Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive3: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:57, 30 January 2010 editMoni3 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,282 edits →Elvis Presley: pre-support← Previous edit Revision as of 15:20, 30 January 2010 edit undoJohnbod (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,314 edits →Elvis Presley: add to replyNext edit →
Line 166: Line 166:
::*''History'' too mentions musical styles in various places, including: "he was now widely seen as a garish pop crooner: "in effect he had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers" ::*''History'' too mentions musical styles in various places, including: "he was now widely seen as a garish pop crooner: "in effect he had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers"
::] (]) 10:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC) ::] (]) 10:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, and there are other things like the comments from Dylan & Bowie. But these central points don't come through clearly enough, & eg #s 1&3 above are rather vague & should be expanded on. Some more pithy quotes from critics/historians (no more Jimmy Carter thanks) would help. ] (]) 12:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC) :::Yes, and there are other things like the comments from Dylan & Bowie. But these central points don't come through clearly enough, & eg #s 1&3 above are rather vague & should be expanded on. Some more pithy quotes from critics/historians (no more Jimmy Carter thanks) would help. At the moment there's a bit of not seeing the wood for the trees. ] (]) 12:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
'''Comment''' I didn't notice this was an FA candidate. Generally well-written, but there are some issues. I have a big problem with the paragraph about Elvis meeting Nixon. It starts off talking about the meeting, which is all well and good. Then it gets to a criticism Elvis voiced about the Beatles, followed by Paul McCartney's response. The paragraph concludes "Belying his own comments, Presley regularly performed Beatles songs in concert during the early 1970s". I'm sure when writing this out it seems logical, but from an outside viewpoint the whole paragraph is structured as an argument, which is a big no-no. What does Elvis covering Beatles songs have to do with his comment made to Nixon? Nothing directly. It'd be different if, say, he expressed appreciation for the Beatles and and a source noted that it was an opinion contrary to what he told Nixon. Instead, there's an insinuation that because he covered Beatles songs in concert (and why are there so many pages cited? One sentence saying he covered Beatles songs live is all you need) that colors his remarks. No it doesn't. Haven't you ever sung a song you didn't like? You are drawing a conclusion between what Elvis said and did, when that is not a Wiki editor's job, per OR and synthesis guidelines. Stick to what to sources say, and try to avoid drawing conclusions from them. Let the sources speak for themselves. '''Comment''' I didn't notice this was an FA candidate. Generally well-written, but there are some issues. I have a big problem with the paragraph about Elvis meeting Nixon. It starts off talking about the meeting, which is all well and good. Then it gets to a criticism Elvis voiced about the Beatles, followed by Paul McCartney's response. The paragraph concludes "Belying his own comments, Presley regularly performed Beatles songs in concert during the early 1970s". I'm sure when writing this out it seems logical, but from an outside viewpoint the whole paragraph is structured as an argument, which is a big no-no. What does Elvis covering Beatles songs have to do with his comment made to Nixon? Nothing directly. It'd be different if, say, he expressed appreciation for the Beatles and and a source noted that it was an opinion contrary to what he told Nixon. Instead, there's an insinuation that because he covered Beatles songs in concert (and why are there so many pages cited? One sentence saying he covered Beatles songs live is all you need) that colors his remarks. No it doesn't. Haven't you ever sung a song you didn't like? You are drawing a conclusion between what Elvis said and did, when that is not a Wiki editor's job, per OR and synthesis guidelines. Stick to what to sources say, and try to avoid drawing conclusions from them. Let the sources speak for themselves.
*I've considered this and I think you're right. The statement "Presley told Nixon The Beatles exemplified what he saw as a trend of anti-Americanism and drug abuse in popular culture" does ''not'' equate to like or dislike of Beatles music. One might suppose Presley would refrain from covering Beatles music to signify his disapproval etc, but that supposition is ]--it cannot be inferred directly from the cited material. I've removed it. ] (]) 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC) *I've considered this and I think you're right. The statement "Presley told Nixon The Beatles exemplified what he saw as a trend of anti-Americanism and drug abuse in popular culture" does ''not'' equate to like or dislike of Beatles music. One might suppose Presley would refrain from covering Beatles music to signify his disapproval etc, but that supposition is ]--it cannot be inferred directly from the cited material. I've removed it. ] (]) 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:20, 30 January 2010

