Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul McCartney/archive1

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

Paul McCartney

[edit]

I am nominating the Paul McCartney page because I believe it has been researched in depth, and has a plethora of citations to support that research. A group of editors have been working on it together to bring it up to the standard it has now. andreasegde 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support 300+ citations!!...this one could have been FA'd 200 refs ago. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 05:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The first sentence should mention something comparable to the phrase at the start of John Lennon: "who gained worldwide fame as one of the founders of The Beatles". Currently the lead section fails to mention that important fact, meaning it assumes too much of readers. This is clearly shown by the fact that the second sentence begins with "Following his departure from The Beatles"—we should not assume that a reader would know that he had been a member of the Beatles, nor even that they know what "The Beatles" is, making the second sentence a logical leap that will abandon the uninformed base this article should be directed at. Also, the fourth paragraph in the lead is only one sentence long; it can be merged into another paragraph easily.
  • I notice some style concerns in the article text. For example, dashes are used where em-dashes should be, unnecessary commas show up in odd places, and references are sometimes placed in strange locations where the text would be more readable if they were moved to the end of a sentence. Indeed, I recommend cutting down on the number of references in general; too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and when references are being cited for uncontroversial claims in a redundant fashion (e.g., the same ref used for two consecutive sentences) it makes the text difficult to read without improving its verifiability.
  • I also notice some strange formating choices for the article sections. For example, "&" is used in lieu of "and", and "Solo" is used instead of "Solo career". Some of the images also verge too much towards being off-topic; including cannabis plants is a bit of a stretch, though I can understand the desire to add free-use images where primarily fair-use ones are available.
  • Also, all the Fair-Use images need fair use rationales. -Silence 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBJECT. Grammatical, orthographical and stylistic problems throughout the text that keep it from being "brilliant and compelling" as required by 1(a). Too many paragraphs with one or two sentences. Citations good. Remove size/pixel parameters from the thumbnails per WP:MOS and WP:IUP to accomodate user preference settings. A few images with dubious claims of copyright ownership and public domain release (July_1946.jpg, Dakota2.jpg), or violate the use of their fair use (Elvismccartney.jpg...on more articles than necessary to "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" per the Fair Use tag; and the use of Paul McCartney by Richard Avedon.jpg doesn't seem to be in keeping with policy). Need to work on the captions, per criteria on Wikipedia:Captions, especially captions should explain their relevance to the article. At this point, I could put a picture of a hamburger there and it would be just as relevant without a well-written explanatory caption. Also, it is isn't "Liverpool Anglican Cathedral", it's just "Liverpool Cathedral" (well actually, it's the Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool, but we'll go for short-form common name here), while yes it is an Anglican house of worship, it isn't part of the name. I think this fails the test of 1(b) for comprehensiveness, as there's no discussion of the "impact" of his forays into classical music composition. The Heather Mills marriage section is stubbish, skipping over everything between October 2003 and July 2006. His marriage to Linda, from 1968 until her death, leaves out a large swath between 1980 and her death 1998. Many of the sections give only cursory discussion, or perfunctory mentions of key things in McCartney's life. Citations are in the oddest of places, not conforming with WP:CITE. Example: In a 1980 interview,[102] (In the "Solo" section). Please make the citations conform to WP:CITE and give them logical, appropriate placement within the sentences. —ExplorerCDT 07:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are two Cathedrals in Liverpool. andreasegde 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Yes, one is Liverpool Cathedral, the other is Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral. One Anglican, the other Catholic. Last time I was in Liverpool, I don't remember seeing a place called "Liverpool Anglican Cathedral". —ExplorerCDT 08:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Try this: Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral.
  • "orthographical/spelling mistakes"? Where are they?
    • Orthography isn't just spelling. For starters, the use of the ampersand is wholly unprofessional. I'd give you a list (despite having given one above), but in as much time as I'd take compiling a definitive list, I would better waste my time correcting them. (I'm not, it's not my job, nor do I have the time to be a copyeditor or a contributor to this article) when someone who is a contributor to this article (who cares about remedying the flaws for this FA candidacy) could just copyedit through the article. —ExplorerCDT 09:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Linda, and Heather Mills McCartney". Their own pages may shed some light. andreasegde 08:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does not solve the problem that this current article has large lacunae in several areas where discussion is perfunctorily brief or wholly lacking but needed/wanted for the sake of meeting 1(b) comprehensiveness (even if there's more on another article, it doesn't matter when it should be discussed here...after all, they aren't FACs, but this is.). —ExplorerCDT 09:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'lacunae' - a gap or missing part, as in a manuscript, series, or logical argument. andreasegde 09:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice to know you can locate the word in the dictionary. ;-) It's the perfect way to describe the large swaths of missing material in sections of the article that just glance over major issues in McCartney's life and demand substantial treatment, and what needs to be remedied in order to meet the 1(b) "comprehensive" criteria. —ExplorerCDT 09:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We had massive problems in cutting Paul McCartney's article to less than 10,000 words. We could not put everything in, so we had to cut a lot of things. We conformed to Wikipedia rules, but we still think it relays the main points in McCartney's musical (and private) life. andreasegde 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's the issue...you might have cut out too much. It covers the points, but with gaps, and with such a quick glance at the point that it neglects to be comprehensive. You don't have to put every little detail, but in order to meet criteria 1(b) you have to cover parts comprehensively. A good copyedit will maximize what is said in a minimal number of words. And that's precisely what this article needs. 