Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Keith Moon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Keith Moon[edit]

Keith Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Moon is not only one of the best known drummers in rock music, but he attracted just as much attention offstage as on, and his life has been comprehensively covered in several books, not least Tony Fletcher's biography. The article achieved good article status in April and a further peer review has now been completed. Therefore I believe it's now in a good enough state to be considered as a Featured Article candidate. I hope you enjoy reading it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : Cliftonian (talk · contribs), who helped at the peer review, has agreed to help out with resolving any comments that arise from this review, though he didn't feel he had contributed to the article enough to be a co-nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have often read that Vivian Prince, the first drummer for The Pretty Things, had a huge influence on Moon's antics at the beginning of his career. But that was mostly in Things-centered books and articles, so that may be dubious—I haven't read any of Moon's biographies to see if this is mentioned, and thus worthy of appearing here (however, I found a mention in Neill & Kent of Moon "attending early Pretty Things' gigs to study Prince's unique drumming style" in their note for December 6, 1965). Just my two cents as a Things-obsessed guy (not that I don't love the Who in their own right). Ælfgar (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a mention of Prince in the "early years" section, tagged onto the list of artists he admired. The only other person notable for depping for Moon, Scott Halpin, gets an entire sentence. I don't think I can really do more than that, though. Neill & Kent have that one sentence, while Fletcher relegates Prince to a footnote. I don't think Marsh mentions him at all (though it glosses over Moon's pre-Who career a bit). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simple mention is perfectly due weight by me. I'll create the stub on Prince as a way of thanking you :) Ælfgar (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you do that, can I suggest a DYK of "Did you know ... that The Pretty Things were banned from touring New Zealand because drummer Viv Prince allegedly set fire to a bag of crayfish?" (source)? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Cheery-bomb caption could use a bit of tweaking for concision and phrasing
  • File:Old_American_Cherry_Bombs_Cherry-bombs.png: I'm not sure the given licensing tag particularly makes sense for use with images; I've only ever seen it applied to software and code. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a simple solution to this. The sources used in the article don't specify that it was this brand of cherry bomb, and it's tangential to the subject anyway, so the simplest thing is to remove it. That takes care of copying editing the caption at the same time. As for the licence, the uploader's talk page is full of copyvio notifications, so I guess he chose that to stop getting messages on his talk page, rather than any serious attempt to use the BSD licence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. It's nicely written. The sourcing looks good too, though I haven't yet examined it in detail. I may comment further when I have done so. --John (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments - taking alook now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a locality for the Railway Tavern? to give context.....
Harrow. (North London) —Cliftonian (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. A good enough read I forgot about copyediting. Nice balance of key points without being overinclusive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • A few days later, Moon took Johnston to the set of Ready Steady Go!, which caused him and Entwistle to be late for a gig with The Who that evening. How did the visit to Ready Steady Go involve Entwhistle?
He went with them (reworded, added source) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He eventually left Moon's services in 1978 Shouldn't this be without the terminal "s" on service?
I've reworded this to simpler language, which works around the problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to remind the reader that Kit Moon was his mother.
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add place of publication for all the books.
According to MOS:CITE, "city of publication is optional" (presumably because the same book can be rewritten for different markets or cultures) but I'll have a look when I'm next to my bookshelves. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Clayson's Keith Moon: Instant Pary: Musings, Memories and Minutiae not have anything of use?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(warning, strong personal opinion follows...) The three main sources I consulted were Marsh, Fletcher and Neill/Kent. Marsh is officially authorised by Townshend, Fletcher contains a phenomenal amount of research with over 100 first hand interviews including Townshend, Entwistle, Stamp, Butler, Kim McLagan and Annette Hunt, as well as mining the archives of NME, Melody Maker, Rolling Stone and other contemporary magazine sources. Neill/Kent is officially authorised by Daltrey and Stamp, both of whom wrote forewords. Clayton's book, on the other hand, isn't authorised or endorsed by any of the band or people close to Moon (ie: Butler, Kim and Annette), doesn't show evidence that they were consulted and goes into too much "sensationalist" gossip about Moon's party antics and his lost weekend in LA in the mid-1970s. Too much POV and it seems to my mind to be an excuse to publish lots of photos. Butler's own book is of the same vein, which is why I've used it to cite information about Butler but little else. A related question, though, is why I didn't cite the more fondly remembered Richard Barnes' "Maximum R&B" - in that instance, there wasn't really anything of substance that wasn't covered by a good mix of the sources I did use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Fletcher and the Clayson, although I haven't yet read either. I was just curious; three major biographies ought to be enough--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comments from FunkMonk
  • Hi, I'll read the article and comment along the next few days. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moon was voted the second greatest drummer in history in a Rolling Stone's '"The Best Drummers of All Time'" readers' poll" For the intro, I think mentioning "The Best Drummers of All Time poll" is redundant, we already know what he was voted as.
Agreed - removed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moon The Loon" Should "the" be capitalised?
Not according to both the source the term is cited to, and MOS:CAPS. Caps in the lead fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another teacher, Aaron Sofocleous, praised his music skills" Any word on which instruments?
