This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Not sure that it matters, but a reference that seems as least as worthy as those mentioned regarding the Simpsons, was in George Lucas' "American Graffiti" when the character John Milner states after turning off the car radio which was playing the Beach Boys:

"I don't like that surfin' s--t. Rock 'n' Roll's been goin' downhill ever since Buddy Holly died." http://www.filmsite.org/amerg.html - Pcorkett ( talk) 08:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose the inclusion of The Weezer song "Buddy Holly" - Mullhawk ( talk) 23:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the Tributes section. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 00:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, i see.
Mullhawk ( talk) 05:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Frankie Muniz playing him in The Dewey Cox story?Sorry,Ive never seen the movie,but it showed it on Frankies page,so I figured it should be on here.-- D3t3ctiv3 ( talk) 08:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy is about wiki-linking songs etc. that do not yet have an article behind them. I notice that sometimes (as in the most recent edit of this article) people remove red links, but I thought the idea was to leave a place holder for an anticipated future article. Can someone point to the place where this is discussed, or where a consensus has been reached? Jgm 17:11, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Jgm - I deleted the links when I added the new content because I see so many irrelevant links in articles. But in response to your question, I found the policy on this and find that I was wrong to delete them. So I have put them back. Here is the policy: Make only links relevant to the context
  Fernkes 20:20, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

Morwen's edit is correct -- "the plane was named 'American Pie' or 'Miss American Pie'" is an urban legend. see http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/amerpie.htm for details. Jgm 15:58, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm feel like I should ask others for opinions, so I think it might be more appropriate to have Buddy Holly and the Crickets redirect to The Crickets rather than to Buddy Holly. I know that Buddy Holly is the main reason for the band, but The Crickets' page only has a link for him anyways. However, The Crickets did continue without him, and there might be some confusion. -- Ricky81682 05:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "Buddy Holly and the Crickets" should redirect to "The Crickets", but only if the article is expanded to include the time that Holly was with them. It currently only mentions him in passing... [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 15:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any comment on adding to the wreck? I've read (in Flying, I think) the wreck may have been due to smoke in the cockpit, from a heater in the tail that caught fire. (The same cause has been blamed for the crash that killed Rick Nelson.) I've also seen pilot inexperience (lack of instrument time for the conditions) blamed. --fourthina3, 16/11/05

The link at the bottom of the page takes you to a reproduction of the report of the Civil Aeronautics Board adopted 15th September 1959. The conclusion was "...The Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's unwise decision to embark on a flight which would necessitate flying solely by instruments when he was not properly certificated or qualified to do so. Contributing factors were serious deficiencies in the weather briefing, and the pilot's unfamiliarity with the instrument which determines the attitude of the aircraft." Peter Maggs 16:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the CAB was NOT a predecessor of the FAA. They were coterminous and had different missions regulating the airline industry. The CAB was eliminated in the Carter Administration, and the FAA existed long before Carter.

- wosuna 2/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wosuna ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"...they opened for Bill Haley...". It is unclear if 'they' refers to Buddy and Bob or Buddy and Elvis.

Also, I changed Holley to Holly, so it wasn't half one way and half the other. Clarityfiend 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I pinpointed the exact date: February 8, 1956. Theoretically you could spell it "Holley" before then and "Holly" after. However, we don't want to confuse the Great Unwashed any more than necessary. Wahkeenah 03:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why there's no picture of a living and performing Buddy Holly on this page? Are there no public domain images available? Wouldn't it count as fair use if there are only copyrighted ones available?... ENpeeOHvee 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE - I did a quick search and was able to find some album covers, so I uploaded them, since I know they can be included under fair use. But more images should still be added. ENpeeOHvee 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Be very careful. The recent ruling on Wikipedia is that covers of books/magazines are not fair use unless the picture is used to critique the publication in question. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 13:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • They must be worried that some album or magazine publisher is going to sue wikipedia for providing them free advertising. Wahkeenah 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Could a Holly expert please add to the songlist at Felice and Boudleaux Bryant? -- Design 09:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

