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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 14:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read through this article a few weeks back, so I'm in a handy position to GA review it. I think this is a tough candidate for GA - do you write about Yoko Ono the highly original and strong willed artist who was ahead of her time, Yoko Ono the morally supportive wife and advocate for world peace, or Yoko Ono the funny woman who put weird noises on Beatles records and caused them to break up?

I can see immediate problems with large amounts of completely unsourced text, such as the second and third paragraphs in "Early life and family", where her experiences during and immediately after WWII are especially problematic and must be backed up properly. The quote about "Hide and seek" also requires a citation, which must be either a copy of Grapefruit or a good impartial review of it.

I also notice some of the citations don't appear to link through correctly, for example I see a reference to "Miles 1997", which I recognise as Barry Miles' official biography of Paul McCartney. I think these issues will need to be resolved in order to stand a good chance of the review passing, I'm afraid.

Per WP:GNG there doesn't have to be a weblink to the reference.--Aichik (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean WP:WIAGA? There doesn't need to be a link (for book sources that's kind of meaningless) but you need at least page, author, publisher, year or print run and ISBN. {{cite book}} is a good template to use, as is {{sfn}} for referencing, but they're not required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay all the short cites have been ironed out. Alot of them stemmed from the John Lennon page.--Aichik (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the article has previously been through a Good Article Reassessment. Have you covered all the issues raised there?

I don't see anything aside from the BLP request and the question about the link to the Oskar Kokoschka page. The last time it failed a Good Article Reassessment was over 8 years ago.--Aichik (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go back through the article in depth and make further comments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is about 45K of prose - for that you want a lead of about 3 paragraphs.

Its current length is fine for a woman who is 72 and has lived and done so much. Look at the intro for Beyonce, a Good Article, who is (supposedly) one-third her age.--Aichik (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean - do you think the lead is too short and will expand it, or that it is long enough? According to WP:LEADLENGTH, which is part of the required areas of the manual of style, an article of this size should require the number of paragraphs stated. I would leave the first paragraph is, and use the remainder to summarise the rest of the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry I read this wrong. I thought you meant it was too long. Will fix.--Aichik (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Aichik (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since 2003, eleven of her songs, mostly remixes of her older work, have hit No. 1 on the US dance chart." - this claim is uncited in both the lead and the article body

 Done The source has evolved so I've relinked. Take a look at the singles chart at the bottom of the article now.--Aichik (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This wordpress source is a dead link. In any instance, it sounds like a self-published source, which is unsuitable for a biography of a living person

 Done Same information on Stanford and Allmusic biographies, replaced.--Aichik (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the current version of the article, I can still see two large unsourced paragraphs in "Early life and family". One refers to her early life during the 1945 Tokyo fire-bombing, and one to anecdotal evidence about her immediate post-war life and survival. I would define both of these as information "likely to be challenged" and hence per WP:BLP these must be sourced immediately. The GA review cannot pass until full and proper inline citations have been added to this area. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Relax. These were in the Japan Policy Research Institute paper cited at the very end of the section. I've created cites for the same closer to the sentences you're concerned about.--Aichik (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the second paragraph still has this unsourced quotation : ".... He was in a concentration camp". Still needs a source to comply with WP:BLP I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Stanford reference appears to be the main source of the previous section, in which case the appropriate inline citations will be required.

 Done--Aichik (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "She was briefly placed in a mental institution" - while a citation has been given, I think this is such a strong enough negative claim on a BLP to require supporting evidence.

 Done Second citation given. Let me know we need a third. I remember reading it in the Stanford profile too.--Aichik (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://kyoko-ono-cox.fullmoviereview.com/ a reliable source?

 Done I didn't put that there. Changed it to another reference already given which gives the year. Looking for another reference that gives the specific date.--Aichik (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The People is generally considered to be a tabloid journalism quality source, which is unsuitable to use on a BLP.

It's People, not The People, and its gotten numerous awards from Advertising Age for excellence in editorial, circulation and advertising content. (My emphasis) Per the Wiki article, "People's editors claim to refrain from printing pure celebrity gossip." I also looked at your link to the tabloid journalism article, and People can't be grouped with The Sun and the National Enquirer, so I think it's okay.--Aichik (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I'm getting confused with the Sunday People, a British tabloid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How did Ono end up in London in 1966?

 Done Not sure why this is a question as Indica Gallery had a pulse on the underground art movements in the West. I made it more clear by indicating Yoko's status before meeting John, going to London for Gustav Metzger's symposium and the importance of Fluxus.--Aichik (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sheff 1981" - reference needs a page number and a full citation with title, publisher and ISBN

 Done Put in Further Reading section, following the current style of the article.--Aichik (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• they "made love at dawn" is cited to another Wikipedia article, which is not acceptable

 Done Fixed. Reference was erroneously linked.--Aichik (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this isn't sufficient, a full and proper citation to a CD or LP needs a publisher, serial number and, if possible, page number. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Is Two Virgins really an experimental electronic music album? I just thought it was more music concrete - tape loops, found sounds, rather than any specific electronics.

