Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

B article

I am shocked to very core to see that this is a B article. How come? If the boys upstairs want more references, then let's give 'em a few right-handers (with references included, of course.) --andreasegde 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been cutting through it with a pair of sharp scissors, and putting in references. I have mainly concentrated on getting rid of POVs, reshaping the timeline, and adding information about his early years.

Saying that Macca solely worked out the whole 2nd side of Abbey Road is going too far, especially when there are photos of him and John working on it together. Mal Evans also claimed that he worked out the idea with McCartney for the Sgt. Pepper name on an aeroplane coming back from America. --andreasegde 11:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it has to be no more than a B because:

It can't be GA, as it hasn't gone through that process (and probably wouldn't pass at the moment)

It can't be A, which is better than GA and which is for articles which are approaching Featured quality. This one has not a hope in hell of being an FA at the moment because of the lack of citations, and that's without even looking at the quality of the writing.

So, B would seem to be almost certainly the correct grading. The question then is what to do about it? Well, pretty much exactly what you've started. A lot of the Beatles articles are really good foundations: they're comprehensive and mostly well written. They have the usual problems of excessive detail (fancruft), opinions masquerading as facts, and lack of inline citations though. Nail those problems and we could have a flood of GA and FA articles, this one included. It's really very simple: cite every assertion to a reliable source, structure the article sensibly, remove cruft and POV, follow all guidelines as close as is reasonable, and write the narrative in a pleasant and readable fashion, and the FA star shall be "yours". Could almost be done on a production line (which is pretty much how WP:KLF operated, and we have 3 FAs now with hopefully one more on its way).

My advice is to continue what you've just started, and then submit the article for GA or peer review. With all the material available on a guy like Macca you have to be selective but there's more enough to get a really top article out of it. Tell ya what, I'll give a special new "Beatles Barnstar" to the first person who stewards a Beatles article which wasn't previously an FA to FA... and it may as well be this one right? Alright alright I hear ya, I'll throw in a pint of amber nectar too :) --kingboyk 12:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're on, me old mucker... --andreasegde 14:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was shocked that it wasn't a better article, BTW, and not that it had been rated lower than it should have been. --andreasegde 15:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

This talk page badly needs an archive. --andreasegde 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know?... Macca used to kill frogs with a big stick and call them "Johnny Rebs". He had a collection of 10 or 11 down by the local beck. "Many Years From Now" book... --andreasegde 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Headings and sub-Headings

These need sorting out (which I will do later if nobody gets there first). A great deal of his post Beatles article appears to be under the major heading of "Drugs" (no comment) instead of seperate headings.LessHeard vanU 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I pipped you at the post, me old chum. I want that pint of golden nectar from Kingboyk. Maybe he'll buy a round... --andreasegde 18:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, Kingboyk, won't ya buy me a night on the town?
• I'm relying on you, Kingboyk, please don' let me down!
• Prove that you love me, and buy the next round!
• Kingboyk, won't ya buy me a night on the town?

(with huge apologies to Janis Joplin!)LessHeard vanU 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's way too many section headings now. They disrupt the flow of the prose and make the TOC massive. The best thing to do is try and identify themes, group the text under these themes, and then let the narrative - rather than subheadings - guide the reader. I'll see if I can trim a few out. --kingboyk 11:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

End of term report

Report summary: andreasegde has almost gained his 'Wings' in his current homework project, and although he has done well so far, he badly needs to pull his socks up and work with other pupils. He must realise that he can not do everything by himself, and has to learn how he can invite more pupils to assist him in his endeavours. Mark: 6 out of 10 for effort. --Headmaster - Foxwood School 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Report summary: It has been gratifying to see that andreasegde has enlisted the help of three other pupils over the last term (Vera, Chuck, and Dave) and he has now graduated to "McCartney - 2000s", but his continual use of the phrase "citation needed" is viewed as being a trifle pedantic by his tutors. He should learn that many pupils don't readily accept that citations are worthy of inclusion in his pet projects. Mark: 7 out of 10 for effort. --Jim Lake - class tutor 19:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Report summary: All in all, a satisfactory year, so far. andreasegde has proven himself to be steadfast in his determination, and his confidence has grown rapidly in his work for our References Library. Sadly, however, his trait of asking for alcoholic rewards from classmates regarding his essay and reference work should be curbed. He must learn to accept that a pat on the back should suffice, and not to leave the school grounds and go wandering off to the local pub. Mark: 8 out of ten pints will make you drunk. --Mr Hoyle - Class tutor 14:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe... You have a wonderful line in self-deprecation mate, but taking this from no inline citations to 66 footnotes, and removing a lot of cruft too, is a heroic effort. I clearly gave the barnstar to a deserving party. Now get this article nominated for GA (WP:GAC) and let's see how it fares. It'll pass, or you'll get some independent feedback, both of which are good. --kingboyk 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I learned all I know from Crestville :) (P.S., I only write these when I have absolutely no idea what to do next... :) --andreasegde 17:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Report summary: This term has been especially diffcult for andreasegde, as he has had to rapidly alter his learning curve in regard to being able to find all the books he needs (in our very extensive library) all by himself, and especially when the lights are off - to save electricity. It is, in the main, a thankless task, but he has been duly rewarded by his Class tutor; K. Boyk. It is heartwarming to learn that three of his classmates (Vera, Chuck and Dave) have been assisting him in this endeavour.

