Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Merry Xmas Everybody/archive1

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 Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009 [1].

---

Merry Xmas Everybody

Nominator(s): Majorly talk 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Merry Xmas Everybody/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets the criteria. I am aware it is shorter than most FAs, but I have literally squeezed every source I could find on the topic to get more information about it as I could. I don't believe it omits any important information, in this respect, and covers the topic fully. Otherwise, I think it's fine. Thanks, Majorly talk 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• No dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. "He is wearing something on his head that is unclear in this image." could probably be rewritten to remove the ref to an image (which alt users can't see), but it all looks good otherwise.
• Audit for grammar errors: I already removed an extra comma and "are".
• Can you explain the ref "Black Vinyl, White Powder, Simon Napier-Bell 2001" further? It's apparently a 390-page book; page number and publisher, if so? (added on 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

• I don't have a copy of that, unfortunately. It was added in by an IP in 2007. Majorly talk 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've put in a different ref. Majorly talk 20:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dates throughout are all Day Month Year. (added on 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Rather short. Tony (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I did say this in the opening statement. Is the prose ok? Majorly talk 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c, 1c. No 1c problems, additionally believe that 1c sources have been exhausted. 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 2c: Fifelfoo (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please supply the title of the work containing this item, or change the title format to italics to indicate that the Discography is the primary work? ""The Mission Discography". The Mission. Retrieved 15 November 2009."

I don't understand your concern here. It's the title of the page used as the reference... Majorly talk 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Works in collections are cited as such "Work in collection" in Collection. Sole works are cited as such Sole work.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I've referenced as I have done for dozens of other articles. There is no problem here. Majorly talk 01:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a book, LP, video disc citation Book. Notice the italics? This is a citation for a work contained in another work, like a newspaper article, journal, track. "Track" Albumn "Newspaper article" Newspaper "Chapter" Book. There is a problem here. You're citing works as if they're contained in another work, but without indicating the work they're contained in. Please fix by supplying the work they're contained in, or by naming the work as a stand alone work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No. This is a web citation, that lists the songs on the track. Citing it as a web citation (title, publisher) is perfectly acceptable. Once again, there is no problem. Majorly talk 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarified publisher to make clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com is not a publisher. Please supply correct bibliographic details. They're listed on the Amazon pages (Anagram Records and Polydor Ltd.)

Amazon published the page used as the reference. I'm not citing the album itself... Majorly talk 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a 1c issue to do with quality of sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sourcing information on Amazon, I am merely using it as proof the album exists. Amazon is a reputable music dealer who don't list items that don't exist. There is nothing wrong with doing this. Majorly talk 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazon repeatedly lists items that don't exist. Their status as a reliable bibliographer is nil. Source bibliographic proof of existence from an appropriate sound archive or national copyright collections library: ie a High Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have such access to archives, so such a request is clearly impossible. I assume you want me to take your word for it on the quality of Amazon. It's rather difficult to cite a rather obscure album released in 1990, when you don't have the resources. It's mentioned all over the web, just not anywhere useful. Majorly talk 01:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, all Amazon references are gone. Majorly talk 01:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Very enjoyable; brings back some old memories. A couple of questions:

• I can't find an exact release date for Wizzard's I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day, so I can't be sure whether that single predates this one, but since they were the same year I'm not sure it's a great idea to say it was the first Christmas rock single. You also mention a Lennon single that predates it; was that not rock?

• I would disagree that Happy Xmas (War Is Over) is rock, but I'm no expert. However, it's not really about Christmas per se. As for the Wizzard song, according to Guinness British Hit Singles, it entered the charts on 8 December. This is apparently a week earlier than this song. I'll change it to indicate that it's one of the first. Majorly talk 12:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• You say that many began to associate Slade only with Christmas and that this contributed to their decline in popularity. The first point is more than plausible to anyone who was around at the time, and though a citation wouldn't hurt I don't think it's necessary. However, to say that this is the cause of their subsequent decline really does need a citation, and it appears not to have one -- the nearest following cite in the body just covers the song reaching the charts in 2006.

