Talk:Cynthia Lennon/GA3

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Every time I think I understand the fair use rules for cases like this, I see something that goes in the opposite direction. I'm going to punt on this one; if someone else objects, they can challenge the images.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments on sources:

I agree with previous commenters that there is too much reliance on Cynthia's own books. I've done a lot of biography articles on WP, and I try to avoid autobiographies and memoirs as much as possible. By definition they are always skewed and self-serving to a significant degree – they can't be otherwise. You said in response in the past, why go to the bother of citing the same thing from a different author? Because that indicates that the other author decided that that part of Cynthia's story had some credibility.

The trouble here is that many other biographers quote Cynthia's two books.--andreasegde (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no use of more contemporaneous sources, especially the Hunter Davies biography? She is mentioned many times in it. Yes, the Davies bio may have softened some of the less pleasant aspects of the Beatles story. But it definitely captured the 1966-67ish period in which John was living in his mind and quite remote from Cyn. And the Davies book has the great benefit of being written at the time, when the Beatles were enormously popular but not yet the cottage industry for books and reminiscences they would later become.

I've added more references from other books.--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on existing content:

Any source say what her middle name was?

Done. It's Lillian (after her mother).--andreasegde (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be added citing for any statements about John being violent with her.

Done.--andreasegde (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Drugs" section is a complete puzzle to me. As far as I can tell, the only things in this section relevant to Cynthia are that she took LSD once and a policeman wouldn't let her on a train. The first can be covered in a sentence in another section and the latter isn't worth a mention. I must be missing something here ...

I cut that down, and then added more. The reason it got its own section was because the beginning of the end of their marriage started with Lennon taking LSD.

The reference to "Hey Jude" here is totally mysterious (and the inclusion in the lead even moreso). The article on the song has a Cynthia quote on it that explains it ... why isn't that quote here?

The quotes are now in with the refs.--andreasegde (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it known in what year she had her name legally changed to Lennon?

After her divorce from John Twist; 1983 (or thereabouts?).--andreasegde (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on missing content:

How did she react to the Beatles' sudden success during 1963 after years of struggle?

Ref now in: "Tony Bramwell—a friend of Lennon's since his youth—said: ... she was totally dedicated to his success"--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did she go on tours with the Beatles?

She went on the first one, which is now in.--andreasegde (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did she attend their recording sessions?

Maybe one or two, but the boys often mentioned that "the birds" (girlfriends or wives) were not welcome in the studio. This was a major problem when Lennon took Yoko into Abbey Road.--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did she have any influence on their music? Did she even like it (not necessarily a given)? Did John write any songs with her in mind?
What was her reaction to the craziness of Beatlemania?

There's some more in about the fans outside the Emperor's Gate address.--andreasegde (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did she get a lot of press attention during Beatlemania? Did the Beatles' publicists try to de-emphasize the fact that John was married?

Not really, but they didn't push the issue.--andreasegde (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was the only Beatle wife at the time of Beatlemania, did she attract hostility from the screaming girls set?

It seems she wasn't considered a threat. There are no refs for physical attacks on her, except for the Emperor's Gate Apple Scruffs.--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later, what was her relationship with the other Beatles wifes/steady girlfriends like? Did they get along?

That's now in.--andreasegde (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on weighting:

There seems to be too much on specific time periods and episodes, not enough on her life with John and the Beatles overall.

I think because John was on tour most of the time, her life was shopping and looking after Julian. Sounds boring, huh? It probably was.--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More is needed on per post-John life:
- Did she hold jobs?

The restaurant/B&B in Ruthin is now in. A Beatle's ex-wife running a B&B? it makes the mind boggle.--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Did she explore a professional or artistic career?

She sold some drawings, wrote the two books, and has auctioned a lot of memorabilia. These days she seems to be opening various exhibits (which are in).--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Has she lived in relative affluence?

Same as above. We might think that she's affluent, but she might disagree.--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Did she do public appearances or media interviews? To what extent has she played up her Beatles past versus trying to get on with her life?