However, we must, sadly, ask for financial renumeration from his parents for the amount of time he has spent 'on-line' in the school's computer class, and we will be duly sending a bill in the post. Mark: £1,535 in the red. --Foxwood School Financial Resources Dept. 17:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My reality cyber variant primary username is Mark. Please send remuneration to me!LessHeard vanU 12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Report summary: Mark, aka (LessHeard vanU) has been very dilligent this year, but he must come to terms with the fact that his demands for financial renumeration have been - and will be - consistently ignored by the teaching staff. Professor Boyk has often stated that he frowns upon this kind of behaviour, and Mark must learn how to control his fiscal ideas: An intelligent, and gifted pupil. Mark: 1 out of ten (because of financial problems.) --Mr Twatly - Class tutor 18:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

I will put a on anything that needs one. Anything that does not have a citation will - after a reasonable amount of time - be taken out.

We are here to put references in, but if we don't there is no point putting anything in at all. This article has to be higher than a B class, because it deserves it. --andreasegde 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with the technicalities of putting references in, leave a message here and it will be explained. It is not as hard as you may think. --andreasegde 10:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick summary on the subject of including references would be very useful. --Zakko 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, then, we'll have to add an entry in the project template and create a simple howto page. Now who can I ask to do the work? (preferably somebody of a nick other than kingboyk!) --kingboyk 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put a very simple explanation on a couple of talk pages that need citations, and I added one or two citations to point editors in the right direction. See: Ringo Starr. --andreasegde 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, If anyone complains that there are too many citations on this page, I will scream blue murder... (lol) :) --andreasegde 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul McCartney is LEFT-HANDED

To all those who continue with not believing that Paul McCartney is left-handed take a look at the following proofs:

1) On the inside centre fold of Paul McCartney’s McCartney LP it has a photo of him using a hammer with his left hand.

2) On the poster that came with the Band On The Run LP it has two photos of Paul McCartney writing with (yes, you guessed it) his left hand.

3) On the inner sleeve of the Tug Of War LP it has Paul McCartney sitting writing with (once again) his left hand.

Why people continue to doubt Paul McCartney being left-handed is weird, if not obsessive. I suppose next they’ll be claiming the photos are back-the-front?Peter Jensen 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Obsessive"? Some mothers do have them, including Ma Jensen. BTW, Peter - sign your comments! I know you can, since you did the last time you wrote exactly the same as above. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Some mothers do have them" was a joke to all those who argue over simply things that can be easily proven. I thought I had signed, sorry! But your attack on me saying "including Ma Jensen" (in respect to some mothers do have them)is very personal.

Somebody has removed most of the articles that were on here. Who is it? Peter Jensen 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit)They, and your previous "Left Handed..." section, are now in the archives toward the top of this page. There you will find our previous correspondence, where you commented "some mothers do have them" re me and another editor, along with everything else.LessHeard vanU 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (I counted to ten, then on to twenty, bit my lip and removed my previous response.)

When I left my "Some mothers do have them" it was after the stupid comments left by andreasegde. He had talked about the way of finding out how McCartney is left or right handed by which hand he masturbates with. I thought that was pretty stupid to say the least. How can one take such an editor serious? Do you think it was a proper comment to make by andreasegde? I should think not. In any case I apologise if I offended you.Peter Jensen 06:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Peter Jensen, but it was really meant as a joke. Talking about if he is left, or right-handed (which I found humorous) is really not as important as making sure this article gets a good rating - it deserves it. You may have noticed that I have worked an awful lot on this article, because I was shocked that it was only a 'B'. I apologise if I was overly flippant, but it was my reaction to the comments. I could have written "Who gives a flying fcuk bro'?" but I replied in my own way. Call it "Monty Python" humour, if you like.

