin to add as citations to the existing text when I can grab some time. What cannot be adequately sourced may simply have to be removed.--SabreBD (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. A place to start might be with the introduction and notes to the various books in the Further Reading. Also, some standard CD anthologies of sea shanties have informative liner notes. I'm not sure if there's a Wikipedia policy about using CD notes as sources, but people like Ewan MacColl and A. L. Lloyd were folklorists as well as performers, and the notes they wrote for their albums can reasonably be considered expert sources. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have done extensive research on shanties; I've reviewed as many or more sources as anyone out there, constituting a very thorough and critical historical survey. My current bibliography on shanties is 1000 pages long; name a historical source and I will know it. Unfortunately, it has not been published because I have many other more pressing projects. In any case, this needs much work, and I hope to be able to add something as I get time. My fear is that things will get quickly deleted when they don't conform to the present "common knowledge" stuff -- full of misconceptions about this genre. I'm leaving this note as a plea that I been considered as a reputable, knowledgeable contributor, and that edits I might make, while subject to the usual community review and standards of Wikipedia, are not whimsical additions/deletions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBaldhead (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User DrBaldhead, if you are who I think you are, I look forward to your additions to the article. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to say thanks to DrBaldhead for the article improvements so far. As long as we are getting reliably sourced content instead of the unsourced content I am happy. There may be a need for some "wikification" of this article when the current editing is done. It may be a good idea to place a {{Under construction}} template here until the changes are done.--SabreBD (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SabreBD. If you or anyone else sees something that is crying out for a source, feel free to let me know. I have sources for everything, it just sometimes takes a while to find them! One of the issues with this topic is that 1) Very little new info has been published since the 1960s, when Stan Hugill's book seems to have put the final "seal" on everything (history-related, that is) up to that point. Hugill was a charismatic performer with a great pedigree, too, as a sailor/singer. So most of what he wrote has been taken at face value since then. However, Hugill was not a trained historian, and what he presents is a lot of rehashing from books (also by non-historians) written for popular audience. Trying to strike a balance here between the documented history (lots of which was unavailable to 20th century writers -- who didn't have the help of the Internet!) and people's recent concepts, which are equally valid but should be contextualized in their own time period. I agree that "wikification" is much needed.DrBaldhead (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

List of performers: Relevance and Notability

My opinion of the list of performers, while there is definitely room for flexibility, is that they should be performers of shanties and sea songs as their primary focus. Lots of sailor songs have been popularized as "folk songs" and here and there sung by folk music performers and (usually derivative of the folk singers) and pop performers. But that would mean an enormous number of people who have no primary identity as "Performers of Sea Music" -- and the list we could make of performers who do have that identity would be huge enough. Peter Bellamy is an example. He did make up some sea-related songs and recorded a few shanties. But he was performing "English folk music" as his genre, and most of the English/Irish folk musicians had adopted a few shanties and sang them in their folk clubs. The Clancy Brothers probably sang more, for instance. A.L. Lloyd and Ewan MacColl were also broadly "folk" performers, though what they performed in the way of shanties was much more substantial than someone like Bellamy or Cyril Tawny (who had some navy songs he wrote). General folk music performers like The Almanac Singers, Burl Ives, and Paul Clayton recorded entire albums of sea music; why don't we associate them with the genre? Seems like a bias thing -- maybe undue weight on people who are making up new maritime music and adapting material, and not enough of people doing stuff that is squarely located in the "center" of the subject.

If necessary to include these people, maybe distinguish a separate category of "folk and pop music performers who have included several chanties in their repertoire," or something. Another possible way to do it is to divide by country, though I wouldn't prefer that.

There is a bias towards North American performers right now. I don't think any of the many UK groups are represented (I will work on that, instead of just complaining!). Even for North America, needs more folks who do the stuff that the article is mainly talking about. Would be good to have more European "choirs", too. But now how does that fit into "notability"? If they don't have a Wiki page, can we call them notable? Yes, I think we can, by providing a reference/link even if they don't have the commercial success/clout to get their own article :-)

I guess why I'm posting this is because: 1) After more performers have been added to balance the bias, there will be quite a lot of names, and some of the more "marginally" relevant ones will go. I understand that's somewhat subjective; we can discuss. 2) People will periodically continue to add their "pet" favorites. Having a clearer sense of the criteria of relevance will help it from looking too "random". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBaldhead (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sea shanty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: three found and and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Towards standardization: can we turn this list into prose?