• Added one (it was there, just not right next to it). Majorly talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Cover versions of popular songs can be quite numerous, and I don't think all need to be listed. Can you say what makes these particular covers notable and worthy of mention in the article -- the fame of the band, the unusualness of the cover version, the success of that version's release?

• I've removed three. It was not an exhaustive list by any means, but I think the notability of the six left is self-explanatory. Majorly talk 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• "On 15 December it became the third song by Slade to enter the charts at number one (the sixth during their career)": the parenthesis seems to say they had six songs enter the charts at number one; I had a go at rewriting this but couldn't easily find an improvement. I think this should be rephrased.

• Is that better? Majorly talk 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I know this is going to be difficult to find, but is there any chance of getting contemporary opinions of the song? There isn't really a reception section at the moment; the release paragraph talks about the sales, and the legacy section gives the perspective from today, but there isn't much that says whether it was well-regarded critically at the time. I'm sure there are Melody Maker and NME reviews, though I don't know if they'd be usable. Back then rock and pop wasn't really reviewed in the mainstream media so there might not be enough to use, but it would be good to have.
  • I took a look in the NYT archives; there's a 21 Dec 1973 article on Christmas songs that mentions Slade but makes no assessment. Interestingly, it mentions three other Christmas songs of that year, which it describes as satirical: Elton John's "Who'll Be A Turkey For Christmas", Cheech and Chong's "Santa Claus and His Old Lady", and Martin Mull's "Santafly". Not sure there's anything you can use there -- the article argues that new Christmas songs were decling at the time, and that Christmas music was mostly recycled from previous years. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another possible source: [2]. The writer comments on how Slade changed the popular perception of Christmas. Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That last one is potentially useful, for the legacy section. However, when I was looking for sources as I was writing the article, I don't believe I saw anything to do with reception on its release - though I am guessing it was popular judging by the sales. Of course, I don't have access to unfree news sources, so there may be more I couldn't access via Google News... Majorly talk 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • There's nothing about the record in The Times archive, or at Newsbank. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

        I don't think I would oppose on this point, since I can't be sure any usable sources exist, but I think anything else that could be found on the reception would help the article. I would suggest using that piece from the Guardian about the influence of the single. Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

        • I've added it as an additional reference, but I think the influence has been described adequately. Majorly talk 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the timeline as presented is slightly misleading. The History and Background section starts "By 1973 Slade were one of the most popular bands in Britain, having achieved two number one singles—"Cum On Feel The Noize" and "Skweeze Me Pleeze Me"—in three months. The band and their record company, Polydor, decided to produce a Christmas hit." However, it's apparent from the timeline given later that the decision to produce a Christmas hit must have predated the success of 'Skweeze Me Pleeze Me"; it was a hit in July, according to the article about it, but Powell was injured ten weeks before the recording session in August -- no later than early June. The source article does appear to get this right, saying "Early in 1973".

The recording session occurred in September according to the Q article. It is correct as written. In fact, the article describes how the idea came after the two number ones. Majorly talk 13:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll strike that -- if it was recorded in September then yes, it could have been ten weeks after "Skweeze Me Pleeze Me" became a hit. I could swear I saw a reference to August, but I can't find it now. By the way, the Holder bio only lets you view some pages on Amazon, and the story of how the song was written is chopped off at the start, but it appears he might give additional details about how he wrote the song, perhaps including a specific date. Mike Christie (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have you looked at the Noddy Holder bio, Who's Crazee Now?? Seems like it might be a useful source. There are pages viewable on Amazon and it seems to have some material about the song.

