Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cross Road Blues/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 September 2023 [1].

Cross Road Blues

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song recorded by blues musician Robert Johnson in 1936. It is popularly associated with a deal he supposedly made with the Devil, but current views offer different interpretations. As "Crossroads" in the late 1960s, it became one of Cream's most popular songs and Eric Clapton and a variety of artists continue to perform it. Hope you find the article informative and interesting (anyone doing a plagiarism check might want to read this first). Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

Hi Ojorojo, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed eight successful featured list candidate reviews, if that helps.[2][3][4][5][[6][7][8][9] Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
Added.
File:Cross_Road_Blues_single_cover.jpg has an inadequate fair-use rationale
Updated with better FUR template.
Have you considered whether the article would benefit from a sample?
There was a 48 second sample in the article, but I removed it. The maximum time limit for a ~2:30 recording is ~15 seconds, which is too short to adequately demonstrate the points in the article. There's an official Vevo link in EL that has the entire recording.
File:Crossroads_marker.jpg: what's the copyright status of the marker? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's cropped from a photo in Commons, which was released by the photographer.[10] The file page for the article image includes: "Adapting the work (cropping & retouching) is permitted under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license; work is attributed and distributed under same license." Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the photo - I'm asking about the marker itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Clarksdale, Mississippi, website includes "Clarksdale, the birthplace of the blues, lays claim to the location of Highways 61 and 49 and has staked that claim with a giant guitar sign", but does not mention anything else about it.[11] The Mississippi Blues Trail/Travellers website includes photos of the sign, but also doesn't say anything about it.[12] Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is it known when the sign was erected? A copyright tag will be needed on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A book preview is missing pages, but includes that it was installed May 11, 1999, and that the designer (a local school shop teacher) received no compensation "nor did he copyright his design".[13] Perhaps the city or some other entity did, but since it is unverifiable, the image has been removed. Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

"his soul to the Devil in exchange for his musical talents" --> "his soul to the Devil in exchange for musical talent"
"Both Johnson's and Cream's recordings" --> "Both Johnson and Cream's recordings"
"The material Johnson chose shows more variety than that for his first date and he reached back into his long-standing repertoire for songs to record" is kind of awkward imo
Comma needed before "and some have attached a supernatural significance to the song"
Comma needed before "and Johnson's tunes were found in jukeboxes in the region"
"in the latter days of the American folk music revival" --> "later" would be more accurate.
Comma needed before "and Baker adds fills and more complex techniques typical of drummers in jazz trios"
Comma needed before "and James' slide guitar was placed further back in the mix"
Comma needed before "and it recalls their"
The article could use a few more images, per Criteria 3

As a Mississippian pro tempore, who finds himself on country roads and crossroads in the middle of the night relatively often, I've always been fascinated by Johnson. Solid work. ~ HAL333 18:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your suggested fixes. Unfortunately, there are no photos of Johnson or Elmore James in the public domain and the copyrighted ones don't qualify for use here. So, I've added some relevant photos from Commons to meet FACr 3. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I won't be able to undertake a full source to text integrity spot check and paraphrasing check as I don't have access to Komara (2007) (which isn't even held by the British Library) and some of the other sources, but I'll do what I can. Hopefully that will make it easier for another source reviewer. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. WorldCat shows that Komara's book is available at the University of Edinburgh and libraries in other English speaking countries, if that helps.

Gillett, Charlie (1972); Litwack, Leon F. (1998); Wardlow, Gayle Dean (1998); and Whitburn, Joel (1988) are not used as references to directly support the text so could be moved to a "General references" section (MOS:REFERENCES) or to a "Further reading" section (MOS:FURTHER).
These may have been used in previous versions, but since they are no longer, I removed them.
Some of the AllMusic urls have moved - these could either be updated, or hopefully located by running IAbot. Please check these.
I replaced several of these with stable sources. Of the four that remain, only Gilliam's review of Cream's version doesn't work. It's too bad, since he has some good quotes. I don't know about IAbot, any other suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To run IABot you can go to the "View history" tab at the article, then click "Fix dead links", and the tick "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)"; then click the "Analyze" button. The bot isn't always up but when it is, it's good for adding archived pages. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't agree to the terms and conditions, so I removed Gilliam. The three remaining AM review links have been rechecked and new dates added.
Talk:Cross_Road_Blues#Wardlow/Conforth_similarity seemed familiar; then I remembered why: it came up at Talk:Robert Johnson recordings/GA1.
Yes, you may recognize some of the same sources from that GA review.
I've learnt that Template:Cite web says "For no date, or "undated", use date=n.d."
I didn't see the point of using n.d. before, but since it is in the template guidance, I added it.