Elvis Presley

Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC) and DocKino
Toolbox

Told by many through his childhood and formative years that he had no singing ability, he persisted in his attempt to bring his kind to the world. He went on to become the target of further derision as his life's work was dismissed as that of "cretinous goons". Yes folks: the King of Rock and Roll. PL290 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article (as well as both of your talk pages) are on my watchlist, I've noticed the development of this page over the past few months - here are some technical things I noticed:
  • Alt text was there, but I didn't realize the field code was different for infobox. Corrected.
  • Rikstar should probably be contacted, as he still is seemingly active at the article, and has contributed almost 3000 edits to it
Both PL290 and DocKino have done some excellent work on the article, with over 2000 combined edits since November. Sifting through the edit history reveals apparently endless hours of work put into it. Compare it to what it was back in August. I will make a complete read of it in a bit, and, if all proves good on that front, consider a support. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. - PL290, as I don't believe I ever got a chance back in November at The Kinks' FAC, I'd like to say "thank you" for your review of the article. The same goes for DocKino, with his extensive and indispensable copyediting and image research. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I.M.S. for your initial comments (and you're very welcome to those I provided on the Kinks). The points you've now raised will be addressed, and I look forward to your further comments once you've had a chance to read the article more fully. You're right that Rikstar has contributed all those edits to the article over the years, and I can confirm that when the FAC nomination was mooted on the talk page a couple of weeks ago, Rikstar made no objection but offered suggestions for completing the preparation. I'm sure this nomination has his approval but Rikstar, for the record perhaps you could confirm this is the case. PL290 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It does seem that Rikstar has discussed it on the talk page. I'm sure he is (or at least soon will be) aware of this nomination, and hopefully will post here soon. I just looked through the lead - the majority of it looks good, but I noticed one small thing: the line "proceeded to devote most of the 1960s to making unmemorable Hollywood movies and soundtrack albums" - I'm not sure if this is completely NPOV - I would either rephrase or find a quote calling it "unmemorable". How about "he proceeded to devote most of the 1960s to making "unmemorable" Hollywood movies and soundtrack albums," with a proper source. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Rephrased to characterize as critics' opinion. Passage now more clearly summarizes well-sourced primary text. DocKino (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Although there have been many attempts to improve the content of the Presley article during the last few weeks, there are still lots of problems. The article includes several superlatives based on assumptions that are hard to verify, for instance,

  • In 1973, Presley staged the first global live concert via satellite, Aloha from Hawaii, seen by approximately 1.5 billion viewers—the most watched broadcast by an individual entertainer in television history.
  • He is the best-selling solo artist in the history of popular music, with sales of approximately 1 billion units worldwide.

Journalist Nick Keene writes, “Elvis did not sell 1 billion records by 1982 which claim first appeared via an article in the 'Washington Post' dated 12 July of that year and quoted RCA as its source, nor is there any validity in the current claim of 1.5 billion - whatever Sony BMG may say in the liner notes on the back of one or two recent DVD releases. Rest assured my investigations reveal that Elvis is still by some distance the greatest record seller of all time, but even 26 years later it is no easy task trying to establish whether or not his sales have actually exceeded one billion copies.” Furthermore, some sources doubting Presley’s reputation as the most successful popular singer of his day were part of previous versions of the article. Why have they been removed? For example, this one:

  • Though he has featured prominently in a variety of polls and surveys designed to measure popularity and influence, sociologist Philip Ennis writes, "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." See Ennis, Philip H., The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), pp. 251-252.