   Fixed. DrBaldhead (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   There are a number of single sentences or short paragraphs, which would better consolidated into longer paragraphs.

   Done. Note: At a glance, there may appear to be some very short paragraphs, but these are parts of larger paragraphs which contain quotes. The only really short para. I see is the one that starts the "Etymology" section, but its topic stands alone so it doesn't make sense to connect it. DrBaldhead (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   The shorter quotes shouldn't be in blockquotes, see WP:Quotations.

   Fixed. DrBaldhead (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

   A good example of a work song that was shared between several contexts, Who says this is a "good example"?

   ''including sailors from the Britain and Ireland "the Britain"?

   Established writers about shanties like William Main Doerlinger "such as" woukld be better than "like"

   Recent research, which considering a wider range of 19th century sources than had been possible by 20th century writers, shifts the period of the rise and flourishing of shanties to a bit later. Clumsy phrasing.

   Folklorists of the first decade of the 20th century, especially from Britain, "especially those" would be better.

   The sailors who sang the songs at sea passed on, and the forms of shanties that had been collected were now shaped less by oral-transmission and more by the polishing and reinforcement of written texts, giving birth to "standard" versions. Needs rephrasing.

   The whole article needs a thorough third part copy-edit.

   Examples from one of these influential writings will suffice. non encyclopaedic tone.

   More significant is the way in which he framed the songs he presented. Who says it is more significant?

   In sharp contrast to Masefield's work was the collection by Frank Thomas Bullen, Who says "in sharp contrast"?

   Response: Thanks for these detailed suggestions. I believe I've addressed all of the specific instances you've mentioned, but I still need to go through and work on copyediting and tone. Will let you know when I have done it. DrBaldhead (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

   The lead should fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD

   Done. DrBaldhead (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The first published use of the word comes in G.E. Clark's Seven Year's of a Sailor's Life, 1867. Have you got a citation to support this assertation?

   It would make sense that all those influenced by these works would begin to settle on "shanty" as their preferred spelling. looks like WP:OR

   The "ch" spelling has the benefits of marking off a distinct term and, perhaps, preserving its etymology. The "sh" spelling assists newcomers in correctly pronouncing the word, however it has the potential for confusion with other meanings of "shanty." Perhaps for this reason, the (arguably) redundant phrase "sea shanty" came into being though it had never been used by sailors themselves, nor was it used by knowledgeable writers on the subject; by the 1940s, a;so looks like OR

   Consistency is needed in citations, we currently have an uncomfortable mixture of Havard refs and footnotes.

   Question: Rewrote the part on "the phrase, 'sea shanty'" in effort to get rid of OR quality, however I'm stuck with the phrase about "it had never been used by sailors themselves," which I would like to try to keep in the article. The issue is that, quite simply, one sees from the sources that sailors did not use it, i.e. instances of this do not come up. I don't have a published source that says "sailors didn't use it", but I don't have a source, either, that says e.g. they didn't sing about flying to the moon. It's a fact that is "evident" from e.g. the totality of all the sources cited in this article. Is there a way to word it to make it admissible? Please advise, thanks.

   Question: re: mixture of Harvard and footnote style. My intent is to use footnote style (though incidentally I usually use Harvard). I think the hypertext context makes it a little confusing. These are the principals I am operating under:

   • Citations as footnotes. I believe this makes the main text as smooth as possible, and makes it so readers are not required to look at citations.
   • Give full citation on first appearance, abbreviated form on subsequent
   • Works mentioned within the main text are sometimes accompanied by date, which might look like Harvard style, however the date is there in main text to give context, a sense of time -- Is this one of the points of issue?
   • If I mention a book in the main text that has already been cited in a footnote, I just leave it as is, with no in-line citation. Does it need one (in which case, due to already being cited, it would just be abbreviated and rather redundant)?