Check with Earwig's Copyvio detector

Only two non-zero matches. R&R HoF (5.7%): matches are titles. Rolling Stone (3.8%): Just the title, and "Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony". So no issues.

Detailed checks (version at the start of the review.)

4 - no issues
7 - doesn't seem relevant for "The material reflects the styles of country blues performers Charley Patton and Son House, who influenced Johnson in his youth"; no other issues
There are already two citations, so removed.
9 - no issues
13 no issues. ("used a portable disc cutting machine" isn't explicit on that page, but given the venue and that they were recording, seems a reasonable statement based on the source)
It's a rather minor point, so I've removed it anyway.
19 - no issues
24, 25 - no issues
34 - no issues
41, 43, 46, 48 - no issues
54 - Page title doesn't match, quite possibly because the page has been changed. The linked page doesn't verify that the song was inducted in 1986; and it doesn't mention Diggs. Quote from O'Neil is fine but in the source it is a complete sentence so I think the quote should start with a capital R and include the period within the quotation marks. (the Goldmine source can be used to verify 1986)
I fixed the title (same text, but different titles/heading). The Blues HOF announcement page showing the 1986 induction date cannot be linked directly and the Goldmine article only mentions the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. ~~Is there a preferred format for adding the Blues HOF search page with instructions for how to search?~~ I've added a better source that mentions Driggs' choice and fixed the O'Neil quote.
I added the search page with instructions. See if it works for you. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
70 - no issues.
73 - no issues
76 - no issues
78 - no issues
79 - doesn't verify "Cream recorded the song on November 28, 1966, for broadcast on the BBC Guitar Club radio program" or "Clapton only sings the first and last sections, with his guitar solo replacing the middle "Traveling Riverside Blues" verse. It appeared on bootleg albums before finally being released in 2003 on BBC Sessions"
Added new source for recording date, duration, and official release, and removed the rest.
82 - the source doesn't specify the threshold for a US Platinum album. Maybe you could link to Music_recording_certification#Certification_thresholds
Added link. Apparently, double LPs were counted differently.
84 - no issues
91 - no issues
93 - no issues
96, 97, 98 - no issues
99 - no issues, but I suggest adding the year into the text.
Added.
101 - no issues
102 - I have no idea whether "arwulf arwulf" should be "arwulf, arwulf"; it's inconsistent on other pages in Wikipedia. Otherwise, no issues.
It's a toss up. Some editors insist that pseudonyms shouldn't be split. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
108 - no issues
109 - I think it would be better to list artists named in the text, e.g. "Dave Grohl" rather than "members of ... Foo Fighters. "(see video in external links)" in the text doesn't look appropriate to me, but may be OK.
To be consistent, should the three members of Rush be mentioned? The source lists "Chuck D., Darryl DMC, Ann Wilson, Nancy Wilson, Dave Grohl, Taylor Hawkins, Rush, John Fogerty, Tom Morello, Gary Clark Jr., and Chris Cornell". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stuck to source: Rush plus named artists. Removed "see video". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed checks part 2 (version)

