Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive3

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 Karanacs 18:51, 3 November 2009 [1].

The Beatles[edit]

Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FFA, has been on main page
Toolbox

The article has been extensively reworked to address all the issues raised at the last FAC. In my judgement it now meets the criteria. PL290 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator's review feedback. This party's not over yet, although with currently 3 "Supports" there's reason to be optimistic. But what I really I want to say concerns not the outcome but the process. If I don't say this now, I don't know when I will. This is only the second article I've taken to FAC but this has been, and continues to be, a fantastic collaborative experience and a vivid demonstration of how review transcends mere assessment and is the vehicle for improvement. I think every single person involved in this FAC, whether or not currently supporting, should feel very proud of what it has achieved in taking this article to a higher level. PL290 (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without going any further into the article the lead appears much too long, it should be an easily readable summary of the article's main points. Good luck, I was here recently as a nominator. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it is shorter but I fear that I have prompted you to lose mention of Epstein and Martin. I think the first paragraph is good as it is with a minor grammar query, should it be a 'group that' rather than a 'group who' in the first line? To expand on my initial comment, the lead did not entice me into the article. I could try a suggested lead in one of my sandboxes for you to look at (will have more time in a day or two) although I'm sure regular editors to this article might already be on the case. I'm not a Beatles expert at all but I have a reasonable idea of what should be in a lead section, the offer is there anyway. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion your comment was timely as the Lead had indeed grown far too long. This has been taken up on the article talk page and as a result a further reduction's been made since the diff I provided above. Re. the Epsteins and Martins of this world, typical band articles don't mention managers and producers in the Lead. Re. your grammar query, as the article uses British English, "group who" is correct. Thanks for your input and I hope you find the (latest) Lead satisfactory. PL290 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so, but there is a sub-header 'Contribution of George Martin'. If he has a section in the article then surely he should be mentioned in the lead (as a summary of the article content)? I think that he was quite an important figure in the Beatles career. Not being awkward, just seems rather obvious to me. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've persuaded me you're right. I've now introduced both Martin and Epstein in the Lead. PL290 (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok thanks, John and George are dead, could it be mentioned in the lead that only two of the four survive today and what Paul and Ringo are doing nowadays? I know they have their own articles but again it seems obvious to mention it. Is the fifth Beatle (Pete Best) taboo? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are good points once again and I've updated the Lead accordingly. PL290 (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a paragraph break. For me, the middle paragraph flowed a bit awkwardly, going from the members' current status, back to a discussion of Sgt Pepper, then leaping forward to 2009's Rock Band game. I split up that paragraph to separate discussion of the band's history from the critical assessment of Sgt Pepper and the band's continuing popularity. --Nick RTalk 14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me—I was already toying with splitting it exactly there. Structurally, three is something of a magic number but sometimes more are needed. PL290 (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no major problems, but still not quite ready yet! As I mentioned on the talk page recently, in my opinion the "Musical evolution" and "Genres" sections (particularly the former) should feature shorter quotations from a wider range of sources, rather than relying on the lengthy quotation of only a few people's opinions. I also still think that the George Martin section could do with a quote from Martin himself summing up his overall contributions, and also one from a band member giving their opinion of him. --Nick RTalk 17:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry no one acted on your suggestion on the talk page - I agree all these points would add value to the article and I've now balanced out those quotes:
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Better? PL290 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and [7] [8] (I've subsequently reformatted the paras and removed blockquote for the shorter quotes, but you can see what's been added from the above diffs.) Thanks for bringing up this suggestion again; it has improved the article. As the objections you raised have been met, I hope you'll now consider changing your response to one of support. PL290 (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

  • With which source did you replace it with? RB88 (T) 00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current refs:

  • Remove italics on the publishers in refs 2, 114, 155, 169, 170, 173, 178, 236, 238, 239
  • Unabbreviate the publishers in ref 3, 4, 5, 151, 169, 170
  • Done (except 169 & 170 which don't seem abbreviated to me! Perhaps already fixed?)
  • Refs 6, 97 need a publisher.
  • Publishers in refs 8, 126, 127, 139, 144, 153, 199 need to be "allmusic.com".
  • Remove notable work's location in refs 50, 92, 101, 102, 114, 158, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 179, 229, 240
  • Hmm, I doubt it's that imperative or that confusing for readers. Because it messes with the uniformity of the refs, with some with and some without locations. But if you've set you heart on it, then follow the template. RB88 (T) 00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, put like that I tend to agree, and as you've gone to the trouble of listing them I've now removed the locations to give greater consistency. PL290 (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 90, 91 are the same and need to be merged.
  • Ref 93 is dead. It's got the old "allmusicguide" address. Find it in the new website.
  • Not dead for me. Updated accessdate to today - could you retry? PL290 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the book's publishing location in ref 161 for uniformity with the rest.
  • Refs 179, 236, 237 are missing a retrieve date.
  • Refs 208, 209 need a page citation.
  • Not currently available - these page numbers need to be found. Anyone have Emerick or MacDonald handy? PL290 (talk)
  • 209 done (thanks). 208 still needed—Emerick anyone? PL290 (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done—cite now replaced with this one. PL290 (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher in ref 237 is simply Mojo.
  • Remove "web only" in ref 240.