Not in the source given, also Fletcher doesn't name him has such. I don't appear to have written this bit, an old version of the article before I started improving it also has the name and the quote, but unsourced. I've rewritten this snippet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be nice with some year dates under early life and early years, for context.
What were you thinking of? Aside from joining secondary school in 1957 and leaving in 1961 I don't think there's anything else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, when did he join The Escorts? When did he take lessons from Carlo Little? But granted, this is a very minor issue. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moon singing at the Maple Leaf Gardens, Toronto. " Why no date for this caption?
Forgot (The Who has it). Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The intensity of the explosion singed Townshend's hair" Didn't it also damage his hearing, I think I've read?
You might have read it in an unreliable source, but this reliable one says it was listening to headphones at too loud a volume in the studio. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goldfish in the drum set thing seems to fit better under the stunts section than in "other work".
Possibly - though I think it's got more prominence as the most significant solo musical TV performance - being Keith Moon, it was always going to be "stunt" related. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ready to support if the date issue can't be resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Ah well, isn't an issue that will hold it back in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Cliftonian
  • We have both "the Who" and "The Who" in the article; go with either one or the other but be consistent.
I have gone with "The Who" simply because that's what the majority of mentions were, and for no other reason - I am terrified of having a rehash of this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was known for his unique drumming style, playing zig-zag across the kit with a wash of cymbal, and gained notoriety for his eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour" Why not omit "gained notoriety"? The sentence is shorter and crisper and has the exact same meaning.
Hmmm. Playing devil's advocate for a second, I could argue that if you omit that, a reader could infer that the "eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour" was part of his drumming style, as opposed to his life generally. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He was known for his unique drumming style, playing zig-zag across the kit with a wash of cymbal, and for his eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour". I don't think this infers that the behaviour was part of his playing. Maybe change the word to "lifestyle" to remove any doubt? —Cliftonian (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone with "He was known for his unique drumming style that involved playing zig-zag across the kit with a wash of cymbal, and for his eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will put more if I think of anything else to add. Very well done so far! —Cliftonian (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick note, I'm on tour and my net connection is totally disrupted, so I'll be off wiki for about a week. I think it's only one minor issue from FunkMonk that I haven't directly addressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Early years: Not sure whether we need two The Shadows links in this section.
  • Music: Again there are multiple links to a band, this time Led Zeppelin.
Both fixed. I went through overlinks some time back but other editors put them back in. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film: There's a notable redundancy in "Though the film took only 13 days to film". Would changing the second one to "shoot" be acceptable for the movie people?
I can't find the text "the film took only" in the current revision, so I guess somebody's fixed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing out on stage: Shouldn't there be a space in "drumkit"? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Drumkit" as a singular word is a legitimate English term according to Wiktionary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dougal Butler: I'm not sure I understand "the lifestyle eventually got too much for me". Was it meant to be "eventually got to be too much for him."?
The current revision already has your proposed change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death: Repetition from one sentence to another in "The Who's drummer has been Ringo Starr's son Zak Starkey. Starkey...".
Agreed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor, but for consistency's sake the date in ref 13 probably shouldn't be shortened.
A more serious problem, though, is the lack of a time / location for the reference, which for a video I would consider mandatory to pass FAC. I'll replace this with a book source, but in the short term I've tagged this as {{better source}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publishers of refs 48, 61, 66, and 89 should be italicized as print publications.
Assuming that means Drum Magazine, Classic Rock magazine, Rolling Stone and Los Angeles Times, done. Also, Rolling Stone is a "work", not a "publisher" (who in that instance is Wenner Media LLC). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 84 is missing a publisher.
Added. The suitability of this source (it can be regarded as self-published and is written from a fan's point of view) has come up before but I've defended it on the grounds that it doesn't contradict anything stated in professionally published sources, and just expands on some more detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 79 is formatting with a bare link. Also, is this a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a chance. Completely unreliable self-published source, wholly unnecessary (the preceding text is adequately cited), but with an accessdate field of 28 October 2013 it's safe to assume I had nothing to do with this. Because this article sees regular traffic, it's worth seeing if an IP or new editor has boldly put something in and if you think it doesn't come anywhere close to WP:WIAFA, just remove it. Unfortunately, this means that all the "Ref", "FN" numbers are now all incorrect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for tuba as one of his instruments?
I thought "where does the article say that?" then realised it was the infobox. The bugle playing is best documented by Fletcher and says that after an atrocious (but amusing) rendition of "When the Saints Go Marching In", Moon gave it up as a bad job and switched to drums. "Drums, percussion and vocals" are the only notable musical instruments he used as documented across a wide range of sources, so I'm going with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN88: missing italics
Ref 88 is currently a reuse of the source "jones". Ref 89 has italics. What reference are you specifically referring to? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN96: page?