10,000 words is an artificial limit and shouldn't be the sole factor in how to edit this article. The criteria only establishes that it must be "of appropriate length" and that is conceived with how completely the other criteria are met, and I'd say "appropriate length" is inextricably tied to comprehensiveness per 1(b). —ExplorerCDT 10:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Hello...raw numbers of refs does not equal a FA. In addition to problems above, let's look just at refs, and just the web refs...they are inconcistent, some have retrieval dates-some don't, some have the title--one only has the url, some have the publisher, some don't. I would fail the FAC just for this alone. The refs should be consistent, all the web ones should be the same format, all the book ones the same, etc. For web refs, it's best to have at least the url, title, publisher, and retrieval date at a minimum. Footnotes do not have a preceding space either.Rlevse 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone objecting based on 1. b. is talking through their backsides. When a certain subtopic is huge, it's meant to be put into subarticles. LuciferMorgan 13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlikely as it is to hear this from me, you might want to take another look at WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. —ExplorerCDT 13:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lol here we go... LuciferMorgan 14:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have to agree with Explorer. There are nicer ways to voice disagreement. I'll also have to disagree with the claim that articles can't be objected to on criterion 1b as long as they cover everything in their daughter articles. The relevance of 1b is not negated by the existence of daughter articles: the function of daughter articles is to provide more space to discuss non-essential topics that are nonetheless noteworthy and informative. Daughter articles do not eliminate 1b, because essential topics (i.e., ones that are necessary for the article to be comprehensive) still need to be covered by the top-level article, at least briefly. -Silence 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support just becuase I can't see anything that I could object about without a) fixing it myself in less time that it takes me to write this; and b) without being heroically pedantic.--Crestville 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The references are not correctly formatted and expanded to a consistent and thorough bibliographic style of citation. Further, the number of footnotes is overstated by over-referencing - for example:
    • In 1947, when McCartney was five years old, Mary McCartney became a domiciliary midwife,[5] which meant she was always on-call.[5] Her income allowed the McCartneys to move to Sir Thomas White Gardens and live in a rent-free flat owned by her employers.[5] They moved again, to 72 Western Avenue,[5]
  • In the example above, ref no. 5 is used four times consecutively to cite 2 1/2 sentences - it could be used once. The article looks like a dartboard - this is an example where over-referencing impedes readability, and yet another example of why counting citations does not an FA make.
  • It also appears that sources which do not rise to the level of WP:RS have been used, but until the websources are properly expanded to indicate publisher/author on each source, it is difficult to determine reliability without exploring each individual websource used.
  • A copyedit is also needed - while attempting to correct for WP:FN, I saw this punctuation:
    • In 1955, the McCartney family moved to 20 Forthlin Road,[10] - in Allerton -[11] which is now owned by The National Trust.
  • The article should be withdrawn from FAC, reworked, and resubmitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should it be withdrawn? The article editors should take this opportunity to get as much feedback as possible on ways to improve the article, so they have a better chance of it succeeding next time. -Silence 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that the easiest way to trim this article down to a reasonable size would be to create a daughter article or two for sections like "Family life" and "Lifestyle", perhaps "Personal life of Paul McCartney". Many of the other sections merit their length on this page, but those sections seem like they could provide all the essentials in 1/2 or 1/3 the space. I've never seen an article before that had a page and a half on a celebrity's various marriages and relationships, or a full page on one's recreational drug use; even Kurt Cobain spends less than half a page on drug use, and about 3/5 of a page on marriage. -Silence 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Odd to say this but I think there are too many refrences It give it a messy layout with all these numbers everywhere. Also a lot of them don't give the date, the source or any kind of link.Buc 09:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment This is a comprehensive article on a very large subject, and the editors have worked diligently to be sure it is NPOV, well researched, well referenced and well written. I notice none of the critiques say anything about the article being POV or "fannish" or too listy or OR or any of the other common criticisms - I just want to point out that that is not accidental, and an FA critique of a piece might have taken the time to acknowledge that, and encourage the editors regarding their work. Many of the above comments are nitpicky - length of dashes, for example - and can be easily handled, as someone said, with another copyedit. Sometimes FA reviews stress that articles are too long - the 10,000 word guideline - so the editors responded