RB88 (T) 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The lead shouldn't contain any information that's not discussed in the main article, yet the fourth paragraph mentions their record sales and their position in polls and I can't see anywhere where this reappears. I guess the former should be discussed in the Discography section (as that is where a link to List of The Beatles' record sales is provided) and the latter in the Legacy section.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3
  • File:Indra-Club-Hamburg.png - Is it not clear that the uploader and the photographer are the same person, thus it is not clear that uploader had the right to release the photo. Can you establish that the uploader and the photographer are the same?
  • I see your point. As the uploader is no longer a registered user and the other user last contributed over a year ago, verification is unlikely and I have replaced the image with another one in the article. PL290 (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Iwanttoholdyourhandsample.ogg - The purpose of use for this clip needs to be strengthened. Currently, it does not explain why the listener needs to hear the song - "Describing the song is important to the article The Beatles because the sudden huge popularity of this song in the U.S. in late 1963 was a key moment in the group's success story, as detailed in the article." - Why does the listeneer need to hear this particular 14-sec clip?
  • I've updated the rationale along the lines suggested. As this is a band article not a song article, there's less emphasis on specific sections of a song or details within a song, and more emphasis on the contrast between songs at different career stages. I'll update the remainder of the rationales along the same lines. PL290 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is about their early style that listeners are meant to hear in this clip? Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The expanded rationale now elaborates on this point. PL290 (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author and date are still missing. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies—that escaped my attention the first time. Now done. PL290 (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed it up, too. The relevant author and date information are from the photographer, not the uploader. Awadewit (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:3 Savile Row.jpg - Please fill out the image description tag at the image description page with the correct information.
  • File:I want you.ogg - This purpose of use must be strengthened - it gives no reason why the listener must hear the clip to understand the point being made - "Describing the song is important to the article The Beatles because of its historical significance as the last recording made by all four Beatles in the same recording studio, when relationships had broken down and the band breakup was imminent, as detailed in the article."
  • There are a lot of fair use clips in this article. Most of them use the justification that they are describing a particular genre of the Beatles. I think that these rationales could be much stronger. Please see File:CharlesKnow1.ogg and File:CharlesKnow2.ogg, for example. Considering we are talking about the Beatles, surely we can explain the reasoning in much more detailed terms. It should be easy to write extremely strong fair use rationales for these clips. In my opinion, all of the fair use rationales that say "this is an example of X style" are rather weak. How can we justify having so many? I would guess, however, that since these songs are so famous and had such an impact, we can strengthen the fair use rationales and justify the inclusion of so many clips.

I look forward to striking this oppose as soon as these issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you - should all now be done. PL290 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not feel that the single sentence added to all of the clips adds much to the fair use rationales. Please look at the above examples and compare the specificity:
Strawberry Fields: "A key theme of the article is the way the band's music matured continuously throughout their career. Words alone are inadequate to describe the contrast in musical style and maturity between songs recorded at different points in their career, and presenting the sound of this psychedelic rock song is necessary for a complete understanding." - This does not explain why this particular song is necessary or this particular clip. Again, the Beatles are a very famous band and their music has been analyzed by professional scholars. Surely, there are details you can add to this fair use rationale that would explain why Strawberry Fields is crucial to understanding the psychedelic rock style of the Beatles.
What'd I Say: "The sample illustrates a defining element of the song "What'd I Say": the opening riff on Wurlitzer electric piano improvised by Ray Charles. The left-hand riff has been used in other music following this song "countless times" according to allmusic editor Bill Dahl [1], and cited by John Lennon of The Beatles as the reason pop music and rock and roll began to lean heavily toward songs that opened with distinctive guitar riffs.(Evans, Mike (2007). Ray Charles: The Birth of Soul, Omnibus Press. ISBN 1846093418 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, p. 112) Because of its influence in popular music to follow, words are inadequate in describing it and presenting the sound is necessary for a complete understanding." - Notice the difference - this purpose of use explains why the specific clip and the song are important to hear.
It takes some work to write strong fair use rationales. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it does take work, but it's worth it to get things right—and it's high time this article regained its featured status. To that end it's already received a lot of work and will continue to do so for any remaining aspects that need fixing such as this. Thanks for your very thorough attention to the fair use rationales. I'm enjoying rising to the challenge of getting them into really good shape. I spent some time on them yesterday evening, then uploaded them this morning after another check, and have made minor tweaks since. I hope you'll agree they now justify the article's inclusion of the clips. On a side note, those two examples you provided are a hard act to follow, being specifically geared to the unusual case of justifying two clips from the same song, and hence having great emphasis on why that exact part of the song is important. But I've tried to follow the general principles you've pointed out, and I feel I've achieved what's needed. What do you think?
PL290 (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are a phenomenal improvement! Thanks so much for your hard work on these - now I can use these as samples of excellent fair use rationales! I'm striking my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some alt text to a couple of (new?) pictures, though they are not nearly as detailed as the alt text on the other pictures. I also adjusted one of the reference link, based on the fact that the original link was a redirect. (I determined these things needed fixing by the tools link to in the box at the top of this page.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — This is a vast improvement on the version I reviewed last month. The >500 edits made since then were well worth the effort. The prose is engaging and flows beautifully with no hint of proseline. I got myself into a bit of a tiz after spotting a possible minor error wrt to punctuation and have spent 30 minutes checking the quotation marks. I think they are all compliant with the Manual of Style. Although my support is based mainly on the quality of the prose, I feel qualified to comment on the comprehensiveness—as are many people of my generation—and I am impressed. This was always going to be a difficult FAC to get right, but I think you have succeeded. Well done. Graham Colm Talk 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm doing a top-to-bottom copyedit. Clearly, a lot of hard work has gone into the article, but more remains to be done. Here are a few things that have come up so far:

  • Beatlemania is raised at the end of the "Formation and early years (1957–1962)" subsection. Is there really evidence for Beatlemania in 1962? I can ascertain that the band's first big hit, "Please Please Me", was not released until the following January and that the word Beatlemania was not coined until later in 1963. Can you source "frenzied adulation of the group [taking] hold" in 1962? If not, the discussion of Beatlemania needs to be moved to the following subsection. It would fit in naturally at the end there, as a description of the "riotous enthusiasm" and unruly crowds, which are well sourced.
    • I was just taking a look at one of your sources--Gould (2008)--and found this, which supports my suspicion that the discussion of Beatlemania is currently misplaced: "In the third week of November 1963, as the Beatlemania craze in Britain reached an early, dizzy height..." (p. 187; emphasis added).—DocKino (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence is both a run-on and confusing: "Comprising a similar mix of new recordings and singles tracks, but seeing significantly greater use of studio production techniques than its 'live' predecessor, With The Beatles, recorded in stages from July to November 1963, is described by the same reviewer as 'a sequel of the highest order—one that betters the original by developing its own tone and adding depth.'" It needs to be recast either into two sentences or with a well-placed semicolon. You also need to recast so the reader knows to what "same reviewer" you are referring. No reviewer has been named before this passage. The word reviewer has not appeared before this passage. The last person quoted before this passage is John Lennon. Please rewrite here and/or in the preceding paragraph to make clear that you are referring to Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic or, at least, "an Allmusic reviewer" (preceding paragraph)/"the same Allmusic reviewer" (here).
  • Is it really accurate to assert that Tommy Roe and Chris Montez had achieved "great" popularity in the UK? Montez, for instance, appears to have had precisely one hit UK single at this point in his career. Unless your source unquestionably supports the assertion of great popularity, I would rephrase the sentence thus: "Although not billed as tour leaders, they overshadowed other acts including Tommy Roe, Chris Montez and Roy Orbison, US artists popular in the UK". This also has the virtue of being more concise.—DocKino (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I believe it is accurate: both artists had in recent months achieved significant chart success in the UK: "Let's Dance" by Montez, released in October 1962, had reached #2 in the UK, and Roe's "Sheila", released in September 1962, had reached #3. In my book that is a measure of "great popularity" and merits the emphasis I've given it. However, if you still disagree I'll be happy to reword it along the lines suggested. PL290 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead section needs a little rewrite. While it is very sad that Stu Sutcliffe died in 1962, it is not directly relevant to the history of the band. What is directly relevant is that he quit the group the previous year.
  • In working on the passage concerning 1961--which called for some relatively intensive editing--I discovered multiple instances where the year of publication given in the citation did not match that in the list of references. I corrected those, but a quick glance shows other such errors: notes 11 and 16, for instance, give years that do not match those in the references. You're going to need to go through the whole article and eliminate these errors. DocKino (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following passage presents a few problems: "The last two Hamburg stints, in November and December 1962, involved another 90 hours of performing. All told, they appeared on 270 nights in just over a year and a half, playing live an estimated 1,200 times." (1) It's certainly worth mentioning that they had two last stints in Hamburg in November and December, but why are we specifying the hours they played there? They were also playing constantly in Liverpool throughout the latter part of 1962, and those hours aren't tabulated. Please rewrite. (2) Please check the source: What is the significance of this "year and a half"? Why calculate how many times they played live through December 1962 starting in mid-1961, rather than starting with their live debut or their first Hamburg gig? Please clarify or cut. (3) Please check the source: They "appeared on 270 nights...playing live an estimated 1,200 times"? Really? If this is correct in any sense, that would mean they averaged more than four gigs or sets each night they played out during this period, and that point would have to be clarified. But something just seems wrong here. DocKino (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done: [14]. (Not a source I have, and it's not viewable on Google Books, but I agree the passage is problematic and I've taken out the stats as they are not essential and don't relate to anything else in the article.) PL290 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipping ahead for the moment to the "Song catalogue" subsection, the end of the second paragraph notes that "Harrison and Starr allowed their songwriting contracts with Northern Songs to lapse in 1968". But it has not been established anywhere above that Harrison and Starr had contracts with Northern Songs in the first place. Please rewrite the earlier part of the subsection as appropriate to