Talk:Ayers Rock (band)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rearranging article contents: combining two histories, and two criticisms

I think it would improve the article by consolidating its contents if the two history sections were combined under a single header "History". You can still have two subsections (and subsections therein) for each era, but consolidating this information into a single overarching section would improve the flow tremendously. I strongly recommend the same should be done with the two criticisms sections. It shouldn't be much work, since it would really just require some rearranging of the text, but I think it would greatly improve the article.

If you all want, I can do this and submit it, but I thought it might be best to discuss this with the other editors first, since there may not be consensus on this rearrangement. Thoughts? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, it is always an excellent idea to discuss these types of changes on the talk page, and even more critical when one editor has made a large number of contributions to a particular article. The unusual structure of this article is one that I have put in place for a number of reasons, and it is not a structure that I intend to use with other subjects. In so doing, I have had to set aside my precisionist nature, to a degree, in order to illustrate an important aspect of this band's history. It can be argued, but not proven, that there were two bands called Ayers Rock, one earlier and the other later. The first era band was strongly influenced, musically, by Col Loughnan, and the second era band was influenced by Andy Cowan. Loughnan encouraged Ayers Rock to explore progressive rock, and jazz fusion, which he was able to do partly because those styles were in vogue from 74 to 76. By 79 to 81, music tastes had changed, and Andy Cowan led them towards a song-based format.

Another aspect is that I have observed differences in the way that writers have reacted to Ayers Rock, based on when they were written. Therefore, I have separated them into distinct critical response sections so that the readers can appreciate the difference. I am not saying that my structure is right, but only that it has been done deliberately, and there are reasons why. The article shouldn't be changed until there is a consensus for such change. Please, feel free to discuss further. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

CaesarsPalaceDude, I can understand now why you structured the article this way. If you believe it's best to keep it this way, then that's your choice. Unless there's consensus to change, there probably won't be change. Just to give you an example, however, this is what I had in mind. (I didn't know the dates for the first era in the critical response, so I guessed. These could, of course, be changed.) I believe this may be more beneficial, since it maintains the era divisions while still consolidating them under distinct sections. Usually, breaking a section up into eras isn't very common, from what I can see, unless there is a distinct and widely-known era breakdown that most people (including other encyclopedias) recognize. If you do wish to keep the current layout, you may want to rename the headers to something specific to that era. A "History" or "Critical response" section usually only occurs once in an article. If it's split up, it's given their own names, like "First era" and "Second era" without "History".

I think it's totally fine to keep an era distinction, and you have valid rationale for this. My only suggestion is to consolidate them under a single header so that they're easier to track. You can see what I mean in the sandbox link I provided above and here. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, thankyou for putting so much effort into your proposal; we should work together to ensure that it has the best chance of achieving a consensus. I would like to suggest changes/improvements to the draft at your sandbox, as follows:

• that 2.1 becomes First era (1973—76)
• that 2.2 becomes Second era (1977—81)
• that 2.2.1 becomes 2.3 Afterwards (1981—present)
• that 3.1 becomes First era (1973—76)
• that 3.2 becomes simply 1990s to present

There will eventually be a "Musical style and critical response, second era" but I haven't researched/written it yet. I hope these suggestions make sense to you. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure! Here is the revised copy. Also, although I probably should have specified this, you can always edit the source of the sandbox copy, copy the source, and bring it over to your sandbox if you wish to work off mine. I'd say you could simply continue working on my sandbox (which I'm fine with), but I use my sandbox frequently, so I doubt it would stay up for long. Hence the permanent links. In any case, I hope that's better. If you prefer this to the current article, I can copy the changes and bring it over. If not, feel free to suggest more changes or improvements, or take it over to your sandbox if you want to continue by yourself. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer Great! I still would prefer that you make any changes, partly because you can take the credit if your proposal is successful. It is worthy of consideration by the community, and you've got me thinking as well. May I make another suggestion? Many active editors have other sandboxes as sub-pages to their main sandbox, sometimes with a generic name. For example, you could have ...Nøkkenbuer/sandbox/Project1 for this project, then re-use it for something else later. Anyway, we will need to have the proposed draft available for at least a week, to allow time for others to comment.

I wish to open this discussion to all interested editors, to make comments regarding the proposal to change the structure of the article as discussed above, and shown at the sandbox. In particular, shaidar cuebiyar, Dan arndt, and Feezo are invited to give their opinions. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I'm still new to all this, so the help is appreciated. For the time being, I've created a sandbox project for this article. Anyone and everyone is welcome to edit it, if you want. If not, I could do the edits myself. In any case, I'll keep it up on that project page at least until this proposal either passes or fails. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Its been awhile since I've made a comment here, but I tend to agree with Nøkkenbuer re: History and Criticism sections.They should be reorganised chronologically, it makes for smoother reading for a general reader.

Furthermore I believe the article is now too wordy. The Lead has too many paragraphs and contains too much unimportant information (see later for examples of verbiage). The rest of the article also has too much irrelevant detail, far too many unsupported claims, it has too many sound samples for "fair use", and I still find the "Illness" subsection to be jarring with its inconsistent use of dot points instead of prose. The tone has been pushed away from being neutral with the use of non-encyclopaedic expressions.

Samples of verbosity from the Lead: "even though they received very little radio airplay", "before they left, as a unit, to form", "All the members traced their origins to", "decided to leave in", "ahead of more favoured candidates", "the most influential of whom were", "This album failed to make any headway with record buyers, and disappeared into obscurity", "were modestly successful", "In the most successful years", "produced a number of achievements within the Australian rock scene" and "never really achieved their full potential". Other examples abound in the main text but are too numerous to list. I believe that any new reader of the article would be browned off by the sheer amount of overly detailed material.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, thankyou for your opinion; it does make a difference. Your two sentences on the matter at hand have been heard, and will be given due consideration. As for the rest, I don't agree with a single word. I have said before that you and I are very different editors. That doesn't mean that one is better or worse than the other; just different. I am completely comfortable with the changes I have made to the article, including the number of sound samples. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you support my suggestions, Shaidar cuebiyar! As for the length, I am completely ignorant of this band, so I have no opinion on it. The article is certainly thorough. I don't know what is important or not, though, since I only know what is detailed in this article. I can always lend a hand at reformatting sentences and shortening them if needed, though. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, shaidar cuebiyar, there are many reasons why the article has been structured this way, which will lead to another verbose reply. There is something different about Ayers Rock. The combination of exactly the right musicians, at a unique time in Australian history, created a phenomenon that hadn't occurred previously: a rock band blending into their sound many other styles of music (prog rock, blues rock, jazz rock, psychedelic rock, experimental rock, indigenous music, and contemporary classical such as Arnold Schoenberg). And they attained a measure of popularity across Australia, and parts of North America mainly for their live performances. Remarkably, their recordings were played a massive amount more in the U.S. than at home. All of the above relates to the first era band.

As I have been saying for some time, there were significant differences between the first era, and second era bands, particularly the personnel, the music, and musical tastes of fans. The next aspect is the reactions of the media. The first era band was in vogue with the media in general; Ayers Rock was the HOT new band playing music many Aussies hadn't heard before, and playing it with precision, and passion. Some of the Australian rock press were completely in love with this band, and went way over the top in order to express their admiration (something you would never see now, from rock critics).

With the second era band, the media's reaction was more muted, along the lines of: Yes, they're all very good musicians, but it's not the "old" Ayers Rock. Even though the band never survived beyond the second era, music writers created a third era of critical analysis in which the opinions of the first era were almost completely ignored by some, in favour of their own opinions. Then again, that is their privilege: to write what they want. Since there was a noticeable trend appearing, I structured the article to show that what you read about this band depended, partly, on when it was written.

Turning to that structure itself, the current article is actually highly chronological, dealing entirely with one era (History & Commentary) at a time, before proceeding to the next. When I have researched and written more of the article it will appear as:

• First era
  • History (first era)
  • Musical style and critical response (first era)
• Second era
  • History (second era)
  • Musical style and critical response (second era)
• Afterwards
• Critical response (1990s to present)

"Musical style and critical response (second era)" is currently mixed in with its History section, making the overall structure more difficult to discern for readers.

Indeed, the choice we have is really between three options:

1. Keep the structure that exists (or modify it slightly)
2. Change the structure, as proposed by Nøkkenbuer
3. Delay the decision to change until the article is more complete (sorry, that will be quite some time)

The difficulty I see with Nøkkenbuer's structure is that if a reader wishes to study a particular era of the band, the reader has to navigate across large sections of the article to get from the "History" section to the relevant "Critical response" section.