Same as the public appearances above. I wonder if she gets paid? I'll bet she does.--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- What was the critical and commercial response to her two books?

A rather scathing critique is now in.--andreasegde (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some individual stylistic comments:

The introduction of Julian Lennon in the lead was confusing to me ... I anticipated-misread it to getting pregnant with John as her partner, and wondered why Julian was never mentioned. Perhaps include "and is the mother of musician Julian Lennon" in the first sentence instead?

Done.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it isn't clear whether A Twist of Lennon is an autobiography or biography of John.

Done.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Kenwood in italics everywhere? I looked a bunch of other articles on English houses and none follow this practice. It's very annoying visually.

Fixed.--andreasegde (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in the Kenwood section is hard to follow unless you figure out that "Lennon" always means John. Some explicit "John" usages are okay per WP:SURNAME to help keep things straight here and elsewhere.

I've tried to make that clearer, but I can hear the "No first name after the lead" editors over my shoulder... :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Yoko first appears in the article body, her full name and another link should be given.

Done.--andreasegde (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment on length:

I'm now going through the 16 December 2009 version of the article, before you made a lot of cuts. I can see you've been through the wringer with different reviewers and commenters on this article. I've written a number of articles about spouses and ex-spouses of major U.S. politicians, including some that are GA, and my general approach is to cover the person's whole life, before during and after their association with the famous name, although typically the 'during' part will get the most coverage. I see some comments that it doesn't matter where she went to school and things like that – that's wrong, in my view. If a person's notable enough for a WP biography (and she clearly is) then their whole life should be portrayed, both for the fairness of context and for the interest to the reader (what does one do with the rest of their life when they've been married to a Beatle?). Specifically, I can see that some of the things that I think are missing here and that I mentioned above (the Beatlemania period, the significance of the drugs period) were covered to some degree in the longer version, and some of the abrupt transitions in the current article are attributable to the cuts as well.

I've put a lot more in.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this GAN on hold, and I don't care about the one week period in this case. Tell me your reactions to what I've said so far, and we'll figure out how to proceed. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I'll work on it tonight.--andreasegde (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some problems with the article's sectioning. As I see it, her life has these phases:

Early life before starting up with John
Early years with John, culminating in marriage and Julian
Beatle fame years with John, culminating in divorce from John
Everything after

As it happens, Julian's birth in April 1963 neatly coincides with the time that Beatles really began to take off as a pop sensation in Britain (same month as second #1 single and first album release, around the time the Beatles fan mags started up, a few months before when 'She Loves You' and the televised Palladium show really set off full-fledged Beatlemania). So the break between these two phases is well-defined.

But right now, the third period is split between two sections, and having a lot of it under the top-level section title "Kenwood" seems a bit mistaken. It wasn't the house that characterized this period, it was the level of fame and artistic accomplishment that the Beatles and her husband were having. This material is a little less episodic than before, but still suffers from it.

I'm also not convinced that either "Drugs" or "India" is of enough importance to merit a subsection of their own. As a couple, John and Cyn were likely doomed from the start by a forced marriage, and if not that then by his being a philanderer, and if not that then by her not being artistic soulmate material, and if not that then by Yoko showing up. If John had never taken LSD and never gone to India, do you really think he would have stayed with Cyn? Maybe it's her contention that the drugs were the beginning of the end, but that has to be taken with a grain of understandable salt. It's easier for her to attribute the marriage failure to an outside agency like that than to her not being interesting enough for him, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem, but as wives and girlfriends were not invited to the studio or on tours (the exception being the first US tour in Cynthia's case), their lives revolved around where they lived and which shops they preferred. Sad, I know. Holidays were an exception, but there weren't many with all of them together, although Greece was, which I should put in. I suppose the situation hasn't changed much for partners of today's 'celebs'. I think India was important because it was the first time that Cynthia and Lennon were at the same place but stopped sleeping together, and maybe Yoko took the place of the drugs that Lennon had stopped using while there? Conjecture, I know.--andreasegde (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I've been trying to work on the 'Later life' section to better establish some time frames and events and to try to give a better feel for the forces affecting her life. However there are still a few things I'm not sure about:

When did the Lennon's restaurant open and how long did it last?