(a short rant follows) If a reference to a living person claiming alleged drug use for another person is not impeccably cited, it fails WP:BLP and should be removed. I meant to do this some time back but forgot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need access dates for GBooks links
Butler and Book of Rock Lists both fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN127: italicization is reversed
Do you mean put Faber and Faber in italics? I think this could move to using {{sfn}} as it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether Allmusic is italicized
...and correctly spelled ("Allmusic" vs "AllMusic"), and only wikilinked on first use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers
Only Jones had a location - removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN152: formatting
Fixed, though I don't have this source and there is no preview so I cannot personally verify this source is correct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN153: who was the original publisher?
Fixed, but also tagged as {{page needed}} as it was not supplied. I don't have the paper source, so unless anyone else can supply the page number, it will have to be resourced or removed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading should be formatted like Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, also added Clayton's book as a notable additional source and removed Butler which is cited in the main text. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc[edit]

Sourcing
  • Cites #13 and #21 need locations. You shouldn't generically cite to an undefined moment in a video of unknown length, at least not an a FA.
These are already tagged (by me) as {{better source}} and will be fixed with book sources when I get a free moment to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are unreliable sources currently being used in the article then the article should not pass FAC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're not unreliable, as they're quotations from a commercially released DVD, but the editor who added the citations did not include timings. I don't have a copy of the DVD in question to note the times, which is why I tagged as {{better source}} so I could resource from a book instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #15 has a bare url.
This is using the "website" parameter of {{cite web}} - what is our policy on this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have a bare url, you should use www.gigwise.com', not http://www.gigwise.com/. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #48 should be put into a template for consistency. Also, the page numbers are missing.
This is currently Doerschuk. The page numbers are not missing as {{rp}} is used. I'm sure there was a reason for using this rather than {{sfn}} but I can't remember what, so I've used that instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites #49 and #51 are to www.thewho.net, which isn't a WP:RS. Also, the mark-up reads Who Tabs, but the work is thewho.net.
This came up in the GA review and in the PR review, and the view I took at the time was it was an expert source citing plain factual information that could be backed up by other sources. A recent drive by edit which claims more reliable sources contract this has convinced me otherwise. I have removed one cite and tagged the other as {{unreliable source}} for the interim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in four years I have never seen anyone argue that this type of source can be used in an FA. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole purpose of the PR was to check these sort of things before I listed it at FAC! Unfortunately it's hard to get things improved when faced with general indifference. I would appreciate if people stopped saying things like "oh that's always reliable, and that's never reliable", and instead looked at the content in question - which is, do you believe Moon's kit as used in 1966-67 was called the "Red Sparkle" and contained the components stated. If not, why not? A search for "Keith Moon red sparkle" brings up pages of hits in unreliable sources - where did they get the information from? Each other? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #63 is to an unreliable source with a copyvio on the main page.
This is currently Classic Rock magazine. I've seen it for sale in newsagents. I don't buy this argument. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cite #s are now messed up, but yesterday cite #63 was Keith Moon Records With The Beatles". Keith Moon Movie. Retrieved 3 September 2012, which is an unreliable source with a copyvio on it's front page. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keithmoonmovie.com is junk. It should be removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Edit : I know why I left this in, I meant to resource the fact to Ian MacDonald's "Revolution in the Head", then forgot to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Music book sources.jpg
Some reliable sources, yesterday
  • Cite #88 is to The Daily Mail, which is a tabloid that should be avoided per WP:RS.
I do not buy this argument. You can find my rantings about the Daily Mail on John and Hillbillyholiday's talk pages, but I do not accept the view that they should be aggressively stamped out at all costs. The Mail occasionally has showbiz pieces or interviews which for whatever reason the broadsheets don't touch. In this instance, the source adds some additional quotations for colour, and does not contain any information that is contracted by the main book sources. In my view, this is acceptable as it is citing opinions, not hard facts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, John has told me this on multiple occasions, as have others. If you cannot source the article without avoiding tabloids then it shouldn't pass FAC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only supported on prose and I did mention I might check back in later on sourcing. Luckily both items sourced to this tabloid (which I agree is not the best for a FA) are sourceable to Dear Boy: The Life Of Keith Moon by Tony Fletcher (ISBN 0857122223) which is probably a better source anyway. --John (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everything in the article can be resourced (including everything I have tagged as {{better source}} and {{unreliable source}}), particularly to Fletcher, Marsh and Neill / Kent, the primary book sources I have used. I'd prefer to use as wide a variety of sources as possible. Unfortunately I'm a bit short of spare time to do this, but if people still think the article is possible to pass FAC, I can do soon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #89: The Los Angeles Times should be italicized.
Cite 89 is currently a page in Fletcher. Cite 91 has Los Angeles Times but this appears to be italicized already. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a printed source, that's why it should be italicized. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #126 should be put into a template for consistency.
126 is currently La Blanc, which is using {{cite book}} as expected. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was Interview with Dougal Butler by Richard T. Kelly, from Full Moon: The Amazing Rock and Roll Life of Keith Moon. Faber & Faber. 2012. ISBN 978-0-571-29585-2. Since you cite to it three times, this should be put into a template for internal consistency. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites #152, #153, #160 and #161 need page numbers.
