Talk:Magic Alex

Archives
Archive 1

Archive

I have archived the talk page, although it is sad that this article can not be a GA.--BeatlesProject (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Focus?

There is some interesting details about The Beatles contained within this article. However, there also appears to be some trivia. It is sometimes difficult to work out exactly what this guy did or did not do. I'd like to help out with the request for help to bring this to GA standard, but I suspect that it would require quite a bit of research to establish the guy's notability, and to remove the padding that now exists. There is information contained in sections, and that information has cites - but unfortunately some of those cites are blogs, while a number of others are books which take time to locate and check, so it may be helpful to have other sources to back up the existing claims in order to pass the "Factually accurate and verifiable" section of GA - Google Books often allow sight of the content of books, and that's worth looking into. (No GA reviewer could pass an article without being able to check the sources). The information sometimes reads as gossip, rather than encyclopedic content (the entire Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and India section for example, which also leans toward POV, as it appears to be pushing an assertion that Mardis was a a significant influence on breaking up The Beatles relationship with the Maharishi - a powerful and interesting claim!). A little bit of focus and trimming, and writing in a style which points up the encyclopedic nature of the topic would be helpful. I'll pop this on my watch-list and if nobody else has helped out by the time I have finished working on George Harrison I might have a go. Good luck! An interesting character! SilkTork *^YES! 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

GA

If this is not a GA article I will eat my hat.--andreasegde (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Too right. Article quality and standard of writing looks very good to me. I've made a few tweaks on a first pass through the first two sections may read/tweak more if I get a chance. Bon Voyage. PL290 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting it up for a GA.--andreasegde (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek islands

A few points of possible interest about Trinity Island. a) It's said to be guitar-shaped! Is this noteworthy or merely fun? b) Not sure if it's accurate (it may be) to say it's in Greece. c) It is currently for sale if anyone's interested! Ignoring (c), we could perhaps use something like:

The Beatles had tried in 1964 to buy the 14-acre (57,000 m²) Trinity Island, off the coast of the Greek island of Euboea and resembling a guitar in shape, but

Also we're told at one point that Mardas alleged he could speed the acquisition of an island because "many islands did have the right certificates of ownership and were subject to government restrictions". I wanted to clarify this sentence but I'm not sure what it means! PL290 (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.--andreasegde (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

certificates of ownership? That's quite possibly Greek bureaucracy. Who knows who owns which island?--andreasegde (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, the implication is that islands which lacked the right certificates, or perhaps even only those having the wrong certificates, were not subject to government restrictions! As this seems a most unlikely state of affairs—and one still less likely to have either given Mardas the alleged advantage or convinced The Beatles he had it—I have to assume there's something wrong with the sentence, but I don't know what! I suppose if it bothers me or anyone else sufficiently, research to establish what must be being referred to will become necessary. PL290 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What A Shame Mary Jane

He co-wrote a song with John Lennon: surely worth a mention? Even though it wasn't released, the fact of doing so brings a further aspect of his relationship with the band. (see A Hard Day's Write p.114 or I can elaborate in the article if agreed of interest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PL290 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

With a ref? Please put it in.--andreasegde (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's there (para 3 of London and...). PL290 (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw you edited the title I put, but according to my book (here we go again, hee hee!), what you put's just a line from the song and the title is as I had it:

"This was a thing I wrote half with our electronic genius Alex", said John in 1969. "It was called 'What A Shame Mary Jane Had A Pain At The Party' and it was meant for 'The Beatles' album.

Do you have something saying the title was the shorter one, then? PL290 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the New Mary Jane.--andreasegde (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

True; and I see it was released by that name on Anthology 3. Best to use the short name then. Interestingly, as I expect you saw, What's the New Mary Jane contains:

The song was held off another 10 years, during which time it gained a certain aura of mystery. During this time, it could only be heard via bootlegs like [...] and What A Shame, Mary Jane Had A Pain At The Party, which is an album that is solely dedicated to this song.

which probably accounts for Lennon's "a thing I wrote half" utterance using the longer name. PL290 (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The version on Anthology is just Lennon laughing whilst singing most of the time.--andreasegde (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Call it The Beatles: Magic Alex

Maybe? Given that the article could be seen as being not so much a biography of Yanni (later John) Alexis Mardas, but rather, a Beatles article (the word does occur, I checked). The name Magic Alex was their name for him, and he did work with them from 1965 to 1969, not just for a week or something. Just a thought. PL290 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, as it would be in line with the other sub-articles.--andreasegde (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Maharishi

A change was made to this article to change "the Maharishi" to just "Maharishi" throughout. This was a surprise to me as it's rendered "the Maharishi" in the published works I've seen. Also in the article Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I have undone the change as it doesn't appear to agree with the normal convention. I suggest discussion here if anyone considers this incorrect. PL290 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Asian English often leaves out the definite article.--andreasegde (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

name of the article

Im just going to change this to "Magic Alex" if you dont mind Zobango (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magic Alex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems checking quick fail criteria, move to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The article is reasonably well written

   b (MoS):

   *The heading A Greek island, a boutique, and marriage is more suitable for a tabloid than an encyclopaedia - can you think of something else?

