Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I've Just Seen a Face/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [1].

I've Just Seen a Face[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by the Beatles, composed by Paul McCartney and credited to Lennon–McCartney. It first appeared in August 1965 on the album Help!, and most people today know it from there, but its first release in North America came as the opening track of Rubber Soul. Tkbrett (✉) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: NFURs look good, song length is appropriate, images on Commons look good. Good luck with your nominiation! Sennecaster (Chat) 22:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood[edit]

  • of the December 1965 → "on the December 1965"
  • Thanks for the comments, Therapyisgood. Both "of" and "on" sound fine to my ear, but I'm not especially confident in these sorts of subtleties, so I've changed it per your suggestion.
  • The composition fuses several different styles and is difficult to categorise → "According to musicologist Alan W. Pollack, the composition ..."
  • Changed.
  • A lot of the notes are unnecessary in my opinion, providing unnecessary detail. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be specific: I think notes 1, 2, 4, 8, and maybe 9 are purely excess. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cut note 9, with Greg Kot's other comparisons, but I find the other notes helpful. In particular, I think notes 1 and 2 detail information that a reader would end up having to research on their own if not supplied in the note, something I think is especially true of note 2. Note 4 adds to the comments of John Kruth and the various authors in the first part of the sentence; in my research, I've found that the three songs being recorded on the same day is one of the most discussed aspects of its recording. Lastly, for note 8, I think it is important because it discusses how folk rock enthusiasts reacted to the album immediately after a discussion of how the opening track reinforced perceptions of album as folk/folk rock. Tkbrett (✉) 17:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "The recording fuses country and western with several musical genres" - this reads like C&W is not itself a musical genre, so should probably be "The recording fuses country and western with several other musical genres"
  • Fixed.
  • ""I've Just Seen a Face" is the key of A major" => ""I've Just Seen a Face" is in the key of A major"
  • Fixed.
  • "Beginning in a minor key" - earlier you said it was in A major? Does that mean it's only mostly in A major?
  • The song begins slightly away from the home key, which ties in with Pollack's comparison of the intro to "Help!" I've reworded that part to clarify the situation.
  • "Music critic Richie Unterberger writes the song has" => "Music critic Richie Unterberger writes that the song has"
  • Fixed.
  • "McCartney later described the them" - "the them"?
  • Fixed.
  • "He judges the song the "most romantic [ever]"" - the literal most romantic song of all time? Or just by the Beatles?
  • The former. This is what he writes: "This edition of Rubber Soul didn't even have the same songs – it began with 'Drive My Car' instead of 'I've Just Seen a Face.' But Rubber Soul became my favorite record – I couldn't even decide which version I loved more, since 'Drive My Car' was the funniest song ever, while 'I've Just Seen a Face' was the most romantic, except almost as funny as 'Drive My Car.'"
  • " He has played the song live on several other occasions, including it in the setlist of his 1991 UK "Surprise Gigs" tour, his 2004 Summer Tour and the 2011–12 On the Run tour, and was included" => " He has played the song live on several other occasions, including it in the setlist of his 1991 UK "Surprise Gigs" tour, his 2004 Summer Tour and the 2011–12 On the Run tour, and it was included"
  • Fixed.
  • "Produced by Rothchild and co-produced by Peter K. Siegel" - who's Rothchild?
  • "writing its use of a pedal steel guitar" => "writing that its use of a pedal steel guitar"
  • Fixed.
  • "Kruth suggests the finished recording" => "Kruth suggests that the finished recording"
  • Fixed.

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Although I am currently taking an extended break from Wikipedia (for both reviews and my own projects), I still feel obligated to review this FAC since I participated in the first one. As I have said there, I have very little knowledge of the Beatles, but I have a much firmer grasp on song articles both in the FAC/FA context and Wikipedia as a whole. I hope my comments are helpful:

  • This is a nitpick, but the infobox uses country & western while the lead and the article use country and western. I would be consistent with one way or the other to avoid any confusion.
  • I did it to save space in the infobox, but have used "country and western" everywhere else since that's what the sources use. Changed "&" to "and".
  • The quote box in the "Release" section is rather narrow and at least in my browser, cuts into the next section. I believe it would be helpful to make it somewhat wider to avoid that.
  • I bumped up the width from 25 to 30%.