At least some of the peak chart positions listed are wrong. Where did they come from? According to Billboard, Buddy Holly landed three Top Ten singles: That'll Be The Day at #1, Peggy Sue at #3 and Oh, Boy! at #10. That's it. I used the chart positions listed on this page in an argument online about Little Richard vs. Buddy Holly. I got burned. Thanks a lot. Clashwho 22:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the assistant was the son of the vet. But I do know that the son was playing a song on his guitar about a pig named Sue and therefor singing Piggy Sue. Then the main character from Quantum Leap proposed to call the song Peggy Sue cause (being from the future) he was sure that would make a better title for a song

The young Buddy was an assistant to Dr. Beckett's character. (this is evidenced by the fact that he would generally ask if he could go home after finishing up with the animals.) He had the tune for peggy sue throughout the episode but kept putting different lyrics with it. At the very end after Dr. Beckett had accomplished what he believed to be his mission and realized he was still there, he started looking for the piglet saying "Piggy, Souee." this caused the boy who was playing his guitar to start singing with the words Piggy Souee in place of Peggy Sue. Al and Sam exchange looks and Al tells him to try it. Sam looks at the boy and for the first time addresses him by a name other than a nickname, saying "Buddy, (to which the boy looks up) why don't you try Peggy Sue. It might sound better." Buddy goes along with it and launches into the song we know today as Peggy Sue.

Brad Zeak 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Brad Zeak

I moved the discography in this article to its own, Buddy Holly discography. The trend for larger articles on bands/musicians seems to be to separate the discography if it is a lengthy one. -- cholmes75 ^{( chit chat)} 02:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Most images and references seem to show or mention his Fender Stratocaster, but the museum in Lubbock reportedly has his Gibson Les Paul [1]. Does it seem like that might be worth mentioning as well? (References to songs he used it on or shows where he used it would be particularly helpful.) Also, I found a report that Gary Busey had bought one of Holly's guitars, but haven't found any details about which one or what kind. If someone wanted an interesting, short research project, that might be worth investigating. Xtifr _tälk 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but yet another mention of a Holly sighting in some cartoon show is really not a worthy addition to this article. What the article really needs at this point is more citations and less trivia. Some of the contents of the "Tributes" section should be ruthlessly pruned, IMO. See WP:AVTRIV. Some of the external links look very useful, but they should really be used to cite some of the specific details in the article. I think there's actually enough material here to turn this into at least a B class article (maybe even A), but it definitely needs some cleanup first. Xtifr _tälk 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

After research on the internet, I have reached the conclusion that "I Fought the Law" was recorded in 1959 after Buddy's death. I believe someone should delete this reference unless someone can give a detail account supporting its recording before 1959.

One detail on the Buddy Holly article needs to be addressed. In this article, it says the plane (in which Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and the Big Bopper died) flew into cold but otherwise good weather. However, the same account in the articles of the other two men say the plane flew into a "blinding snowstorm." We need to know which is correct. Kevin Scott Marcus 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well according to the Aeronautics Board report, it was a light snow but still decent visibility. So this article is closer to being correct than the others. -- cholmes75 ^{( chit chat)} 14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The CAB report lists the local weather reported to the accident airplane during taxi to the active runway as: Precipitation ceiling 3,000 feet, sky obscured; visibility 6 miles; light snow; wind south 20 knots, gusts to 30 knots; altimeter setting 29.85 inches. Jdavrgfan 01:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ritchie Valen's wikipedia page says the airplane took off in a blinding snowstorm. This one says that the weather was good but extremely cold. There's a contradiction here. 192.28.2.41 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)VM

• The Buddy Holly book also says it was very snowy. Wahkeenah 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In the article its mentioned that Sam was able to complete the mission and was baffled why he hadn't leaped which isn't correct, Sam was baffled because despite his best efforts he wanst able to marry Tess so the mission wasnt complete and the probabilities were too low that he was there to marry Tess and when he corrects the fictional Buddy Holly to sing Peggy Sue instead of Piggy he leaps. Maybe it should be corrected? ( 86.29.104.180)

I think that that whole thing about The Hollies should be taken out, or at least dropped to a blurb in the "Tributes" section. I took out the line that I've italicized in the following statement, "According to the band's website, although the group admired Buddy Holly (and years later produced an album covering some of his songs), their name was inspired primarily by the sprigs of holly in evidence around Christmas of 1962. The site also admits to a degree of uncertainty about that story, so it is possible that they have disavowed any reference to Holly in order to avoid legal or copyright issues." because it was speculation

The following needs some references before it can go back into the article:

Holly's personal style, more controlled and cerebral than that of Elvis and more youthful and innovative than the country and western stars of his day, would have an influence on both sides of the Atlantic for decades to come, reflected particularly in the New Wave movement in artists such as Elvis Costello and Marshall Crenshaw (who portrayed Holly in the Ritchie Valens biopic La Bamba), and earlier in folk rock bands like The Byrds and The Turtles.