8b (Palmer 1981)- I didn't see this supported; what part of the source does it rely on? (p. 126 has "If a white law officer or a passing redneck discovers him there, he could be jailed, or worse." but I don't think that's enough to support the current article text.)
Added better source.
8a, 17, 18, 50 (Palmer 1981): no issues. However the uncited "This was written in 1981 before the re-release of the original single in 1990, so it is possible that he is referring to the second take that was released in 1961." after [50] looks like potential WP:ORIGINAL research.
Removed the second part of the efn.
21, 28 (Schroeder 2004): no issues. (but I wasn't able to check if the rest of "Robert Johnson later recorded two songs that include such themes: in "Hellhound on My Trail" tells of trying to stay ahead of the demon hound which is pursuing him and in "Me and the Devil Blues" he sings, "Early this mornin' when you knocked upon my door, and I said 'Hello Satan I believe it's time to go' is supported by LaVere 1990 as I don't have access to it.
LaVere is included as the source for the lyrics (full transcriptions of all of Johnson's lyrics, with footnotes).
22 (Schroeder 2004): In the third and fourth sections, he expresses apprehension at being stranded as darkness approaches and asks that his friend Willie Brown be advised that "I'm sinkin' down" - I'm not seeing the support for this. (p.95 mentions that Willie Brown is invoked in the song)
Added second Schroeder page and LaVere for the lyrics (Conforth & Wardlow nearly copy WP on this in their book).
30 (Gioia 2008): no issues
32 Charlton 2008): no issues with use of the source; however I noticed that Charlton has "The speed of the basic beat is approximately 88 beats per minute, but Johnson speeds up and slows down at will."; this is a bit different to "Both begin slower and speed up; the first is about 106 beats per minute (bpm), while the second is about 96 bpm" which is in the article sourced to Kmoara 2007 (which I don't have). Does this merit an addition to the text or a footbote?
From the preview, it's unclear which take Charlton is referring to, so it may not be useful. The tempos vary though, as do many pre-click track recordings.
You're right, Charlton doesn't mention which take. (I liked her remarks on p.12: "he was not confined by the rhythmic strictness observed by later blues musicians. He added extra beats to bars and extra bars to phrases seemingly at random, and sometimes even sang in a rhythmic pattern that differed from what he was playing on his guitar.") BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's good, but she is saying basically the same as Headlam in the block quote "Meter itself ..." I prefer Headlam, because 1) "later blues musicians", such as Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and of course John Lee Hooker often weren't so strict, so she is somewhat overstating it ("most modern blues musicians" would have been better); and 2) it may be "seemingly at random" to her, but it also could be as Headlam suggests "a more personal, idiosyncratic vision".
Headlam 1997: add the chapter title (Blues transformations in the music of Cream) and page range (59–92) in the Bibliography entry
Added.
44a Headlam 1997: I didn't see the support for "The song's structure differs from a well-defined twelve-bar blues. The verses are not consistent and range from fourteen to fifteen bars in length" but this may well be because the author's text went over my head.
You're right, it was the wrong page number, now corrected.
44b Headlam 1997: Similarly for "Additionally, the harmonic progression is often implied rather than stated (full IV and V chords are not used)", but I'm even more prepared to find out that this is down to my lack of knowledge of the teminology used.
As above. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
44c, 47, 75, 76, 78 Headlam 1997: no issues
66, 67,68, Boyd 2010: No issues
70 Boyd 2010: article has "Clapton developed an arrangement using lyrics from both songs" but source has "He came up with an arrangement that combined the lyrics of ‘Crossroads’ with a guitar lick from ‘Riverside’"
Unfortunately, Boyd is the only source for details about the Powerhouse version and he doesn't get it quite right. Their lyrics are pretty much the same as Cream's later version, which uses lyrics from both "Crossroads" and "Riverside" (see Headlam ref in the Cream section). Boyd is the only one who says that the riff was developed from "Riverside", which seems to be a stretch (Clapton says "Cross Road Blues" has "a very definite riff", but apparently in the context of Cream's version). I rewrote the sentence as "For the recording, Clapton developed an arrangement that drew on both songs"[74], which is consistent with the ref. Otherwise, without it, the paragraph would end on "Their attention turned to Robert Johnson songs and Boyd proposed "Crossroads",[d] while Clapton favored "Traveling Riverside Blues".[72][e]", which doesn't explain what the significance of "Riverside" is. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
56 Milward 2012: no issues
65 Roberty 1993: 65a -group name isn't mentioned on p24, you could add p.21. No other issues.
Added better source.
86 Hoffmann 1983: no issues
109 Larkin 1998: source has "most famous track for USA in 1962. An updated version of Robert Johnson’s 'Crossroads', its pounding rhythms and heavily amplified bottle-neck made it a landmark in city blues." Article quotes this as "most famous track ... It's pounding rhythms and heavily amplified bottle-neck made it a landmark in city blues" so slight tidying up needed (e.g. lose the apostrophe). Shouldn't the chapter be the artist's name rather than ""Artist entry"?
Removed typo, added section title.
111 Herzhaft 1992: no issues
116 - no issues with integrity or paraphrasing, but an independent source would be better.
Replaced.