Some details that were part of previous article versions have also been removed, for instance

  • His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk," and had alcohol problems.
These are important facts concerning Elvis’s mother. Kathleen Tracy, Elvis Presley: A Biography (2006) says, "While Vernon was serving his time in prison, Gladys found solace in Elvis and, increasingly, in drinking. Even though she drank in private, her bloodshot eyes and the lingering aroma of stale liquor gave her away. She also began missing work..." (p. 17). According to Jane Ellen Wayne's chapter on Elvis Presley in her book, The Leading Men of MGM (2006), "Gladys and Vernon were both heavy drinkers" (p.373) and "Gladys took Benzedrine and consumed vodka to excess to ease the pain of loneliness" (p.377).
  • Much criticism has been heaped on Elvis, the Colonel, and others who controlled his creative (or not so creative) output, especially during the Hollywood years." See Hopkins, Elvis in Hawaii, p.58.
  • When a CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, it "received such harsh criticism that it is hard to imagine what the public response to Elvis's degeneration would have been if he had been alive." This special "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse." See Samuel Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power (1989), p.173.

Some further questions: Why isn’t there a special section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era in the article? In that era, for which Presley is so well known, the singer was distanced from the main currents of rock 'n' roll, which were seized by groups such as The Beatles and the Rolling Stones during the 1960s. This moving away from his roots was much criticized by critics and rock musicians.

  • "There was so little of it that was actually good," David Bowie says. "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002.

One of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley.

  • Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." See Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303.
  • Several gender studies have shown that the singer had, like Liberace, presented "variations of the drag queen figure" in his final stages in Las Vegas, when he excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. See Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116. Although described as a male sex symbol, Elvis was "insistently and paradoxically read by the culture as a boy, a eunuch, or a 'woman' – anything but a man," and in his Las Vegas white "Eagle" jumpsuit, designed by costumer Bill Belew, he appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich." See Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety (Routledge, 1997), p.368. Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it. See Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1997), p.127.

Furthermore, why is there so little on Elvis’s personal life to be found in the biographical article? A section more specifically dealing with his friends is missing, although it is well known that he spent all day and night with them. The problems he had with his stepmother are not even mentioned. Where are the paragraphs about his personal habits? Why are there no passages about his violent behavior and his notorious predilection for guns?

The Legacy section primarily includes superlatives. Where are the critical remarks about the world-wide Elvis industry and the Elvis cult at Graceland?

And I still do not understand why the following well-sourced remark has repeatedly been deleted from the Lecacy section:

  • "No matter how successful Elvis became," says Linda Ray Pratt, "he remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans..." See Linda Ray Pratt, "Elvis, or the Ironies of a Southern Identity," The Southern Quarterly, vol. 18 (1979), pp.43, 45. See also Rodman, Elvis after Elvis, p.78, and Janet Podell, Rock Music in America (1987), p.26.

On the other hand, even more questionable claims have been cited, such as this one:

  • “Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television, he was arguably the most famous person in the world.”

There are many more questions of this kind. Unless the said (and some other) problems have been solved, the article has not yet reached FA status, though it is to be hoped that it may do so in the near future. Onefortyone (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Onefortyone: comments noted with thanks; my specific responses are as follows:

  • 1 billion sales: I note that your source, while challenging the figure, confirms that Presley is "still by some distance the greatest record seller of all time". The actual sales figure of is inessential in the context: I've removed it.
  • "the most watched broadcast by an individual entertainer in television history"--Guralnick supports the 1.5 billion figure, but is silent on "most watched". I agree the latter may be hard to verify: again, it's inessential so I've removed it.
  • The remaining points appear to relate to incidental aspects of the artist's life and career, or that of his parents, relatives and colleagues, or, alternatively, dwell too much on details of one aspect for a summary article of this size. The question of inclusion of both positive and negative aspects has already received careful consideration and I feel the correct balance has now been achieved.