Clarityfiend 07:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to edit the above para. so that it doesn't require references? On one hand, it's kind of hard to think of a 60s or early 70s band that did not in some way show hints or influence from Holly (just because he was there at the start). There were artists like Linda Rondstadt who scored a series of hits doing nothing but covers of Holly (e.g., That'll be the day, It's so easy...). On the other hand, I agree that it can become fairly speculative to say that he was more "cerebral" than Elvis. I agree with that claim by the way, but I can see where it might need to be toned down to match the tone of a wikI article. C d h 18:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph reads like it was lifted from someplace. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was - see here. -- cholmes75 ^{( chit chat)} 19:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Holly's brother Larry is a Baptist minister and thinks that Holly never lost his faith. Of course he would want to believe that, but is there any hard evidence that he's wrong? I can't find anything on the net where Holly talks about his religious beliefs or lack of them. If there is evidence that he was an atheist, could we please have a source? Robert Arnold Conrad ( talk) 12:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the cat entry; I can find no more evidence that he became an atheist any more than that he became a Muslim. -- SigPig | ^{SEND - OVER} 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article did not research Buddy's death accurately. Holly's body did not hit a tree following the crash -- that was Ronnie Van Zandt of Lynyrd Skynyrd. There are numerous photographs of the crash scene (all of which are viewable on the Web) and they plainly show the wreckage lying in the middle of a cornfield. Holly's body can clearly be seen just a few feet from the fusilage, with no trees anywhere in sight. Rusty1956 ( talk) 04:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide a link that notes the wreckage, pls. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to crash photo -- http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/h/Buddy%20Holly/corn%20field.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.238 ( talk) 20:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the tree. The section is unreferenced. So, until a source is added to back up the claim, it doesn't belong. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is there provenance to add the crash scene image? It is notable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton ( talk) 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good reason why we have two pictures of the headstone? Lars T. ( talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The top one is the better of the two. I'm going to remove the bottom one. I'm also going to edit the top one to take off the date stamp. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddy Holly's song 'Dearest', is on the Juno Soundtrack CD. Should this be recorded in the article? If so, where would it go?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heytaytay99 ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable since it's just a use of one of his song. What the article does include is songs that are not his but pay homage to or otherwise reference him. Though, I'm thinking that section may need to be split to its own article if it gets much bigger (and its contents are properly sourced). Thanks for the question! → Wordbuilder ( talk) 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The song 'Dearest' is not listed in the discography or anywhere else for that matter, does anyone know what year it was recorded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.144.249 ( talk) 00:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't good enough to use as a Wikipedia source, but the info here claims it was originally recorded by Mickey and Sylvia on the B side of "There Oughta To Be A Law" in 1957. Recorded by Holly in '58 or '59. Here's some more info. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume that 'According to the Amburn book (p. 45), his public name changed from "Holley" to "Holly"...' refers to Ellis Amburn and Buddy Holly: A Biography, but would prefer to confirmation before fixing the article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Amburn book is notoriously unreliable. For example, it doesn't get the UK TV appearance right. Amburn says there was only the BBC in Britain at the tine, but Holly was on the rival ITV!

Jim Birkenshaw ( talk) 21:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this, but without wishing to offend anyone, this article seems very poor indeed. Is it worth having it at all?

I don't know how to grade it, but B seems generous.

