Template:Did you know nominations/The Days of Pearly Spencer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Days of Pearly Spencer[edit]

(
)

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 14:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

  • New enough (for 1 June) and long enough. Hook is acceptable and short enough, and checks out online with citation #2. No problems with disambig links or with access to external links. The text is written in an objective manner and neutral style, well-cited (but see issue 2). All external links were checked with dup detector tool for sources of possible copyvio or close paraphrasing; none found. Issues: (1) QPQ needed. (2) The last para is not cited at the end. (3) David McWilliams's name is linked in the header to the economist, but it should be David McWilliams (musician). (4) The article doesn't say that McWilliams was a singer-songwriter who died in 2002, it doesn't specifically say that he sang the song himself on its famous first cut produced by Solomon, and it doesn't specifically say that he wrote it. Please put that in? Summary: Nice, useful article. When issues 1-4 are resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
QPQ done. I've fixed issues 2 and 3 but I do need to go out soon; exactly which references did you get the information from issue 4 from?--Launchballer 10:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Launchballer. All issues now resolved except issue 4 in my initial review above. I'll try and find you the refs you want. I got some of the information, e.g. death date, from the WP article about David McWilliams. --Storye book (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not sure how to add the year of death without disrupting the flow of the wording, but everything else is added.--Launchballer 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Launchballer. You have added "late" so I think you don't now need to add the date of death if you don't wish to, and it is already in citation #3 and in the linked WP article about McWilliams. The normal way of doing it without interrupting text flow is to put it in parenthesis (d.2002). You still need to format citation #1 so that it doesn't appear as a url, but that is a minor issue.--Storye book (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All issues now resolved. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The linked ref says "the single that will blow your mind" came from "full-page adverts in the New Musical Express". This was likely a line from the marketing department of the record company. Is this attributable to any journalists or music critics at the New Musical Express? Otherwise, "by New Musical Express" in the hook is probably not correct. --PFHLai (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't find the original NME article - it was written 47 years ago, for goodness' sake - but this verifies it.--Launchballer 18:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Both sources say "the single that will blow your mind" came from "full-page adverts in the New Musical Express". The record company's marketing dept., etc., paid for some space in NME to show "the single that will blow your mind". This is not the same as The New Musical Express called it "the single that will blow your mind", which implies that the line was written by some music writer at NME. --PFHLai (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree that the citation to the NME is not actually a reliable source by our definition, as the NME would have printed whatever the record company said and taken the money. How about
- all verifiable to the Independent source Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just expanded the article explaining what happened... I am happy to go with ALT1.--Launchballer 21:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Review of ALT1. ALT1 is not verified by citation #3, which says this:

    Unfortunately, back in 1967, Radio 1, the BBC's new pop network, didn't add "The Days of Pearly Spencer" to its playlist, maybe because Solomon was also a director of Radio Caroline, the pirate station just outlawed by the Marine Broadcasting Offences Acts passed by Harold Wilson's government.