PL290 (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with PL290 on these issues. Rikstar 05:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I've never worked out why great icons have workaday occupations listed. Really, the fact that he was an army sergeant is neither here nor there in the larger picture. I've seen "Hairdresser" next to great entertainers ... well, so what if they worked their way through acting school that way? Not for the infobox, I suggest. Looks good overall. Tony (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments through "1956–58"; more later.
    • "gained admission to a two-bedroom apartment" seems odd, and it doesn't even really say that they were allowed to live there. It just says they got in.
    • "Presley received a C in music in eighth grade" Not to put too fine a point on it: so what?
    • "The performance seems to have done much for his popularity at school." Seems, or seemed? Why not just "The performance did much..."?
    • "Presley, who never received formal music training or learned to read music, studied and played by ear." Studied what, music? It makes perfect sense to follow his lack of musical education with playing by ear, but why studying?
      • In addition to playing by ear, this is intended to refer to how he learned (not just notes, but styles etc.) by listening to music. Is there a better way to put it? PL290 (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "By the time he graduated high school in June 1953, Presley already seems to have singled out music as his future." That present-tense "seems" again... what is it doing?
      • It's intended to wrap up the section by drawing together and reflecting on the preceding statements about a strongly developing musical interest. Any thoughts/suggestions on how it could be improved? PL290 (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, it just comes across as a pseudo-narrative to me. Rather than saying he "seems to have" done something, we should just say he did it, or that he possibly did it. It's adding a feeling of Original Research, as if you, the writer, have concluded that he seems to have done something. Does that make sense? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "During the instrumental parts he would back off from the mike and be playing and shaking" This quote reminds me that you haven't really told us that Elvis was "playing" anything, and what. He's been portrayed as a singer thus far.
    • "Presley renewed Neal's management contract in August" I'd re-state the year here.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Ten images. Alt text good for all.

  • License: PD (U.S. pub, pre-1964, nonrenewed). Well evidenced.
  • Quality: Professional.
  • License: PD (by author). Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
  • Quality: Acceptable.
  • Usage: Good. Accompanied by sourced critical commentary on image's iconic status and historical significance of visual content.
  • Rationale: State of the art.
  • License: PD (by author). PD claims that come down to "I took it...50 years ago" without supporting evidence tend to bring me up short. However, the image is not on Flickr and comes up in Google Image Search only in the recent Answers.com Misplaced Pages clone. The article is obviously very well researched, so if none of the editors have come across this image in any of the many texts they've accessed, we can say at least that there is no evidence at this point to challenge the license.
  • Quality: Acceptable.
  • Usage: Good. Accompanied by sourced critical commentary on image's fame, significance of unique event, and importance of Presley's appearance during the event.
  • Rationale: State of the art.
  • License: PD (U.S. fed govt work). Verified.
  • Quality: Professional.
  • Usage: Good. Accompanied by sourced critical commentary on significance of unique event and fame and historical significance of visual content.
  • Rationale: State of the art.
  • License: CC-SA 3.0. Well evidenced.
  • Quality: Acceptable.
  • License: PD (U.S. pub, pre-1964, nonrenewed). Well evidenced.
  • Quality: Professional.
  • License: PD (Deutsche Bundespost work). Well evidenced.
  • Quality: Professional.

