Talk:Buddy Holly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBuddy Holly was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
October 22, 2010 Good article nomineeNot listed
September 9, 2015 Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Lead is too long

The lead is overly detailed and is too long. I know that the main editor is interested in taking this highly important article to GA but it won't pass unless the lead is dealt with. Best, jona (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

  • Agree. It's two paragraphs too long, and the answer isn't to push them together. I've done some trimming and took out material not needed up top. Jus da fax 18:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Buddy Holly/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork ( talk · contribs) 08:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

  • Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • Article is stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • No evidence of OR - appears to stick to sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • No evidence of bias. Article appears neutral. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • There are images with suitable captions. While the last three images. a museum sign, headstone, and signpost, are not examples of highly encyclopaedic images, and their value to the article is debatable (I could see an argument that the article would be better off without them), I think there would be enough rationale for their inclusion to meet the GA criteria for relevance. I think there could also be an argument that this article would greatly benefit from audio clips to demonstrate Holly's vocal style, production technique, and the basic instrument set up that would go on to epitomise rock music, though the lack of such samples I don't think by itself is a reason to fail, more something for ongoing development. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • Images all appropriately tagged. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • There appears to be an incorrect free-use tag on File:Budy Holly Ed Sullivan 1958.jpg. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) I have removed the image. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • There are a lot of external links - are they all appropriate according to the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links? SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • Prose is OK - it is readable, and the information is generally clear, though it could be a little tighter in places. The GA criteria is that the prose should be both "clear" and "concise" - I think it's the "concise" part that could do with attention. I have mentioned a couple of examples below. I suggest a new editor look over the article with a view to tightening it up as it helps to have a fresh pair of eyes. It requires a little more than a simple copy-edit (this is more about rephrasing and editing content rather than correcting grammar and spelling), so perhaps a fellow editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music rather than from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • Article appears to mainly meet MoS requirements, though the Lead could be tighter. We have perhaps too much detail on his life and career, with nothing on his image and style. The Book link might be better placed in the External links section; and the number of links in that section should be closely examined - there seem a lot of them for a GA article; one of the links is to a newspaper article. Consideration could also be given to the Wikipedia:Further reading section, as guidance is against lengthy lists; there are already significant Holly books listed in the sources section such as Norman's biography so the value of that list is dubious. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • Article seems appropriately sourced, though there is a citation needed tag in the Film and musical depictions section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • Also we have a long quote from Maria Holly which says that she was two weeks pregnant when he went on tour, while other sources say three weeks ( [1]). A minor point, but a curious one. I think it may be important to keep some reference to that, as in my background reading I am picking up some speculation that she wasn't pregnant, but made up the miscarriage to gain sympathy. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
I also read a source that stated that she possibly made up the miscarriage story, but I didn't gave it too much importance since a large number of reliable sources also state that she was at the time pregnant. I think one of those claims originated from one of those tell-all books that you immediately discard as reliable sources. I'll try to expand with the sources you provided his impact.-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
Yes. I think it was Peggy Sue's book. What I took on board from the speculation, is that she was not very pregnant when she miscarried. If she was two or three weeks pregnant at the start of the tour, she would be only, what, five or six weeks when she miscarried. In the 1950s, pregnancy was confirmed medically at the earliest two weeks after the last missed period, and was expensive and unreliable with a lot of false positives (usually involving the death of a rabbit or frog), and she would have missed only one period. A miscarriage at five to six weeks would be equivalent to a heavy period. So, it is unlikely a doctor would have reliably confirmed pregnancy that early, and she herself wouldn't know, as it could just have been her periods playing her up - understandable in the circumstances with her husband away. If there is a reliable source or two that says how she revealed her miscarriage, I think it may be worth looking into some neutral wording along the lines of "Maria Holly gave a statement the day after the crash in which she said she had miscarried at six weeks pregnant." I think, given the speculation and dubious nature of the circumstances, it might not be appropriate for Wikipedia to be saying she was pregnant and miscarried (as it would seem we are confirming something that has been doubted). If we report that she said it, that would be acceptable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
You got me there truly. I just followed the source, but what you say makes a lot of sense. Of course, I have to clarify that I'm not really acknowledged in pregnancy related topics, while less to say about the way tests were carried at that time. I'll reword it for some neutrality.-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
I think the wording can be improved. Saying "there is no independent source for this." doesn't make sense as there wouldn't have been any independent source for an at-home miscarriage. Saying she claimed a miscarriage is sufficient. Without a reasonably documented reason to question her statement, the current phrasing comes off as a little sexist given the long history of not believing women about their bodies. CarolinesCastle ( talk) 21:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
Cool. There's hasn't been any work done on the article for over a week. There are some users who get concerned and will comment if a review is left open for a long time; I'm quite positive about keeping reviews open while work is taking place, but find it hard to defend keeping a GAN open when there is no progress. I do often get involved in helping out on articles I'm reviewing, but I find myself a little busy in real life, so am unable to offer any real assistance at this moment. Unless you feel you have the time and motivation to get stuck in over the next seven days, it may be best to close this as unlisted, and you can renominate at a later date when the work has been done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
Usually I don't abandon any nominations, but real life also had me too busy lately. Maybe it would be a good thing to leave this for now and pick it again when we both have a little more time (if you got any interest in reviewing it by then). A Buddy Holly article deserves more dedication than the one I'm able to provide right now.-- GDuwen Tell me! 20:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