Other than those points, the article looks good to me. I supported the first FAC, although I understood the opposition as this article has to balance out a large amount of coverage, which is understandable given the attention the Beatles had and continue to receive. I usually work on much, much more obscure songs so I have never run into this challenge myself lol. I am glad that discussions took place on the article's talk page after the first FAC. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aoba47, it's very kind of you to return from your Wiki-break for this nomination. Tkbrett (✉) 13:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Preliminary remarks[edit]

Doing... Should be done by early next week. JBchrch talk 10:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one question as I'm doing this: could you please explain your use of the |orig-year= parameter? I'm a little confused. JBchrch talk 14:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've used it to refer to the date the book was first published. For example, Ian MacDonald's book, Revolution in the Head, was originally published in 1994, but I've used the third edition, published in 2007, hence "MacDonald, Ian (2007) [1994]". Should I be using more specificity or just drop using the parameter all together? Tkbrett (✉) 14:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this parameter should be used for a re-publication of the same work. For instance, if Classic Books Inc. republishes An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in 2022, we would have |year=2022 and |orig-year=1748. I don't think |orig-year= is suitable for subsequent editions, where the content changes. Off-wiki I don't remember seeing reference to the year of the first edition when subsquent editions are cited. So I would suggest dropping the parameter all together, yes. JBchrch talk 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, that makes sense. I've gone ahead and removed them. Tkbrett (✉) 17:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already leaving this comment since I assume it may require a bit of research: do we have a page number for Smith 1972? And who is Alan Smith by the way? JBchrch talk 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Smith is a former editor of NME (New Musical Express), a British music publication which was a much bigger deal back in the 1960s ([2]). An interview he conducted with John Lennon and Yoko Ono was published in the February 1972 issue of Hit Parader magazine, including an extended part where he and Lennon went over every Lennon–McCartney composition to determine "how much was written by who". As one of the few instances where Lennon comments on the composition of nearly every Lennon–McCartney song, it has proven to be a useful primary source for researchers; take for example historian Erin Torkelson Weber, who uses it in her research on the origins of "Eleanor Rigby" (the interview is mentioned on p. 95 of her book and is cited on p. 229).
Smith's extended interview with Lennon has been uploaded to the Internet Archive as plain text here and here. I haven't been able to get my hands on an actual original copy of the magazine, nor have I found a digitized version online, so I have not been able to supply the actual page-range of the piece. I do realize now though that I titled it incorrectly: "I Don't Like All This Dribblin' Pop-opera-jazz. I Like POP Records" was what it said on the magazine's cover, while the piece's title was "Lennon/McCartney Songalong: Who Wrote What". Also, this copy on AbeBooks indicates it was issue 91 of the magazine. Tkbrett (✉) 21:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I'm not super comfortable with its use as a source given that all we have access to is a plain-text archive, which doesn't identify the page. Since it's used only once and in addition to other sources making the same claim, is it necessary to keep it? (Also, letting you know that this is the only source I have "quality" issues with at the moment, all the sources I have checked seem fine, but more on this later) JBchrch talk 22:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really necessary. Lennon had an interview with Playboy in 1980 where he provided the exact same information, crediting the song entirely to McCartney. That interview is much more easily referenced, so I've removed Smith 1972. Tkbrett (✉) 22:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quality[edit]