Therefore, I recommend that we keep the existing structure. It is the more chronological of the two. Shaidar cuebiyar will not change his mind on this issue. So, Nøkkenbuer, it appears to be your decision which will decide the matter. Please think carefully, and let us know. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The concern I have with this current article structure is that it's unconventional. I don't recall any article which splits up its History into eras, not even Black Sabbath or Journey—musical groups which have gone through far more change in terms of members and critical reception than Ayers Rock. This is the norm on every other article on a musical group which has undergone significant changes: Metallica, AC/DC (which even has two distinct eras), Guns N' Roses, Spice Girls, Destiny's Child, Green Day, etc. Many of those articles are FA status, too, meaning that they are meant to be the articles we look to for guidance. Theirs may not be as stark or dichotomous as Ayers Rock's, but that doesn't mean we must split up the History just for the sake of chronology. Readers visit an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to read a specific section or part; rarely do they read the entire article, and rarer still do they from top to bottom. Keep in mind that other people aren't as passionate as you are about this band, and so they won't read it like a story of its grandeur. They'll want specific information consolidated under specific sections. The current layout is great as an essay or prose timeline of the band meant to be read from title to references, but I am seriously apprehensive about this layout since it may not operate as an encyclopedia article.

The other concern I have is with the matter of the eras themselves. Although you personally believe that two distinct eras exist, and you've provided compelling distinctions between them, is this how the band's history is actually divided by other encyclopedias and/or reliable sources? I couldn't find any. Unlike AC/DC's eras, I can't find any evidence that Ayers Rock is commonly divvied up in this matter—at least, not by reliable sources. This brings me to the matter of original research: do these era distinctions qualify as original research? I think your distinctions are justified, for what it's worth, but Wikipedia wants verifiability, not truth. Can these eras be substantiated as occurring outside of Wikipedia and by reliable sources? Do critics of the band ever refer to one or the other era? Do they use the term "era" or some synonym of it? If not, does that mean we should discard the eras and restructure the entire article differently?

These are the questions I'm asking myself, and hopefully you can answer. In the meantime, I hope more people weigh in so that I don't have to be the tie breaker. Anyway, consensus among three isn't much consensus at all. If nobody shows up and we're the only three here, then perhaps we should seek to open an RfC to build a definitive consensus on this matter. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I would be very careful relying on "Verifiabilty, not truth" because it is an essay, as opposed to Wikipedia policy, and it is controversial (not accepted by all Wikipedians). That is why there is another essay Truth, not verifiability which puts similar ideas in more sensible way (and is much shorter). It has this to say: "Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, not its editors' private thoughts and unsourceable personal knowledge." That statement I agree with wholeheartedly. I am deeply hurt by the tone in which you have decided to address me. I have bent over backwards trying to ensure that none of my "unsourceable personal knowledge", of which there is a great deal, is included in the article! Television: I am aware of several occasions that Ayers Rock appeared on Australian television, but you won't find it in the article, because I haven't got the sources yet. There was the incident where a fan, dressed as a hamburger vendor, (complete with trolley) fell off the front of the stage at Sunbury during the song "Crazy Boys - The Hamburger Song". You won't find it in the article because I don't have a reliable source; I've got an unreliable source, but that's not good enough.

Back to the discussion, I stated in a mediation quite some time ago the differences between the first and second era bands. From memory, it went like:

• mostly different personnel
• different music
• different themes in the lyrics
• different instruments (much more keyboards, no wind instruments)
• mostly different song-writers
• different management
• different record company
• no reference in "Hotspell" to indigenous Australia (in stark contrast to the 2 previous releases)

The vast majority of the above, one can glean from reading record covers. Since when did looking at liner notes on albums constitute ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Please don't insult my intelligence!

The key point is that Ayers Rock changed genres when the personnel changed (remembering that Mushroom announced the band had broken up in 1976). The first era band seemed to find a different genre for every track, at times. The second era band had more of a "band sound" in a soft rock mode. You raise the example of ACDC, and that is fair. I'm not an ACDC expert, but I can't see them changing genres ever. I have always been aware that this structure is unconventional, but I believe we should allow a little room for difference, if a genuine case is being put forward. This particular structure is completely within the guidelines, and I know you didn't say otherwise. The unconventional structure is appropriate for this subject, and I recommend that it be kept. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You're correct that it is an essay and a controversial one at that. I only deferred to it because it is commonly cited, its arguments are cogent, and I find the opposing essay to be wanting at best. It's also a useful reminder that although truth is ideal, it is an ideal; the best we have is verifiability. The opposing article seems to only validate my point, though. It doesn't really conflict with my concerns, or even with the article it is meant to oppose; it's more a critique than anything, and I'm not sure why it's even an essay in the first place (wouldn't it be better as an opposing argument within the original essay?).

I don't see why you would be offended with my tone. In fact, I'm not sure I had a tone in my previous response, and if there was it was one of concern. I was being honest and critical, yes, but not hostile or discrediting toward your work. You've done a great job; I'm just concerned that it may not be what's best for the article. I'm not saying it is; I'm concerned that it may be. I ended my response with an invitation to make your case, though, because I haven't formed an opinion yet. Having said that, I'd advise against you interpreting my responses as hostile or reprimanding in any way. I am a forthright person who critiques everything; although some may say similar things to what I said with the intention of deprecation, I'm saying what I said with the intent of trying to ensure the article is the best it could be. I don't think you are an obstacle blocking this goal, but I do have concerns about it that I believe you should consider.

I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm pointing out that unless there are reliable sources to verify the claims that there are distinct eras in Ayers Rock's history, then I don't see how it is any different from original research. Like I said before, I don't disagree that there appears to be distinct eras in the band's history; however, unless this if verified by a reliable source, it constitutes as original research by definition even if it's true. I'm not trying to subtly or indirectly undermine your work or write it off as worthless. I'm just stating what I believe to be the current applicable policies here. If I'm wrong, or if you do have reliable sources, feel free to correct me. On the matter of music artists who switched their genres during their career, I would recommend seeing the following articles: Bee Gees, Fleetwood Mac, Iggy Pop, Bob Dylan (especially this one, also a FA), Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Waka Flocka Flame, and Skrillex.

As for the appropriateness of the unconventional article structure in relation to policies and guidelines, I don't know enough about the latter to comment on the former. Perhaps a third opinion would be beneficial here. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I largely support Nøkkenbuer here.

I disagree with CaesarsPalaceDude. Verifiability is a policy. Your opinions – as expressed both here and at the RfM – are largely unsupported by reliable sources and are not verifiable.

No personal attacks is a policy. When someone disagrees with you, you shouldn't attack them personally – you've just accused Nøkkenbuer of insulting your intelligence – I didn't see any such insult, just someone disagreeing with you.

You have not presented an effective argument as to why FA rock music articles are wrong: many deal with groups which have gone through far more line-ups and changes in style than Ayers Rock did. They keep each section: History, Musical style, and Critical response, separate with content largely chronological within them.

Nøkkenbuer is right, most readers are only looking at part of any article: typically just the Lead, some go to a particular section or subsection. Your structure makes it harder to find information on say, Hotspell, which seems consigned to footnote status.

As for critical response: You make it appear that any from 1990s+ is flawed with the qualifying phrase "they have attempted to give possible reasons" in the first sentence. You then contrast any criticism of the group with "the enthusiastic adulation often found in the Australian print media in the mid-70s". Both of these editorial statements guide the average reader towards your own conclusions on the latter day critical opinion. You give Joynson's discussion of the group's dilemma but don't provide Kimball's echoing support of that view, which adds strength to Joynson's opinion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, your contributions to Talk Page discussions are of a moderately low quality, and frankly, you need to lift your game. On 13 March 2015, you were invited to comment on the "Proposed new lead", but you chose to remain silent. Almost a month after the new lead was placed in the article, you decided to come forth with a low quality piece of prose which was barely worth my time reading. Have you always pulled the rug out from under your colleagues, or is this a new tactic? A year ago, you were busy mistreating me, at this very talk page, because I was a newbie who dared to criticise your handling of this article, and because you thought I was a "fan". At the RfM, you were very rude on at least three occasions, and at one point you resorted to taunting when I changed my position on a minor point to agree with you! How can it possibly be construed as constructive for you to behave that way? I am very unhappy with your posts at this talk page, and I have been from the start. For your own sake, and the sake of other Wikipedians, I exhort you to take a long hard look at yourself.

Could you confine yourself to discussing the points being raised not attacking the person making them? Your opinions/perceptions of my supposed character flaws are not relevant but act as a smokescreen to distract from the poor rationale for your position.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The interesting part of your last post, was the last paragraph, and I will revisit that section to rephrase it to sound more neutral. There has never been any intention consign Hotspell to footnote status. It was quite a good album, and I still enjoy listening to it. That album came and went, and hardly caused a ripple. I was fortunate to find out about it, all those years ago. The picture emerging is that very little was written about Hotspell, and even Kimball and McFarlane simply mention that it existed. There are extremely few reliable sources to call on, and a significant part of the section in the article is based on the album liner notes. I would love to write more about the album, but it would be largely unreferenced, so I can't.