make this clear. DocKino (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple small things. First this sentence, "There was uproar in June 1966 when shocking cover art adorned Yesterday and Today, Capitol's US compilation of singles and tracks from the UK versions of Help!, Rubber Soul and the upcoming Revolver (1966)." starts with a dangerous word (There...) so might be rewritten or not. Can "as many as three of his compositions earned" be shortened to "three of his compositions earned"? Also the text makes me want to hear It's All Too Much. Any chance for a sample? Thanks for a well-written article (Wikipedia's number two in 2008 and 2009 I read). -SusanLesch (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This passage poses an amusing problem, the apparent result of linking related material derived from two different sources: "With The Beatles caught the attention of Times music critic William Mann, who went as far as to suggest that Lennon and McCartney were 'the outstanding English composers of 1963'. Starting with 'Till There Was You', and continuing with tracks from the albums that followed, the newspaper published a series of Mann's articles giving his detailed analysis of The Beatles' music, lending it respectability". Did you catch the problem? "Till There Was You" was not composed by Lennon and McCartney. Please recast to eliminate the false implication.
    • Done: [18] (removed as an unnecessary detail which, as well as giving rise to the complication you identified, interrupted the flow). PL290 (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says not a single word about "She Loves You". Given that it was the best-selling single in Britain by any artist ever to that point and remains the best-selling Beatles single in Britain ever, this is an omission that should be corrected. DocKino (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following claim in the lead section is not properly supported by the primary text: "Moulded into a professional outfit by music store owner Brian Epstein after he offered to act as the group's manager..." The closest the primary text comes is way down in the "Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine and White Album" section: "Creative inspiration for The Beatles...came from an unexpected quarter when, having relied on Epstein's guiding presence since the start of their success..." That suggests his significance, to be sure, but is still a far cry from crediting him with having "moulded [the band] into a professional outfit". So, either (a) the lead can be edited along these lines: "Guided by music store owner Brian Epstein after he offered to act as the group's manager..." or (b) sourced material can be added to the primary text to support the assertion that he moulded The Beatles into a professional outfit. DocKino (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently states that "Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney joined as a guitarist" and identifies the period when he switched to bass. I heard somewhere that he did a little singing, too--even some lead vocalist stuff. When did that start to happen? The article needs to give the reader some sort of clue. I added the description of Lennon as a "singer" to the beginning of the primary narrative. Consider adding a brief description of Harrison's and Starr's general vocal duties somewhere as well, unless that's already made clear later in the article. DocKino (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Somewhere could this article explain and name the albums released in the United States? I added one after With The Beatles but there are Introducing... The Beatles and Meet The Beatles!. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding Meet The Beatles in a way that suggests it's essentially equivalent to With the Beatles opens up the proverbial worm can. The U.S. album had a significantly different track listing; indeed, our article currently focuses on the importance of excluding "I Want To Hold Your Hand" from With The Beatles. But that song is included on Meet The Beatles--it's thus especially misleading in this context to imply an equivalence.
And then would we parenthetically name Introducing...The Beatles after Please Please Me, though the U.S. album came out ten months later and again had several different track listings? I think that, too, would be a mistake.
That said, I agree that a discussion of how the early Beatles albums appeared in quite different versions in the U.S. should be brought into the "British Invasion" subsection, which covers 1964, when Beatles albums were first issued in America. Currently, we don't learn that "Capitol Records...had taken to issuing US-specific...albums compiled from a selection of the band's material" until the subsection covering 1966, which is too late. We need to learn at least a little in 1964 about retitled albums, altered track listings, and the creation of compilations (such as The Beatles' Second Album, released April 1964) with no British parallel. DocKino (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: the history should focus on the band's studio output, not Capitol's compilations, although it's important that there's awareness of the latter and they can be viewed. I'm about to add a general note with a link to The Beatles Discography to the start of the History section; may or may not be appropriate/sufficient; will go on looking at whether to add some text around 1964 too. PL290 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a mention at the point where Capitol's initial delay in releasing any material is discussed. This and the aforementioned note are shown in this diff: [22]. PL290 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's nice. But the article doesn't mention Meet The Beatles! which was 5x platinum. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked that change. It's true that the article doesn't currently mention Meet The Beatles!; per DocKino's reasoning above I think that is correct and it would confuse the article to try and cover the US releases too. The article does however show the number of US Diamond, multi-Platinum, Platinum and Gold awards (in the Lead and again later), reflecting the band's commercial success in the States achieved by means of those Capitol-created albums. I feel the US and other international albums themselves are best kept to the discography article. PL290 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence to "The British Invasion" that I hope will go at least partway toward addressing Susan's concerns: [23] (what looks like a major change at the top of the edit is actually the by-product of deleting a null return in the coding; just scroll down a bit.) DocKino (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment I've pinged a couple of musical editors so we can give this a lookover and see what it needs to get over the line. I will go through and make any straightforward changes (revert if I inadvertently change the meaning or otherwise goof up). I will noteD queries below - apart from these minor quibbles it actually looks pretty good I have to say. Nothing is jumping out at me as needing fixing. Those below are not really deal-breakers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles achieved a UK mainstream hit - achieved a hit sounds funny to me, got a hit or had a hit, or achieved mainstream success, but this combo sounds odd.
the band increasingly experienced boredom.. - why not just " the band became increasingly bored" ?
In the 2000s section, the death of harrison just sits there and halts the flow a bit. Not sure how to address that one.
Both tweaks have now been made along the lines suggested. I felt the same way about the Harrison sentence; thinking further about it, I realized it should mention the Concert for George tribute concert where McCartney and Starr were among the musicians. I've now added this material. [24] PL290 (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote in the "Norwegian Wood" audio clip caption needs a citation. DocKino (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the 1990s section only mentions the Anthology - I wonder if it's worth mentioning the 1999 knife attack in which Harrison only narrowly escaped with his life - certainly a major incident.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Remember that this (lengthy) article is about The Beatles, not about Beatles band members, who have their own (lengthy) articles. Therefore, I don't see why Lennon's death needs to be in the lead, or why Harrison's knife attack needs to be mentioned at all. Particularly since these happened long after The Beatles broke-up, and had no real bearing on their music. —indopug (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with the principle, although those two examples should possibly stay; my current thinking is along the following lines but I'm open to others' further thoughts. There are plenty of "obvious" things that are already excluded for just this reason, such as a simple mention of Plastic Ono Band, Wings, Wilburys, All-Starr Band..., lifestyle, relationships, peace/rights activism, new musical ventures/involvements, awards, extent of commercial success...). While continuing to exclude all that for precisely the reason you give, I feel it's useful to have the brief statement in the Lead saying at least something about what they did post-Beatles (suggested early in this FAC), which gives rise to a mention of the death of the two members as the explanation of why only the other two remain active. Turning to Harrison's knife attack, it was certainly a major event and may belong as a subset of what I said in my last sentence. All other mentions are cases that involve more than one ex-Beatle, which I think makes them relevant to the article. Perhaps all of the foregoing justifies keeping the existing post-Beatles mentions? I'll await your further thoughts. PL290 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right on, PL. Lennon's death must be mentioned in the lead, just as the attack on Harrison deserves mention in the primary text. Were they attacked simply because of their impressive but less-than-earthshattering solo careers? Of course not. They were Beatles, and we know damn well these important, and in one case tragic, incidents relate to that. DocKino (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is there's a lot to talk about in a Beatles article. In the greater scheme of things, these are tangential items. I see no reason at all to mention Harrison's knife attack. Save that for the George Harrison article. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now persuaded by weight of opinion here that this is the right judgement. I've removed it: [27]. PL290 (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive By comment - Why does Notes have full books ISBNs? As refs already covers this. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick answer: the "References" section only contains works cited multiple times. It's the one-off citations (of works not listed in "References") that have ISBNs. PL290 (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References

