Wikipedia:Featured article review/Get Back/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article no longer FA

Get Back[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Johnleemk, The Beatles, Albums, and Songs. Sandy 19:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for FAR because;

1) 1. c. isn't met - as I've said before, ALL direct quotations attributed to the Beatles need sufficient citing, ie. interviewer, article's name, publication date, name of publication and issue number. "The Writing" section needs to cite a load of unsourced statements, as does "Recording in the studio and on the roof" section, "The release" section, as does the "Lyrics and melody" section - statements upon lyrical meanings and so on can be considered original research unless cited.

2) 1. b. possibly isn't met - the lead section makes reference to media controversy in 1986, but the lead should be a summary of the article. Perhaps there should be a section dealing with this controversy?

3) 1. a. isn't met - the "Covers" subsection and "Parodies" section are too listy which creates disjointed prose - it all needs to be transformed into smooth, flowing prose paragraphs which all cohesively gel, and also they could do with a short lead at the beginning of each section to tie it all together. LuciferMorgan 10:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical reference for "The Writing" is the Sulpy and Schweighardt book cited in the references. I'm not sure how to convert this from the reference listing to an inline cite - anybody want to help with this? I'm working sources for the quotes. Raymond Arritt 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the controversy definitely doesn't belong in the intro. In fact I'm not sure it's all that noteworthy. Existence of the "political" verse has been common knowledge since a Rolling Stone article published in 1970. Raymond Arritt 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has books as references, but not enough references are in the article. There are even some "Quote needed" things in there. --andreasegde 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There also are a few factual errors; e.g., Sour Milk Sea was recorded and released several months earlier, not "later given to Jackie Lomax." I'll work on those. Raymond Arritt 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to LuciferMorgan for the evaluation. Fixing this stuff will make the article better. Raymond Arritt 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To inline cite using a book one would use the author's surname followed by the page number under an inline citation section. Just a "References" section isn't enough by today's current FA standards. Check Dixie (song) which uses books to inline cite as an example. LuciferMorgan 18:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a nicely referenced article. I personally would prefer "Abel, p.49" or similar, to "Abel 49" though. Sounds like a chapter from the bible! --kingboyk 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's difficult to know what "Nathan 248" means in the Dixie (song) article. The notes are copious, but where are they from? --andreasegde 18:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'd prefer "Nathan p. 248" personally like kingboyk does as one could then understand what is meant (he means Nathan page 248), so I'd recommend this. If you check the "References" section underneath the "Notes" there is a book by Hans Nathan listed - this is where the inline cite is taken from (page 248 of the book to be specific). If you need more clarification feel free to say. LuciferMorgan 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it in one, LuciferMorgan. If the notes and references sections were put together, we can cite one source more than once. It makes the notes section shorter, but makes it more concise. --andreasegde 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I set up the sections and did a sample for the first book of how to cite page numbers using Notes and References: there are other books cited with no page numbers. The book is listed generally as a Reference, is referred to fully the first time used in a footnote, with subsequent footnotes as:
  1. Sulpy, Doug & Schweighhardt, Ray (2003). Get Back: The Beatles Let It Be Disaster. Helter Skelter Publishing. ISBN 1-900-92483-8. pg. 84.
  2. Sulpy & Schweighardt (2003), pg. 152.
  3. Sulpy & Schweighardt (2003), pg. 153. Sandy 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • andreasegde, if you need me to be any more specific in my FA criteria concerns, then I'm only too willing to go into even more detail. Inline citations will go a long way towards helping the Beatles Wikiproject. Also, if work's being done on this article then I hope the admins will extend the allocated time for FAR/C. LuciferMorgan 17:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In respect of the fact my criteria concerns haven't been addressed (no edits since the 13th), I'd like to see this moved onto FARC once the fortnight window expires. LuciferMorgan 19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, comprehensiveness and LEAD. Joelito (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove if my concerns raised at FAR aren't addressed (which also include 1. a.). LuciferMorgan 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cryptanalysis - It would be much appreciated if the comments on featured article status were a bit less elliptical. It's hard enough to edit articles without first having to dig into what's meant by LEAD, 1(a), and so on. I'm sure this shorthand is well known to those who often do feature article reviews. But a few extra words could let the rest of us devote more of our time to editing the article instead of deciphering shorthand. Raymond Arritt 04:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When someone references 1. a., 1. c., and so on, they're referring to 'What is a featured article?' to which featured articles are measured by. Find out what criteria such as 1. a., 1. c. etc. by reading the page, or even bookmarking it for future reference. I believe the lead has been raised as an issue due to the fact of the 1986 controversy, which isn't mentioned in the body of the article - I mentioned this in my FAR (Featured Article Review) nomination. Leads should act as a summary of an article. The lead could arguably be too short, though I'd gain consensus from other editors here to assess whether this is the case. If you read my original nomination (which you did as you commented 2/3 weeks ago) above you'll know what needs to be addressed in the article. LuciferMorgan 09:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reomove Poorly referenced with listy sections.--Yannismarou 13:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Get_Back/archive1&oldid=110747156"