Do these album liner notes constitute reliable secondary sources or are they primary sources which should be used cautiously and frugally rather than for a "significant part of the section"?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

They are reliable secondary sources. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed all references to eras from the article so that we can stop being distracted by that very unhelpful sideshow. The current sandbox proposal is a significant step backwards from the article as it stands. There are particular problems with presenting the content of this article, and there are certain advantages to the way I have presented it. Unfortunately, I've run out of time to explain that statement, but I will write more tomorrow. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, one last word on the issue of "eras": I wasn't attempting to get away with original research in this matter, but rather, it was simply an oversight (you probably knew that anyway). This discussion thread started with you and I talking about proposed changes to the structure of the article. Since then, a barrage of very negative posts from Shaidar cuebiyar has completely de-railed the process. I am calling a halt at this point, and asking that Shaidar cuebiyar stand aside, temporarily, so that you and I can sort the matter out. When we have made suitable progress, Shaidar cuebiyar can explain his thoughts in whatever way he sees fit. Should he refuse to comply with this request, then the discussion has stalled. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Note for CaesarsPalaceDude, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is a policy: you don't own this article, you don't have the right to exclude anyone from contributing to its editing or discussion of its content on this talkpage. Especially if they disagree with you. I have as much right as you or Nøkkenbuer to discus these matters if I wish to do so.

Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked you to stop making personal attacks but this seems to have made no impact on your commentary here. I dispute your claim that my comments are "very negative" or that I have "completely derailed the process". I disagree with your arguments and I have pointed out their flaws but I have not attacked your personality.

Why should I stand aside? I agree with Nøkkenbuer that the current structure is unconventional and that it should be more in tune with best practices as seen at FA music articles. Your rationale for the current form is weak and doesn't hold sufficient merit to leave the article as it is.

If you wish to exclude yourself from this process go ahead that's your choice: it leaves the door open for Nøkkenbuer to implement his preferred option.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's look at your first post in this discussion (time-coded 5:15, 24 April 2015): there were two sentences on the matter for discussion, and the rest was off-topic. All of it was very negative regarding the changes I have made, which I believe have improved the article. If we look 12 months ago, you were owning this article 100%, and you were extremely indignant that I was sticking an oar in, when you were busy with other articles. You owned this article, but you made it very clear you had no intention of working on this article for quite some time after that post. In other words: "I'm not going to edit this article, but if you edit it, I'll come along afterwards and re edit your edit, so it looks the way I like it." That's owning the article!

From the second sentence on this is largely your version of the "truth" and has no relevance to the discussion. This is more smokescreen obscuring the real issue: the unconventional nature of your preferred ordering.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Later, you ride in waving your "no personal attacks" policy when from my experience you would be the last editor who should try that one. In this organisation, if an editor thinks he has something important to say, he will ensure somewhere early in the post, he refers to a policy to help him look authoritative. This has become a cliché, and often a waste of time, and it is one of the many bad habits which we have adopted which make Wikipedia a very unfriendly place to work. I'm not attacking your personality (that's your business), I'm criticising what you do. That "no personal attacks" post, you would have been better off not posting at all. Why? Because Nøkkenbuer had everything under control down to the last detail. He'd written the perfect post for that moment, and you barged in and upset the whole arrangement. We could have had the whole thing finalised within 24 hours of that post, if you hadn't been so clumsy.

Once again, this is your version of the "convenient truth", which ignores your own brandishing of WP policies and essays at Nøkkenbuer just above, in this very section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What do we do now? You must have an opportunity to reply to my salvo. That's only fair. After that, could you, please, not post anything for two days, while Nøkkenbuer and I hammer out the best possible deal (in terms of what is best for the article). I do want your opinion, and you will be asked at the appropriate time. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't own this article nor this talkpage. You asked me (and Dan and Feezo) to respond to this discussion just on a week ago. Nøkkenbuer asked for a third opinion about four days ago. If you don't like my opinion that's your right, but I have every right to express it and I have every right to back up Nøkkenbuer's position against your preference for the ordering of this article. I'll be the judge of when it is an appropriate time for me to respond, not you. If I believe you're making a personal attack against me or another editor then I will say so.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the references to "eras" in the article. If you can find any reliable secondary sources making that distinction, then free free to add it back in. I'll address your criticisms of my proposal in your post regarding it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Restarting discussion: Rearranging article contents

Nøkkenbuer, the standardisation, and uniformity of style of content is of concern to every encyclopedia, and so it is at Wikipedia. How much uniformity is required across articles, and how much variation is allowed to deal with unique situations regarding particular subjects? The question of the structure of this article is very much alive, rather than an "open and shut" case as some would like us to believe. I have tried to broaden the scope of this article relative to articles of other bands in the same era. Why does The Moody Blues not mention the live performances of the classic 1967 — 1972 line-up at all? I thought they were selling out massive stadiums. Why does Fleetwood Mac not talk about radio airplay? Because there isn't a need to do so. The band released records; radio stations played them; people bought the records. There's nothing interesting to say. Why does this article have a section devoted to radio airplay? Because, extraordinarily, Australian radio stations decided they weren't going to play Ayers Rock (we don't know why). Juke (June 4, 75) said: '"Lady Montego" received three weeks airplay and was then dumped'. In America, the situation was very different. Well known Aussie journalist Greg Kelton said that the album Beyond was being played "by about 50 radio stations" at that time in the States.

I created this structure to be able to collect content together by topic for a particular period in this band's career. For the "Mushroom" period, there are sections on the band in general, radio airplay, live ... etc., etc. Those sections comprise content written during the period about each topic (not later). This device attempted to immerse the reader in the writings, and attitudes of the reliable sources who were there (since we can't be). Included are images, and sound samples to enhance the effect. The result is meant to be a unique encyclopedic experience for the readers, and one which they won't find anywhere else on the internet. It may be ambitious, unconventional or even brash (not to mention other less flattering terms), but I have tried to stay true to the spirit of the guidelines. I have never stated that this approach was "right", and I've never said that other articles are "wrong". The only thing I know is that the style and content appeal to me. Is it necessary for Wikipedia to stamp out all innovation as soon as its head pops up? Why aren't there more sections of articles which are multimedia, with video clips, sound bites, images, animated .gifs as well as the text? I look at some articles, and I want to weep. They look so drab, and boring with "wall to wall" text, page after page, with no sub-headings, no blockquotes, no images, and no thought about whether the readers are interested, or they've gone away to do something else. Is this what Wikipedia is about? For me, encyclopedic does not equal dull.

You have asked: "Why isn't this article like certain FA articles?" It's a reasonable question. Then again, one could ask "Why aren't they like this article?" That's an equally reasonable question. Clearly, the Wikipedians who assess articles nominated for FA status don't like surprises. But do the readers like surprises? When is it appropriate to surprise the reader (in a good way), and when is it not appropriate? I don't have the answers, but I think we should ask some questions with more scope. Are we so obsessed with our Wikipedia bureaucracy (like FA status) that we can't see anything else?

So, the structure I adopted tried to investigate particular themes in an innovative manner, without interrupting the flow of the history section for each period. In so doing, I broke up the history of the band overall and located the sections a long way from each other. I was aware that this was a problem at the time that I did it. Do the benefits of such a structure outweigh the resultant dislocation? To be honest, I'm the last person you would ask, because I'm far too close to the material. Therefore, Nøkkenbuer, I am reliant on you to distill the most important factors, and place them in context, within the article, and within the broader community. As for myself, I recommend that the structure remains the way it is because "I like it that way" (as George Harrison once said)

Shaidar cuebiyar, please do not edit above this line. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(TL;DR) I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of my proposal. If you haven't already, I strongly encourage you to compare my proposed article with the current one. You'll notice that I haven't removed anything significant. I didn't even remove a single file. What I propose is to simply get the work that you've done and bring them under their own sections. I haven't deleted any information. I haven't changed much of anything at all. I left all the media files you put in, and I even support their inclusion. I did move one media file from left to right alignment, but that was simply to prevent unwieldy formatting. Other than that, nothing has changed. Whereas you consolidated all the information about the history and criticisms under their own respective sections, I propose to consolidate this information further by placing them under single sections. All your sections are retained, and none of the information in these sections are rearranged. All I did is copy and paste the contents, and reordered the article.

With that said, what problems do you have with my proposal in specific? What opposition do you have to my rearranging of the contents and consolidating them, like how every other article does? I didn't mess with anything else, and all the concerns you voiced above don't apply to my proposals because I'm not tampering with your innovation. I'm just moving some content up or down the article.