The article is sourced to high-quality sources that meet the FACR criteria. During the previous FAC, the nom received the advice to tone down the number of sources, therefore I've not attempted to find additional sources that could be used or be cited. JBchrch talk 22:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources" section[edit]
  • Some publishers are linked, some not. Please harmonize.
  • I've only linked the first instances of publishers. Should I be linking them every time where able?
  • i think so, yes, as—if i'm not mistaken—consistency is more important than OVERLINK.
  • All are now linked.
  • Badman 2001 : The link goes to the Vol. 1 not the Vol. 2.
  • The Internet Archive link is titled incorrectly. The actual content is from vol. 2 (note the top mentions "Original text from: Keith Badman. The Beatles Diary Volume 2: After The Break-Up 1970-2001").
  • Baur 2017: Lacks a page range
  • Fixed.
  • Courrier 2008: Should be 2009 per Worldcat
  • Fixed.
  • Davies 2019: It might be useful to keep the |orig-date=2016 parameter since Worldcat is divided. Also the link seems to go to a book published by a different publisher.
  • Added orig-year and fixed link.
  • Ingham 2009: Link goes to 2nd edition.
  • I used the 3rd edition, so I've fixed this link.
  • Kot 2006, regarding “Sawyers, June Skinner”. Are we sure that Skinner is the middle name?
  • The copyright page lists her as "Sawyer, June Skinner, 1957–"
  • Lewisohn 1988: Looks like the publisher is Harmony Books
  • Fixed.
  • Lewisohn 2000: Let’s specify |orig-date=1992
  • Added.
  • Madinger & Easter 2018. Can you check the publisher? Worldcat gives a different one.
  • The original version was published in 2000 by 44.1 Productions in Chesterfield, MO, while the "Remastered" edition was published in 2018 by Open Your Books in Chesterfield, MO. I've used the 2018 edition.
  • Would you have a hyperlink establishing the existence of this version? I can't find it on my own (probably missed something).
  • The "Remastered" edition was released only as an e-Book, being directly sold from their website. Since there's no print version, I'm wondering if WorldCat would include an entry. I did a bit more digging and see that they actually own the publisher, Open Your Books, originally known as 44.1 Productions. I'm not sure if this makes the source self-published. Tkbrett (✉) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's interesting, thanks for taking a look. In that case, I think it's probably be self-published. Is it necessary to keep it or could you do without? JBchrch talk 21:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the only source which provides explicit dates for performances, so I've had to remove that information. It's not the biggest loss in the world, so I'm fine with removing it as a source to avoid the headache. Tkbrett (✉) 00:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miles 1998: The year is 1997.
  • Nice catch. Fixed.
  • O’Grady 2008 : Farnham seems to be incorect. Worldcat gives me Aldershot.
  • Shef 2000. Meantion |orig-date=1981 seems appropriate.
  • Added.
  • Wagner 2008: Same comment as O’Grady 2008
  • Fixed.
  • Womack 2009: Are we sure that Womack is the author of the discography? His name doesn’t seem to appear as such.
  • Ah, good point. The table of contents doesn't list a name for the contribution either.
  • Fixed.

You didn't mention it above, but I think Castleman & Podrazik was actually published in 1976, not 1975, as per its copyright page. Tkbrett (✉) 16:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like both are acceptable, since we have a 1976 publication date at the bottom of the page. Whatever you prefer. JBchrch talk 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll stick with the 1976 dating. Tkbrett (✉) 18:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Citations" section[edit]

Doing... JBchrch talk 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC) No issues detected. JBchrch talk 16:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks[edit]

Doing... JBchrch talk 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riley 2002

23a ok
23b ok
23c ok
23.g. Shouldn’t it be specified that Riley refers to the 1976 live album rather than Rockshow? Or am I missing something?

  • I see now that Riley isn't directly referring to either the album of the film, but instead the tour in general, so I've changed how it's incorporated into the article. Tkbrett (✉) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

82 ok

MacDonald 2007

1a ok
1d ok
1e ok
17 ok
27 ok
127 ok

Gould 2007

37 Nitpicking here, but the use of « suggests » take a slight liberty with the source material, which does not seem to connect these two things this clearly.