Seven fair use audio samples. Variety, specific selection, captioning, and rationales are uniformly very good. Total number is very reasonable, given the range of styles in which Presley performed, the musical innovations for which he is credited, and the amount of music he recorded--711 sides released during his lifetime (the Franklin Mint counted!). Comparable FAs would include Bob Dylan (approx. 475 sides, 7 samples) and The Beatles (approx. 160 sides, 8 samples).—DCGeist (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Query: There's data on Presley's top ranking in top 40 and top 100 hits, and UK number 1 and top 10s, as well. But surely he's at or near the top for US number 1 and top 10s also. Isn't he?—DCGeist (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A vexatious issue. The two most authoritative sources give different answers, the difference being in how the double-sided "Hound Dog/Don't Be Cruel" and "Don't/I Beg of You" singles, which precede the creation of the unified Hot 100 chart, are counted. To summarize: Whitburn follows actual Billboard history in considering "Hound Dog" and "Don't Be Cruel" as distinct number 1s (Billboard listed "Don't Be Cruel" as a number one seller for five weeks, then "Hound Dog" as number one for six weeks) and reckons "I Beg of You" as a top 10, as it reached number 8 on the Top 100 chart. Billboard now considers both as unified items, ignoring the historical split of the former and ignoring its old Top 100 chart entirely. So, here are the current totals per each source:
Number 1s
  • Whitburn: (1) Beatles—20; (2) Presley and Mariah Carey (tied)—18
  • Billboard: (1) Beatles—20; (2) Mariah Carey—18; (3) Presley—17
Top 10s
  • Whitburn: (1) Presley—38; (2) Madonna—37
  • Billboard: (1) Madonna—37; (2) Presley—36
Unfortunately, I've been unable as yet to access an up-to-date, high-quality source for the Whitburn calculation (though all the EPE and Elvis fansites have it). A new edition of his Top Pop Singles has just been published that includes Madonna's and Mariah Carey's latest hits, but it is not yet in any of the bookstores I've dropped into, let alone the library. I thought it best to leave it out for the moment, until the statistical dispute can be properly sourced. DocKino (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've looked over the article several times in the past few days, and it strikes me as a comprehensive and well-built piece. The amount of work that the co-nominators have invested in it has certainly paid off. I'm going to see how this review plays out over the next few days—if no glaring issues surface, and the points raised above by others are addressed, I'll be most happy to offer a support. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • More comments, up to "Musical style and evolution". One overall comment: Someone with access to the sources needs to go through and audit punctuation at the end of quotations. Some partial quotations have the period inside the closing quote, indicating the period is part of the quotation; however, some don't that seem like they are the termination of sentences.
    • "On March 24, Presley was inducted into the U.S. Army" A bit of a jump. Did he volunteer? Was he drafted?
      • He was conscripted. The draft notice is mentioned a few times in the build-up in the preceding section, and there's also a mention in the lead that he was conscripted. PL290 (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "Fadal reported that Presley had become convinced his career was finished—'he firmly believed that.'" Is that the complete quotation? If so, "he" should be capitalized? Can't check myself.
    • I noted that we don't link "private" or "sergeant" during his military service. Should we, as a courtesy to readers who don't know the American rank structure?
    • "one critic dismissed them as a 'pantheon of bad taste.'" Again, please check the quotation in the sources for MoS (period in or outside closing quote).
    • "Presley and his wife filed for divorce on August 18, 1972." They filed simultaneously?
      • Yes, they had already agreed to separate. To legally end the marriage, a lawyer, having ascertained each party's requirements, entered the divorce action on their behalf on that date in Santa Monica Superior Court. PL290 (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Who was in his band in later years? There is no mention at all of, say, Jerry Scheff, who is described as "Elvis' long-time bassist". I've also seen videos of him in the studio with Elvis, so he wasn't just a Vegas stage guy.
      • Moore, Black, and Fontana feature because they were a key part of the story in the early years. As things unfolded, Presley himself quickly became the central figure in the story. It may not be appropriate to devote space to later band members. I'll give it further thought. PL290 (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Moore and Black (and later, Fontana) were also collaborators with Presley in the origination of a musical (sub)genre--rockabilly--and the popularization of another--rock and roll. In that regard, participants in Presley's later bands don't have nearly the same sort of historical importance.
        • Even that aside, Scheff can not be considered a very significant figure. The only non-movie studio sessions he participated in were in 1976. I've been giving this area some thought over the past two weeks, and it strikes me that there may be two names worth adding to the article: Felton Jarvis, producer of almost all of Presley's studio (and many live) recording sessions from the great How Great Thou Art in 1966 until his death (Elvis in Memphis, of course, constituting a significant exception--though Jarvis was on hand); and James Burton, the acclaimed guitarist who took over as band leader from Moore as of the initial International residency in August 1969 and played with Presley, again, until his death. DocKino (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I edited the passage concerning the run-up to the first International residency to note the departure of Moore, Fontana, and the Jordanaires, and the arrival of Burton. DocKino (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "In September, Presley's condition seems to have declined precipitously." Same comment as earlier about the "seems"; it strikes me as a bit of pseudo-narrative that only confuses the story.