As for shaidar cuebiyar, I don't mind him replying. I'm always glad to hear third opinions. I'm sorry that you two are not on the best of terms, but it's completely his choice to respond. I just encourage you both to keep on-topic. If either of you disagree with the other's behavior, I recommend seeking dispute resolution or arbitration. If you'd like for a more detailed reply, expand the box below to read my original response. Otherwise, feel free to ignore it. It's more or less just an elaboration of what I just said. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Detailed response

Usually, it's best to maintain uniformity and consistency in structure among all articles within an encyclopedia so as to provide the reader with a convenient method of finding the information they seek. This structure needs to be both uniform and consistent among articles, and useful within each article for the reader. What's most useful for the reader is to have a structure wherein information on specific topics could be found and that this information is consolidated under a single category. If we take a particular subsection and read it by itself, does it make sense and does it convey meaningful information? Or does it leave stuff out which is found elsewhere in the article? If the latter, then reformatting is necessary. The same applies for entire sections. At this time, there are no sections for "History" or "Criticisms"; this information is scattered throughout the article in a way that reading any section about it fails to actually summarize the entire history, or all of the criticisms of the band. This makes it difficult for the reader to learn about the history or criticisms of Ayers Rock, since doing so would require them to search the article. It's best to consolidate everything under convenient supersections in order to prevent this confusion. I suppose it's theoretically possible for there to be such a necessity for a deviation from this guideline that it occurs, but I don't think Ayers Rock is one of them. Musicians and groups like Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, Journey, and AC/DC have gone through more history and major schisms than Ayers Rock ever has, and yet even they conform to this uniform structure. What justification is there for Ayers Rock to be the lone deviant among them all? I'm not sure why The Moody Blues doesn't contain that information, but perhaps it's just a slight and someone needs to add it in. I don't see how that's relevant to this issue, though. As for Fleetwood Mac, it actually mentions their radio airplay twice in the article. I'm not sure what your point here is, but if there is a flaw here, then perhaps you or someone else should add that information in. Whether that information is present in the article doesn't actually affect its structure, though, so I'm not sure what relation it has to this issue. If Ayers Rock received greater airplay, or it was more significant to their history and success, then it should be detailed within the article. Doing so wouldn't change the structure, though, and I don't see any reason why it should. The way you have sectioned the article is fine because it provides specific information about specific events in the band's history. I have no complaint about that, and retained every single section you made. My proposal is intended to consolidate all that information under single supersections as is usually done on music articles, including Featured Articles. All the band's history would be placed in a "History" section, and all the criticism would be placed in a "Criticism" section. My proposal simply rearranges the articles contents to align with how articles are typically structured. All of your sectioning is otherwise kept, and I have no complaints about it. Having said that, there's no need to explain your reasoning for why you have added certain content. I'm fine with it in every respect, and I think the article has been superbly filled out. My concern is with the consolidation of this information. I support the media clips you've added, and wish this was more common; I think your addition of images is great, too, though I sometimes worry about whether it was excessive. I haven't attempted to change any of this, though. All I've argued is to get all the history sections and consolidate them under a single "History" section, and do the same with the criticism. That doesn't change much of anything in the article except for the order. Feel free to compare my proposal with the current article; you'll notice that nothing has been omitted. I've simply rearranged the content. I don't think there's a problem with the images you've added or the media you've provided. This may become an issue later on, but I suspect that issue will be raised due to how much media content is provided, not because you provided this media content. My comparison with the other articles, including the FA articles, was not meant to show how this article contains media content that they do not. Again, I have no problem with any of that. The reason why I brought them up was to illustrate how the content is structured, as in where the information is located in the article and under which sections. My problem with the article is with how the information (not the media files) is structured and consolidated. My proposal involves rearranging the article's contents, not omitting or removing anything that you've done. I had a small concern with the "era" bit, but that was mainly because your era divisions seemed to have been the main impetus for splitting the history and criticisms sections. Since you've already compromised on that, I don't see what the problem is with rearranging the contents and consolidating them under their own appropriate sections. You stated in your last paragraph that you "tried to investigate particular themes in an innovative manner, without interrupting the flow of the history section for each period." The issue I'm having with the article is that your decisions have interrupted the flow of the history section, as well as the criticisms section. You kept the periods consolidated, which is great, but you broke it into two different, tier-2 sections. As with all the other articles on Wikipedia, including FA articles, these divisions occur within an overarching tier-2 history section, and the divisions are delegated to tier-3 subsections. Again, I refer you to my proposal, and you'll see that I only consolidated the information under appropriate sections. Whereas you consolidated the history of each period into separate history sections, I moved these two history sections into a single history section. Your sections are still kept, except they're now subsections. That's all. My consolidation isn't any different from yours; I'm simply applying the same consolidation tactics you've used to the entire article. I don't mind if shaidar cuebiyar responds, to be honest. It's his choice to do so, and I'm glad for any third-party opinions. I just encourage you both to keep on-topic. If either of you disagree with the other's behavior, I recommend seeking dispute resolution or arbitration. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, thankyou so much for your extremely detailed reply. You couldn't have failed to notice that there was conflict between myself, and shaidar cuebiyar. I believe that conflict has ceased, and we have been cooperating on our Talk pages very recently. Neither of us is backing down from anything they said, however I hope, and believe we can leave it in the past. I have wanted all along for shaidar cuebiyar to fully, and cogently give his opinion. All I was asking was that he wait for you to reply, which he has done. In this case, I have jumped in because I think I have some good news for him.

To simplify the discussion dramatically: you disagree with the current structure for some good reasons, and shaidar cuebiyar feels overall much the same. I am in favour of the current structure, but moderately weakly in favour. The consensus within this small group appears to be to change the structure, and furthermore an RfC would most probably reach the same conclusion. So, all in favour of changing the structure say AYE! AYE! Gee that was quick.

So, the current question is: what will we change the structure to? Unfortunately, Nøkkenbuer, your proposal is completely unacceptable, and yes, I have had a close look, and no, I haven't misunderstood anything at all. You said you liked the direct approach.

I propose that I edit another cut/paste version for your consideration. My proposal is for a basically linear retelling of the facts with a History supersection (level 2), with subordinate level 3, and level 4 subsections. I have a strong feeling this is what shaidar cuebiyar is likely to advocate, or something very similar. Anyway, over to you, shaidar cuebiyar; hope you are pleased with developments.

Shaidar cuebiyar, please do not edit above this line. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you believe my proposal is "completely unacceptable"? Feel free to submit your own proposal for consideration, though I'm not sure how else this article could be structured without further dicing up its contents in a way which deviates from our encyclopedic style. I don't think I understand your suggestion, though. Do you propose to combine the sections under a single overarching section, like I have argued above? Or do you intend on taking a different route? Since it appears we all want what's best for this article, we should all try to reach some consensus. If you have some valid criticisms of my proposal, then perhaps some changes could be made to it, or at least some discussion could quell those concerns. If not, though, then what's the issue with implementing these changes? You can suggest your own changes as well, of course, but I can't guarantee I'll support every change, and I may suggest modifications to it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to Nøkkenbuer for your restraint and dedication to this article. You've done a lot of work trying to demonstrate your suggestions for improvement to the overarching structure of this article. I find most of your rationale to be argued better and more in line with best practices at FA music articles than the alternative case. Your advice to consider those FA articles is good. The consistency of structure acrossss WP's best articles improves accessibility for new, inexperienced or rare users of articles to get to what they want as quickly as possible. To this end I would append time values to each subsection of the History section.

CaesarsPalaceDude: to improve the article you should aim to attain the criteria for good class as typified by Australian examples. It is my belief that this article currently does not approach these criteria, I have already provided my opinion of areas where improvement (other than structural) could be made. If the restructuring suggested by Nøkkenbuer is undertaken and the Musical style and critical response sections were to be considerably trimmed (they are too wordy and take up an undue portion of the article) it should be assessed as B-class.

My points about the Lead and its content are related to MoS: Lead. My points about sound samples are related to Minimal use of non-free content. I would recommend that you then put the article to Guild of Copy Editors, and after that try a Peer review before submitting it for GA Candidate.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In case you did not see it, you can view my proposal in action on my P1 sandbox userpage here. I've tried to keep it up-to-date with the changes made to the article, but if there is anything missing, then it could easily be added in. Thanks for your support. Hopefully, something will come of these suggestions, though I certainly didn't expect to receive such opposition. I wasn't aware that this was a big deal. Your link to GA-class Australian music articles is interesting, though, since I immediately found an article which may be relevant to this one: Augie March. Here, the History is all consolidated into one group, even after its multiple splits and hiatuses. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, thankyou for your very interesting, and positive recent post. I, too, have been thinking about a higher status for the article. We will discuss and argue about the best way to get there in the future. However, I will keep re-reading your most recent post in coming weeks to absorb the wisdom therein.