I can't view it without an account. Majorly talk 13:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to head off to work in a moment, but I will see if I can pull some quotes for you tonight. However, I don't think I can see all pages of the book so it would be good to check a physical copy if possible. Mike Christie (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also just found Peter Buckley's Rough Guide to Rock on Google describing the song as "arguably the best single ever"; this might be worth quoting in the legacy section, though I'm not sure as I know nothing about Buckley and whether he's any kind of authority. It seems to be a substantial encyclopedia that's been through multiple editions and I think it could be used.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Buckley's work bio implies that he's credible. Rough Guides publishes on a commercial basis. Its an RS. Weight's a different matter for an expert. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link I could use? Majorly talk 13:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote is "During their glam phase Slade also produced arguably the best Christmas single ever, "Merry Christmas Everybody" (1973), which has recharted most Christmases since." Page 948 of the 2003 edition; visible in Google Books. I don't see the ISBN at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Added the quote. Majorly talk 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, struck. I am curious about the title case used; shouldn't it be "Rough Guide to Rock", not "rough guide to rock"? I thought title case was the general rule for citations of works. Mike Christie (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be so I changed it. Majorly talk 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Looking at some of the other FAs on individual songs reinforces my feeling that there needs to be something about contemporary critical reception, beyond what can be deduced from the success of the song. I will find it hard to support without this being addressed. The Holder bio might give you something in this direction. I understand it's not easy to research this sort of thing; I am planning a visit to a central NY research library to research some other articles over the next two or three weeks, and if there's anything I might be able to find there, let me know and I'll see if I can locate it for you. Mike Christie (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked someone who might have access to a copy of the Holder bio. I'm not sure if there is anything in the library. Majorly talk 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Good stuff although I think there really should be a credits/personnel section listing those involved, instruments played etc. Cavie78 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added who played what instrument, is that sufficient? Producer is already described elsewhere. Majorly talk 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lean support - I'm not seeing any real problems. The blockquote in "History and background" needs a citation. The end of "Composition" needs a citation. The language is rewritten enough to distance itself from the original from what I can tell. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Updating, since the block quote is now directly cited. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments—Looking good, writing down comments as I copy-edit:

• "beating Wizzard's "I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday" into fourth place" - why is the fourth place single rather the second place one being mentioned here? I fail too see the signficance.

• Because it's a Christmas-themed song. I've clarified. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• "which Slade's producer Chas Chandler decided "Merry Christmas Everybody" needed." - oddly enough, "Merry Christmas Everybody" comes in a bit abruptly here, as you haven't yet stated that the song the duo were working on was "Merry Christmas Everybody". Also why "Christmas" and not "Xmas" in the song title here?

• Changed to "the song" again. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where are the cites for the last four sentences of Composition?

• It's rather difficult to cite - I actually used a midi file and literally described the music. The source is the song. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• That is original research.—indopug (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• In my view, it is no different from FAs for TV series citing episodes of the series in question. Likewise in science articles, it is permissible to make uncontroversial conclusions without it being disqualified as original research (e.g. converting the mass and volume of a planet to its average density). Isn't this simply the musical equivalent? Bluap (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, Indopug's quite right. Stating that, say, a certain meeting between two people occurred in a certain TV program is something any observer can do. Musical analysis is not the same thing at all. It requires a suitable reliable source, i.e. one qualified to provide a musical analysis. This is illustrated by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Citing_sources, which advises, "Only basic information pertaining to a piece, such as track length or stereo placement, may be left to an editor or editors' ears". PL290 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• In your opinion it's not the same, but that's just your opinion. Stating what chords are used and what instruments are played is hardly contentious, and any listener can describe this (MOS is not policy). Majorly talk 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if the personnel is required at all (apart from the name of the guy who plays lead guitar, the section is redundant to the rest of the article).

• I tend to agree; someone mentioned they wanted it, above though. I am happy for it to be removed. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a Tracklisting section though, namely to see individual song length of both sides of the single, as well as the catalogue no of the original release.

  I'm not sure where I could find this information. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Added something. Not sure if the format is ok. Majorly talk 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could you be more descriptive in your description of the sound sample? It is necessary to justify fair-use.