P.S. I have often found that written comments (mine as well) have to be written very carefully, or they may be misconstrued. I will try to be more restrained in the future. --andreasegde 16:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Andreasegde is one of the more conscientious, hardworking, and fun editors currently working within The Beatles project. How he decides to conduct himself in his exchanges is his business. I see no point in furthering this discussion. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving this article towards FA (detailed peer review)

The sectioning was a bloody mess. It would never get FA like that as it had no logical arrangement and just about every fact and factoid was getting it's own section. Try to take the reader through each crucial theme. I hate to keep drawing attention to another article of mine, but The KLF won an award at Wikimania 2006 and I think it's layout is worthy of replicating.

• I've reorganised the article into thematic sections. There's probably too many sections still but it's a lot better now.
• The lead should be a summary of the article. The lead is pretty good actually, but please don't make it any longer. Also, you need to check that everything you tell the reader in the lead is covered in the same or more depth in the body of the article. (See WP:LEAD).
• Popular-music career section. Probably needs a slightly beefier intro.
  • The Beatles subsection jumps from 1962 to 1966. Do not just rewrite what's in The Beatles, but let's have some commentary on every Beatle year with an emphasis on McCartney's role and experiences.
  • The Wings subsection needs expansion; again don't rewrite Wings (band) but at least adequately summarise that article, with citations
  • I think the 80s music section is incomplete
  • 1990s music section is basically missing
• Art, writing and classical music section is pretty good. Film needs expanding (he's worked on more than just one film!), LIPA probably needs a rewrite and perhaps a couple more sentences about Macca's involvement.
• Family life:
  • We don't have a section on his 60s companion, Jane Asher
  • Divorce needs updating with latest news stories. Google News is your friend.
• Other relationships needs an intro. Also, are there any important folks missing? Probably not I guess.
• Lifestyle needs an intro.
  • Recreational drug use stops at 1980. We know from recent news reports that Macca didn't stop puffing.
  • Vegetarianism. Can we expand this a little? Or perhaps we should zap the section and put it into the "Lifestyle" intro? Somebody moved it. Bold, affirmative action - I like it! :)
• Songwriting section could do with minor expansion. I commented out a massive section on "Yesterday", which you might want to copy to that song's article. This is an overview of Macca's life and career, save the detail for the more specific articles.
• Musicianship section is totally missing. What instruments can Macca play? What guitars does he use? etc
• General point. I get the impression that some of the stuff here is trivia and should be zapped. We can't say everything there is to say about a legend like Macca in less than 100k. At some point we might need to trim material. Of course, it's nicer to have too much material than not enough so carry on adding stuff and we can trim later :)
• Style and formatting. Wikilink each important phrase and person on first use. Don't wikilink everything. Albums are in italics. Songs are in "quotes".

Please get to work on this stuff and continue adding citations. The progress has been remarkable and we can get this to FA. I'll follow behind tinkering and cleaning. --kingboyk 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. I wanted to work on it but my computer decided it hates me and destroyed my router.

Blimey, FA article? A hop, skip, and a giant jump for mankind... --andreasegde 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits and expansion

• Not quite sure about expanding the article on Jane Asher. She's already got one, and there's not much to say about her.
• "Songwriting" should be near the beginning, and not at the end.
• "Popular music career"? Why is that in there?
• "Other relationships". It only deals with John Lennon. --andreasegde 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well Jane Asher was McCartney's 60s companion and it seemed likely at the time (from what I've read) that he would marry her. She should be mentioned as should her brother.
• Move it then!
• Don't understand the question. We have to map out his career, and we have classical music, art and business (all of which are part of "his career") in seperate sections
• No, it deals with Harrison and Ono as well. --kingboyk 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• does it really have to say alleged wife-beater?
• Wife-beater? That must be a POV, or vandalism. Cute Paul cuddles lambs. BTW, I didn't find the accusation anywhere in the article. --andreasegde 18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Dd Paul McCartney really hit his wife according to the Daily Mail? I heard this on the Age

Please put a citation in, and sign in. If you don't, editors might think you are a vandal. BTW, journalists have a way of "expanding" the truth. --andreasegde 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The news story is that Heather claims it. If you wish to choose Heather's word over Paul's that's your business. However, I think whilst we should report that the divorce case has got nasty perhaps we should refrain to comment on "facts" and go into too much detail until the case is resolved? --kingboyk 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Chronologically, or thematically

This is very weird for me, but I have to disagree with Kingboyk. We have the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s sections in chronological order. I think the songwriting section should be chronological, because he started writing songs before The Beatles.