    • "Presley's father fired "Memphis Mafia" bodyguards " Why was his father doing this and not Parker?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it's in fine shape. There is something here for everyone, whether they are interested in Elvis the musician or Elvis the personality. It's as balanced as it could be, I think; I'm glad there is no "Elvis is alive" garbage and that you manage to keep the level of sensationalism at bay regarding a man who really was sensational, for better or worse. Excellent work on an ambitious subject. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment The article still includes some false statements. For instance, it is said, "...Presley received his first guitar. He had wanted a considerably more expensive bicycle." According to F. L. Bobo, who ran the hardware store where the guitar was bought, Elvis was anxious to buy a rifle (not a bicycle). See Elaine Dundy, Elvis and Gladys (2004 ed.), p.101. See also Howard A. DeWitt, Elvis, The Sun Years: The Story of Elvis Presley in the Fifties (1993), p.58, and George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain (1997), p.202, note 2. This is of much interest, as Elvis in later years had a predilection for guns and even used to shoot television sets. Furthermore, some more information about Elvis's parents should be added. My recent contribution that Elvis's mother Gladys was "voluble, lively, full of spunk" and had a fondness for drink (see Guralnick 1994, p.12) has been removed for inexplicable reasons. Such information should not be omitted, as there is so little about the singer's parents to be found in the article Onefortyone (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The young Prelsey's desire for a bicycle is sourced to the most respected biography of the singer--Gurlanick's--and was the description offered routinely by Presley in the 1950s. There is no more basis for calling it a "false statement" than there is for claiming that Bobo's version is "false". I have edited the passage to acknowledge the clashing accounts. You have claimed that the article "still includes some false statements"--plural. You have yet to identify a single one.
  • We already mention in these opening passages Presley's "unusually tight bond with his mother" and the fact that she "was regarded by relatives and friends as the dominant member of the small family". This is an encyclopedia article, not the two-volume, 1200-page biography to which you refer. I'm afraid we have no room for Gladys Presley's spunk. DocKino (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with DocKino's comments above—Including the "spunky" bit in the article would be slightly excessive, and, if it must be mentioned, would work better in a subarticle; say Childhood of Elvis Presley. Despite the points raised below by Johnbod, I feel that this article meets the FA criteria, and definitely deserves to be featured. As this nomination will shortly be closed, I'm very happy to offer my support. I think it's a fine article. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Generally a thorough biography, though I note many specific points raised above, and more could be found I'm sure. But I found it somehow misses spelling out his centrality to rock & roll, & massive influence on the rock of the 60s onwards, as a performer & phenomenon rather than anything to do with specific musical style. Also the way his career took him increasing MOR is not quite nailed. A couple of good paras on these points & I'd support. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Before addressing your observations, I want to make sure we haven't missed anything raised previously. When you say that you "note many specific points raised above", do you see anything that has yet to be dealt with appropriately? If so, please specify. DocKino (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You've given your positions above. I'm not saying I agree with them, but would not witrhold support on them. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, Johnbod, since you say you're so close to supporting, may I draw your attention to a few passages where I believe the aspects you mention are covered:
  • Legacy includes: "Presley's rise to national attention in 1956 transformed the field of popular music and had a huge effect on the broader scope of popular culture"
  • and "His music and his personality, fusing the styles of white country and black rhythm and blues, permanently changed the face of American popular culture"
  • and "As the catalyst for the cultural revolution that was rock and roll, he was central not only to defining it as a musical genre but in making it a touchstone of youth culture"
  • Genres admittedly doesn't use the term "MOR" (and perhaps rightly so, as it's a rather vague term) but does describe Presley's focus in later years on styles such as pop and ballads
  • History too mentions musical styles in various places, including: "he was now widely seen as a garish pop crooner: "in effect he had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers"
PL290 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and there are other things like the comments from Dylan & Bowie. But these central points don't come through clearly enough, & eg #s 1&3 above are rather vague & should be expanded on. Some more pithy quotes from critics/historians (no more Jimmy Carter thanks) would help. At the moment there's a bit of not seeing the wood for the trees. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I didn't notice this was an FA candidate. Generally well-written, but there are some issues. I have a big problem with the paragraph about Elvis meeting Nixon. It starts off talking about the meeting, which is all well and good. Then it gets to a criticism Elvis voiced about the Beatles, followed by Paul McCartney's response. The paragraph concludes "Belying his own comments, Presley regularly performed Beatles songs in concert during the early 1970s". I'm sure when writing this out it seems logical, but from an outside viewpoint the whole paragraph is structured as an argument, which is a big no-no. What does Elvis covering Beatles songs have to do with his comment made to Nixon? Nothing directly. It'd be different if, say, he expressed appreciation for the Beatles and and a source noted that it was an opinion contrary to what he told Nixon. Instead, there's an insinuation that because he covered Beatles songs in concert (and why are there so many pages cited? One sentence saying he covered Beatles songs live is all you need) that colors his remarks. No it doesn't. Haven't you ever sung a song you didn't like? You are drawing a conclusion between what Elvis said and did, when that is not a Wiki editor's job, per OR and synthesis guidelines. Stick to what to sources say, and try to avoid drawing conclusions from them. Let the sources speak for themselves.