Real life does have an annoying habit of intruding and preventing decent work on Wikipedia, doesn't it? I'll close this now. Keep well. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

  • "Brunswick signed the band on March 19, 1957" is sourced at the end of the paragraph to page 131 of Prairie Nights to Neon Lights, but it doesn't appear in that book. Can you find the book that is the source of that information? SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
It's OK, I found a source. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

I happen to realize now that I included the links of Britannica and Allmusic, but they are mixed within the "recognitions" subsection of "Legacy". I'll get rid of the title because it's misleading and I just leave it under the main title. That also includes inductions and honors anyway. I'll ty to enrich it with the stuff from the Telegram and Guardian anyway.-- GDuwen Tell me! 17:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

General comments

  • "In 1955, after opening for Elvis Presley, Holly decided to pursue a career in music." This is vague and unclear as he was already pursuing a career in music, as indicated by his opening for Elvis. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • The phrase "decided to" is used ten times in the article. Are all of these needed? Is it the decision we are interested in or the action? For example, should it be: "[Holly] decided to visit producer Norman Petty in Clovis, New Mexico" or "[Holly] visited producer Norman Petty in Clovis, New Mexico"? In the first statement we are not sure if he visited Petty as the statement is only telling us that Holly made that decision, not that he acted on or even achieved it. That section: Holly's recording sessions were produced by Owen Bradley. Holly was unhappy with Bradley's restrictions and the results of their work, and decided to visit producer Norman Petty in Clovis, New Mexico. Attracted by the success of the records produced by Petty, Holly traveled with his band to the studio where, among other songs, they recorded a demo of "That'll Be the Day". could be made tighter: Holly recorded two unsuccessful singles with Decca, after which his contract stopped. Unsatisfied with Owen Bradley's production techniques, Holly took his band to Norman Petty's studio in Clovis, New Mexico, where, among other songs, they recorded a demo of " That'll Be the Day". SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • "born ... at 3:30 pm" - do we need the time? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
  • "From his early childhood, his family and friends nicknamed him "Buddy"" could be "From early childhood he was nicknamed "Buddy"" SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
Buddy was already into music before Elvis, but many sources attribute his opening as the act that truly convinced him to pursue a professional career ( Lehmer, p.7)-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
Replaced a bunch of "decided too's" (didn't even realized I repeated that so much). I don't think that clarifying the time he was born does any harm, neither I see it too useful. Your call there. Replaced also the nickname thing.-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

On hold

There's a decent amount of material been gathered here on the subject of Buddy Holly, and I think the article is close to meeting GA criteria. It would benefit from a little more work as regards the lead, the prose, and a refocus on Holly's music style, his visual image, and his general importance in the story of rock and roll. Put on hold for these issues to be addressed or discussed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

Nominator has not logged in since the review has been open. Notice has been left on his talkpage, and hold extended. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
Sorry that I haven't replied before, I just returned from my vacations. Tomorrow I'll try go get everything done. Thanks for taking up the review.-- GDuwen Tell me! 20:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

Not listed

Closed as not listed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

Buddy Holly phone call to Decca

MP3 of phone call. Details on Fascinating. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

I heard that recording a few years back and forgot about it while I was working in the article. It's probably worth mention in the article that he taped a call. Being a Holly fan I was also truly amazed.-- GDuwen Tell me! 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
Reveals a lot about Holly. The intention behind the recording shows he doesn't want to be messed with, and would be prepared to go to court. He's even told the operator that he is recording the call so there can't be a later claim he did it secretly. It's no wonder he ended up having creative control over his own recordings - I don't think that was an accident. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
You couldn't even say he was ahead of his time regarding those things, by nowadays standards you can still say he was too clever. Not to mention his later work with producing and all, he was right on the spot for everything. As Keith Richards said, not bad for a guy from Lubbock, Texas.-- GDuwen Tell me! 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

Is talking about death directly inappropriate for a death section?

That's what I hear. I reverted that, because it sure seems appropriate (aside from maybe the pocket stuff). We have the leadup to his death and the aftermath, so "how he died" is naturally the central point. Or am I missing something? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