None of the reference numbers match what you mean. As mentioned earlier, this is one of the problems of putting raw reference numbers in comments - they will change. The only possible case I can consider here is currently #162 which is a cite to Sounds, that an IP added. I've never seen the source so can't comment any further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now they are cites 153, 154, 161 and 162. Or The New Book of Rock Lists, Greene, Andy (February 2011), Interview with Ozzy Osbourne. Sounds. 21 October 1978 and "Dear Boy : The Life of Keith Moon". Amazon. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #155 needs a location.
This is currently Budofsky - why does it need a location? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was Anatomy of a Drum Solo DVD, Neil Peart (2005) accompanying booklet. (Republished in Modern Drummer Magazine, April 2006), which does not include a location. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #158: BBC News should not be italicized.
What part of MOS states this? Why should it not, but Los Angeles Times, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a printed source, so it shouldn't be italicized per MOS:ITALIC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Awkward prose. - "Keith John Moon (23 August 1946[1] – 7 September 1978) was an English musician best known for being the drummer of the English rock group The Who." "was an English musician best known for being the drummer of" is a bit jarring, IMO. Consider: "Keith John Moon (23 August 1946[1] – 7 September 1978) was an English musician best known as the drummer of the English rock group The Who", or similar. Also, per the MoS the definite article in the Who should not be capped mid-sentence.
  • Prose. - "He was known for his unique drumming style that involved playing zig-zag across the kit with a wash of cymbal, and for his eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour." 1) You use known twice in the first two sentences, try to avoid this repetition. 2) "playing zig-zag" is slangy; recast. 3) "a wash of cymbal" isn't much better. Why is this unique to Moon? Did other drummers of the era not use cymbals? Also, "a wash" is drum/music jargon.
  • Prose. - "In 2011, Moon was voted the second greatest drummer in history in a Rolling Stone readers' poll." 1) "drummer in history in a" is awkward and uses one too many tos. Consider: "In 2011, Rolling Stone readers' ranked Moon the second greatest drummer in history", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Thirty-five years after his death, his drumming skills are still praised by critics and musicians." 1) Per WP:REALTIME, avoid the reference to "thirty-five years after". 2) This is a bit redundant with the preceding sentence; I think it can be removed, since it does little but remind the reader that Moon is still appreciated, which is something that the details in the prose should accomplish with examples, not a generic statement.
  • Prose. - "Moon grew up in Wembley, London, and took up drumming in the early 1960s." Conjoining these two clauses with and seems incorrect, since his growing up and his starting to drum are not closely connected. Consider: "Moon grew up in Wembley, London; he took up drumming in the early 1960s", or similar.
  • Prose. - "After performing with local band The Beachcombers, he joined The Who in 1964, before they had recorded their first single." 1) "with local band The Beachcombers" seems awkward, like it's missing an article. Consider: "with a local band, The Beachcombers", or similar. 2) Per the MoS, the definite article in the Beachcombers should not be capped; same with the Who. 3) Construction issues. The sentence does not make logical sense if you omit the middle clause: "After performing with local band The Beachcombers ... before they had recorded their first single." Consider a react that omits the third clause: "In 1964, after performing with a local band, the Beachcombers, he joined the Who". We don't need the Who's singles history here; keep it Moon-centric.
  • Prose. - "He stayed with the band during their rise to fame and was quickly recognised and praised for his distinctive drumming." 1) "He stayed with the band during" is awkward and misleading, since he never left the Who, why would we indicate that he remained a member through the Golden Era? 2) "rise to fame" is not encyclopedic prose, IMO. 3) "quickly" is maybe not the best modifier here; consider immediately, or similar. 4) "was quickly recognised and praised". Did this occur "during [the Who's] rise to fame"? This whole sentence needs a rewrite, IMO. Consider: "He was immediately recognised and praised for his distinctive drumming as the band achieved fame in the UK", or similar.
  • Prose construction. - "He occasionally collaborated with other musicians and later made appearances on radio and film, but he considered The Who his main occupation first and foremost and remained a member until his death." 1) This sounds like he first "occasionally collaborated with other musicians", then "later made appearances on radio and film". Did he stop collaborations after appearing on radio and film? Also, occasionally is modifying collaborated, I think you mean to say: "Occasionally, he collaborated", or similar. 2) "but he considered The Who his main occupation first and foremost and remained a member until his death." There are several problems here: a) "his main occupation first and foremost" is redundant; there is no need to use main, first and foremost to make the same point, which his brings me to b) Why mention that he was loyal to the Who? If he had joined another band the lead would mention it, but since he didn't I am not sure why you are asserting the negative that he didn't play with any other bands. c) "remained a member until his death" is an excessive self-explanatory detail that the narrative explains well without this awkward phrase. I suggest that you omit this text-string. Consider: "Occasionally, he collaborated with other musicians, and made appearances on radio and film", or similar.
  • Prose. - "In addition to his ability as a drummer, he developed a reputation for smashing his kit on stage and destroying hotel rooms while on tour." 1) The mention of his reputation as a drummer is redundant with the third sentence in the paragraph. 2) "kit" → drumkit. 3) This is quite awkward and in need or a recast. Consider: "He developed a reputation for smashing his drumkit on stage and destroying hotel rooms while on tour", or similar.