• Please clarify what you mean by "more descriptive". Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've clarified the description. While its quite obvious that this clip showcases the most recognisable part of the song, I'll leave it to others to decide if that needs mention (and citing). Parrot of Doom 23:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would a chart section be useful? (Generally needed when a song charted in many territories; see WP:CHARTS)

• Not too sure. I couldn't find any sources for making a section, so it could be difficult to make one. Majorly talk 15:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• You can probably insert the Netherlands and Norway as prose, using this as a source. I've used that website before and its passed WP:FAC with no issues. Parrot of Doom 23:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've added in those two, if any others could be found I can add them in. It's not worth a section on its own yet though. Majorly talk 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think you can incorporate more of the info found here. Namely, this: "while they were still named the N'Betweens. The melody was Holder's first ever solo composition", and "his first draft was the final one".

• Done. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• ""Merry Xmas Everybody" was the first song of its kind" - divorced from the explanatory context that comes in much later in the sentence, this opening bit seems rather bloated and pretentious. I wonder if you could make that entire sentence tighter, actually.—indopug (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the sentence altogether, it doesn't really add anything as it happens. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Oppose on 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d

• "It is Slade's last number-one single, as fans began to associate the group only with Christmas, and their popularity subsequently deteriorated." - I'm really not sure about that! Apart from the questionable assertion that "fans began to associate the group only with Christmas", their popularity did not deteriorate in a timeframe that supports that statement: following this December 1973 #1, their next three singles, entering the charts in April, July and October 1974, reached #3, #3 and #2 respectively. PL290 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really familiar with the band - you might call me one of those people who only associates it with Christmas. I'm only following what the source wrote. I have clarified to say "many people" instead of "fans", which I hope is better. But the truth is, it was their last number one (out of 6 in total), and they got some top ten hits. This was their peak, and after being at a peak, you can only go down, which they did. Majorly talk 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