I totally agree that being thematic is a nice way of writing, but it would mean writing/rearranging the whole thing all over again. (I am open to offers, BTW...) --andreasegde 20:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the other option is to simply merge the songwriting text into the relevant decades. I only have as it a seperate section because it was already seperate. Also, some of the stuff which is in sections - such as family life - will need to be at least mentioned in the chronology, to give context. --kingboyk 20:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mary Had a Little Lamb (Paul McCartney song)

According to this article, Mary Had a Little Lamb (Paul McCartney song) was a double A with "Hi Hi Hi". However, according to that article, Mary... was followed by Hi Hi Hi b/w C Moon. So which is it? --kingboyk 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're very right. Sorry - my bad. --andreasegde 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I am really so sorry to do this, but I will refrain from editing this article until a concensus has been reached about its encyclopedic aims, and style. --andreasegde 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah. What's that supposed to mean? Why are you throwing yer toys out of the pram? I've consolidated some sections and moved a few others around, and removed a few dodgy fair use images, all to give you a better structure to work with. I know how to get GAs (15+) and FAs (3+) so I know what I'm talking about and I'd have thought you'd appreciate the help. It was a right old mess before.

Now, if you want a different structure go ahead and create one, that's cool, just bear in mind that what you had before was absolutely no structure at all, just a random hotchpotch of sections. Just look at this TOC! --kingboyk 21:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

...and off my watchlist it goes. I'll just go get another FA star for KLF articles, and leave you to it alright? :) --kingboyk 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to state the current structure is vastly improved in comparison to the previous version - indeed it was "a right old mess". If someone was helping me on Wikipedia I'd show a little more appreciation... LuciferMorgan 22:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect you so much, Kingboyk (as you know) but you sound so angry (which you never are). I am not attacking you at all; I was only talking about style. It's subjective, which is why I talked about a concensus. (It is true that I used to chew the plastic sides of my pram - when I was teething - but I never threw my toys out).

"Dodgy fair use images": I copied the Yoko photo from the Yoko Ono page (and it's still there.)

I know that you know how to get GAs, and FAs. It's because you dedicate yourself to the subject, and well done. The KLF article (which is brilliant, and which I have written about, concerning citations) is chronological, BTW.

If I have to argue with someone that I respect so much, I find it hard to carry on. I know that sounds like a wimp, but I believe in co-operation, respect, and concensus. I wish you the best, and I really do hope the McCartney article gets an FA. --andreasegde 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

GA is failed

As of 20 October 2006, I failed this article for its GA nomination, merely because it is not yet ready for GA. There are many expand, stub and also merge templates in the article. I looked into the article history, it has a major editing lately. I'm making a speedy failing for this article and let editors finish this article before its nomination. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's no surprise...

Union of Beatles' Workers

This article will be chronological, because it is too long to be thematic. There will be no legacy section, because Macca is not dead yet. It is a 'B' article - which is disgraceful - and it should be (at least) a GA. The workers are united, and we will not stand for any interference from the management concerning conditions.

Our aims are clear: To raise the standard of this article to be free of 'cruft' (edits by fans) and to make it concise and readable. If the management disagrees, they then have the right to block this Union representative whenever they feel the need to do so.

It has recently failed a GA review because of management interference, and this is frowned upon by the Union (with regard to section, B Article - clause 49/WindowsXP). --Alf Emsley - Union Rep. 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Careful son, sometimes Management have their uses; also the Union Dictat specifies that all workers (including managers) will be free from oppressive tyranny - whether they like it or not! --The Eternal Spinning Soul of Leon Trotsky 15:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally right, but I have to start from the beginning again and sort it all out. Bugger.... Simplicity, combined with style, is a virtue. --andreasegde 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Many to expand on this article the GA failer says? Its nearly 80kb already! I have to say on record that I think this article is better than some GAs - though there'll be lots of content forking occuring. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Too true - maybe we have to find a way of describing certain events in Macca's career that are not repeated in the forks. It's forking problem, I admit. --andreasegde 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If certain events ain't in the content forks we could possibly create the actual forks - I wouldn't wish to cut out interesting info off Wikipedia totally (providing it's encyclopaedic). LuciferMorgan 23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that has to be the way ahead for an article like this. Macca's life could fill a volume of books, we need to cover it in under 100k (preferably under 80k). --kingboyk 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Structure. Are we sticking with what we have, or we gonna go chronological? (decade by decade, not one subheading per every little event please :))) --kingboyk 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)