38 ok
55 ok
64 ok
73 ok

Everett 2001

12 Can you please give me a quote?

  • I've fixed this up. Here's 280: "The Beatles returned to the studio on February 15 [1965] for six straight days of work on the new soundtrack. ... Of the eleven songs taped during this week, [list of the eleven songs] ..." I've also added page 296 and 304–305 to the citation, since 296 says, "the Beatles rushed to the studios on April 13 to recorded Lennon's 'Help!'" and pages 304–305 lay out the album's track listing, while also stating "[t]he final contents for the British LP featured film songs on Side 1 and others on Side 2". This makes it clear that six of the seven songs recorded for the film were done during the week in mid-February '65. Tkbrett (✉) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22b ok
22d ok
22f Can you give me a quote for Harrison?

  • The first part of the sentence says: "This recording consists of two backing tracks: Harrison's acoustic twelve-string, probably Lennon's Framus ('Guitar I,' ...) ...". It took me a while to understand what this was saying. I initially thought it meant Harrison played an acoustic twelve-string and Lennon played a Framus. That didn't make much sense to me, since the Framus is an acoustic twelve-string, and as far as I knew, Lennon's was the only acoustic twelve-string in the band's possession at that time. I actually emailed Walter Everett a few months ago for clarification. He explained that the part of the sentence I quoted above is actually only talking about one guitar, and what it's saying is that Harrison borrowed Lennon's guitar for the recording. When I reread the paragraph with that in mind, it made way more sense. Tkbrett (✉) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. If only this book had gotten to FAC and its rigorous copyediting, we probably wouldn't have had this problem. JBchrch talk 14:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polack

20b ok
20g ok
20m ok
20r ok

Last one for the road : 124a ok. JBchrch talk 16:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source check is a pass. JBchrch talk 14:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Tkbrett (✉) 15:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by CPA[edit]

  • There is a MOS:SANDWICH issue in the Charles River Valley Boys section. Please remove this issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't figure out how to resolve it while keeping both the quote box and the infobox, so I've incorporated the quotation into the text. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 14:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting a little as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • "McCartney was guided by the need to apply a renewed focus": is "guided" the right word here? Seems like "motivated" would be more apt.
    Agreed. Changed.
  • 'The song begins with a ten measure intro, using delayed triplets to create a sense of acceleration. Splitting the intro into three phrases, its illusion of acceleration is reinforced by a shortened third phrase which quickens the first verse's arrival, anticipating an effect McCartney uses in his late-1965 composition "We Can Work It Out".' This is not an area I know much about, so please pardon my ignorance. I know what a triplet is, but what's a delayed triplet? Having just listened to the intro, I can hear that it's in three phrases; I think we can say that more simply. And do we need both "sense of acceleration" and "illusion of acceleration" so close to each other? How about "The song begins with a ten measure intro, split into three phrases that use delayed triplets to create a sense of acceleration, reinforced by a shortened third phrase which quickens the first verse's arrival. McCartney used the effect again later that year in "We Can Work It Out".'
    This is my very confused wording based on Riley's description. What he says is that the "rhythmic impulses of the intro are half what they are during the rest of the song", and that, rather than beginning with an established rhythm, it "glides into the swing by delaying it with triplet motion." (p. 148) So not at all what I wrote. I've reworded it based off your suggestion, altering it to avoid the incorrect use of "delayed triplet" to instead write: {"The song begins with a ten measure intro. Split into three phrases, the intro uses triplets that are slower than the rest of the song to create a sense of acceleration, reinforced by a shortened third phrase which quickens the first verse's arrival. McCartney used the effect again later that year in "We Can Work It Out"."
  • "Like other Beatles songs, a triplet repeat signals the end of the song – though it differs in using an eight bar chorus rather than only two or four measures": this looks like a typo to me; it's not a triplet repeat -- the source is referring to the fact that the chorus line is repeated three times. I can see you're having trouble rephrasing this to avoid close paraphrasing, but as you have it you're not really representing the source accurately -- his point is that the line that is repeated is eight bars, which is "rather unprecedented" -- almost unparaphraseable, in fact. Sounds like he can't think of another case where the Beatles did this but doesn't want to go out on a limb and say so. You could say that this is rare, or unusual, or something like that.
    Yes, triplets on the brain, I guess. Should be "triple" as you mention. I split this bit into two sentences. I've partially quoted Pollack instead.
  • The "Genre" section suffers a little from the "A said B" problem. You have done some work to vary the rhythm, but the two paragraphs together still have a listy feel. You might try writing this without any reference to which critic said what, so that you get a paragraph that simply tells the reader what these critics think, and make that as readable as possible. Then re-adding the source attributions in line might result in a smoother flow. Do we really need all the attributions, by the way? The reader can find out who said what by looking at the sources, so it might be better to just start with "The composition fuses several different styles and is difficult to categorise", and so on. I know nothing about Beatles scholarship, so perhaps some of these musicologists are important to readers and should be named inline, of course.
    Agreed. The opening line was originally written as you suggested, but you'll see at the top of the FAC that another editor suggested I ought to include the by-line. I think I'd prefer your style/the original though, since it improves the flow of the text. I've rewritten this entire section as you suggested and I'm happy with the result. What do you think?
    Much improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Pollack mentions "stumbling" used in the outro, such as McCartney's added "oh!", as further contributing to the effect of falling.' Another difficult one -- I can see you're trying to avoid close paraphrasing but this is awkwardly phrased.
    It doesn't feel like that important a point, at least not as important as the other mention of "falling" in the composition section, so I've cut it.
  • 'Opening with "I've Just Seen a Face" reinforced perceptions of the album as a folk or folk rock centred LP, causing it to be more conceptually unified while also distorting the band's late-1965 creative developments and their original artistic intentions': there are several thoughts packed into this sentence, and I think they could be organized better. How about 'Opening with "I've Just Seen a Face" gave Rubber Soul more conceptual unity, which reinforced perceptions of it as a folk or folk rock centred LP, at the cost of distorting the band's late-1965 creative developments and their original artistic intentions'?
    This is a rather important sentence since it's one of the things almost all sources are first to discuss when the song comes up, so I really want to get it right. I like your version a lot better, since it provides a more logical flow to the sentence.