Nøkkenbuer, shaidar cuebiyar, the current discussion re structure is sending me to sleep! There is no chance, zero, of reaching a consensus based on the current proposal. Therefore, I will stimulate discussion by creating a sandbox proposal of my own. Other editors can, of course, jump into their own sandboxes and have a go. My particular sandcastle (I mean proposal) will be ready in less than 7 days. May the free market of ideas be open. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving to commence

I've started an automatic archiving bot at this page: I think its far too long and most of the older material is no longer relevant to the current form of the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, how do we access the archived material? I am not happy about the part "Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved." Can this be removed from the tasks assigned to the automatic archiving bot, please? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the bot hasn't starting making the archive, this is expected to occur as some later point in time, hopefully within a month. Once the archive is ready anyone should be able to access it by clicking on the relevant button up near the top of this page. If the 30 days parameter is removed then the archiving will not be automatic, you could set it at some other value. Or we could decide to leave to go for manually archiving the material, which is more onerous on the archivist.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your prompt reply. The bot made its first archive at 05:07, 12 May 2015‎ and archived 104 k to Archive 1. I can't find a button that links to the archive, at present. I would suggest that a 60 days parameter would be an excellent choice, so that we can refer back to our long running discussions, and it will still stop the page from getting enormous. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully the archive bots will place the access link up top there soon, if not, I'll have to do it manually. As for the 60 days, I've adjusted that. If other editors want it changed then check the wikicode on my previous edit of this page. A further point, the archiving only works on signed/dated entries, so that Boy from the Stars commentary up there will stay on this page unless it gets dated. I've also left the default of 4 minimum threads so that the talkpage does not look empty.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. All of that seems to be very good. Perhaps we need to move Boy from the Stars manually. Please be aware that you and I are the good guys; we're both trying to present verified historical content in order to improve Wikipedia. The bad guys write loads of mostly unverified stuff, and we can't tell if it is good or bad because there are so few inline citations. Detailed and respectful replies to your above posts will be done asap. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Manually archived Boy from the Stars. Now, this talkpage looks better.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for taking the initiative. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Major upgrade: references, reflist

I have made a major upgrade, involving dozens of references, aimed at harmonising the referencing systems to improve the integrity of the code, in the light of recent discussions regarding submitting the article for review at a later date. Basically, there were two systems in the one article, and I have changed many refs that I had edited into the article to better fit in with those of shaidar cuebiyar.

Any sandbox versions of the article, have therefore become obsolete, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Nøkkenbuer, if you wish to pursue your current proposal, this may effect you. However, there is very little change to the appearance of the article, so it's up to you if you want to wait, and see. We can still discuss your proposal with your sandbox version the way it is. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well done, CaesarsPalaceDude, the refs are looking better. Now you have to hammer the Lead back to three or four paragraphs; and reorganise those History sections per Nøkkenbuer's suggestion. I'd say the article would then be B-class with GA-candidature possible after copy editing/peer review (by 3rd parties).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, shaidar cuebiyar; a little praise goes a long way. I am not likely to make the lead much shorter than it currently is (some pruning was done at the sandbox stage), and I can change it to four paragraphs when I have to. I did not set out to have five paragraphs; I placed the paragraph breaks to suit the prose. We will, no doubt, discuss the lead a whole lot at some later stage (not now). I am currently reorganising the article, and you will see very big changes from the status quo. I am taking this process very seriously, as you have come to expect. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, shaidar cuebiyar, I have created my proposed new structure for the article at my Ayers Rock sandbox. It is open for your inspection, and comment. It involves a highly chronological structure, as requested by shaidar cuebiyar on 24 April 2015. I will provide detailed discussion of the current proposals as soon as I have time to write it. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This version is chronologically better than current article but it still has problems, including:

• Radio airplay and Live performance, appear to have very little content on the Red Rock Records period: why are they subSections there?
• Formation largely deals with the time before signing to Mushroom, it should be earlier.
• A lot of critical response and discussion of musical style is now put into each subSection, this considerably increases the amount of content that the average reader has to wade through to find what they want to know.
• Undue weight is being given to Mushroom vs Red Rock by their usage in section headings.

In fact, consider ditching the whole History section heading and go for another arrangement, e.g.:

1. Early 1970s: Australian music scene
2. 1973: Formation
3. 1974–75: Sunbury and Big Red Rock
4. 1975–76: Beyond
5. 1977–81: Hiatus and Hotspell
6. Afterwards
7. Musicianship
8. Critical reception
9. Members
10. Discography
11. Notes
12. References
13. External links

Some of these may need subHeadings but you get the idea. Radio airplay and Live performance would probably be put into Musicianship. That section would also deal with Music styles and/or genres. Critical reception would include both contemporaneous views and latter day opinions with a representative selection of reliable sources rather than an exhaustive discussion. Current article and CaesarsPalaceDude's alternative contain far too much commentary from contemporaneous writers: it should provide a summary style rather than a blow-by-blow account.

Furthermore as Doyle and McGuire each have their own articles much of the material about them should be trimmed back further in this article. Once Burton, Kennedy and/or Loughnan have their own articles even more pruning here would be justified.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, shaidar cuebiyar, there is a basic question, which is relevant, that most Wikipedians don't ever think about, but they should. That question is: what impact does the use of modern technology platforms have on the way we structure articles at Wikipedia? Many users of our encyclopedia use only mobile phones, or tablets to access content. They range from the young to the old, with the young people almost always up to speed with the technology. Recently, I have observed that older people are acquiring platforms such as mobile phones, but are struggling to learn to use them competently. These phones are a massive compromise with respect to navigating within an article, compared to using a "real computer" (as I like to call them).

Therefore, we have a dichotomy between Wikipedians, who normally use computers to create large tranches of content, and the readers, with a significant section of them using phones. We create, and organise articles seeing immediately the structure of the article in the table of contents (ToC). Phones and other platforms do not have a ToC, instead showing only level 2 headings. So, if there is a subsection 'Beyond' with a level 4 heading, this is immediately seen using a computer, but the user has to enter the relevant section to view that sub-heading on their phone. If we have two level 4 headings both called 'Beyond', one in the 'History' section, and one in the 'Critical response' section, the phone user could easily fail to realise that there are two sub-sections dealing with 'Beyond'. Give the phone to a septuagenarian, and the probability of failure escalates dramatically (I love old people, by the way).

Both of the competing propositions (Users N and S) assume too many things: they assume that the readers will know that there are two different parts of the article talking about an album (for example), that they have the skills to navigate from one part to the other, and that they have a prerequisite knowledge of how Wikipedia articles are structured. This last aspect could be almost impossible for some readers to know. If a reader uses Wikipedia mostly to read about rock bands, how would that reader know that the content he wants could be in a section called 'Critical response', when most articles on rock bands don't have a 'Critical response' section? It gets worse; shaidar cuebiyar assumes that the readers are not interested in the 'Critical response' section anyway, because he keeps talking about them having to "wade" through it. How is he so omniscient? There are simply far too many assumptions, and each assumption carries the risk that things will go wrong.

My proposal groups all of the content on an aspect of the bands career together, and if there is a little too much content for some readers' tastes, they will skim the material until they reach something they like. Readers are very good at that. Nøkkenbuer brought up the example of Augie March, and a very interesting article it is too. I really like what our colleagues have done there. (However I can't see how it retains a B-class rating with 25 dead links in the refs.) I can see that the separate 'Critical response' section is less problematic in that article, but still a bit of a problem, in my view. Now that I have crossed over to chronological structure, I'm enjoying the view.

Turning to shaidar cuebiyar's proposal:

• Radio airplay and Live performance have been changed to level 2 headings
• Formation is knit-picking and can be fixed later if necessary
• Point 3: I wrote and restructured it that way deliberately, and I'm quite comfortable with it. I understand why you don't like it, but I don't agree.
• Point 4: I tried to explain this, above; there is simply less material. I will only put in more headings when there is sufficient material to justify it.
• I don't agree with your proposed structure, because I don't want to force the readers to jump from one section of the article to another to view what they want. I remind you that you requested a number of times for the article to be organised chronologically, and now it is (proposed). You recently arranged for most of those previous requests to be archived. That was convenient.
• The separation of "contemporaneous views and latter day opinions" is completely deliberate, and I have explained the reasons above. Briefly, two of the "latter day opinions" reached conclusions which do not appear anywhere in the "contemporaneous views", and while those writers have a right to say what they want, we have a duty, as Wikipedians, to draw to the readers attention to the fact that there is a difference, without stating anywhere that any particular view is true (noting above discussion of relevant essays). Again, this can be changed later, and will be discussed later because shaidar cuebiyar can be relied upon 100% to raise it again.
• There is a large amount of commentary from contemporaneous writers, because it is essential to presenting an encyclopedic coverage of this subject. There is controversy regarding this band, and its place in Australian music history. We, at Wikipedia, didn't create it, but we can't ignore it either by saying "It's just a band and we'll treat it like every other band". So put away the cookie cutter, because it's not going to cut the mustard. (Please note the brilliant mixing of metaphors — ha, ha, ha)
• The last paragraph is trivia, and off topic, and we can discuss it later.