   In the case of some record albums/musical pieces that have Wiki-links or are part of repertoire of an artist (who has a Wiki page), I have not made in-line citations, but, again, may give their date in parentheses for context rather than by way of Harvard style citation.

   I have made an effort to improve the ones that I think apply to your request. However, there may be others--that's what I'm not sure about, and the reason for my question. I hope it made sense. DrBaldhead (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

   If you mention the book again, then cite again. Multiple cites can point at the same source. Consistency in citing is the important consideration.

   OK, done.DrBaldhead (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   There are rather too many external links.

   Done. Cut down the external links at the end (spun off that info into a new start list/article). Cut out a majority of external links in the main section. The ones that remain are important, I feel, to illustrate what is being described. These illustrations are not easily found by readers on their own.DrBaldhead (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   The citations are much better, but a Works cited section is missing, see Princeton University Chapel and the references and works cited sections there. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   It's not missing; this is as intended, and is one of the WP options. It's pure footnote style, as in Chicago Humanities Style. If I were going to create a Works Cited alphabetized list of the 100+ unique sources referenced, I would have done that in the first place and used Harvard style rather than going through the trouble to create all the detailed notes! The above exchange was addressing what you called a "mixture" of Harvard references and footnotes—an appearance that was caused by there being historiographic discussions in the article (where author-title-date info is actually pertinent to the main text). I have made sure that those are cited with notes, too, since they will not be appearing as "general" references in a works cited section. DrBaldhead (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   possibly a little too much detail

   OK, I've trimmed. Cutting the links helped. However, somewhat difficult to gauge your "too much." If you still feel this way, specific suggestions would be helpful. The one thing that I see that might go is the section on "Effects of modern contexts." I naturally feel it is an important aspect of this subject—to really contextual what one encounters at present and give a sense of "what the deal is." But I'd welcome your opinion as to whether you think it's superfluous info.

   Yes the section "Effects of modern contexts" is too essay like and mostly unreferenced, drop it. Otherwise try reading Wikipedia:Summary style Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   OK, thanks. Done. DrBaldhead (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   npov

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images appear OK, but the inline links to videos and audios are likely copyright infringements, see Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking to copyrighted works. you may wish to use short samples as in the article Blues.

   The inline links that remain are safe. That is, per the guidelines, although they are linking to external sites, the uploaders of that content have done so without violating copyright. I might add, again, that such useful examples are rare and hard to locate (being one justification for having inline links). DrBaldhead (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   Well the copyright lies with the performers not the uploaders, and there is no evidemce that these are public domain or GFDL. You should use short 10% sampleas as explained here and here is an example with rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for pointing me to this method. I do appreciate your perspective, from general policy and experience. However, I have looked into it and this method will not work; further I believe it is acceptable as is or could be after another compromise. That 10% sample thing is for works that are clearly commercial, professional, and related to someone's profits, but which the author "must have" and couldn't use any other way. The examples are very rare, so these would have to be the example used. Yet stealing these from the sites, degrading quality even further, and then cutting them down to 10% videos in a weird format seems a rather silly and roundabout way of trying to "get around" an issue that I don't believe exists here—almost like "laundering" the material. (Additionally, the excerpts already are quite short; 10% wouldn't show much of anything.) External linking is fine if necessary. The flags are raised when the site linked to is suspected of serious and obvious copyright violation. Not the case here. The material comes from two sources. First is U.S. Library of Congress, which owns the recordings and has provided them on their site for public dissemination. Second are YouTube videos that I know have been uploaded without violation of copyright by two users whom I know personally (this can be verified, though I prefer to let them retain anonymity if possible). They are self-performances (by the uploader) or free public demos that were made and uploaded with the consent of the main performers. I think it is rather carrying it far to say that every informal "performance" of a traditional song done in public becomes a copyrighted work owned by them in such away that their right is being violated in linking. YouTube's policy is that material in violation of copyright may not be uploaded. We know that that policy is often not enforced, but by the same token if the material doesn't appear to be a flagrant copyright vio (e.g. low-fi non-commercial recording), we can assume good faith. Really, too-strict interpretation of these things would make very many of the external links on Wikipedia in articles on certain topics be "unacceptable," effectively creating bias towards which sorts of subjects can become "good." Hope you can appreciate the special circumstances here. Would you please consider working with me to let these links stay? Thank you. DrBaldhead (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry there are no special considerations about copyright on Wikipedia, it has nothing to do with profit. As you seem unqwilling to address this core WP policy, i will not be listing this article at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, this article is interesting, but it needs a thorough copy-edit to improve the flow, present information in an encyclopadic tone and remove essay-like point of view phrasing. When this has been done, I can resume the review. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for beginning this review! I have begun to address the issues. Once I believe I have done so, and if I have any questions (I think I'll have a couple), I will note that beneath the corresponding bullet point of review criteria. DrBaldhead (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to cover all bases: noting here that the revisions have been made. I am assuming an itemized list is not needed, but if I am mistaken, and something like that is, please let me know. DrBaldhead (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Not listed as the nominator insists on linking to copyrighted material in violation of Wikipedia policies.