Multiple uses of a reference that should be named:

  • {{cite web}}
  • Gould (2008) p. 187.
  • Spitz (2005), p. 556.

Defined references using the same name:

  • albumsales
  • Spitzp556

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In copyediting, I trimmed this passage, "The Beatles received their first major negative UK press in early 1968 when there were disparaging reviews of the Magical Mystery Tour film". The general terms ("major negative press"/"disparaging reviews") were largely redundant. It now reads, "The December 26 airing of the Magical Mystery Tour film brought The Beatles their first major negative UK press." However, it certainly would be helpful if you could track down a quote from the time that exemplifies the negative press the film received (which might serve as well to briefly describe the film). Doable? DocKino (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the top of the "Abbey Road, Let It Be and breakup" section, I find this phrase a bit confusing: "Unable to produce any real commitment to attending studio sessions...". The Get Back concept called for a live performance of unrecorded material, so why would a lack of commitment to studio sessions be particularly relevant?
    • Clarified: [30] - that was the original idea but it didn't work out that way and they did spend a lot of time in the studio. PL290 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCartney was deeply dissatisfied with Spector's addition of fifty musicians to 'The Long and Winding Road', and attempted to halt the release of Spector's version, but was unable to do so. He gave this as one of the three reasons he left the group." We need to know what the other two were. DocKino (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified: [31] - in another source the same author lists all three reasons, showing that it was Klein's overall involvement, not just his ignoring McCartney's attempt to halt Spector's release, that was "one of the three reasons". I've now removed that sentence as the three reasons don't really add anything to the article let alone that part about "Let It Be". For what it's worth they are: (1) The Beatles had long since ceased to perform together as a group, so the whole purpose of the partnership had gone, (2) In 1969, Mr McCartney's partners, in the teeth of his opposition and in breach of the partnership deal, had appointed Mr Klein's company ABKCO Industries Limited as the partnership's exclusive business manager, and (3) Mr McCartney had never been given audited accounts in the four years since the partnership was formed. (Source: Harry (2002) p. 57.) PL290 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my opinion, you did VERY well to eliminate the phrase rather then to enumerate the three reasons. My sweet lord (so to speak). DocKino (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The established format of the article is that latter-day opinions of albums come from Allmusic and Rolling Stone. I have mixed feelings about that--I know Pitchfork has recently reviewed all the Beatles albums, Are they not at least as reputable as Allmusic?--but at least it's consistent. Suddenly, when we get to Abbey Road, we get the opinion of one Ian MacDonald. Why? Why him in particular? Why here in particular? This doesn't quite work. DocKino (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an interesting question. One possibility would be for the article to include a greater number of citations from a broader range of critical reviewers. Certainly Pitchfork are among the many recognized as acceptable by WikiProject Albums. However, my feeling is that the individual album articles are really the place for any in-depth analysis, and the current pattern serves to give a flavour of each album on the journey through the band's history in what is already quite a long article. The MacDonald cite you cite was added by another editor to help with an effort to reduce a reliance the article then had on quotes from Jonathan Gould, among other things, but that's no longer a problem. I'm not against that quote myself, and it does set off Allmusic's opinion a bit, but I see what you mean about the possible attraction of removing it so as to adhere to what's become an established pattern in the rest of the article. I'm inclined to keep things as they are for a couple of days to allow others a chance to join the conversation, and then just remove that quote if no one objects. PL290 (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ian MacDonald is the author of probably the most critically acclaimed analysis of the Beatles' music, Revolution in the Head. I for one would certainly be opposed to any removal of his work; if anything, more should be added.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To help fuel the discussion, I've now provisionally added another explicit MacDonald quote at an earlier point, which I feel produces a better balance. It comes in 1965 where Rubber Soul is discussed as a significant advance in the band's music. This seems quite appropriate to me but I'm interested in further thoughts others may have. PL290 (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have a read of this obituary for a good description of why Revolution in the Head is thought of so highly (not that everyone agrees). I added the quotes from MacDonald in the musical style section because his comments on the Lennon-McCartney partnership go quite well alongside those of Everett, and I added his negative Abbey Road comments in an attempt to add some sources other than Allmusic. But I'm a bit concerned about the length of the album review quotations on the page in general - if you're reading through the article from top to bottom, they can bog things down, so I think some of them should be condensed, leaving the more complete quotes to the individual album pages. It's hard to use specific review quotes to give a flavour of an album's reception - whichever source you use, you're bound to annoy someone - so more and more end up being added to cover more points of view, and the article gets longer and longer...
      Having said that, I too had been thinking of adding some quotes from Pitchfork's recent album reviews. In particular, I think their White Album review has some good phrases summarising the album's sprawling nature and the increasing fragmentation of the band, which I think are better than their Allmusic equivalents. Potential quotes in bold:

      The phrase, "It's like their White Album"-- applied to records like Prince's Sign o' the Times, Hüsker Dü's Zen Arcade, the Clash's Sandinista!, and Pavement's Wowee Zowee, among many others-- has long been accepted critical shorthand. To use the expression is to conjure a familiar cluster of associations: The work in question is large and sprawling, overflowing with ideas but also with indulgences, and filled with a hugely variable array of material, some of which might sound great one day and silly the next. A band's White Album is also most likely assembled under a time of great stress, often resulting in an artistic peak but one that nonetheless scatters clues to its creator's eventual demise.
      The Beatles, the band's complex and wide-ranging double album from 1968, is all of these things. It's a glorious and flawed mess, and its failings are as essential to its character as its triumphs. People love this album not because every song is a masterpiece, but because even the throwaways have their place. Even so, for the Beatles, being all over the place was a sign of trouble. The disintegration of the group as one "thing" is reflected in every aspect of the record, from its recording history (John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison sometimes worked in separate studios on their own songs) to its production (generally spare and tending to shapeshift from one song to the next) to the arrangements of the songs (which tend to emphasize the solo voice above all).

      --Nick RTalk 14:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've now trimmed the Allmusic Abbey Road cite and added Pitchfork cites for Revolver and the White Album. This diff [32] shows these changes along with the other album review changes so far today. Thanks for the suggested cites. Personally I think what we've ended up with is a definite improvement (particularly since you moved my White Album cite to the right album... doh!) and hasn't (yet) threatened to overwhelm the article. What do you think? PL290 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you're asking Nick, but I think these additions were very well handled. DocKino (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead section; "The Beatles achieved UK mainstream success in late 1962 with the single 'Love Me Do'. Gaining worldwide popularity over the course of the next year..." I don't see any support in the primary text for the claim that they gained "worldwide popularity" over the course of 1963. DocKino (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done: [33]. (A mention of the October 1963 Swedish tour. The huge US popularity of "I Want To Hold Your Hand before the end of the year is already mentioned. For good measure I've toned down "worldwide", replacing it with "international".) PL290 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single mention of Billy Preston, one of the lead candidates for the title of "fifth Beatle"? DocKino (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "1970s" subsection, we learn about compilations such as Love Songs and Reel Music, but not the much better known, much more significant Red and Blue albums. DocKino (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the "1970s", shouldn't the long-running Broadway musical Beatlemania be mentioned? DocKino (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reached the point in the article where the knife attack on Harrison is discussed, I can see Indopug and Wesley's point. I'm not certain whether it needs to be mentioned or not, but it is certainly overemphasized right now. It calls at most for one sentence, just like the murder of Lennon. DocKino (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now removed, per my reply to Wesley. PL290 (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I trimmed a good amount of extraneous material from the passage, the "2000s" subsection retains a mention of the ceremony for Harrison's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. For consistency, we either have to cover Lennon's star at the appropriate point in the narrative, or cut this bit. My vote would be for the latter. DocKino (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the "2000s", Past Masters is referred to as if the reader is supposed to know what that is, but it is mentioned nowhere previously. DocKino (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the start of the section about Revolver, the clichéd phrase "a quantum leap" is used. Can that be reworded? For one thing it's a phrase I dislike, for another it's repeated later in the article in a quote from Gould. Another reason is that not everyone views Revolver as being that far ahead of Rubber Soul - George Harrison for one; in Anthology he said that he couldn't see much difference between them, calling them Volume 1 and Volume 2.
    In the same section we have two Pitchfork quotes right next to each other, separated only by a footnote, which I find a bit awkward: Pitchfork describes it as "the sound of a band growing into supreme confidence" and "redefining what was expected from popular music."[117] "Woven with motifs of circularity, reversal, and inversion". It could do with a couple of words between the two quotes to split them up.
    Also, if a section is called "Legacy" it implies that it should talk about marks they left on culture that lasted beyond their breakup - the "Influence on popular culture" subsection does that a bit (probably not enough), but the "Recreational drug use" subsection only talks about the band's own drug use during the time they were together. Perhaps that section should be moved somewhere other than "Legacy", or maybe its content should be split up and moved to the appropriate places in the main "History" section? --Nick RTalk 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I look at addressing your concerns, I'll leave a thought on one aspect to see if you and others agree: it seems to me that the only drug-use-related "legacy" relates to the petition calling for the legalisation of cannabis, and although, as famous people among other famous signatories, The Beatles would have influenced that petition and its effect, even that is not really a mark they left on culture, more a sign of the times they were in. My immediate thought is to at least move "Recreational drug use" out of Legacy, and I am rather taken with your suggestion of distributing its contents about the article instead of keeping it as a section. I will start to try and do that shortly, unless there are objections meanwhile. PL290 (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick, I believe I've now met all the above concerns as I've outlined below, but please let me know if shortcomings remain. PL290 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quantum leap - expunged: [39]. PL290 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quotes in close proximity - done: [[40]]. PL290 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Legacy - done: [41] [42] "Recreational drug use" subsection removed, its constituent pieces now in their chronological locations in History with the exception of the petition which I have removed as not that significant for the article. I have also added a further paragraph to Legacy to introduce aspects that were omitted. PL290 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "1970s" says "the American release of the original British CDs" (which should obviously read "original British albums on CD") happened in 1986. According to the "CD releases" subsection this happened in 1987. Which is correct? The "1970s" says that after this release "Capitol deleted the post-breakup American compilation LPs from its catalogue". Please clarify whether or not this includes the Blue and Red albums. DocKino (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having just done a pass through the entire article, I have what I think is my last substantive query. It has to do with the final paragraph of the lead. I'll reproduce it here, without all our nifty links and citation callouts:

According to the RIAA certifications, The Beatles have sold more albums in the US than any other artist. They are credited with 6 Diamond albums, as well as 24 Multi-Platinum albums, 39 Platinum albums and 45 Gold albums. In 2008, Billboard magazine released a list of the all-time top-selling Hot 100 artists to celebrate the chart's fiftieth anniversary, with The Beatles at number one. The Beatles were collectively included in Time magazine's compilation of the 20th century's 100 most important and influential people.

  • Perhaps the issue leaps out when framed this way? The entire paragraph--four distinct items--is US-sourced (as is, by the way, the one location-specific bit of recognition in the preceding paragraph: the Rolling Stone album rankings). Is there not some comparable UK-based information that can be added here? It doesn't have to be exactly parallel; it doesn't even have to be quite as extensive (the US is the premier entertainment market)...but something (or two) is surely called for. DocKino (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one more. This too is something that struck me in the lead, but probably needs to be addressed in the primary text. Here's the passage:

Their clothes, style and statements made them trend-setters, while their growing social awareness saw their influence extend into the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s.