Jim Birkenshaw ( talk) 09:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the article is worth having. Holly is a notable subject. Your comments are too generalized to be helpful. If you have specific comments on the problems with the article, please list them. Or, be bold and edit the article. However, everything you add must be cited using reliable third party sources. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 14:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a wire recorder, not tape. Jim Birkenshaw ( talk) 21:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any movie with this subject matter being released 2-3-2009 or any reference to such being filmed. Please show more information, including actors, studio, link to previews. Faithlymisskitty ( talk) 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Faithlymisskitty

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Buddy Holly/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 03:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

MP3 of phone call. Details on blog.wfmu.org. Fascinating. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I heard that recording a few years back and forgot about it while I was working in the article. It's probably worth mention in the article that he taped a call. Being a Holly fan I was also truly amazed.-- GDuwen Tell me! 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Reveals a lot about Holly. The intention behind the recording shows he doesn't want to be messed with, and would be prepared to go to court. He's even told the operator that he is recording the call so there can't be a later claim he did it secretly. It's no wonder he ended up having creative control over his own recordings - I don't think that was an accident. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't even say he was ahead of his time regarding those things, by nowadays standards you can still say he was too clever. Not to mention his later work with producing and all, he was right on the spot for everything. As Keith Richards said, not bad for a guy from Lubbock, Texas.-- GDuwen Tell me! 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's what I hear. I reverted that, because it sure seems appropriate (aside from maybe the pocket stuff). We have the leadup to his death and the aftermath, so "how he died" is naturally the central point. Or am I missing something? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How do those grisly details from the coroners report warrant inclusion? We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia , not some two bit tabloid known for sensational blood and gore. How does it diminish the article by leaving it out? Moriori ( talk) 02:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The details simply answer what happened to Buddy Holly when the plane crashed. Sure, a reader can assume it wasn't pretty, by the bit about the funeral afterward, but that's awfully vague, particularly for such a high-profile death. The omission is glaring, which is why I added it in the first place. I tried (I think succesfully) to keep it as dry as the report without copying it verbatim. Some deaths are inherently grisly, but that alone doesn't make them sensational. If there's a better way to word something, I'm open.

As for what he was wearing and carrying, that's more trivial, but he was something of a fashion icon, and it seemed like something that sort of stargazer may wonder. Sometimes small details become bigger when they're part of large events. Not particularly important, but there's a story going around that Paul McCartney received the golden cufflinks. So saying they're actually silver here is one small step for truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What secondary reliable sources have published these details from a primary public record? In the 56 years since his death, what reputable biographies, newspapers and scholarly studies of his life and work have considered the details noteworthy enough to merit inclusion? 2600:1006:B140:CA3C:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 ( talk) 04:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Des Moines Register hosts a bunch of stuff from that day. Not sure if BuddyHollyArchives.com counts as reliable, but it discusses it. Gibson is known more for its guitars than its reporting, but there's this analysis.

Not entirely related, but here's what happened to his glasses. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Times-Republican notes all the trinkets (and even the coroner's fee). Smaller paper, but seems "legit". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead is overly detailed and is too long. I know that the main editor is interested in taking this highly important article to GA but it won't pass unless the lead is dealt with. Best, jona ^(talk) 23:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. It's two paragraphs too long, and the answer isn't to push them together. I've done some trimming and took out material not needed up top. Jus da fax 18:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Buddy Holly/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork ( talk · contribs) 08:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

• Closed. Not listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• No evidence of OR - appears to stick to sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• No evidence of bias. Article appears neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• There are images with suitable captions. While the last three images. a museum sign, headstone, and signpost, are not examples of highly encyclopaedic images, and their value to the article is debatable (I could see an argument that the article would be better off without them), I think there would be enough rationale for their inclusion to meet the GA criteria for relevance. I think there could also be an argument that this article would greatly benefit from audio clips to demonstrate Holly's vocal style, production technique, and the basic instrument set up that would go on to epitomise rock music, though the lack of such samples I don't think by itself is a reason to fail, more something for ongoing development. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Images all appropriately tagged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Query