   Thanks for your review. I believe you may have misunderstood my intentions and I am disappointed you jumped (in my opinion) to the decision to fail the nomination after so much effort and with just one issue remaining to resolve—but without further discussion. In the very least you could have been clear about your evident intent (or predilection?) to fail the nomination if your exact demands were not met, in which case I could have been clear about the options (i.e. do exactly as you say or do not and accept failure). I didn't appreciate your calling me "unwilling" to address the issue, which shows lack of good faith (a core WP principle) on your part, especially in light of the fact that I was clearly addressing it through discussion (another core WP principle) and I had already done everything you requested. When I challenged you on this issue, you neglected the principle of allowing a reasonable number of back-and-forths to clarify. I can only speculate, while remaining non-accusatory, that you have been frustrated by some nominators' argumentative style during reviews (especially with so many reviews in-progress at once), and it sometimes makes you doubt the value of courtesy and collegiality. Because I think it would be rather fruitless to try to continue to engage you after the decision has been made, I will leave it there and avail the option of re-nominating the article with another reviewer later on. I also hope to provide some feedback on your review process when I get a chance. Regards, DrBaldhead (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-fair use rationale for Hugill photo

I've added additional details on the image page, and I've added some more sentences in the article to make clear why an image of Stan Hugill (for which there are no free ones) is important to have. If one imagines the "tight shirted" folklorists of the early 20th century and then sees Hugill, one quickly understands how his book --though it was less scholarly than some others-- shot to prominence as the so-called shanty "Bible." Check it out, and see if the rationale is adequate, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBaldhead (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If his appearance is genuinely significant, can I ask why it is not discussed in the article? Vague, unsourced claims about "[t]he way he presented himself" do not make for a good fair use rationale, and you have offered no further explanation of why the album cover is required. Non-free content must be used as a last resort, when an article could not be fully understood without it, as per the non-free content criteria. I cannot imagine a reader looking through the article and thinking "that's all well and good, but I wonder what that album cover/this author looked like." (As an aside, as per the NFCC, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that this content is required, not vice-versa. As such, I have removed the images again for the time being. I do not mind discussing this with you, but let us err on the side of caution.) J Milburn (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I do apologise, I've just noticed that you have actually added some sourced commentary to the article about the author's appearance- as such, there actually does seem to be a good fair use rationale here, which is unusual for images of this sort! I'll probably make a few tweaks, but I will not be removing the image again unless a different issue arises. What of the album cover? J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the rationale and the caption of the portrait, as it is important to tie them in to the text. Feel free to tweak as necessary. J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your consideration. It helps in improving the quality of the article and its eligibility towards GA status! I've removed the album cover image because, you're correct, there is no good rationale. I'll look at the minor additions on the Stan Hugill picture and tweak the wording, later, if needed. DrBaldhead (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)