 Done You're right. Fixed.--Aichik (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Also on The White Album, Ono contributed backing vocals on "Birthday", and one line of lead vocals on "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill." - is unsourced (you shouldn't need to own a copy of The White Album to verify she sings on Bungalow Bill)

 Done Well-documented, as one of rock's important albums. Added.--Aichik (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://beatles.ncf.ca/live_peace_in_toronto_p1.html a reliable source?

 Done Dunno, I didn't put it there. Replaced with two other references.--Aichik (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A brief description of what bagism is would be useful. Something like "a satirisation of prejudice and stereotyping that involved hiding in a bad" would do.

 Done Fixed.--Aichik (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we need a brief description of how the Plastic Ono Band came about. Ian McDonald's Revolution in the Head documents how Ono influenced Lennon to produce "autobiographical" output, and after The Ballad of John and Yoko they decided it would be better to form their own band than put the material out under the Beatles name.

 Done--Aichik (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a picture of Ono and Lennon performing Give Peace a Chance, but no mention of this in the article body. Also worth mentioning that some Beatles sources have credited Ono as de-facto co-author of this track, and Revolution 9, though she did not receive official credit.

"Give Peace a Chance" and "Revolution 9," and their co-writing it, are both mentioned in the Bed-In and Other Early Collaborations subsection.--Aichik (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The AllMusic source for Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band doesn't mention influencing Meredith Monk.

 Done Replaced.--Aichik (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give me a bit of background as to this source?

 Done A video sharing platform along the lines of Vimeo, I guess, with more security. Is this not okay?--Aichik (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Video sharing sites are generally unacceptable, unless they are very obviously affiliated with organisations with a strong reputation for factual accuracy such as news sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "When Lennon was invited to play with Frank Zappa at the Fillmore on June 5, 1971" - in 1971, the Fillmore was called the Fillmore West.

 Done--Aichik (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "an ode to Ono's kidnapped daughter" - I think this a little strong, although the source does explicitly say it. "Missing daughter" would do - we know from earlier that Cox took her. Done--Aichik (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The couple separated in 1973 with Ono pursuing her career" ... we know all about Lennon's "lost weekend", but what did Ono do during the 18 months they were apart? I can't really call an interview with May Pang a reliable source about how Lennon split with Ono - let's face it, if your spouse went back to an old partner and tried to scrub you out of their life, how impartial a word could you give to a journalist!

 Done Put in a second reference.--Aichik (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The circumstances to their reunion in 1975 could do with a little more detail as to how it happened, and whose idea it was.

 Done There're are two conflicting narratives, and I've put them both in so readers can decide for themselves.--Aichik (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This source describing the last hours of Lennon's life is a dead link. Death of John Lennon should have a replacement source - it's already a Good Article.

 Done Found a CBS News link.--Aichik (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The narrative in the article jumps around a little too much. I can see the value in putting personal life and relationships in one section (including anything post 1980), with separate sections for music, art, peace activism and other professional activities.

• The paragraph about John Cage is unsourced  Done--Aichik (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The detail about Painting to Be Stepped On is unsourced  Done Fixed. --Aichik (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The paragraph about "Cut piece" is technically unsourced, but this is only a minor formatting error - the next inline citation documents the material successfully.

• "The screen is divided into four almost equal sections by the elements of the gluteal cleft and the horizontal gluteal crease." I know Wikipedia isn't censored but isn't this, well, just a little too much information?

Once again, I didn't write this but I think it's okay. They're just fancy scientific terms for buttocks creases. The film doesn't involve, say the clitoris or the labia minora and thus our "having to mention them."--Aichik (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1996, the watch manufacturing company Swatch produced a limited edition watch that commemorates this film." Unsourced, and likely to be challenged.

 Done Added Swatch link.--Aichik (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this website, documenting the Wish Tree, a reliable source?

 Done Replaced with the authoritative Munroe and Hendricks book.--Aichik (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many paragraphs in this section are unsourced  Done Added 10 new references.--Aichik (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This courttv.com source, describing Lennon's will, appears to be a dead link

 Done Out as is the fact. Couldn't find it anywhere.--Aichik (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This BBC source has some additional information about the Liverpool Biennial

 Done Thanks for this. Added.--Aichik (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Larry King Live appearance is unreferenced (also the remainder of this paragraph)

 Done Fixed. Found the actual transcript!--Aichik (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Several sources I looked at mention her 80th birthday celebrations in February 2013 - would this be worth adding in this section?

I feel mixed about this. It might be an example of recentism: She's had a 70th birthday celebration too and would have to look up the others to be consistent. Besides there's enough content in the paragraph already without any sub-sectioning.--Aichik (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In December of the same year, she was awarded the 20,000-euro ($26,100) Oskar Kokoschka Prize in Austria." - unsourced

 Done Fixed--Aichik (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire paragraph following this is unsourced : Done Fixed--Aichik (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The first two paragraphs are unsourced.