• There appears to be an incorrect free-use tag on File:Budy Holly Ed Sullivan 1958.jpg. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) I have removed the image. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• There are a lot of external links - are they all appropriate according to the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Prose is OK - it is readable, and the information is generally clear, though it could be a little tighter in places. The GA criteria is that the prose should be both "clear" and "concise" - I think it's the "concise" part that could do with attention. I have mentioned a couple of examples below. I suggest a new editor look over the article with a view to tightening it up as it helps to have a fresh pair of eyes. It requires a little more than a simple copy-edit (this is more about rephrasing and editing content rather than correcting grammar and spelling), so perhaps a fellow editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music rather than from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Article appears to mainly meet MoS requirements, though the Lead could be tighter. We have perhaps too much detail on his life and career, with nothing on his image and style. The Book link might be better placed in the External links section; and the number of links in that section should be closely examined - there seem a lot of them for a GA article; one of the links is to a newspaper article. Consideration could also be given to the Wikipedia:Further reading section, as guidance is against lengthy lists; there are already significant Holly books listed in the sources section such as Norman's biography so the value of that list is dubious. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Article seems appropriately sourced, though there is a citation needed tag in the Film and musical depictions section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Also we have a long quote from Maria Holly which says that she was two weeks pregnant when he went on tour, while other sources say three weeks ( [2]). A minor point, but a curious one. I think it may be important to keep some reference to that, as in my background reading I am picking up some speculation that she wasn't pregnant, but made up the miscarriage to gain sympathy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I also read a source that stated that she possibly made up the miscarriage story, but I didn't gave it too much importance since a large number of reliable sources also state that she was at the time pregnant. I think one of those claims originated from one of those tell-all books that you immediately discard as reliable sources. I'll try to expand with the sources you provided his impact.-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I think it was Peggy Sue's book. What I took on board from the speculation, is that she was not very pregnant when she miscarried. If she was two or three weeks pregnant at the start of the tour, she would be only, what, five or six weeks when she miscarried. In the 1950s, pregnancy was confirmed medically at the earliest two weeks after the last missed period, and was expensive and unreliable with a lot of false positives (usually involving the death of a rabbit or frog), and she would have missed only one period. A miscarriage at five to six weeks would be equivalent to a heavy period. So, it is unlikely a doctor would have reliably confirmed pregnancy that early, and she herself wouldn't know, as it could just have been her periods playing her up - understandable in the circumstances with her husband away. If there is a reliable source or two that says how she revealed her miscarriage, I think it may be worth looking into some neutral wording along the lines of "Maria Holly gave a statement the day after the crash in which she said she had miscarried at six weeks pregnant." I think, given the speculation and dubious nature of the circumstances, it might not be appropriate for Wikipedia to be saying she was pregnant and miscarried (as it would seem we are confirming something that has been doubted). If we report that she said it, that would be acceptable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You got me there truly. I just followed the source, but what you say makes a lot of sense. Of course, I have to clarify that I'm not really acknowledged in pregnancy related topics, while less to say about the way tests were carried at that time. I'll reword it for some neutrality.-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the wording can be improved. Saying "there is no independent source for this." doesn't make sense as there wouldn't have been any independent source for an at-home miscarriage. Saying she claimed a miscarriage is sufficient. Without a reasonably documented reason to question her statement, the current phrasing comes off as a little sexist given the long history of not believing women about their bodies. CarolinesCastle ( talk) 21:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Cool. There's hasn't been any work done on the article for over a week. There are some users who get concerned and will comment if a review is left open for a long time; I'm quite positive about keeping reviews open while work is taking place, but find it hard to defend keeping a GAN open when there is no progress. I do often get involved in helping out on articles I'm reviewing, but I find myself a little busy in real life, so am unable to offer any real assistance at this moment. Unless you feel you have the time and motivation to get stuck in over the next seven days, it may be best to close this as unlisted, and you can renominate at a later date when the work has been done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Usually I don't abandon any nominations, but real life also had me too busy lately. Maybe it would be a good thing to leave this for now and pick it again when we both have a little more time (if you got any interest in reviewing it by then). A Buddy Holly article deserves more dedication than the one I'm able to provide right now.-- GDuwen Tell me! 20:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Real life does have an annoying habit of intruding and preventing decent work on Wikipedia, doesn't it? I'll close this now. Keep well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Brunswick signed the band on March 19, 1957" is sourced at the end of the paragraph to page 131 of Prairie Nights to Neon Lights, but it doesn't appear in that book. Can you find the book that is the source of that information? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, I found a source. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• There are three main sections to the article - Holly's career, his image and music style, and his legacy. There is a lot on his legacy, but very little on his image and style. While there are elements in the article which hint at or suggest why Holly was so important to the development of rock and popular music, this isn't pulled together and made explicit for the general reader. Some sources that can help in building information on why Holly was important: Not Fade Away: The Life and Music of Buddy Holly, page 69, The Telegraph, The Independent, Britannica, and AllMusic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I happen to realize now that I included the links of Britannica and Allmusic, but they are mixed within the "recognitions" subsection of "Legacy". I'll get rid of the title because it's misleading and I just leave it under the main title. That also includes inductions and honors anyway. I'll ty to enrich it with the stuff from the Telegram and Guardian anyway.-- GDuwen Tell me! 17:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• "In 1955, after opening for Elvis Presley, Holly decided to pursue a career in music." This is vague and unclear as he was already pursuing a career in music, as indicated by his opening for Elvis. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• The phrase "decided to" is used ten times in the article. Are all of these needed? Is it the decision we are interested in or the action? For example, should it be: "[Holly] decided to visit producer Norman Petty in Clovis, New Mexico" or "[Holly] visited producer Norman Petty in Clovis, New Mexico"? In the first statement we are not sure if he visited Petty as the statement is only telling us that Holly made that decision, not that he acted on or even achieved it. That section: Holly's recording sessions were produced by Owen Bradley. Holly was unhappy with Bradley's restrictions and the results of their work, and decided to visit producer Norman Petty in Clovis, New Mexico. Attracted by the success of the records produced by Petty, Holly traveled with his band to the studio where, among other songs, they recorded a demo of "That'll Be the Day". could be made tighter: Holly recorded two unsuccessful singles with Decca, after which his contract stopped. Unsatisfied with Owen Bradley's production techniques, Holly took his band to Norman Petty's studio in Clovis, New Mexico, where, among other songs, they recorded a demo of " That'll Be the Day". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• "born ... at 3:30 pm" - do we need the time? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• "From his early childhood, his family and friends nicknamed him "Buddy"" could be "From early childhood he was nicknamed "Buddy"" SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Buddy was already into music before Elvis, but many sources attribute his opening as the act that truly convinced him to pursue a professional career ( Lehmer, p.7)-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Replaced a bunch of "decided too's" (didn't even realized I repeated that so much). I don't think that clarifying the time he was born does any harm, neither I see it too useful. Your call there. Replaced also the nickname thing.-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