That takes me down to the end of the "Release" section; I'm out of time for the moment but should be able to finish the review tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:

  • "The album was similarly a commercial success and, according to Gould, served to attract folk-music enthusiasts towards pop music": what does "similarly" mean here?
    I think it's leftover from a previous iteration of the page when things were worded differently. Cut the word.
  • Why is there nothing on contemporary critical reception?
    In short, rock music criticism didn't really exist in 1965 (refer to this talk page discussion). The reviews that did appear offered little in the way of actual criticism and instead only served as track-by-track descriptions. For example, Derek Johnson's review of Help! for NME describes "Face" as "an up-tempo shuffler" made up of a "chugging, railroad rhythm" reminiscent of country & western. That's all he says about it. Richard Green's review of Help! in Record Mirror is similarly shallow. Regarding the US release of Rubber Soul, neither Billboard nor Cash Box seem to have mentioned "Face".
  • I made a couple of MOS:CONFORM edits to initial letter-case.
    Much appreciated.
  • "After signing with Capitol in 1965, the progressive bluegrass band the Dillards recorded a cover of the song. Done between the British release of Help! and the North American release of Rubber Soul, the band hoped to issue the song in the US before the Beatles, though the recording went unreleased." Do we care when the Dillards signed with Capitol? The important point is the timing of the releases; if we drop the opening clause we could simplify this to "The progressive bluegrass band the Dillards recorded a cover of the song between the British release of Help! and the North American release of Rubber Soul; they had hoped to issue the song in the US before the Beatles, though the recording went unreleased."
    Yes, that's fair. I presume it's relevant because it explains how the Dillards had access to the song before the wider American audience, though the source doesn't say that outright and so would be speculation on my part. I've switched it to your wording.

That's it for this pass; only a couple of minor points outstanding now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Mike Christie! I especially appreciate your thoroughness in the composition subsection, since it helped clear up some errors that slipped through early in the writing process. Tkbrett (✉) 15:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/I%27ve_Just_Seen_a_Face/archive2&oldid=1070152196"