  • Prose. - "He had a particular interest in blowing up toilets using cherry bombs or dynamite, as well as destroying television sets." 1) particular is an awkward and excess modifier in this construction; omit. 2) Did he really use dynamite to blow-up toilets? If so, did he know how to measure the charge, because even a half-stick of dynamite would destroy much more than a toilet. 3) "as well as destroying television sets" is awkward. Consider: "He enjoyed destroying television sets and blowing up toilets using cherry bombs or dynamite", or similar.
  • Prose. - "He enjoyed touring and socialising and attempted to live his entire life as one long party, being especially restless during the occasions that The Who were inactive." 1) This is an awkward way to say that he enjoyed touring, socializing and partying, which is a bit redundant with socializing anyway. 2) "attempted to live his entire life as one long party" in not encyclopedic, IMO. "Entire" is an excess modifier here, as is "long", which is also redundant with "life". "Attempted" might not be the best choice of words here, since he was pretty successful at this goal. Consider: "He enjoyed touring and socialising and he partied as often as he could", or similar.
  • Prose. - "His twenty-first birthday party in Flint, Michigan has become a notable example of decadent behaviour amongst rock groups." 1) This needs either more detail or to be omitted in toto, as it does little more than assure the reader that the party is notable, but if it's that notable then why not mention a specific detail or two that would help the narrative establish why he was considered so wild. I.e., all rock stars party (pretty much), but what was different about Moon's party habits that stand out so much from an age of widespread debauchery.
  • Clarity. - "Moon suffered setbacks in the 1970s, most notably the accidental death of his chauffeur, Neil Boland, and the breakdown of his marriage." 1) The last his is referring to Boland. Did Boland's marriage breakdown? Was this a setback for Moon (that's rhetorical, I know what you mean, but the prose isn't clear). 2) Was Boland's death really more notable a setback than Moon's divorce? Was Boland more important to Moon than his own wife? Consider: "Moon suffered setbacks in the 1970s, such as the breakdown of his marriage and the accidental death of his chauffeur, Neil Boland", or similar.
  • Pronoun clarity. - "He became increasingly addicted to alcohol, particularly brandy and champagne, and started to acquire a reputation for decadence and dark humour, giving him the nickname 'Moon the Loon'." 1) The pronoun he is referring to Boland here, not Moon. 2) In "increasingly addicted", increasingly is an excess modifier; once you are addicted you are addicted, there aren't levels of addiction per se. I think you mean to say that he increasingly drank more, which is different than an increasing addiction. 3) "[He] started to acquire a reputation for decadence and dark humour" seems a bit redundant with some of the earlier statements, e.g. you've already mentioned his "self-destructive behavior", his "smashing his kit on stage and destroying hotel rooms while on tour", his "attempt[s] to live his entire life as one long party" and his 21st birthday party. Maybe all these "wild man" points should be condensed into a sentence or two, or made more distinct so as to avoid the feeling that you are essentially repeating these generalities without distinction. 4) "giving him the nickname" is awkward. Consider: "He increasingly consumed large quantities of alcohol, particularly brandy and champagne. His developing addiction coupled with his propensity toward wild antics earned him a reputation for decadence and dark humour; friends nicknamed him 'Moon the Loon'."
  • Prose. - "After relocating to Los Angeles during the mid-1970s with his personal assistant, Peter "Dougal" Butler, he recorded his only solo album, the poorly received Two Sides of the Moon." 1) Why not be specific about the relocation date? 2) Is it especially notable that he relocated with Butler? Consider: "After relocating to Los Angeles in 197X, he recorded his only solo album, the poorly received Two Sides of the Moon", or similar.
  • Construction. - "On several occasions while touring with The Who, he passed out on stage and was hospitalised." This would be better off following the "Moon the Loon" statement, ala: "which earned him a reputation for decadence and dark humour; friends nicknamed him 'Moon the Loon'. On several occasions while touring with The Who, he passed out on stage and was hospitalised."
  • Prose. - "By the time of their final tour in 1976, and particularly during filming of The Kids Are Alright and recording of Who Are You, the deterioration of his condition started to show." 1) This sounds like the Who toured several times in 1976.
  • I'm hesitant to review this further. There are so many prose issues in the lead that I am a bit surprised to see that you've already earned supports from Cas Liber and John; they have always been much harder on my work! lol. If you find my review of the lead helpful and address most of my concerns I may be tempted to run through the rest of the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, interesting. Funny how this happens. I just got into the swing of it and enjoyed reading, which I generally take as a good sign....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Prose. - "Moon was born to Alfred Charles "Alf" and Kathleen Winifred "Kit" Moon[1][2] on 23 August 1946 at Central Middlesex Hospital in north west London, and he grew up in Wembley." 1) Since the article has not yet mentioned Moon, you should to start with "Keith John Moon was born". 2) Whenever you use a full date you should have a comma separating it from the following prose, e.g "on 23 August 1946, at". 3) the clause "and he grew up in Wembley" seems tacked on with an inappropriate conjunction. Consider: "Keith John Moon was born to Alfred Charles "Alf" and Kathleen Winifred "Kit" Moon on 23 August 1946, at Central Middlesex Hospital in north west London; he grew up in Wembley", or similar.