I commend to you my current proposed text. It is an improvement on the current article, and compared to the other two proposals.

Shaidar cuebiyar, please do not edit above this line. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that section Headings/subHeadings should not be too similar and certainly not the same. Your discussion regarding access by new users using disparate technologies actually reinforces one of my arguments: concision and clarity. The article has a way too big Lead: too many paragraphs, too much information. The sections below have too much detail for these readers to access easily. The article in its entirety should be trimmed back and we should work towards a summary style rather than trying to make the point (repeatedly, in the current article) that the group were so good. The historical sections should have some music style and critical commentary but this should be kept to a minimum. I believe readers of those sections want to know: who was in this group, what did they do. Musicianship, largely, should be separated out, this is available for those who want to know more about that aspect of the group. Likewise Critical response is, largely, better away from historical information. It should be representative: within that section it can be arranged chronologically but the views of contemporaries vs 90s reviewers should not be constrained or identified as inferior by editorial comment which currently exists in the article (I've referred to this above, but nothing has been done to improve this weakness).

As for your current sandbox version, some of the subsection headings are confusing. You have "Sunbury and first album" followed by "Big Red Rock" although discussion of that album had already started in the second paragraph under the previous heading. A similar problem occurs at "Second album" followed a little later with "Beyond": again, this is confusing to readers unfamiliar with the group.

If I want to just read about their Critical response and go to that section the first paragraph I see is the 1990s editorial commentary. A referral to "enthusiastic adulation" provides a biased couching of anything which follows. Where's this contemporaneous "adulation"? Back up there somewhere and difficult to find hidden inside what should be largely historical sections.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, this article has been my first major contribution to Wikipedia, and I think we can agree there are a large number of aspects which have worked out quite well. It is patently obvious that, for this article, I have written long, and detailed sections of content. This was what I intended, and is not an accident. From your many comments, you are quite uncomfortable with this approach. To my mind, this is a case of conflicting styles, and there is reason to believe this conflict will never be completely resolved. What can we do? We can work on the things on which we can agree.

Firstly, we agree that the proposal at my sandbox is an improvement on the current article, and therefore we should work towards getting that proposal into article space in a reasonably short time frame. The next bit is very important: I will not tolerate this upgrade to the article being held up by weeks, and months of unproductive haggling. Do not underestimate the strength of my resolve on this point. So, let's get to work, and fix the parts which we can reasonably resolve.

To that end, I have trimmed off some ephemera from the lead in the main article, and copyedited to achieve four paragraphs, as requested. I know it is still a long lead, and that you will be of the opinion that the changes don't go far enough. I like the lead very much as it is; it's four paragraphs, and a large number of other leads are the same length, or longer. If you have specific suggestions, list them, and I will look at them on a case by case basis.

You have raised issues with the headings. Please make specific suggestions, within my structure, how this can be improved. It's possible I could agree straight away.

There is no editorial bias within the section "Critical response (1990s to present)". You are reading in the bias, because you think I have a "view". You have no idea! My personal opinion, not that it should be relevant anyway (since we can't write our own opinions in the first place), is that the there was too much press adulation in the 70s, which the band could not possibly live up to. Lo and behold, a couple of things went wrong, and they broke up. Conversely, certain writers in the 90s didn't give the band sufficient credit for their achievements. So, actually, I think they all got it partly wrong, pretty much. In future, confine yourself to things that you actually know!

Of course, if we move the proposed update to article space, everything will still be up for discussion as always. We can discuss the contentious issues, like the ultimate structure, and trimming the article at that stage.

Shaidar cuebiyar, please do not edit above this line. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Your preference for "long, and detailed sections of content" runs counter to your claimed objective to make this article more accessible, especially to users of modern technology platforms. It also runs counter to GA criterion 1: specifically your prose is not "clear and concise".
2. Because I argue against your points of view don't imply that I do this to deliberately delay, subvert or otherwise test your resolve to get the article improved. Keep focussed on the improvement by not attacking any person who disagrees with your idea(s). Remember that your smoke-screening does not help your case. Bolding a comment and prefacing it with "The next bit is very important" is a further example of treating your fellow editor with contempt.
3. I have already commented on the problems with the main article's Lead. Some of those have been addressed, good. But some problems remain, including concision issues e.g:
   1. "even though they received very little radio airplay" cf "despite receiving little radio airplay"
   2. "before they left, as a unit," > "they left"
   3. "decided to leave in" > "left"
   4. "ahead of more favoured candidates" > delete this: it's redundant and is also ambiguous i.e. "favoured" by whom? Clearly A&M favoured them over others, it might well be that Mushroom "favoured" others or that the Australian music media "favoured" others but this discussion is best kept out of the Lead.
   5. Further edits to improve clarity and concision are needed in the Lead.
4. You've already dismissed most of my ideas with "I don't want to force the readers to jump from one section of the article to another to view what they want". This is despite being repeatedly told that FA and GA music articles are written in that style with the specific aim to improve access by the widest possible readership. These are the articles which display WP best practices. The chronological order should be maintained over the whole historical information set of headings/subHeadings. It does not mean that detailed discussion of musical style / critical reception should be shoved into those sections making each one of them extraordinarily long and complex to navigate. As I said earlier, the majority of commentary about musical style should be placed in its own Musicianship section, and the majority of critical reception/response should placed in its own section. Within each of those sections the matter should be arranged chronologically.
5. Your opinion is that no bias exists in the opening paragraph: I dispute this. If new readers were to start with the second paragraph they would obtain a different impression of the group. To me it is an obvious ploy to point the bone at the latter day criticism of the band. According to you the "enthusiastic adulation" of earlier years is biased/deficient in one direction and that the 1990s commentary does not "give the band sufficient credit for their achievements", which is biased/deficient in a different way. Leave the readers of the article make up their own minds. Give both sets of criticisms in the same section. Present them chronologically, provide a representative sample of each (rather than exhaustive telling/retelling repeating the same general idea) and let the opinions stand on their own strengths or weaknesses (as you perceive them) without your editorial commentary. "confine yourself to things that you actually know": I know bullying when I see it. Confine your commentary to improvement of the article's structure and expression don't attack the person who dares to criticise you.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Augie March reply

I dislike your pre-empting my responses and controlling when and where I should be commenting. It is highly restrictive and exemplifies a fractious attempt to impose your will on my preferred style of writing. In this particular case, my comment here should be up there where you talk about Augie March not down here after my previous commentary. You seem to believe that the Augie March article shouldn't even be B-class. I'm curious as to why you don't improve the dead links there if you find them so annoying? Is the fact that it was assessed by me as being GA relevant? Nøkkenbuer's comments were about the structure of its historical sections not the currency of its links. Back when I assessed it, Jan/Feb '09, all those links were fine. Link rot is a perennial problem with WP articles. If you wish to improve that article in this regard then go for it. I don't like how you've tangentially referred to poor quality in an article that I had something to do with and then expect no reply from me. Please maintain your focus on the current discussion and don't try to impugn my previous work when it has no direct relevance.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please let me explain. You appear to be imputing motives which I don't have. I was trying to bring some order into the chaos when I attempted to delay your next comment, and bring Nøkkenbuer back into the discussion. It is extremely unlikely that I will have anything to say about when you post in the future. In regard to your habit of inserting comments into my posts, it drives me NUTS, and I regard it as an attempt to disrespect my post. You might not be intending to be disrespectful. My posts are exactly that: my posts. I want to be able to return to that post and reread my post. I want other Wikipedians to be able to read my post exactly as I wrote it. If you came into my front garden and planted a sign saying "Shaidar cuebiyar is the best Wikipedian in Australia", it might be true, it might be relevant, but I still don't want your sign in my front garden. It has nothing to do with liking you, or not liking you, and nothing to do with a desire to restrict your freedom, for its own sake. The instructions in red will stay!