I've added 7 new references for the second paragraph, and changed some of the content accordingly. About the first paragraph, all are sourced already in the and other early collaborations "Bed-In and other early collaborations" subsection as the information seems to be a rehash of some of the content there. Do we need to repeat the references?--Aichik (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This source, describing the love-in protest in Addingham, is a dead link

 Done Fixed.--Aichik (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Artists Against Franking group" - should not be directly linked to the article, and what makes this a reliable source?

 Done You're right, and I've taken out the link--Aichik (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "protest against the controversial method of procuring natural gas" - this is POV, just say "protest against hydraulic fracturing"

 Done Fixed.--Aichik (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this section is too long, and a lot of it isn't directly related to Ono at all. In particular, this source I feel is completely unacceptable, appears to take its content from the Daily Mirror, and is just an excuse for someone on the internet to have a rant at McCartney and Ono. In fact, reading the source, it's quite insulting.

I think this is interesting; their perceived hatred towards each other is well-known and has been fodder for the press over the years. It's useful for Wikipedia to cut to the heart of the matter: to show what they were tussling about and to see that they are over it now. It also shows how much of a fighter Ono is, and that she has a bit of a sharp side. With all that creative talent, she's definitely not a Linda McCartney. That said, I didn't write alot of this text but I've fixed the link you were talking about, updated another one, cut a line, so we're not just reading them insulting each other, and taken out a subcategory so we're down to 3.--Aichik (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about applying a fan's point of view to this. While I agree that Ono is a lot more respected as an artist these days, and possibly without her there would be no Melt Banana, if you want an article with a neutral point of view that applies due weight correctly, you have to accept that the most notable part of her life was around 1968-70 and 1980-81, and that reliable sources agree that Unfinished Music No. 1: Two Virgins is, to put it as mildly as possible, rubbish. In any case, Wikipedia is not really the place for tittle-tattle and gossip - a "Relationships with the Beatles" section might carry more weight - we should be talking more about her relationship with Lennon than anyone else. FWIW, Linda McCartney was a pretty successful photographer and co-founded a major brand of frozen foods. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, we do cover her relationship to John in this, and her relationship to George Harrison or Ringo isn't as notable. Perhaps Lennon and McCartney being like the older brothers to the others and the primary songwriters for the band is the reason for this. Alot of the tension with Paul over the years has to do with the fact of Paul and John's own relationship which had deteriorated by the time the Beatles broke up which Beatles fans like to ignore, and the fact that Lennon's life was cut short (and thus Yoko acts as a kind of surrogate). I disagree with you when the most notable part of her life was but I'm not going to quibble with you here. (Plus that's an opinion, which you'd agree doesn't have a place in this article.) Lastly I'm not denigrating Linda's success, I was just trying to characterize how different Yoko is personality-wise, Linda didn't attract controversy in the same way.--Aichik (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the section currently stands, in terms of sourcing, this macca-central source looks like a self-published source, while this Daily Mail piece is IMHO the sort of tabloid stuff that makes John foam at the mouth whenever the Mail is cited. I think they should both go, sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Far from being GA material, this urgently needs to be removed as a BLP violation. These sources are not reliable. Yuck. I can see quite a few other problems with the article as it stands, but this one is a show-stopper. --John (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop there for the moment, but I have to say I don't think this meets the GA criteria as it stands. The writing is okay, but the sourcing is not acceptable for the required standards, and I believe this should be worked on away from the spotlight of a GA review. Rather than just fail it outright here and now, which is a little harsh, I will get a second opinion from another experienced editor on what to do. That said, this is definitely a very worthy subject to take to GA status, so hopefully we'll get this sorted out. (See Talk:Paul Butterfield/GA1 for a similar experience) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple subsections/headers, which I thought were obtrusive, are now beginning to look like tabloid article headings. Hotcop2 (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the section on Yoko's relationship to McCartney, right? It was a thick, dense otherwise. I've simplified further and made more neutral-sounding--Aichik (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think about the structure and headings. Have a look at John Lennon's article (which is a featured article) for some ideas (though he is far more notable outside of her than vice versa, so it's not a like-for-like comparison). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's not a like for like comparison, but granted that the John Lennon article has subsections on Julian Lennon and May Pang. I think Yoko warrants a good section on Paul McCartney as they together are more important than John and his first son and John and his mistress.--Aichik (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask for a second opinion on the McCartney section and we'll see where we go from there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to have to draw this review to a close. I know you have done substantial work on it over the past week or so, and that is very much appreciated, so thanks and well done for your efforts. However, as things stand I think we just have too many problems with structure and sourcing for the article to be close to GA at this time, particularly when other editors have commented on problems. I would recommend taking a look at some related featured articles, not least those of John, Paul, George and Ringo, which will hopefully give you some ideas, then we can regroup for another GA review in a few months' time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]