*I dispute the assertion that the Christmas single had any adverse effect on the band's popularity whatsoever, and would be surprised if you could show a reliable source to back it up. This was indeed their last #1 but it is pure speculation to explain that in these terms—and in any case (as noted just above), the follow-ups over the next year were #3, #3, #2—very similar to #1, since of course it depends entirely on the competition at that precise moment. Now that I've looked at your source, I can understand where this strange idea came from! An article about a "Christmas curse"? Perhaps Guardian readers were titillated by this festive feature, amused to think that once John Lennon recorded Happy Xmas (War is Over), "inexplicably and ominously ... the curse began its work" with the result that Lennon later "indulged in self-destructive drink and drug binges", "temporarily split from Yoko Ono" and "was gunned down by Mark Chapman", while the workings of this same mysterious "curse" took their toll on Wizzard after I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day: "Alas, immediately following this Christmas cracker, Wood was struck by ulcers and managerial difficulties." This is a source? "Merry Xmas Everybody" was Slade's last number one, yes. The rest of that sentence, "as many people began to associate the group only with Christmas, and their popularity subsequently deteriorated", is quite misleading on two counts and I suggest it should be removed. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian is generally considered to be a reliable source, FWIW. I'll remove it regardless, and change it to something less contentious. Majorly talk 17:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• We read that when Slade were recording the song, "In an adjoining studio, John Lennon was working on his album Mind Games. The ex-Beatle had recorded his own Christmas single "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" in 1971, and had contributed to seven Beatles Christmas records. He was about to use a harmonium, which Slade's producer Chas Chandler decided "Merry Christmas Everybody" needed. It took five days to finish, but the band disliked the first completed version." - This seems to jump all over the place chronologically, and mentions various different Lennon/Beatles recordings for no apparent reason and without their respective timings being clear, and we're forced to make a leap ourselves at the end to work out what took five days to finish from the fact that the band's dislike was relevant. PL290 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Removed the unnecessary detail. Majorly talk 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is now clearer. But what is the significance of the fact that John Lennon "was about to use" a harmonium? What happened next? Did he actually use it, or did Slade usurp it? The mind boggles on this point! Can it be rephrased to avoid or illuminate this aspect. Also, the section too seems superficial: surely there's more than four sentences (one of which is about John Lennon) that can be said about this five-day-long, unsatisfying recording session? PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I wish there was. I did spend a great deal of time hunting out suitable sources. It appears at least one of them isn't suitable. There probably is more, but it's either not been recorded, or is inaccessible. Majorly talk 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• I expect Slade borrowed the harmonium, and then gave it back. I'm not sure what is so "boggling" about this. It's not really a big deal either, but considering how little information there is, and how many sources discussed it, I have included it. Majorly talk 17:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've edited the sentence to improve the flow. I'm not certain of the significance of the Harmonium so I've left that. Parrot of Doom 18:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Composition section also seems superficial—for an example of an FA song article where this is done more justice, see Hey Jude—and the information it does provide is incomplete and largely unsourced. It is also (to my ears, from memory) incorrect on several counts. For instance, I don't think the "short solo" is in Bb (although it certainly contains Bb chords), and the Bb chord appears far more often in the song than you say: it occurs twice in every chorus, for a start. This section needs expanding and sourcing. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dealing with this (as somebody who doesn't read music that well, this is very difficult), though I wish to point out that Hey Jude is nearly twice as long, so will inevitably have more to say about it. And as mentioned above, the song itself is the source, much like for TV/film articles. I have been unable to locate any sources that describe the song itself, other than the Pedler book, which I've used. Majorly talk 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• As Indopug has rightly pointed out, your approach constitutes original research (and this research has, as I pointed out just above, in my view produced significantly incorrect findings). You say you don't read music but that shouldn't come into it: the musical analysis should be based on reliable sources. You say "Hey Jude" being longer makes it "inevitably have more to say about it"; that again is speculation and original research (and FWIW, I would say, not the case: they are of similar (low) complexity, with perhaps half a dozen chords each, and the Slade one may even slightly win on complexity. Going on for longer by repeating the same thing over and over again does not imply there is much more to say about the composition and musical structure. There may even be more that can be said about the Slade one.). PL290 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• You claim I am speculating and producing original research, yet you then go on to do the same thing yourself! Where is your RS that the Slade song "win[s] on complexity"? Where is your RS that says my interpretation is wrong? What makes you right? You saying it doesn't make it so.
• As I just said, I've searched high and low for any source for the song: I've come up with nothing. It's not an actionable oppose if you just state "[T]here may even be more that can be said about [it]", because I've found nothing. Majorly talk 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Another point regarding reading music: the Pedler book uses complex musical descriptions (e.g. "harmonising a D major chord that acts as a big V chord for G itself..."). To a layperson, that is completely incomprehensible. It's all very well saying "use reliable sources" but it's only possible to do so when you understand what on earth the source is on about. Majorly talk 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't oppose when all your comments are fixable. I've had a busy week, and will probably get round to fixing these very soon. Thanks, Majorly talk 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixable? Within the FAC process it would be pointless for me to make objections that weren't fixable! Currently these issues prevent the article from meeting 1a, 1b, 1c or 1d and I do oppose—and don't consider it worth reviewing other aspects of the article—until these are fixed. PL290 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that various aspects are being worked on and I retain the hope that this might develop to the extent that I could strike my remaining opposition. It gives me no pleasure to oppose and I am sorry to think that my tone or my inclusion of illustrative statements have obstructed my intention of providing helpful pointers that could indirectly facilitate resolution of the issues identified. I will be continuing to watch developments and I look forward to striking my opposition once these remaining issues have been resolved. PL290 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which issues remain? Majorly talk 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In the responses above, my remaining concerns (unstruck items) include the lack of depth; for example in both the Recording and Composition sections. This article is very short—as was indeed pointed out at the start of the nomination—but this appears in part to be due to over-summarization of detail that would actually be relevant to the article, in some cases with loss of meaning. To give just one example, "Its popularity, however, has occasionally produced a negative response, causing some venues to remove it from their Christmas playlist." When this sentence is examined more closely in conjunction with the sources, it transpires that it was not popularity that produced the negative response, but loss of popularity: the London Holiday Inn hotel deleted it because 'a large proportion' of customers told employees the song was irritating", and when Manchester Airport "canvassed opinion among 1,200 people about how to improve its Christmas service", they found that "Nearly 500 people said they did not want to hear it as it was 'unpopular' and 'outdated'". Turning to the Composition section, I take it from what's been said that the Pedler book does indeed contain the necessary detail to describe the song's musical structure; I understand that crafting a meaningful narrative would be challenging to someone unfamiliar with the terminology, and I would try to help improve that aspect if I had access to a source, but the Pedler book makes no mention of the song in the parts shown in the Google Books limited preview.PL290 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again: "it is very short" is not actionable if you cannot say where to get more information to expand it with. Of course, I can add more information from the sources I have already, but in reality, there is very little extra to add that is not already here.