  • Prose. - "He was hyperactive as a boy and had a restless imagination, with a particular fondness for the radio series The Goon Show and music." This is clumsy and awkward, IMO. Consider: "As a boy he was hyperactive with a restless imagination. He was fond of music and the radio series The Goon Show", or similar.
  • Prose. - "His art teacher commented in a report on Moon: 'Retarded artistically. Idiotic in other respects'". "in a report on Moon" is excess. Consider: "His art teacher described him as "Retarded artistically. Idiotic in other respects".
  • Prose. - "while another teacher remarked that Moon 'has great ability, but must guard against a tendency to show off'.[4]" Moon should be he.
  • Prose. - "Moon joined his local Sea Cadet Corps band at the age of twelve playing the bugle," Did Moon own a Sea Cadet Corps? Try: "Moon joined a local Sea Cadet Corps". Also, "Moon joined his local Sea Cadet Corps band at the age of twelve playing the bugle" is clunky prose, IMO. Consider: "At the age of 12, Moon joined his local Sea Cadet Corps band as a bugle player", or similar.
  • Prose. - "but found the instrument too difficult to learn and decided to take up the drums instead." Consider: "but he found the instrument too difficult to learn, so he instead decided to take up the drums", or similar.
  • Awkward prose. - "He also took an interest in practical jokes and home science kits, with a particular enthusiasm for explosions." Consider: "He developed an interest in practical jokes and home science kits, and was particularly enthusiastic about explosions", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Often on his way home from school, Moon would go to Macari's Music Studio on Ealing Road to practise the drums there, where he learned his basic skills on the instrument." Consider: "On his way home from school he would often stop at Macari's Music Studio to practise drumming. There he learned his basic skills on the instrument", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Moon left school at the age of fourteen, around Easter 1961." Consider: "He left school around Easter 1961, when he was fourteen", or similar.
  • Focus. - "The money earned from this job was used to buy his first drum kit." 1) The focus of the sentence is money; it should be Moon. 2) There is no need to specify "from this job". Consider: "He used the money he earned to buy his first drum kit", or similar.
Early years
  • Prose. - "Moon took lessons from one of the loudest contemporary drummers, Screaming Lord Sutch's Carlo Little, at ten shillings per lesson." 1) I don't think loudest is the best word choice here. 2) To call Little a contemporary drummer is misleading; he died 8 years ago. I know what you mean, but I don't think the prose is clear. You need to make it obvious that Little was a contemporary of Moon.
  • Comma splice. - "His favourite musicians were jazz artists, particularly Gene Krupa (whose flamboyant style he subsequently copied).[10]"
  • Excess Modifier. - "He also enjoyed singing, with a particular interest in Motown.[13]"
  • Prose. - "During this time Moon joined his first serious band: the Escorts, replacing his best friend Gerry Evans.[16]" 1) During What time? Is the date know? If so, include it. 2) "his first serious band"? Were his previous bands comedic?
  • Prose. - "In December 1962 he joined the Beachcombers, a semi-professional London cover band playing hits by groups such as the Shadows.[17]" 1) You sometimes use commas after introductory phrases such as dates, but other time you do not. Make consistent. 2) Your use of playing is awkward here. Consider: "a semi-professional London cover band that played hits", or similar.
  • Prose. - "During his time in the group Moon incorporated theatrical tricks into his act, including "shooting" the group's lead singer with a starter pistol.[18]" 1) You use "group" twice in the same sentence. 2) You should avoid using scare quotes around shooting. It would be better to explain that he was faking the shot with a started pistol rather than rely on scare quotes to alert the reader.
  • Prose. - "The Beachcombers all had day jobs; Moon, who worked in the sales department at British Gypsum, had the keenest interest in turning professional." 1) "The Beachcombers all had day jobs" is clumsy. Consider: "Each member of the Beachcombers had day jobs", or similar. 2) keenest interest is awkward; recast.
  • Cites. - "In April 1964, at age seventeen,[19] he auditioned for the Who as a replacement for Doug Sandom. The Beachcombers continued as a local cover band after his departure.[20]" Why are there cites mid-sentence? Why not slide them to the end?
The Who
  • Pronoun clarity. - "These antics earned him the nickname "Moon the Loon".[26]" There are several pronouns already used in this graph, but since the last person mentioned, albeit parenthetically, was Marsh, this him should be Moon.
  • Split infinitive. - "since it was his only chance to regularly socialise with his bandmates".
  • Excess modifiers. - "Sandom had generally been the peacemaker" and "and was generally restless and bored when not playing live."
  • Why? - "A commonly-cited (although disputed) story of how Moon joined the Who is". So is this an accurate story? Why is it disputed if it's the commonly accepted version? This is quite awkward, IMO; it leaves the reader unsure if they know the true story or not.
  • Clarity. - What is a "ginger vision", and why is it notable to this story? Was Townshend lusting after Moon, because that's what it sounds like?