On hold

There's a decent amount of material been gathered here on the subject of Buddy Holly, and I think the article is close to meeting GA criteria. It would benefit from a little more work as regards the lead, the prose, and a refocus on Holly's music style, his visual image, and his general importance in the story of rock and roll. Put on hold for these issues to be addressed or discussed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nominator has not logged in since the review has been open. Notice has been left on his talkpage, and hold extended. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I haven't replied before, I just returned from my vacations. Tomorrow I'll try go get everything done. Thanks for taking up the review.-- GDuwen Tell me! 20:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Not listed

Closed as not listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:BIRTHNAME and MOS:LEGALNAME, if the artist didn't legally change their name to their stage name, then their birth name is introduced first in the lead sentence. Other examples: Ringo Starr, Bono, and Flea (musician).

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies: Investigation may sometimes be needed to determine whether a subject known usually by a pseudonym has actually changed their legal name to match. Reginald Kenneth Dwight formally changed his name to Elton Hercules John early in his musical career. Where this is not the case, and where the subject uses a popular form of their name in everyday life, then care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Do not write, for example "John Edwards (born Johnny Reid Edwards, June 10, 1953) ...". It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name.

Wash whites separately ( talk) 18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking WP:COMMONNAME applies here as opposed to this change. Mlpearc ( open channel) 18:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is talking about the title of the article, not the lead sentence. The paragraph from the Manual of Style above makes it very clear what the protocol should be if there is no evidence that the person legally changed their birth name. The title of the article should remain "Buddy Holly", yes—I never disputed this. But the first name introduced in the lead sentence should be his birth name, and his stage name afterwards, per MOS:LEGALNAME. Wash whites separately ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)