General

All of the sources I saw are of appropriate quality. Looks a good breadth of sources has been consulted, but I'm not an expert in the subject.
There's some inconsistency in whether publisher location is included. (The ref check script tells me that 21 refs include it but 5 don't.) Should be consistent.
This came up before. Locations are added only if the source includes them (no OR). The alternative is no locations at all, if that is better. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Guidance_on_source_reviewing_at_FAC tells me that "Books should be defined in terms of author, title, year and/or edition, and publisher. Publisher location and, where possible, ISBN are usually added, but they are not required by WP:CITE. Consistency requires that these optional fields are either added in all instances or omitted in all instances (except where a book does not have an ISBN)." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation/link. The locations have been removed and I made some refs more consistent. Looks like I have a lot of articles to fix.
I'm still having issues with AllMusic sources, so that's pending from me.
I responded where it is first discussed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed checks round 3 (version)

101 Erlewine: no issues
118 Jurek: no issues
121 Millward 2013: no issues

Thanks for the responses, Ojorojo. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Please let me know if any of your concerns have not been addressed. The coordinator wants to move this along. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo. All of my concerns so far have been addressed, thanks. I'll try and have a look at those which have GBooks previews; as long as they are more than snippets I can probably tick a few more off. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed as many sources as I could find. The exceptions are: "Crossroads" / "Passing the Time" (Single notes), Charters 1973, ~~Conforth & Wardlow 2019, Dahl 2002~~, DeCurtis 1988, DeCurtis 1994, Forte 2010, Hal Leonard 2013, Komara 2007, ~~LaVere 1990~~, Marcus 2015, McCarthy 1968, McDermott 1995, Morris & Haig 1992, Odom & Dorman 2002. Pearson & McCulloch 2008, Perone 2019, The Sky Is Crying (Album notes), Topping 1993, Welch 2000, Wheels of Fire (Album notes), Whitburn 2008, BBC Sessions (Album notes), Kimsey 2005. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, most of the books are available in googlebook previews and many of the liner notes may be viewed at discogs.com. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed checks round 4 (version)

2, 3, 6, 12, 23, 31, 59, 74 LaVere 1990 - pages don't match up with the edition I'm looking at (C2K 64916), but no issues.
I used C2K 46222 (US Columbia); C2K 64916 appears to be a European CBS edition. I double checked and the page numbers are correct.
16, 56 Conforth and Wardlow - what's the source text relied on? No concerns, it's just that previews with my search text don't give enough context.
For 16, C&W page 47 includes "Penton, Lake Cormorant, Clack, Commerce, and Robinsonville—Mississippi locations that later served as major landmarks in Robert's life."; page 52 includes "The area above that [the previously mentioned Clarksdale], Coahoma County towards Memphis [where the listed areas are located] was termed the north Delta by those who lived there." For 56, p186 "Although neither song ['Cross Road Blues' and 'Ramblin' on My Mind'] became a hit then, they were still widely heard in the Delta."; p221 "Greenwood and Clarksdale where cafes had jukeboxes that could hold ten records of the latest race issues, including his own".
25, 29, 55, 116 Conforth and Wardlow - no issues. (Pages not numbered in preview, so I AGF on numbering)
I doubled checked and the page numbers are correct.
114 Dahl 2002 - I think the reference should include page 1, as that's where the session date appears. No other issues. (Maybe "recorded a rendition in 1963" and "The July 23, 1963, recording session" could be combined?)
Good catch, added p1. Also, combined to lessen repetition. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BennyOnTheLoose and thanks for picking this up. You seem to me to have done sufficient to be able to confirm whether you are happy with the source and citation formatting; the quality, up to dateness and comprehensiveness of the sources; the source to text integrity; and possible over-close paraphrasing. It seems that you are indeed happy, and as and when you confirm this I will look through the review and the article myself with a view to closing the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog the Mild. I'm familiar with some of the authors of works I didn't see, such as Komara, DeCurtis, Marcus, Whitburn and Perone, and am certainly happy that those would be appropriate sources. @Ojorojo:; in terms of the sources, where possible, could you add page numbers for the chapters for Forte (2010), Guitar World's 100 Greatest Guitar Solos of All Time, Herzhaft (1992), Kimsey (2005), Larkin (1998), and Marcus (2015)? McCarthy (1968) pre-dates ISBN's, so may need the year of the edition that you used added, and an orig-year parameter too. (I didn't see any others that were obviously wanting an orig-year parameter, but if you know of any then please add those too.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: I added for Forte, Herzhaft, and Kimsey. Marcus is spread out over two chapters. For McCarthy, it appears that all are 1968 editions and include isbns in the abstracts (Googlebook, WorldCat, Amazon). I found one university catalogue entry with an OCLC number 00412768. Would that be better that an isbn? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a later edition of McCarthy; as the ISBN works to locate it in WorldCat and with a major online retailer, seems OK to retain it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett

Forthcoming. Tkbrett (✉) 19:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett, nudge :) . Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, Gog the Mild. I promise I did not forget this promise, I was just away for work. I will be reviewing in the next day or two. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 09:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics and interpretation

The song has been used to perpetuate …": if possible, fix this passive voicing. Who has used the song in this way? Record executives? Locals? Authors?
I added a quote that attributes it to "many blues fans and even some scholars".

Eric Clapton/Cream Interpretation

"spring of 1966": Avoid using seasons for time periods (MOS:SEASON)
The source uses spring, but changed it as per MOS.

Other versions and appearances

"Author Colon Larkin describes it as James' …": I believe James should be Homesick, per MOS:SAMESURNAME.
Fixed.

"… and for the Crossroads guitar Festivals to benefit it": the "it" here is referring to the drug rehab facility, right? The way the sentence is structured, "it" could instead be referring to the song.
Clarified.

General

Ojorojo: My apologies on the delay. I made changes as I went through which did not seem worth bringing up here. Please look them over and make sure you have no objections.

I do not have much to critique; this article is excellent. The prose is tight and explains things well to a non-expert. I am not especially versed in Johnson, but this article accords with what I know. Despite being a first-time nomination, this is a much better article than what typically ends up at FAC from the music wiki projects. Once the above is addressed, this will be an easy pass. Tkbrett (✉) 14:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The housekeeping changes are fine and I've made the fixes you suggested. Thanks for your encouragement. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the above fixes having been made, I am happy to support this article for promotion. Tkbrett (✉) 10:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has only the single support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild - I haven't found any real problems during the source review above, only a few issues of the type that often get picked up during a FAC review. Is what I've covered an adequate sample, or does it need to be more comprehensive? As noted, I don't have access to some of the sources, but I could probably get hold of a couple more of them. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

Ojorojo has pinged me, and I'm happy to look at this. I can't promise I'll be able to finish a full review in the three to four days Gog the Mild specified above, but I'll do my best and let's see how far we get. Moisejp (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators never like to time out nominations. This one now looks a little busier, and it will probably be a week or so before we consider another hard look at progress. If you were, say, most of the way through a review by then and nothing fundamental was coming up, then the nomination should gain another four or five days grace. And so on; for a while, although not infinitely. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finished my first read-through and it generally looks quite good. I'm anticipating supporting. Now working on my second read-through and will write comments as I spot them.

Thanks, that works for me.

Recording: "The song incorporates the style of country blues performers Charley Patton and Son House, who influenced Johnson in his youth." Is it clear what song is being referred to here? Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Recording section was intended to provide some background about Johnson's San Antonio recordings. The second paragraph explained a difference between the material recorded for his first session that for the second and third ones. Ceoil made some changes to the second and third paragraphs, including changing "material" (the source is describing several songs, as the preceding sentence indicates) to "song" and removing a second description of the material.[14] Perhaps they can explain. Ceoil's changes have been rolled back.
"Two similar takes of the song were recorded." I'll leave it to your discretion but just wondering whether "somewhat similar" would be better as later in the article several differences are listed. Moisejp (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Somewhat similar" does seem to be a better description, so changed.
"It contrasts with Johnson's finger-picking "piano style", which uses a boogie-style accompaniment on the bass strings while playing melody and harmonies on the higher strings." Doesn't quite seem to work grammatically as the subject of "uses" is "piano style" while the implied subject of "playing melody" seems to be Johnson. Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just change "playing" to something like "incorporating"? Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, "incorporating" is a better fit. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outriggr has made some changes to the "It contrasts with Johnson's finger-picking ..." sentence, including replacing "incorporating" with "adding". Does "adding" present the same problem as "playing"? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe it's OK?? I seems better than "playing," probably. But if you happen to feel "incorporating" is the best overall, I'm happy to support you on that too. Moisejp (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to "incorporating". If Outriggr feels strongly about this, it can be reevaluated.