 Done Done.--andreasegde (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 'In popular culture; this sort of trivia section is deprecated in Wikipedia. The citation for John Simms' band is not supported by the reference.  Done

Gone--andreasegde (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC).

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • 4 deadlinks found using this tool.

Ref #3 says nothing about Brian Jones. OK

Actually it does: "kinetic light sculptures at the Indica Gallery in London - one of which was bought by the Rolling Stones and used by the band on stage. Guitarist Brian Jones introduced him to Lennon, who became fascinated by his gadgets." --andreasegde (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #3 (formerly 4) says nothing about the Dunbar or the Rolling Stones.

It says, "Alex Mardas was a Greek TV repairman", which is following Dunbar's quote.--andreasegde (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed but it does not support Dunbar later said: "He was quite cunning in the way he pitched his thing. He knew enough to know how to wind people up and to what extent. He was a fucking TV repairman: Yanni Mardas, none of this 'Magic Alex' shit!". Jezhotwells (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #39 does not actually support the cited statement. OK

Again, it does: "During the 1990s both Harrison and Mr. McCartney were suitably convinced of the maharishi’s innocence that they reconciled with him and offered apologies," and "Mr. Mardas has never commented on the incident."--andreasegde (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #44 is a book review you may cite the book, with page numbers as appropriate, but not the review.

I have taken out the reference, but a book review by a journalist is a good reference, in my opinion--andreasegde (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC).

You misunderstand. You may cite a review as in X (reviewer) states that this is the best book on Y since Z, but you may not cite the review as This Book by Y states that Z is a murderer. That type of cite must come form the book. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. b (citations to reliable sources):

Ref #1 is to ablog, thus not allowable.

Gone.--andreasegde (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #7.

I have sourced the reference from the book.--andreasegde (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #11 is a geocities site - not allowable;

Gone.--andreasegde (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #12 is a fan site;

"The Beatles' Bible" has gone.--andreasegde (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #21 is a fan site;

"I am The Beatles" has gone.--andreasegde (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #26 is a blog; "dmbeatles.com" has gone.--andreasegde (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #28 is a fan site;

Gone.--andreasegde (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ref #40 is the personal site of an author can you find this interview elsewhere?;

I don't see what is wrong with citing an author and journalist, even if it is on his own page. In fact, I think that lends it more credence. I replaced it, nonetheless.--andreasegde (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, please read WP:RS SPS (self published sourecs) are unreliable.Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the fan sites. As the numbers of the refs are changing as I delete them, it would be good to know the name of the blog/fan page you are complaining about.--andreasegde (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.trancenet.net/personal/dolan/midnight.shtml; blog / fan pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

trancenet has gone.--andreasegde (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am having a problem with the ref, "The Beatles, the Maharishi and me" - The Sunday Times. The link works every time I click on it, but it keeps showing up as a dead link on the checker tool.--andreasegde (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] wotrks fine for me. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK.--andreasegde (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done

1. c (OR):

2. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, on hold for seven days for the above concerns to be met. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    Done

I know it's a little bit complicated for us both, but could you list any further complaints? I will work on them. --andreasegde (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK you need a cite for Dunbar later said: "He was quite cunning in the way he pitched his thing. He knew enough to know how to wind people up and to what extent. He was a fucking TV repairman: Yanni Mardas, none of this 'Magic Alex' shit!" or delete that statement. You need a cite for In 1987, Mardas was a managing director of Alcom Ltd, at Abbey House, 299A Edgware Road, London. The company specialised in Electronic Communications and Security Systems, but never dealt directly with the public; preferring to work with Government Authorities. Mardas employed Arthur Johnson (known as Johnny Johnson), a former M.O.D. official, on a sales commission basis. or delete that para. That's it I have made a couple of copy-edits and deleted the ref to the writer's blog which was already covered by another ref. BTW, they are not complaints, they are comments on assessment against good article criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll look for another ref, or delete.--andreasegde (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Done it.--andreasegde (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Was and were

I'm shocked! You actually used the word "were" in your article. In the section London and The Beatles, the openning paragraph you have "...although they were not impressed with the..." Good for you, my friend! - Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it was about the individual members, and not the name. One could never say "they was not impressed". It's basic English, old chap. "The Rolling Stones is a group" is correct.--andreasegde (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now you're onto something here if you say "name". "The Rolling Stones" is the name of a group. But the Rolling Stones are a group. 'Fraid you'll have to switch your allegiance to R.E.M. or somesuch if you wanna use that kinda lingo! PL290 (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're almost getting it, PL290. It's a very subtle difference, but the difference is there. The Beatles was a group, but The individual Beatles were Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr.--andreasegde (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)