    - which is different. It doesn't say "refused" as in the article, or "banned" as in the hook - it says "didn't add". It doesn't say "because"; it says "maybe because". Could ALT1 still be true and is the cited obituary expecting us to read between the lines? Well yes, I remember Caroline very well and there was frustration at the Beeb in response to the success of Radios London, Caroline and Luxembourg at that time. But the main reason for the existence and runaway success of those stations is that they had the right pop music for that moment, whereas the Beeb was hopelessly fuddy-duddy and out of date - and being fuddy duddy and out of date could well have been another cause for ignoring Days of Pearly Spencer. There are no doubt thousands of one-time Caroline fans who could tell you this - but we still don't have a valid citation for it. Therefore, sadly, I have had to strike ALT1. In response to above comments I have also struck the original hook. What about a hook about the general subject matter of the song? --Storye book (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't think of any other hook that would be of sufficient interest. Just saying "Radio 1 didn't play it" is not in itself out of the ordinary. I read the Independent source and believed their suggestion that the BBC had a case of sour grapes because pirate radio had all the best DJs and playlists. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I disagree that there are no more possible hooks to be got from this article, and I'm sorry to see this nom withdrawn - but it's up to you. --Storye book (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I also very firmly disagree that there are no more possible hooks. How about:
ALT2: ... that in the original version of The Days of Pearly Spencer, the chorus was recorded from a phone box creating a low-tech effect?
ALT3: ... that one publication put promotional costs of the 1967 song The Days of Pearly Spencer at £20,000?
This one isn't yet in the article but it is in the BBC source:
ALT4: ... that even though adverts for David McWilliams' The Days of Pearly Spencer appeared on double-decker buses, McWilliams was walking around London without the money to board one?
...though perhaps that last one might be a bit too wordy.
ALT5: ... that according to Radio Ulster's Stuart Bailie, The Days of Pearly Spencer had a "flickering, almost documentary style" of describing Ballymena?--Launchballer 10:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The best one of those is ALT2, but I can't honestly say that the source is truly reliable. I did a search, and no reliable source reports it, though some unreliable blogs do. Perhaps they are getting confused with the compilation tape "Vox Phone Box" which featured the track? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That website is a very convenient archive of several reliable sources, such as the ones from The Irish Times and The Independent. The 'phone box' suggestion comes from The Independent, whereas The Irish Times said it was recorded through a megaphone.--Launchballer 12:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Review of ALTs 2-5. Character counts are 128, 98, 175 and 144 respectively, so all short enough. Thanks for adding them, Launchballer. I agree, Ritchie333, that ALT2 doesn't check out sufficiently with its online citation #3, so I had to strike it. However, a similar one incorporating the quote, "strange phoned-in chorus" instead of "the chorus was recorded from a phone box creating a low-tech effect" would be hooky enough. ALT3 would be fine if it were repeated in full in the article with its online citation #4 (by Stuart Bailie, BBC) and if the hook said "at close to £20,000". ALT4 checks out fine with citation #4, and just needs to have the too-poor-to-board-one bit repeated in the article. ALT5 is repeated in the article and checks out fine with citation #4. Summary: We can't use ALT2 but we could use a re-write in the way I suggested. We can use ALTs 3 and 4 with easy adjustments. ALT5 can be used with no changes.--Storye book (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
ALT6: ... that The Days of Pearly Spencer features a "strange phoned-in chorus"? I've adjusted the article so ALT4 and ALT5 are there.--Launchballer 16:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Review of ALT6: Short, snappy and hooky enough, and checks out online with citation #3. I have adjusted it (featured→features) because the recording is currently available. --Storye book (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Launchballer. Issues with ALT3 and ALT 4 now resolved. ALTs 3, 4, 5 and 6 are now all viable. Good to go with any of those 4 hooks. --Storye book (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Promoting as a modified version of ALT4:
ALT7 ... that adverts for David McWilliams' The Days of Pearly Spencer appeared on London double-decker buses even as he walked the city too poor to board one?

EEng (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

...and now unpromoting based on the following message I received on my own Talk:

I really, really, really don't want to get involved in DYK crap, but please bear in mind that (1) the song was not originally called "The Days of Pearly Spencer", but "Days of Pearly Spencer"; and (2) the fact that a journalist claimed something, using typically journalistic poetic licence, in a blog, does not actually make it true, and certainly not worthy of appearing as a factual statement on the main page. Please, don't make DYK even more of an embarrassment than it usually is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts:

  • I see the article lead acknowledges that the song title changed, but I couldn't find where a source explains about that. Assuming that the song's "official" title eventually included The, I think we should follow, in the hook, the approach we use for article titles, which is to call something by the name under which it's best known. In choosing the article title (i.e. including The) I guess someone made that choice, but in light of the above comment I'd like someone to review this point.
  • As to the poetic license, I think this is OK for a hook. A statement like "walked the city too poor to board a bus" is readily interpreted by the reader, in a DYK hook, for what it is. The article should not repeat this as flat fact, however, and you'll note the article directly quotes the source, which adds the required distance. (I was the one who added the quote, in fact, exactly for this reason -- and that was before I received the message above.)