  • I've considered this and I think you're right. The statement "Presley told Nixon The Beatles exemplified what he saw as a trend of anti-Americanism and drug abuse in popular culture" does not equate to like or dislike of Beatles music. One might suppose Presley would refrain from covering Beatles music to signify his disapproval etc, but that supposition is WP:OR--it cannot be inferred directly from the cited material. I've removed it. PL290 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the prose is too informal at points. Two exmaples foudn close together: "A single was pressed with "That's All Right" on the A side and "Blue Moon of Kentucky" on the flip", and "Presley still sporting his child-size guitar". And leave the chart rankings in the discography section. If you can't list all of Elvis' recordings, stick with the paragraph at the top instead. Don't do it by half by only listing "number ones" (which also gives undue weight to chart rankings, particularly on certain charts). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure those are necessarily informal terms; I suppose "flip" might be pushing it, but not "sporting", which I feel would be hard to beat! Don't forget, articles are not all written in the same style; in this one, care has gone into word choice to preserve encyclopedic accuracy while also giving an engaging read. PL290 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Re. Discography, yes, it is different from discography sections in other such articles, but for a reason. It's to do with the nature of the artist's output. This is detailed in the introductory text to that section. In view of what it says there, do you still disagree? DocKino, what are your thoughts about Wesley's suggestions for this? PL290 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem with listing only the number ones is you're essentially saying commercial success defines what's notable about Elvis's discography. A discography is a discography, regardless of chart ranking, and should be treated comprehensively, not based on sales. For instance, you wouldn't fashion a bibilography section for a prolific author by only listing what books reached number one on the New York Times bestsellers' list. When you're talking about a discography, you're talking about the discography as a whole, and not just the commercial aspect, no matter how massive that might be. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments What makes these reliable?

It's nicely sourced overall, but the Elvis Australia is a stumbling block for me. RB88 (T) 13:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, or Pre Support: Fix these issues with reliable sources and I will support this article. I wrote Roy Orbison's article and found myself very skeptical seeing this article on the FAC list. Then very jealous. It is very well-written and comprehensive. You should be very proud of this article and I will support without reservation once the above issues are reconciled. --Moni3 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. Insert footnote text here