The Pedler book, at least on the preview, does not contain enough detail about the song. It briefly discusses a few chords, but it does not describe the whole song in any way. It's most certainly viewable on Google books. Majorly talk 15:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any more passages you aren't happy with? Majorly talk 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

*Going to sort out the above issues tomorrow afternoon. Majorly talk 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image/media review: Everything's groovy. Steve Smith (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 12:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment This claim in the lead is wildly overstated: "It was one of the first Christmas rock songs." The primary text support for that claim is this passage: "Before 1973 Christmas songs tended to be covers of traditional songs, or derived from themed albums. Slade were one of the first to produce a Christmas-themed rock song." (First off, this passage is not coherent: Themed Christmas albums had never contained Christmas-themed rock songs? Simply not true. Do you mean had never contained nontraditional Christmas-themed rock songs? Still, simply not true.) A solitary source is cited for that passage, a personal reflection published in the Guardian, expressed in a very colloquial tone. Here are the lines from the source that are clearly the ones seen as supporting the major claim made in our article's lead: "Christmas up until that point had been many things. Sentimental. Tearful. Confusing. Miserable. One thing it had emphatically not been was rock'n'roll. Slade changed that forever." On the face of it, this is not considered professional critical opinion, but hyperbole. However you take it, it does not support the assertions currently expressed in our article.

Elvis's "Santa Claus Is Back In Town" (1957), written by Lieber and Stoller, isn't rock'n'roll? A Christmas Gift for You from Phil Spector (1963) isn't rock'n'roll? The Beach Boys' Christmas Album (1964), with five originals, isn't rock'n' roll? Elvis's amazing cover of "Merry Christmas Baby" (1971), an R&B (and thus nontraditional) standard, isn't rock'n'roll? As I said, the claim in the lead is wildly overstated; one could even say, simply false. I can certainly provide more authoritative sources providing evidence to contradict the claim, if necessary.

I'd say this whole claim should go. It is possible that another source might be found that would support a much more modest claim relative to Christmas music from British sources. DocKino (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a very valid concern and I'll be honest, that when I was writing it I noted the conflicting statements, but assumed the writer had made errors. As somebody who knows little about the topic, I could only follow what the source said, which is perhaps not a good idea. The Guardian, as I mentioned above, is a generally reliable source, but having read this piece, it probably isn't in this case - or as you say, it might be for the UK only, but I've found no sources saying that. I've removed the statements. Majorly talk 11:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Prose Support - Seems concise and well-written.
• Lead seems a little awkward.
• I asked Majorly if the background section was comprehensive, he assured me it was. I have some hesitation though, so my support is on prose only.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceranthor (talk • contribs) 14:41, December 12, 2009

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.