How do those grisly details from the coroners report warrant inclusion? We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia , not some two bit tabloid known for sensational blood and gore. How does it diminish the article by leaving it out? Moriori ( talk) 02:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
The details simply answer what happened to Buddy Holly when the plane crashed. Sure, a reader can assume it wasn't pretty, by the bit about the funeral afterward, but that's awfully vague, particularly for such a high-profile death. The omission is glaring, which is why I added it in the first place. I tried (I think succesfully) to keep it as dry as the report without copying it verbatim. Some deaths are inherently grisly, but that alone doesn't make them sensational. If there's a better way to word something, I'm open.
As for what he was wearing and carrying, that's more trivial, but he was something of a fashion icon, and it seemed like something that sort of stargazer may wonder. Sometimes small details become bigger when they're part of large events. Not particularly important, but there's a story going around that Paul McCartney received the golden cufflinks. So saying they're actually silver here is one small step for truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
What secondary reliable sources have published these details from a primary public record? In the 56 years since his death, what reputable biographies, newspapers and scholarly studies of his life and work have considered the details noteworthy enough to merit inclusion? 2600:1006:B140:CA3C:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 ( talk) 04:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
The Des Moines Register hosts a bunch of stuff from that day. Not sure if counts as reliable, but it discusses it. Gibson is known more for its guitars than its reporting, but there's this analysis.
Not entirely related, but here's what happened to his glasses. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
The Times-Republican notes all the trinkets (and even the coroner's fee). Smaller paper, but seems "legit". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

Birth name should be the first name mentioned in lead sentence.

Per MOS:BIRTHNAME and MOS:LEGALNAME, if the artist didn't legally change their name to their stage name, then their birth name is introduced first in the lead sentence. Other examples: Ringo Starr, Bono, and Flea (musician).

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies: Investigation may sometimes be needed to determine whether a subject known usually by a pseudonym has actually changed their legal name to match. Reginald Kenneth Dwight formally changed his name to Elton Hercules John early in his musical career. Where this is not the case, and where the subject uses a popular form of their name in everyday life, then care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Do not write, for example "John Edwards (born Johnny Reid Edwards, June 10, 1953) ...". It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name.

Wash whites separately ( talk) 18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

I am thinking WP:COMMONNAME applies here as opposed to this change. Mlpearc ( open channel) 18:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is talking about the title of the article, not the lead sentence. The paragraph from the Manual of Style above makes it very clear what the protocol should be if there is no evidence that the person legally changed their birth name. The title of the article should remain "Buddy Holly", yes—I never disputed this. But the first name introduced in the lead sentence should be his birth name, and his stage name afterwards, per MOS:LEGALNAME. Wash whites separately ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

Removal of claim about Elton John's eyesight

In the article's Influence section, it previously said that Elton John's eyesight was damaged by some glasses he wore. I have removed the claim, since it is a misconception that glasses can damage one's eyesight. On a side note, the citation for the claim is unclear, since the {{ sfn}}-link is dead; there's no 1979 book by John Goldrosen in the Sources section.-- Stempelquist ( talk) 23:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

  • Do you have a source calling this a misconception? I'm pretty sure this is the Goldrosen book. Don't know what's in it (beyond a story about Buddy Holly). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
    • There's this page on the American Academy of Ophthalmology's website. If the claim is really made in the Goldrosen book, and since the "fact" has been spread in at least this forum post linking to the Wiki article, maybe it could be an idea to approach the misconception in the article (after the line about Elton John imitating Holly)? It could say something like: "In a Holly biography by John Goldrosen, it is claimed that this damaged John's eyesight and made him dependent on glasses. However, wearing glasses can't damage one's eyesight.[insert AAO source]". The popular Reddit post I linked could even be mentioned. Or maybe it's all too much of a side note and belongs in the Elton John article or nowhere at all?-- Stempelquist ( talk) 01:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
In general, piano playing singers don't become rich and famous. Many academies advise partying like he did can kill an average person. But there was something about him the defied expectations in those regards, and maybe there is here, too. Always better to counter a particular claim with a particular denial. But I don't care enough to argue it further. Consider me out of your way. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

Unnecessary level of detail

At Buddy Holly § Winter Dance Party tour and death (1959), this seems unnecessarily gory:

The bodies of the entertainers were all ejected from the plane on impact, while Peterson's body remained entangled in the wreckage. Holly had sustained fatal trauma to his head and chest and numerous lacerations and fractures of his arms and legs.

Is it really insufficient to know, from the previous sentence, that they were:

killed instantly when their plane crashed into a cornfield

? How about adding the ref to this sentence or External Links for those who really need to know? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 07:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

External links

The "External links" section is a link farm with eleven links and needs trimming. Otr500 ( talk) 08:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

I burned six, was thinking about a seventh, but figured at least his fellow Texans would expect to see something from Texas there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

Vandalism by

@ Sundayclose: I see you had to revert a lot of edits by non-registered users recently. In this reversion of your reversion (, the person infobox was lost, which means the field for spouse was lost as well. I just put in a request for the article to be semi-protected. -- GravityIsForSuckers ( talk) 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Reply[ reply]

I looked at the edit history. That was annoying. How do we put the spouse field back? I tried, but it just wouldn't show up. Givemedonuts ( talk) 21:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
@ Givemedonuts: When I originally added it a couple years ago, I made the main infobox a "person" infobox, then embedded the musical artist infobox with the "module" field name. Then the spouse field goes into the "person" infobox (note the diff link I posted above). -- GravityIsForSuckers ( talk) 21:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
@ Givemedonuts: I fixed the infobox -- GravityIsForSuckers ( talk) 04:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Reply[ reply]
Oh, wow. I have nooooooo idea about these things. Cheers to you! Givemedonuts ( talk) 09:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Reply[ reply]