I'd like the nom and reviewer to take over these issues, particularly the The one (if that makes sense). EEng (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered about the article title, but in talking about the original single - as the suggested hook did - we should use the correct title "Days of Pearly Spencer" (as here, for instance). "The" was used for the album title and some later versions of the song. And the quote by the journalist about McWilliams being too poor to use a bus is not supported by evidence. To me, the idea that poetic license is "OK for a hook" epitomises precisely what is wrong with with the DYK process - it seeks to mislead readers by presenting false or highly dubious information (which the article "should not repeat as flat fact") in order to entice them in. If the DYK regulars think that is a good idea, the DYK process has been corrupted beyond repair, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"The days of pearly spencer" chucks up 763,000 results, whereas "days of pearly spencer" chucks up 109,000 results - fairly conclusive. As for the blog, the whole problem with blogs is that anyone can write one but Stuart Bailie of Radio Ulster is not anyone - he's a journalist. And if you don't like that hook - pick another - there are another three that are good to go!--Launchballer 07:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Google counts should not be used to defend errors. Your hook referred to "..adverts for David McWilliams' The Days of Pearly Spencer..." But that was wrong. The advertised single did not contain the word "The". Later releases did, but that's not the point. "Stuart Bailie of Radio Ulster is not anyone - he's a journalist" - umm... what??!! Journalists are not necessarily reliable sources!! And, sorry, but I've got no intention of contributing to DYK, other than pointing out blatant errors and misinformation in the hope that some of those who actually take an interest do, in fact, care about accuracy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
You probably don't know this, but I've been excoriated recently for pulling a score of hooks before they reached Main Page, because of sourcing and truthiness problems. The question here isn't whether what the hook tells the reader should be accurate -- it must -- but what it is that the hook is telling the reader. It was the middle of the night when I posted the above, so maybe I need to think this over more. EEng (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Review update: I have struck ALT4 because it is superceded by ALT7. ALT7 is simply a better re-write of ALT4, and checks out online with citation #4. Re "The" in the song title: I am happy to accept the explanations above, and the changes since made in the article. In the light of this I believe it would make sense to remove "The" from the song title in any or all of the current hooks, because they all appear to refer mainly to the song in the 1960s. Now that "the" has been removed from the infobox, it would make sense to move the article title to "Days of Pearly Spencer" for consistency, and to prevent further delays in this nom. Re the quotations in the hooks: I am not sure whether it is the quotation in ALT5 or ALT6 which offends Ghmyrtle, but according to the consensus here so far, that offence is limited to one person. The principle here is that if an individual is offended due to e.g. blasphemy, vulgarity, political incorrectness or other potentially inflammatory material then it's reasonable for a reviewer to unilaterally remove it, but an opinion about pop culture requires a consensus to effect a change. I have no issue with using a quotation which is clearly indicated as such; we must assume an intelligent audience which understands that a quotation represents what someone has said, however imaginative or unscientific. Music is an art which is intended to elicit an artistic response; therefore a quoted attempt to describe the sound of the music is valid in a hook. I can confirm that although a phoned-in chorus might be old-hat or corny today - in the 1960s, when it was first done, it was a strong attention-grabber because it did indeed sound strange and otherworldly. Summary: (a) If you want to move the article title to "Days of Pearly Spencer" I'll support that, but it's OK if you don't. (b) If "the" is first removed from song title in hooks, then ALTS 3, 5, 6 and 7 will be OK. --Storye book (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I never said I was "offended"! What I objected to is the use of journalistic poetic license in ALT7 - "..even as he walked the city too poor to board one" - as though it were actually true, when it's just a quote from a journalist's blog. (It's superseded, btw.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Above review still valid. (Sorry Ghmyrtle but usage allows me to spell it either way, according to this.)--Storye book (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I gotta say my critical faculties weren't warmed up when I let that pass. EEng (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Above review still valid (ALT7 now struck). Please could we now have no more chat and allow nominator or volunteers to address outstanding issues (a) and (b) in above review, so that we can clear this nom from the backlog. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Now that I am in a better mood, Days of Pearly Spencer has been {{db-g6}}d. The Days of Pearly Spencer will be moved there shortly. I cannot agree with it - I maintain that the article title should have "The" in it as that's how it's best known - but it appears to be required for this nomination to pass. Whoever keeps writing below the }}, please stop it, as it will make a mess once this template is substituted. The comment is there for a reason.
ALT8: ... that one publication put promotional costs of the 1967 song Days of Pearly Spencer at £20,000?
ALT9: ... that according to Radio Ulster's Stuart Bailie, Days of Pearly Spencer had a "flickering, almost documentary style" of describing Ballymena?
ALT10: ... that the 1967 song Days of Pearly Spencer features a "strange phoned-in chorus"?--Launchballer 17:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Review of ALTS 8-10. ALTs 8-10 all check out online, and accepted as per above reviews of ALTs 3, 5 and 6. The only outstanding issue is now the page move. As far as DYK is concerned, the current problem with the page title is really its inconsistency with the infobox title. If you would like to correct the infobox title to match the article title, then I could pass this nom. The article title could then be moved at a later date if still required. --Storye book (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Days of Pearly Spencer has a {{db-g6}} tag on it, so honestly, I can see no good reason for updating the infobox when I'd need to change it back. I'll see if I can get an administrator to do it rather than waiting.--Launchballer 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I attempted the page move but failed; yes please ask an administrator. --Storye book (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Article has now been moved to new title as per consensus above. All issues now resolved. Good to go (at looooong last) with ALT 8, 9 or 10. Peace and love. --Storye book (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Days_of_Pearly_Spencer&oldid=943954979"