She sold it after John Twist, in 1981. Ref now in--andreasegde (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunh? You dated it at 1989 in the article. I don't get this and the next two responses below. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... I get it now. I was talking about the Oliver's Bistro in Ruthin. Don't know when Lennon's in London was closed, but I remember reading somewhere that it didn't last long. I'll check.--andreasegde (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Badman wrote: "The same premises where Cynthia Lennon will open her short-lived, and rather pricey, Lennon's restaurant". Badman|1999|p=225 --andreasegde (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When was the Woman perfume put out?

Two refs in.--andreasegde (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many Beatles conventions did she attend? I've seen a couple of sources that make general statements that she was a regular, but when I try to find web or news write-ups of specific appearances, I find only two or three.

They're documented on Beatles' fan pages, but I found these: BEATLES CONVENTION TRIP 1994, Cynthia Lennon at the Beatles Convention in Amsterdam 15. April 1995, 28th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL DUTCH BEATLES CONVENTION 7th of April 2007, Beatles Convention at the Theatre Musketon, Utrecht, Netherlands, 13th of April, 2009. Plus, the The Independent ref contains, "She has been a regular on the Beatles convention circuit".--andreasegde (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I get is that she's attended them sporadically over the years, but never been a regular as the Independent piece stated. She also didn't stop after 1999 as she said she would. I've modified the text to say "By the 1990s she was appearing at some Beatles conventions, but appeared ambivalent about the practice." Wasted Time R (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is the pagination the same between "Lennon 2005" and "Lennon 2006"? The two variants of the citing is confusing. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--andreasegde (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molly, the cleaner: "Another time Powell's cleaning woman caught Lennon hitting her and suggested that she stay away from him". I think this was a cleaning woman at the art college. The Powell's weren't rich enough to have their own.--andreasegde (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could have been a once-a-weeker, but I've changed the text to "a cleaning woman", which fits either case. Someone ought to track down Molly and co-write a book with her, she must be the only person in Beatles history not to have done so yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of citation issues. Some of the books in the bibliography have the publisher linked, but more do not. Whichever you prefer, it should be consistent (I like to link publishers myself, but I'm not as adverse to the 'sea of blue' as some.) Also, the {{sfn}} notation isn't fully exploited; if you click on the "Lennon 2005" or "Davies 1968" in a footnote, it should take you to that entry in the bibliography. I think to make this work you need to add "|ref=harv" to each of the {{cite book}} entries. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a general stylistic problem related to names. John is usually referred to as "Lennon" and Cynthia as "Cynthia" or a pronoun. Thus you get, even at the start of subsections, constructs like "She knew that Lennon took drugs ..." which seem weird to me. Fred Lennon is referred to as "Lennon's father", which makes the whole 'Kenwood tramp' sequence awkward to follow. A couple of the "Lennon" references puzzled me when I first read the article, as not knowing it always meant John, I thought it might mean Cynthia or even Fred at times. As WP:SURNAME "Family members with the same surname" makes clear, it's acceptable to use "John" instead of "Lennon" in a lot of these places and "Fred" (or "Alfred" or whatever) instead of "Lennon's father". You said before that the the "No first name after the lead" editors will give you trouble over this, but I was involved in the Nancy Reagan article getting to FA status and it pioneered the use of approved first names. There's plenty of precedent at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, as it's been nearly a month, I have done more than enough on this to warrant a GA rating. I have other articles to work on.--andreasegde (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the cite changes myself and have for the most part punted on the surname matter. The article now satisfies virtually all of my initial concerns, and I am listing it as GA. My apologies for the whole deal. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]