  • First off, a minor point: "Their clothes [and] style" isn't great. Maybe "Their fashion sense", "their visual style", or some similarly encompassing phrase.
    • Done (see next point). PL290 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, and more importantly: In the entire narrative, I can identify only one plausibly "trend-setting statement", which is also the only evidence I can identify of "their growing social awareness": Lennon's comments about the decline of Christianity and the Beatles' status relative to Jesus. (Their involvement with the Maharishi was undoubtedly "trend-setting" [though the article doesn't state so], but was not--to the extent described in the article--essentially a matter of "clothes", "style", or [verbal] "statement".) That's really not sufficient support for this very impressive declaration in the article's lead paragraph. This could be addressed in a variety of ways--quoting a couple of other notable public statements; discussing the subject matter of some of their later song lyrics; referencing biographers' or cultural historians' descriptions of their cheeky attitude, early on (Starr's "I'm a mocker", perhaps?), and open alignment with countercultural movements and attitudes, later. There are hints of that at the end of the "Legacy" section--but that comes very late, and anyway describes their effect rather than, again, their own "statements" and/or "social awareness". DocKino (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done: [47] - I have recast the sentence in the Lead to focus on what's historically significant, and added three passages in the text showing the build-up of fans' interest in Beatles lyrics as the ground base for the later sociopolitical influence. PL290 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that that's a good place to discuss the (over-)analysis of their lyrics that took place at that time. But I'm not sure about mentioning the speculation that Mr Kite might refer to Kafka - that seems to be a quite obscure theory (at least, I hadn't heard it before) about a specific song, so should only be mentioned in the "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" article.
        If we must refer to a specific song at that point in the article, perhaps it would be better if, after the mention that the Beatles' lyrics were receiving serious analysis, we note that Lennon responded by deliberately making "I Am the Walrus" as obscure as possible. (Although it's probably unnecessary, given that the McCartney quote in that paragraph already does a good job of conveying their bemusement at critical analysis of their lyrics.)
        Basically, I think that any mentions of specific songs in this career-overview article have to be there for really good reasons - because they were particularly commercially successful (like "I Want to Hold Your Hand"), because they represent "firsts and lasts" ("Dizzy Miss Lizzie" being their last cover; "I Me Mine" being their last recorded song) or because they can be used to represent a lot of things in their career (like the way "Norwegian Wood" is used to represent their interest in Indian music). I just don't think that the mention of "Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite" is as strong as those, and maybe another song should be used as an example.
        Having said that, it's good that "Revolution" is mentioned later in the article in connection to the events of 1968 (although that paragraph does get a bit bogged down in the complicated chronology of that song). --Nick RTalk 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know--I found the "Mr. Kite"/Kafka interpretation, with which I was also unfamiliar, to be a very informative example of the seriousness (or, at least, attempted seriousness) with which The Beatles' songs were being analyzed. That particular interpretation may be relatively obscure, but it's more informative in this context than, say, the much better known "Lucy"/LSD interpretation, given that we've already encountered the "Norwegian Wood"/pot hypothesis. A specific example of "serious analysis" is called for, and "Kite" seems likely to be one of the best available. I've rephrased the line to make clearer that it's offered as an example of a more general trend, rather than for its particular notability. Of course, if someone recalls an equally informative but more celebrated example (sourced!), it can easily be substituted in. DocKino (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well put, I feel (and the rewording is good—thanks). I think the three current examples give a clear demonstration of the progressive influence of Beatles lyrics, moving through analysis with a simple "pot-head" connection (which we're told was quite wrong, and "So I lit a fire" referred not to smoking pot but to burning the girl's house down!), through a perhaps more thoughtful "Mr K." association of the psychedelic with the surreal (echoing Martin's Lennon/Dali analogy), to, finally, a profound and literal message being sent and received by "Revolution" (albeit one which was then thrown into confusion by the contradictory versions). Nick, if you still object to this or anything else, please don't hesitate to identify any and all aspects. PL290 (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference style
  1. Most of the shortened footnotes end in a period, but a few don't
  2. Shortened footnotes have the dates in parenthesis— not an egrigious issue, but it does differ from WP:CITESHORT
  3. Inconsistent use of citation templates: Badman, Keith and Mark Lewisohn do not use one
  4. The Lewisohn refs are a bit hard to follow since they use inconsistent ref names— Lewisohnxxx for the most part, but LewisohnChronicle69 in one place. Ditto for Miles; not egregious, but it makes maintenance more difficult
  5. Consider formatting References and Further reading with {{refbegin}}
  6. Consider formatting the inline cites with {{harvnb}}; this will neatly link the notes to the references; see Chaco Culture National Historical Park for an example
  7. Consider formatting all references as shortened footnotes; again see Chaco Culture for a perfect example of this use
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the variety of citation styles that exist, I suggest consistency is of prime importance and clearly your first and third (and ideally fourth) points should be addressed. However, I must admit what you propose is very neat. I would certainly consider choosing that arrangement for a new article and I'm quite attracted by the idea of reworking the citations in this article along those lines. I leave the thought here for others to react to if they wish, and I'll also raise it on the article's talk page to see whether there's consensus for such a change. PL290 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of confusion in one of the recent additions:

However, the version of "Revolution" that appeared on the White Album continued the phrase "count me out" with an extra word, "in"...

  • As phrased, this suggests that what the listener hears is "count me out in". That's not right, is it? If it is right, it needs to be made a bit clearer how that could possibly work musically.
    • It is right, it is what the listener hears. Lennon sings both because he was genuinely unsure when writing the song whether violence could be justified. Howver, when it was re-recorded for a later B-side, he omitted the "in".--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dusted off the turntable, and slapped on Le blanc for the first time in a while. And, of course, you're right. It doesn't really work--musically; conceptually's a different matter--and that's just how it is. I copyedited the passage to make it a bit terser, hopefully mitigating the sense of getting "bogged down" in the chronology that Nick commented on. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me the de-"bogging" looks to have helped. I've also rephrased it slightly to make the out/in more explicit. PL290 (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note, a consistent style for the title-as-noun needs to be decided on. We have The White Album earlier in the section; the White Album in the recent addition; and "The White Album" in the "Studio albums" subsection below. DocKino (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see someone's taken care of this. PL290 (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a point of arguably relevant information, I'll note that the unofficial names of the 1962–1966 and 1967–1970 comps are currently given in style 2: the Blue Album and the Red Album. DocKino (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that's how they all are now, which is also my own slight preference. PL290 (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An impressively researched and thoughtfully focused article on one of the most important topics in the field of popular culture. On a note both personal and procedural, thank you PL—by virtue of your clear-eyed dedication to improving the article and your unegotistical attitude here, you have made this experience at FAC an exceptionally productive and fulfilling one. DocKino (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2009 (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/The_Beatles/archive3&oldid=1088117690"