  • Clunky prose. - "he claimed to his would-be bandmates that he could play better". 1) Per WP:CLAIM, avoid the word claimed. 2) Who did Moon claim to be able to play better than?
  • Prose. - "that he could play better; he played in the set's second half". This is awkward to say the least.
  • Prose. - "Moon later claimed that he was never formally invited to join the Who permanently". 1) Avoid claimed. 2) "formally invited to join the Who permanently", is awlward.
  • Linking/given name use. - "when Ringo Starr asked how he had joined the band". If Starr has already been introduced then we shouldn't use his first name here and if he hasn't been previously introduced then the article should link to the Starr article.
  • Awkward prose. - "Moon's arrival in the Who changed the dynamics of the group." Did he really arrive in the Who?
  • Prose. - "the group now had four members frequently in conflict". Consider: "the group now had four members who were frequently in conflict".
  • Prose. - "'We used to fight regularly', remembered Moon in later years." Consider: "'We used to fight regularly', Moon later remembered."
  • Prose. - "'John [Entwistle] and I used to have fights'". Has Entwistle been properly introduced at this point? I don't think that he has.
  • Prose. - "Moon also clashed with Daltrey and Townshend: 'We really have absolutely nothing in common apart from music', he said in a later interview.'" Was this quote directed at both Daltrey and Townshend. because the way the sentence is constructed implies that it pertains to both of them.
  • Pronoun clarity. - "Although Townshend described him as a". Since the last two people mentioned in the text are Daltrey and Townshend the pronoun, him, should be Moon.
  • Confusing jargon. - What's a "musical structure"?
  • Excess modifier. - "Moon was particularly fond of touring". This word is used numerous times throughout the article; it adds little.
  • Confusing prose. - "This would later carry over to other aspects of his life, as he acted them out (according to journalist and Who biographer Dave Marsh) 'as if his life were one long tour'.[25]" Acted what out?
  • Confusing. - "These antics earned him the nickname 'Moon the Loon'.[26]" What antics? There are no specifics mentioned and this seems to be referring to the adjectives restless and bored, but adjectives are not antics.
  • Is it just me, or does the chronology break at the beginning of this section after only four paragraphs? I don't see any narrative whatsoever in this section. In fact, most of the article reads like summary style sections with no over-arching narrative. Does the chronology start anew at 1965 at the beginning of each section? It seems like much of this material should be integrated into the section on the Who, and others. Maybe then there would be a story to follow throughout Moon's life.
Musical contributions
  • Unattributed quote. - "Contemporary critics questioned his ability to keep time, with biographer Tony Fletcher suggesting that the timing on Tommy was 'all over the place'." You need an inline citation after all direct quotes.
  • Split infinitive. - "At one show, Townshend and Entwistle decided to spontaneously stop playing to hear Moon's drum solo."
  • Verbs should be followed by gerunds, not infinitives. - "Moon sat in on congas with East of Eden at the Lyceum, and afterwards suggested to violinist Dave Arbus that he play on the track.[47]"
  • Prose. - "Moon's style of drumming was considered unique by his bandmates". Why are Moon's bandmates authoritative sources on his drumming abilities? Are they experts on drum technique?
  • Pronoun use. - "Entwistle noted that he tended to play faster or slower according to his mood.[28]" → "Entwistle noted that Moon tended to play faster".
  • The whole first paragraph needs a re-write. It relies too heavily on Entwistle's confusing description and Daltrey's vague personal opinion.
  • Confusing? - "Who biographer John Atkins wrote that the group's early test sessions for Pye Records in 1964 show that "they seemed to have understood just how important was ... Moon's contribution".[29]" Wat does this even mean?
  • Attribution needed. - "Early recordings of Moon's drumming sound tinny and disorganised;[30]" According to who? Atkins I presume, but this text-string is not stating a fact; it is stating an opinion, and as such should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. It should be attributed to Atkins and rolled into the previous material sourced to him regarding the early sessions.
  • Colloquial. - "no-nonsense production techniques". What does this mean to the casual reader? It needs some context.
  • When? - "Early recordings of Moon's drumming sound tinny and disorganised;[30] it was not until the recording of Who's Next, with Glyn Johns'" Why not include a date for Moon's best drumming?
  • Colloquial. "Moon hated drum solos and refused to play them in concert". In formal writing, Hated is a poor word choice. Consider using disliked.
  • Prose. - "At one show, Townshend and Entwistle decided to spontaneously stop playing to hear Moon's drum solo. Moon immediately stopped too, shouting 'Drum solos are boring!'[32]" 1) Which show? 2) Awkward: "Moon immediately stopped too, shouting 'Drum solos are boring!" Consider: "Moon immediately stopped and shouted 'Drum solos are boring!'", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Although not a strong vocalist, Moon was enthusiastic about singing and wanted to sing lead with the rest of the group.[34]" Did Moon lift weights? Consider changing strong to accomplished, or similar.
  • Repetitive. - "Moon would attempt to sing backup (particularly on "I Can't Explain")."
  • Prose. - "his desire to sing lead spawned lead vocals". Spawned is not the best word choice here.