I'll try my best to finish this review this weekend, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Cream section, not 100% sure this is a worthwhile detail, but if you feel strongly it is, I won't object to it being kept: "It was the first double album to be certified as "Platinum" in the US." Moisejp (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important, so removed.
It may just be speculation, but it feels like Clapton's statement about the song that "I really don't like it, actually. I think there's something wrong with it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we weren't lost at that point in the song" may be related to "he has expressed reservations about his performance: "I'm convinced that I get on the wrong beat in the middle of the song ... where I’m supposed to be on the 'one', where I'm really on the 'two'." " Of course it would be OR to say directly without a source that he's talking about the same thing both times, but I wonder how many readers like me may wonder about that. Whether or not they are talking about the exact same thing, they do seem related, and it could be good to find a way to put them together. One solution could be to make a mini-section or paragraph about Clapton's feelings about the performance, and pull both bits into it. Or, as nice as both bits are, another solution could be to remove one of the bits. These are just thoughts. Moisejp (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better source and added a section on Clapton's views with a fuller explanation and trimmed his comment on editing. Good suggestion.
It's interesting that issues with the beat have been expressed about the versions by Johnson, Cream, and Texas Alexander. I was hoping to be able to tie them together somehow, but haven't found any RS. Maybe something to do with old Beelzebub. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change the title "Editing on the album version" to something like "Possible editing on the album version" because the section is not conclusive that there was indeed editing. Moisejp (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, changed.

Those are all my comments, cheers. Moisejp (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and suggestions, Moisejp. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm very happy to support now. The article is really well written, with engaging prose, and lots of detail throughout. Nice work on this subject! Moisejp (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil

Placeholder. Reading through. A week or so latitude seems good. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would mention that the Faustian pact centered on his uncanny ability to play slide guitar, and at such a young age. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added Conforth & Wardlow ref. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~The lead seems long, maybe get quicker to the nub of why Johnson is haunting, and reduce mentions of Cream. Still reading though. Ceoil (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking now...didn't realize the article had substantial section on the Cream release...sorry!! Ceoil (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cream version: should "best and most assured" be in quotes
It's not a direct quote and since the author is identified, it doesn't seem warranted.
"Besides being a blues standard, "Crossroads" is also popular among blues rock artists." - repetition?
The two are not the same. Many blues standards are not popular with blues rockers, while other blues songs are popular with them that aren't blues standards.

Ceoil is making edits that alter the meaning of article text. They are introducing errors and ideas not in the references used, deleting reliably sourced material without explanation, including a source that is used in other citations (restored by Anomie bot).[15] They were asked to explain a change that lead another reviewer to question,[16] but have not done so. They are also redacting their review comments. They removed their comment indicating an early "oppose",[17] while they later admit that they hadn't even read enough of the article to realize that Cream's version is extensively discussed.

I find it concerning that Ceoil seems to have major problems with an article that has gone through a GA review, a pre-nom mentor review, and three reviews that resulted in supports without any mention of significant deficiencies. I am willing to work with good faith efforts to improve the article. When problems are identified, it is better to raise them as questions, especially when they change the meaning of reliably sourced material. This is process other reviewers have used and is better than creating more problems.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologies, and yes my leaning oppose was based on prose issues from an initial scan, and was hasty. I have rolled back all (I hope) edits.[18]. I would like to say that am delighted that you have developed and brought the article this far, and hope no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ps, if you still want me to list the (minor) issues had resolved here than would be happy to do so. Otherwise, I'll bow out. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I re-added a couple of items, but all is good. There is room for improvement in the prose and some of your text is worthwhile. I have some ideas on how to improve the article in this regard and will address your comments on my talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo and Ceoil: guys this has been open quite a while and has had pretty extensive review; I'm happy to leave a bit longer if some polishing is going on but let me know where we're at. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I'm ok with it being promoted per the consensus above; don't want to hold it up. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article again looking for words to watch and made a change. At this point, I think any substantial issues have been addressed and the final review may proceed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

I was wondering when this would end up on FAC. I reviewed the article before Ororojo nommed it, wanting a peer review. I was impressed by the level of detail for what was a fairly significant song. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who helped. It was a very thorough review and I learned a lot. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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