to that in advance of the criticism to fork off sections to sub articles. There is a difference of opinion among Wikipedia editors as to whether one should then include highlights of the forked off material in the main article or not - the editors of Paul McCartney chose to have short summaries of the forks - but then they are criticized here for doing that - that sections are too short and missing a lot of detail. Hard to do both - the Linda McCartney section being a good example. If the reviewers are saying that the editors should not worry about length, that, I suspect, would be welcome news. As for the quality of the sources, some specificity in the critique would be appreciated. I hope that the comment immediately above this one meant that there were too many places where the references were inserted - as someone else said above - not that there actually are too many references. Tvoz | talk 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The fact that an article includes a large number of mistakes that would have been easy to fix is an argument against, not for, that article becoming an FA. It shows a relative disregard for readability, consistency, and the Manual of Style, ignoring the readers' most immediate concerns (that an article be well-written and accessible) in favor of more editorial concerns like verifiability and NPOV. There is no reason that both areas can't be met. Featured Articles should not simply be whichever articles are most NPOV or non-"fannish" (else we'd feature all the train station articles), nor whichever articles have the largest number of references (in fact, I've seen a number of FAs failed or almost failed in the past for having too many references), but by a variety of factors, including quality of writing. Disregarding this vitally important criterion as "nitpicky" is disrespectful of both various editors' valid concerns, and of the explicitly-stated Featured Article criteria. Besides, if a single copyedit can resolve all the problems that have been brought up so far, that raises the question of why such a copyedit was not performed before the FA nomination, and of why one hasn't been proposed or attempted over the course of the nomination. As for the length/quality issue, if you want to see an example of an article that does an excellent job of handling numerous daughter articles without sacrificing either brevity or comprehensiveness, see Charles Darwin. -Silence 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality of writing, yes. Length of dashes, no. I'm not at all saying copyedit comments should be ignored, I'm merely pointing out the difference between sections 1 and 2 of WP:WIAFA. What you call "editorial concerns", it seems to me, are more prominently listed in the guidelines, and all I was saying was that an acknowledgment of that would have been welcome in a review which then went on to point out specific style problems, some of which have already been responded to. Tvoz | talk 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality of writing and length of dashes, yes. (Though technically Paul McCartney is not merely using the "wrong length" of dashes, but is actually using a non-dash where a dash is appropriate: a hyphen is not a dash.) The two are mutually complementary, not mutually exclusive. Using a hyphen ("-") in lieu of an em-dash ("—") is just as much a grammatical error as using a comma where you should use a period. Criterion 2 of WP:FA? states, in part, that an FA "complies with the standards set out in the manual of style", and the MoS is quite clear in stating, in part, "The hyphen (-) is used to form compound words. The en-dash (–) is used to specify numeric ranges. The em-dash (—) can be used to link clauses of a sentence". The primary purpose of WP:FAC is not to praise articles, but to assess whether they are at FA-quality; praise is welcome, but hardly necessary, and many editors don't have the time to praise every article they critique. I'll gladly praise the article after the important work on it is done. But "you weren't nice enough in your criticism" is not a valid objection to a relevant and factual FA objection. -Silence 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have read conflicting comments about the 10,000 words problem. One says it is not a problem, and the other says it is. Can someone give a definite answer? andreasegde 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say that it is "not a problem", I just said it shouldn't be the sole consideration in determining how an article should be edited. I said: 10,000 words is an artificial limit and shouldn't be the sole factor in how to edit this article. The criteria only establishes that it must be "of appropriate length" and that is conceived with how completely the other criteria are met, and I'd say "appropriate length" is inextricably tied to comprehensiveness per 1(b). Since 10,000 is arbitary, and not explicitly in the criteria, I think the application of the criteria should be addressed before imposing an artificial "word count" limitation. —ExplorerCDT 08:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Andreasegde, please don't get hung up on the issue of en and em dashes and spaces after footnotes - reviewers would never object based on these things alone, as they are easily fixed. We raise the minor stuff so you'll become better editors, more aware of Wiki guidelines (see WP:FN). When an otherwise excellent article only has WP:FN problems, I use Gimmetrow's fabulous ref-fixing script to fix them myself, but I still let editors know, so they won't do it next time. The point is, this article has much larger problems, and that is what you all should focus on, without taking it personally. Much of this could have been avoided by first running the article through peer review, where the basic problems would have been noticed. On the 10,000 word issue, I hope you've read WP:LENGTH - it's not only a matter of how much an average reader can digest in one sitting - it's also a matter of load time for readers who don't have fast access. My outside limit when I begin to object to article size is 40KB of prose, measured as explained at WP:LENGTH - the correlation to number of words is a rough estimate. I encourage you to put the little stuff behind you, move on, and concentrate on getting the article to FA status - referencing is usually one of the hardest parts, and if your refs are sound, you're halfway there. Save your effort - and preserve goodwill - for next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last Comment: As this review is about to close, I ask you to look at this:

Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(Tennyson)

Have fun. andreasegde 10:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This review doesn't close until the FA Director, Raul654, decides either a consensus has been achieved to promote or fail an FAC, or that the FAC has just died, or that's it's been withdrawn. You just put this up yesterday, it can go on for another 3 or 4 weeks. —ExplorerCDT 10:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I just drop this in, then? (It's from a Wikipedia site...)

En dash versus em dash

The en dash is half the width of the em dash. The width of the en dash was originally the width of the typeset letter "N", while the width of the em dash was the width of "M"; hence the names.

Traditionally an em dash—like so—or spaced em dash — like so — has been used for a dash in running text. Some guides, including the Elements of Typographic Style, now recommend the more concise spaced en dash – like so – and argue that the length and visual magnitude of an em dash cater to grandiose Victorian era taste. However, some longstanding typographical guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes for this purpose. In practice, there is little consensus, and it is a matter of personal or house taste; the important thing is that usage should be consistent.

En dashes are often preferred to em dashes when text is set in narrow columns (as in newspapers and similar publications).

There you go. andreasegde 11:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found that on a Wiki page ("em-dash") Which one is right? Elements of Typographic Style, or Wiki? andreasegde 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither. The criteria demands that the article comply with the demands of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other policies and guidelines. An article discussing the history and usage of the Em-Dash in the article namespace (i.e. Dash) is not a policy or guideline, nor does it in any way negate the authority of the WP:MOS. External style guides and manuals are precisely that...external. When in Rome, etc. —ExplorerCDT 13:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not WP:MOS cites Chicago is incidental: it doesn't negate that the FA criteria states it must comply with the WP:MOS. Right now, you're splitting hairs from a bald man. —ExplorerCDT 17:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about em-dashes versus en-dashes, andreasegde. It is about dashes versus hyphens. Consider, for example, the sentence "McCartney was baptized Roman Catholic but was raised non-denominationally - his mother was Roman Catholic and his father, James 'Jim' McCartney, was a Protestant turned agnostic." A hyphen is used, correctly, for "non-denominationally"; it is then used, incorrectly, to link two clauses, which is the function of an em-dash. Using a hyphen in place of a dash is no more acceptable than using a comma in place of a period. -Silence 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are to be judged, then I would only like to know by whose rules we are judged. Somebody had to write the rules in the first place, did they not? Apologies to the bald man, BTW. andreasegde 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's rather obvious that content on Wikipedia would be judged by Wikipedia's rules. And, if I were you, I would spend more time getting the article up to snuff and trying to make it worthy of FA status instead of arguing incidental points or asking quis custodiet? —ExplorerCDT 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • quis custodiet? = "Who will guard the guards?" It seems like the guards are controlling themselves. Have you ever read 'Lord of the Flies'? (One never starts a sentence with 'And', BTW. :) Read the next comment about the size of the article—will this problem ever be resolved?andreasegde 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have advised you that it would be best if you worked on fixing the article per the FAC discussion suggestions and criticisms. You're just wasting your and infinitely more regrettably my time. As long as the article meets the FAC criteria, we can dispense with arbitrary edicts of "size" as long as it is "of appropriate length" (the criteria determiner) given the subject. Instead, you've wasted days arguing about whether or not you had to use em-dashes, doubting whether Wikipedia has authority over its own project or could implement its own rules and as a result have done absolutely nothing to improve the article to FA standards (which the people with whom you've argued are more fluent in than you are). Do the work, improve the article to FA standards, or withdraw the nomination. Simple. Otherwise, you're wasting other people's time. —ExplorerCDT 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am sorry that you sound so angry. When you say that I "have done absolutely nothing to improve the article to FA standards," I feel that maybe you misunderstand the situation. andreasegde 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not angry, but I am frustrated that you cannot accept that Wikipedia's rules are the rules the project is governed by, that you continue to doubt the authority of style policies and guidelines and that while you were spending so much time arguing over em-dashes, you could have addressed many of the comments, criticisms and suggestions for article improvement mentioned above. In comparing your argumentation here and the improvement work on the article, you've spent far too much time arguing incidental points, quoting Tennyson and the article suffers because of it. It would be much better, and I reiterate my advice. You ought better "fill the unforgiving minute / With sixty seconds' worth of distance run". —ExplorerCDT 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The page is 103 KB long, of which I assume over 50 KB must be readable prose, making it much too long for a Good Article, let alone a Featured Article.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paul_McCartney/archive1&oldid=1078804554"