Talk:Strawberry Fields Forever

Trivia and Pop Culture

I think both these sections should be removed. They add nothing and are full of uncited items that have little notability. What do others think?

70.54.124.95 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't signed in when I posted the previous comment.

Vytal 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Most of these "trivia and pop culture" sections translate to "random crap that somebody thought was cool" and this article is no different. Almost all of the "covers and derivations" should be trashed as well (except for the Love version and one or two others). Raymond Arritt 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree - In general, I am not a fan of trivia sections although I think some trivia items can be integrated in the article body. The trivia items in this article are not worth moving. I think Cultural reference sections can be used to document how a song affected other artists and also reflects the popularity and staying power of the song, both of which are notable. In this specific case, however, I think the Pop culture section is weak. John Cardinal 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Videos

How come the videos for Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields aren't as readily available as the records? Lee M 02:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Single with Penny Lane

• "Unfortunately for the Beatles, it was released as a "double A sided" single together with "Penny Lane", which meant that both the sales and airplay statistics were split between the two songs, instead of being recorded collectively."

Does anyone have a cite for this? The UK charts are based on sales, not airplay, and as far as I know always have been. I'd have also thought that sales were based on the number of discs sold, and not pro rated between the two sides, and that e therefore there would be only one entry in the charts for the single Varitek 08:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I also was confused about this. Unfortunatly - why, exactly? It only got to number 2 because Humperdink sold more.

Removed

• "Nonetheless, the double A-sided single is widely-regarded as the greatest single in the history of popular music."

I removed that sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if it were so, but claims of such loftiness require references. --bodnotbod 05:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Speculation

I removed this paragraph, which, even if probably true, is pure speculation and opinion:

It is likely that the inclusion of "Penny Lane" on the single upset John Lennon. He saw "Strawberry Fields Forever" as the most innovative pop single ever at the time of its release.

wikipediatrix 17:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

number 1 @ US?

says in the text that the separate strawberry fields single in the US reached number 8, but in the 'box' it says #1? Bungalowbill 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Regain popularity?

"Epstein urged Martin to issue the songs on a double A-sided single in order to regain popularity"

What is this supposed to mean?

Paul isn't dead!

At the very end of the song (You need to almost blast the volume) John says "I Buried Paul" Which was one of the main reasons people thought Paul was dead. That, and this. The whole thing was caused on April 1st by a DJ.[1]

Some key points (feel free to corect names):

1. Geroge is at the front dressed like a preist.
2. Ringo is next dressed up. He was suposedly the under-taker.
3. Paul isn't wearing shoes (People are never burried with shoes on) and is smoking. Paul never smoked, but a dieing man's last request is often "one last cigarete"
4. John is last wearing work cloths. As mentionecd above, he suposedly burried Paul.
5. The beatle's (car) licence plate reads 28 IF. Paul would have been 28 IF he lived till his next birthday.--Labine50 03:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one mistake, John is the priest and George is the gravedigger in the back. Also, the license plate reads LMW 281F, which is interpreted as meaning "28 IF" as stated above. LMW is also sometimes said to stand for "Linda McCartney Weeps (or Widow)." John R Murray 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Paul is the only human being who ever walked to his own funeral with no shoes on (they always bury people with shoes on, 'cos I polished my father's) with a priest, a gravedigger (he'll have had to work fast to get that grave dug in time) and an undertaker (which must have saved a lot of money on a hearse). Don't make me laugh and buy a round... :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A Changed Sentence

I changed the word undoubtedly to most likely when someone put that the song was "undoubtedly" influenced by acid. The word undoubtedly is very strong, and without a reference this word should not be used. andrewlargemanjones

Title

The only Beatles album I have is the 1967-1970 compilation, but the title of the song is listed there as "Strawberry Fields"... Should that be noted? Is it already noted? (Sorry I haven't looked through the article) --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What should be a new rule on pictures.

I honestly think that if there is a good picture that agrees with the article, you shouldn't replace it. Before the cover you see on the page, there was a higher quality scan. The current one (no offense to the user who scanned it) looks batterd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.120.221 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

We don't need any new rules. I thought the original picture looked too pristine; it didn't look like a single cover because you couldn't see any ridges caused by the disc inside the sleeve. Also, it was 42KB (vs. 22KB for the replacement) and the picture is used on other pages with multiple images on them. Anyway, I restored the last version. John Cardinal 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thinning?