  • Clarity. - Will the casual reader understand what "high backing vocals on other songs" means?
  • Scare quotes. - "saw him abandon 'serious' vocal performances". Avoid this; omit quote marks.
  • Excessive parentheticals. - The second to last paragraph in this section, which starts: "Moon composed "I Need You" (which he also sang), the instrumental "Cobwebs and Strange" (from the album A Quick One, 1966),[40]" uses too many brackets. Copyedit to smoothen the prose, which currently reads like a list.
  • Clarity. - "The setting for "Tommy's Holiday Camp" (from Tommy) was credited to Moon;[44]". Will the casual reader know what you mean by setting?
  • Prose. - "The drummer produced the violin solo on "Baba O'Riley".[46] Moon sat in on congas with East of Eden at the Lyceum, and afterwards suggested to violinist Dave Arbus that he play on the track.[47]" 1) This is awkward as a final paragraph, and too short to be it's own graph, IMO. Also, if it's a new paragraph then you should use a noun, not anaphora. Plus, its clumsy anyway. Consider: "(add date), Moon sat in on congas with East of Eden at the Lyceum, and afterwards suggested to violinist Dave Arbus that he play on the Who track, "Baba O'Riley". Moon produced an Arbus violin solo which features prominently in the song.[46][47]", or similar.
Equipment
  • This section uses inches throughout and meters parenthetically. Inches is an American term to avoid in BrEng, per WP:ENGVAR.
I don't think this is appropriate here - firstly, the sources use inches, secondly inches was very much a British term in 1965, thirdly drum / cymbal sizes are still referred to in imperial - the first example I searched for here advertises a "20 inch bass drum". That's a British shop trading today. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might be right; it's a minor point anyway. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "This setup did not have a hi-hat, since Moon used crash and ride cymbals instead." Consider: "This setup did not have a hi-hat; Moon instead used only crash and ride cymbals."
  • Attribution needed. - "Moon replied: 'Dear boy, do exactly as you feel it should be, but that's the way I want it'." Always follow direct quotes with an inline citation.
  • Clarity. - "The kit was eventually fitted with copper fillings[52] and later given to a young Zak Starkey.[53]" Will the casual reader understand what "eventually fitted with copper fillings" means?
General
  • Why does the chronology end at 1965? Moon lived another 13 years. Cas Liber, I know you are a stickler for an unbroken chronology; did you notice this issue?

In progress ... more to come. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can point to a root cause as to all the problems here. The article has had about five or six different people come along since the FA review's been open and fiddled with the prose. Some of it's been good, some of it's been not so good. What it does mean is that the version you've looked at is not the same one that John supported. The Guild of copy editors are looking at this now (indeed, the first prose issue you reported appears to have now gone), but unfortunately at the same time an IP is changing things elsewhere and citing unreliable sources to do it. I am concerned we've got a serious stability problem here and trying to review this is like hitting a moving target. Then again, this is a popular article with about 750K annual views, and FAs getting full protected due to instability (Brad Pitt being a recent example) is nothing particularly rare or unusual. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished a copyedit, including the lead and the next two sections on Moon's early life and career. Miniapolis 18:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. - With regrets, but strong conviction. The prose is not at all brilliant, IMO. The article has decent bones, but it's far too clunky to be said to meet the FA criteria overall. There are issues with comma usage, sourcing, internal consistency and a choppy and redundant narrative that inexplicitly breaks at 1965 despite the fact that Moon lived another 13 years. This article needs a top-to-bottom re-write before returning to FAC. I urge any delegate who considers passing this nom to first read several random sections. Sorry, Ritchie, but I think that the article is poorly written and awkwardly organized. Consider smoothening the prose and integrating much of the sub-section material into the chronological narrative. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make things clear, the reason I'm slightly annoyed is nothing to do with the recent developments in the FA review (all of which is fair comment and backed up with legitimate interpretations to policies) and more to do with the fact it would have been nice to settle all this stuff about six months ago (or earlier) when it passed the GA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, Ritchie. In fact I've often been concerned that the gap between what passes at GAN and what passes FAC is far too great. With all due respect, I wouldn't have passed this at GAN either, but that's me. My major concern with the article at this point is the chronology. I've never seen a bio pass FAC with such a broken narrative. Why isn't there an unbroken chronology from Moon's birth to his death? Why is the section on the Who only three paragraphs long? Most of the details that appear in the other summary sections should be integrated into the section on the Who, IMO. That's the first place I would start if I planned to bring this article back to FAC in a more prepared state. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Gabe and I don't always on what constitutes problematic prose but I believe he's raised many valuable points above (not just related to prose) and I think there's enough to warrant archiving this nom and re-working the article away from the FAC process. I noticed some clunky expression myself when I scanned the article last week and was hoping it would get another serious going-over. I understand the nominator's frustrations but better it happens now than that the article gets promoted, perhaps appears at TFA, and is torn to shreds then. I hope you'll go through Gabe's points, perhaps collaborating with him as you progress and/or with Miniapolis assisting on prose, if that works for all of you. I'd suggest you then take to peer review again before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Keith_Moon/archive1&oldid=1086353519"