With respect to your comments about Augie March, I had no idea that you would react so strongly to an insignificant remark in passing. If I had known, I wouldn't have bothered making it. I had no idea that you had assessed that article in the past. There was no attempt "to impugn [your] previous work"; that didn't enter my mind. From what I could see the article had been edited by a large group of other Wikipedians. I love what that team has done with the article, and I am completely confidant that the article was correctly assessed six years ago. In actual fact, other articles have been more on my mind, like Damien Hirst. This link leads to a section which includes this: "A Thousand Years, one of Hirst's most provocative and engaging works, contains an actual life cycle." This little gem is a genuine unreferenced personal opinion. And don't worry about inline citation #36; it isn't in there. Just below that is a quotation from Margarita Coppack which is also unreferenced. Inline citation #37 leads to a message "Sorry, the page you've requested does not exist." This article and some parts of Tracey Emin were more on my mind than critcising you. The real point is that you're one of the good guys, and you don't do that shit. I fail to see how the Damien Hirst article is a B-class article, and Ayers Rock (band) will be very soon.

People who would like to tell me that I should fix this article or that article can stop wasting their breath. I've got 5 months work in front of me, without fixing everybody else's problems. I sincerely hope that this post will bring you greater peace of mind. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Clearly your idea to "bring some order into the chaos" favours your own style of controlling the debate and directing other editors to fall in line with your preferences rather expressing in their own way. To my mind, Nøkkenbuer, can jump in whenever he wants but if he chooses not to I respect that too. He shouldn't be forced to reply as and where you direct. As for my style or replying to individual ideas immediately they are raised, I believe, that it makes it easier for other editors to see exactly which point I am discussing.
2. Some of your edits here are long, complex and cover numerous points (that's your style and I have no problem with you choosing to write that way) and if I were to respond to say, point 3 of 15 right at the end then, I believe, it becomes more difficult for others to understand which specific point I'm addressing. Hence, I feel it easier to reply just after point 3 and address that idea at that point in the discussion. I try always to sign my responses and otherwise indicate to others that the response is mine and deals with the specific issue raised there.
3. The example of Augie March, here, is a case in point, my response should have been way up there above your "red line" (which, by the way, appears to be used against me to direct me where and when you want the reply put, as if I'm some sort of child or uncontrollable editor). This smacks of ownership issues where you have put yourself in charge of directing this talkpage: your "red line" indicates that I have to reply where and when you want me to and in a style that suits you. In any case, from now on I will ignore your "red line" commands: they carry no weight and are demeaning to me specifically (I don't see you use them on anyone else).
4. A discussion of Augie March's structure is relevant to Ayers Rock (band)'s structure. This point was raised legitimately by Nøkkenbuer. The presence of those dead links there and the fact that it is assessed as GA (and you believe it should not even be B) is not relevant.
5. You have a history of referring to other articles where I have contributed and finding perceived faults in them. You have a history of using those perceptions to make a point in your discussions and sometimes, I believe, those points are irrelevant to the discussions undertaken. It puts me on the defensive and diverts my attention from the actual issues which should be addressed. I believed you were doing something similar with Augie March, trying to score a mark on Nøkkenbuer or me or both and/or diverting the discussion into irrelevancy.
6. On this talkpage, at the moment, our focus should be on the structure of the Ayers Rock (band) article, I suggest you raise any issues you feel strongly about on other unrelated articles e.g. Damien Hirst or Tracey Emin, on the relevant talkpages. Likewise, Augie March. If you chose not to do so, fair enough, but don't raise the issues here to distract from the actual core issue: betterment of structure.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

1. I disagree completely. Your style of immediately answering in the paragraph break usually makes it almost impossible for other editors to know what the hell is going on. It breaks up their argument, and prevents them from presenting a cohesive view. Are you sure that other editors haven't been unimpressed with your style, but have been too polite to challenge you on it?
2. I take your point that you think you are helping. Yes, you would have to refer back. There is no perfect solution.
3. My edits are my edits. Keep out!
4. You're making a big thing, out of a very small comment.
5. I can refer to whatever articles I like. I will try to do that less if it upsets you. Last sentence: 100% wrong.
6. You're the one who made a big fuss. I tried to explain that your assumptions about what I was thinking were incorrect; I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise. I have much better things to do with my time than create distractions. That's some other guy, not me. I'm trying to go straight to the issues (or the ones we have a chance to agree on). CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Clearly if no-one has challenged me on this, I wouldn't know that it annoys any other editors. You're the first to point this out. If you had used polite and calm language to explain your preferences then I may have listened more attentively; but to bludgeon me with "red lines" fencing me in is not an approach that is likely to get on my good side.
2. Ditto.
3. Sorry, you don't own the article, you don't own this talkpage. I have every right, as do you as does Nøkkenbuer or any other editor, to adjust your edits to articles and to talk about your editing or commentary on talkpages (as long as I sign there, or otherwise indicate that the additions are mine not yours).
4. Your kilometres may vary. Just don't use smokescreens or attack make personal attacks on those who disagree with you.
5. Ditto.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead reworking

The current Lead is better than it was back in late April (see here), which is largely due to the work by CaesarsPalaceDude.

Due consideration of Lead section: Length suggests that the current Lead of 3,600 characters and four paragraphs in an article of 24,700 characters is still far too long and has too many paragraphs. The guidelines on Lead writing has "The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway".

The Lead should provide an accessible overview, avoid subjective terms and have the article's subject placed in a context familiar to the normal reader. I believe the current Lead's prose is overly complex with too many long sentences and unclear phrases which reduces accessibility. I will attempt to reduce its complexity, improve its clarity and reduce subjective terminology.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

New version of article goes "live"

shaidar cuebiyar, I have guillotined the discussion, and taken pre-emptive action by transfering the proposed article into article space. Before that I made another edit to trim the lead, and I reconfigured the headings to alleviate the problems you identified. The discussion had achieved as much as it was going to. Also, your comments were becoming nastier with each exchange of posts. It is appropriate that we have a cooling off period of at least three weeks, during which I would like to work on other projects. I hope you will dwell on the positive aspects of the many changes that were made to the article, rather than those which I did not accept. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You have no right to take such pre-emptive action. Your attitude reinforces my claim that you are attempting to exert ownership of this article and this talkpage. Your preferred structure is not the better proposal, I prefer Nøkkenbuer's structure. Nøkkenbuer prefers his structure. The consensus of us three editors favours his proposal over yours and so the restructuring should follow that design not yours. His design is based on the best practices of wikipedia's FA music articles. The flaws in your arrangements are listed above. You haven't convinced the majority of respondents to this talk page of the worth of your reconfiguration. Hence, it is you who should stand aside and let the article be arranged according to the favoured design.

You have every right to move on and edit elsewhere provided your edits are acceptable to others. You have no right to have the article frozen at the version you prefer without taking into account dissenting views.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The changes that I have made cannot be considered permanent while no consensus exists on the structure of the article. I do not intend to "have the article frozen", which is a nonsense because there are no "frozen" articles at Wikipedia. There is a consensus that the version which is now current is better than the version it replaced. You said that it was an improvement on the old version, and so did I. All I did was action the only consensus available, which was the logical thing to do. I couldn't talk to you, because you were too busy shouting at me. The act of changing the article to my version does not imply that Nøkkenbuer's structure will not in the future become the basis of the article. If you are so sure about what you are saying, call in an administrator. You can call in five administrators for all I care. I am quite confident that my actions have improved the article, even though the current version is not the final version. Let it be a transition to whatever the community decides in the future that it wants. By the way, I'm staying right here with this article for as long as I live; is that enough commitment for you.

What I need is: not to have to spend large amounts of time at this Talk page, so I can get on with some of my other work at Wikipedia. Could I have three weeks, please? This will allow time for this particularly unproductive argument to cool down, after which we can work together on the unresolved issue of the structure of the article. It is clear that you and I are not going to agree on this matter. So, after the three weeks have elapsed (8 June), I would like you to inform me of the method of mediation which you believe best suits your argument, and the interests of the article (in your opinion). I believe this is a way to move the discussion forward which is very fair to you. Summing up: the article is not frozen, and you get to choose the next step. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you don't own this article. My opinions carry equal weight to yours or Nøkkenbuer or any other non-disruptive editor. If Nøkkenbuer's format is better than yours by 2 to 1 of respondents here, then it should be the current working version not your preferred choice. Your presumption of the high ground doesn't over-rule the consensus between Nøkkenbuer and I for his structure. However, I will be tackling the Lead first (see below). I make no promise to leave the rest of the structure untouched for three weeks. I'll get to it when I want to: I don't dance to your tune nor to your convenience. You have no right to restrict my editing at this article, I am allowed to use the style I prefer and edit it when I want to. Your red-lines and restrictions carry no authority.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, you don't have a consensus to change the structure of this article, and you have been requested to enter, with me, some form of mediation or RfC or Third Party opinion process. For the last two weeks there have only been two advocates in this dispute, you and me. One for the current structure, and one for a different structure. There is no consensus at the moment. I advise caution. CaesarsPalaceDude 07:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing Structure without a consensus

You do not have a consensus for the changes you have made to the structure of the article. You have been previously warned. Pull back from the brink, shaidar cuebiyar. CaesarsPalaceDude 05:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I dispute your contention, I believe you yourself made changes to the structure of the article prior to any consensus being reached, your phrase "I have guillotined the discussion, and taken pre-emptive action by transfering the proposed article into article space" some five days ago summarises your position. The discussion had not finished: you were not listening to the advice from others. Nøkkenbuer and I preferred a different structure to the article's or your proposal but you forged ahead without stopping. I believe I have the right to present the article in a better style which is more in tune with FA and GA music article criteria than the one which existed at that time.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Argue your case in a formal setting, and establish a real consensus; one in which the community can be confident. I repeat: Nøkkenbuer is not here, he's flown away. You do not have a consensus, just a disagreement with another editor. CaesarsPalaceDude 07:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This talkpage is the appropriate venue for settling issues between editors. Your preferred option was not accepted by me or by Nøkkenbuer. You deliberately "guillotined the discussion" and took "pre-emptive action" to foist your preferred version into the article.