The complete removal of the Covers and Pop culture sections does not help the article IMO. Yes, those sections needed to be trimmed, but no covers, and no cultural references, removes credible evidence of the popularity of the song among musicians and other artists, which is a one way to reflect the importance of the song. John Cardinal 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

While I have no opinion one way or the other concerning the covers, the cultural references listed did not particularly add to the article. One could obtain better information by simply clicking "What links here". The popularity of the song is better reflected by statistics and good references than an exhaustive list of cultural references. -Verdatum (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The "What links here" page is a poor substitute: hundreds of pages listed in random order with no editorial content to prioritize the list or put the (WikiPedia-specific) references in context. I disagree that the "popularity of the song is better reflected by statistics and good references" and I never suggested including "an exhaustive list of cultural references." Cultural references are not about simple popularity, they indicate popularity among other artists. They indicate that other artists were influenced by the song, and specifically, what artists and in which works. Diversity in the list (various artists, various media) and references across a long span of time are much more effective means of conveying the importance of a creative work than dry statistics.

Regarding good references, I fail to see how that pertains to this issue at all. I am in favor of good references and have worked to add them to Beatles articles on WP, but references provide evidence that is used in the article. With no list of cultural references, there is nothing to which to attach references.

John Cardinal (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

LOVE Version

It says in the LOVE version that "Baby Your A Rich Man" is in it. Where is it? Can anyone confirm it? I always hear it in "All You Need Is Love," but not "Strawberry Fields." 01kkk 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What key did it end up in?

I've seen sheet music transcriptions that show the song to be in the key of A. But if (as the article states) Take 7 was already in A, and George Martin had to speed it up, while slowing down Take 26 (in C) to get the two to match, then the key the finished product finally wound up in would have to be at least slightly higher than A=440hz, right? ("A and a half major"?!?) Can anyone figure this out?
--63.25.23.150 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

References

I've put in as many as I could find.--andreasegde (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it goes unappreciated, me friend. All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 03:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have put some more in. "Brennan, Joseph (12 April 2008). "Strawberry Fields Forever: Putting Together the Pieces" is a really good one, as it takes a lot from Lewisohn's (?) book.--andreasegde (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You might have a problem with this: "According to AcclaimedMusic.net"...--andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If dates are not linked anymore, does this, "began on 24 November 1966 in Abbey Road's Studio Two", mean that commas are now also omitted after dates?--andreasegde (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Covers

Are we keeping a covers section out deliberately? Can understand why (wouldn't want it to become a dumping ground for obscure versions), but Candy Flip's cover was a big hit (#3 in the UK).. worth a brief mention perhaps? Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It could go in, but you would have to slip somewhere in the article, because having a cover version section quickly turns into a list.--andreasegde (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strawberry Fields Forever/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lead

• "It was written as a reflection of Lennon's childhood, and is named after a Salvation Army house, as Lennon used to play in the wooded garden as a child." Should this be "... where Lennon used to ..."?
  • done

Recording

• "it took forty-five hours," I'd prefer 45 hours per WP:MOSNUM.
  • done
• "The last verse, "Always, no sometimes...", was a 3-part harmony," Conversely three-part harmony.
  • done
• "Take 1" and "take 7" one capitalised the other not. Also as above, it would be better in text.
  • done
• I think all instruments should be wikilinked first time they are mentioned.
  • done Though the swarmandel doesn't have a Wiki article

General

• I realised this may have been written in Am Eng. Is there any specific reason for this? It would be much better in Br Eng since the Beatles were British.
  • It's because I wrote a lot of it, and I use Am Eng. I'll gladly change it. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Others

• Some more images would benefit the article, even if it was something just like a picture of Lennon or McCartney to break up the text and improve the look of the article.

I recommend including a screencap from the music video. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing something like that, but no one brought it up, so I thought it would not have been fair use.

• Reading some of the talk above, a "Covers" section may be a good idea. However, I think that's something to decide on in the future and not during the GA process. Particularly if you head for FAC, I would suggest some thought / discussion about the benefit of such a section. And has been noted, it would be much better as a prose section, not a list.

It's only essential if there's some really notable covers. I wouldn't suggest adding a covers section at this point, but when this gets closer to FAC range, I suggest Kodster take a look at the covers section in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for an example of how to create such a section. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold for the above points to be addressed or corrected. Secondly I note a peer review process is undergoing, although potentially towards the end of the process. I'll leave it on hold until that is closed, unless it is apparent nothing much else is going to change. Peanut4 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I closed the Peer Review. Besides the Covers section, which will be dealt with later on as the article slowly makes its way to Featured Article Candidacy (hopefully), every improvement has been dealt with. You may take the appropriate action now. Again, thank you for reviewing this article. :-) Cheers! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've worked very hard on this, and I'll make the improvements that you and WesleyDodds have suggested. Cheers! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes, but I have just gone through this article, and have improved/cleaned a lot of text. Sorry if I have confused the review. :(--andreasegde (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just put a photo in of the piano and the paint, and one of Kenwood, as both are mentioned in the article.. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good work. All the best with working this up to FAC. And with that in mind, I've just spotted a slight MOS error in the references - not enough to stop me passing it but something that will need addressing before FAC. p642 etc should be p. 642. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!! Thank you so much! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Achievements?

The achievements section consists of a whopping 1 sentence. A little playtime in the sandbox might do it some good, no? Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)