Your directives to me to refrain from editing in my own style, but only to edit at your convenience as to place and time are very controlling and restrictive. You have no right to do so. I have gone ahead and made the improvements to this article that I believe better reflect wikipedia's best practices as exemplified by various FA music artists' articles already cited by Nøkkenbuer. I have self-assessed the article as B-class and believe that it is better than it was five days ago.

I'd like other readers to note that CaesarsPalaceDude's current sign off does not have wikilinks which allow others to one-click over to his user page or his talkpage. This makes it a step more difficult to communicate with him directly. That is his choice.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Joynson & Kimball

I cannot allow the article to effectively quote the same source twice. Kimball's statement that there was a dilemma about pursuing "a more expansive instrumental-based approach or opt for a more song-based commercial sound" is preceded by an attribution to Vernon Joynson, as you know. Therefore, to quote both authors regarding the same material is in direct breach of WP:WEIGHT, in that it confers more weight to one opinion than any other in the article. Many other edits are very good; keep up the good work. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Joynson tells us that Col Loughman [sic] provided "sax, flute, clarinet, piano". Kimball has "Col Loughnan (saxes, flute, clarinet, keyboards, percussion, vocals)". Can you provide a reliable source for removing clarinet?
2. As you can see I've been trying to find archive copies of urls to reduce risk of future link rot. Google news and Google books sources don't seem to allow WebCite to archive their material.
3. There are still some 13 citations that don't provide page numbers. These may be challenged at GA standard. Any otherwise unsupported claims or direct quotes there are not easy to check without further information. These would have to be deleted if they're not verifiable. Did you consider getting permission from your sources to have such material copied/transferred to an appropriate online version? I've never actually done this myself so I can't help, directly. If its okay with you, I could contact another user at wp, who is more familiar with such processes, to see if they can help you get that material online.
4. Some of the Template:Cite AV media notes could use a MusicBrainz url to help verify some content. Additional information at MusicBrainz about Ayers Rock's releases – currently only 1st & 2nd albums are there, no singles, no 3rd album – can be provided by logging in and editing there. As a source, it is considered more reliable than Discogs.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Point 2: I can't find words to express my gratitude for the work you have done on archiving url's. Yes, I can see the problem with the Google sources.
• Point 3: Yes, this is a concern. I will need to divert my attention to finding those sources in the library, unless they are already covered by another RS. I will prioritise. I was refused permission to share those scans with Wikipedia; sources that I find may be a different matter.
• Point 4: With the singles, you know as much as I do. For Hotspell, most of the album information is right down the bottom of Kimball, except for the instruments they play, and the production credits. If you want me to add the liner notes for that album to MusicBrainz, it's something I could look at. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Any work you do at MusicBrainz would be helpful.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Loughnan didn't play clarinet

Yes, I can provide a couple of reliable sources. I wouldn't have removed it without the necessary proof. Loughnan did not play clarinet with Ayers Rock at any time, although he did play that instrument professionally at other times. If you look at the album notes for the first two albums, clarinet isn't there. What did happen was that at least one journalist got the wrong end of the stick by incorrectly calling a soprano saxophone a clarinet (they look a bit similar). In an article titled "Chip of the old Rock" there is a large photo of Loughnan playing electric soprano sax (the acoustic pick-up is clearly visible) with a caption saying: "Col Loughnan of the Ayers Rock band re-hearsing (sic) with a clarinet yesterday". (Kelton, Greg "Chip of the old Rock" The Advertiser (Adelaide)). A reliable source that did get it right is: Daily Independent Journal (Big Red Rock review) 10 May 1975 p.38 (San Rafael). If you have a newspapers.com subscription it will be easy to find, if not I can email a screenshot to you. In it Loughnan is credited with playing "tenor, baritone and electric soprano saxophones, vocals, electric and acoustic flute, electric piano and percussion". Like you, I am trying to be completely professional in everything I do at Wikipedia. More answers soon. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

1. I am convinced, there is no need to email me. I don't subscribe to newspapers.com – I don't like to use any sources which are not "free".
2. As indicated above at #3, you could consider putting some of that material online (after getting permission from your sources) so that it is easier to check by other users.
3. In the case of Kelton, which is in the article, it does not have a page no. which makes it difficult to verify. A GA reviewer may not accept it for the direct quote at its 2nd use.
4. Do you think the various saxophones and flutes should be specified in his instrumentation list at the bottom of the article?
5. If you know about such instruments, it would be appropriate to identify and wL the ones in the article's picture of Loughnan.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)09:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Point 3 I understand the problem, and I will need to spend a whole day in the library on that, and some other research for Wikipedia.

Point 4 I'm fairly relaxed about that. It can stay as it is, except that to have piano and keyboards is redundant. From photos and videos, the only keyboard on stage was an electric piano.

Point 5 I'm not trying to be smart, however the information you require is already in the file description page. In order to be as helpful as possible, I will describe everything I can see in the photo. Loughnan is seated because of the pain in his back. Even when seated, he is still in pain, which is why the look on his face shows that this is not the most enjoyable gig of his life. Loughnan has never sat while the other musicians stood, apart from this brief period. He is playing the tambourine. On the left is a tenor saxophone, and on the right is an electric soprano saxophone. At the top of the soprano sax between the mouthpiece and the keys is a circular object with a wire coming out of it. This is an acoustic pick-up, and the wire runs down the front of the sax to a coil bottom right, which appears to be connected to a pedal.

There's a slight problem connected with the photo. I have held back from using this photo in the Ayers Rock article because it could unbalance things, due to the lack of a photo of the whole band. Would it be possible to comment out this image for a short time, because I am currently working on obtaining a band photo for the Infobox? I feel it is a bit unfair to the other players to have a photo of Loughnan, without doing the same for them. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

With this group's various line-up there will always be members who aren't in a band photo, but I can understand your hesitation. I'll add to the caption as best I can and then comment out the photo. I'll let you fix Loughnan's instrumentation at bottom of article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Small problem with Doug Parkinson ref

On the link to Australian Jazz Agency (Doug Parkinson) a 404 error occurs when you click on the link. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Good spotting, looks like link rot has got another ref. Wayback Machine doesn't have a copy, so we might have to delete that ref. I hope that the various Holmgren articles cover all that band membership in that section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've found an alternative, Kimball's entry on Parkinson here, should do all that we need. I'll try to find an archived copy to avoid future link rot.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, love your work. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

MusicBrainz entry

This is looking much better: thanks.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting there; only a little more to do. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Juke publisher

For the first five or six months of Juke's existence, Thomas W. Williams was the publisher of Juke, later changing to David Syme & Co. Many early articles in Juke did not state the name of the journalist, but simply had the Juke "J" symbol at the end of the article (even double page spreads, such as "Juke, 4 June"). CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My presumption is that this is the editor: Nimmervoll? Without further reliable information, we'll have to leave author attribution out or just use a generic, "staff writer"? In any case perhaps more information can be ascertained from here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would one of three or four names, because it seems they had very few "staff" to call on. Calling it a "staff writer" is the only viable option. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Change to last paragraph of lead

I have made two changes to the lead, which I think help to better summarise the article. I tried to synthesise the quotes from Gudinski and McFarlane into "they failed to bridge the gap between artistic, and commercial success". Also, I thought it important to mention the bands' flattering reviews in the U.S. media. Not every album does that well. I understand that this increases the length by 104 bytes, which isn't really what we wanted. Are these changes an improvement? I would value your opinion. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at copyediting this part of the Lead. Note, the guideline MOS:LQ, advises the use of logical quotation style in all forms of English for WP. In Australian English, I'd prefer the full stop outside a quote, but I've seen GA reviewers call this one.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. We'll go with your past experience. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)