Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/She Loves You/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] She Loves You
Been languishing for a while, but looks quite good, I think. Peer review request got only one comment. This is a self-nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 08:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: No opinion on the article itself yet, but the four beatles-discography.com links under "References" are dead. You might want to fix those first. --Plek 10:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- SUpport. Jeronimo 18:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support, excellently in-depth article. I'm particularly impressed by the breadth of information on such a relatively limited subject. || THOR 19:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm still reading through it (I like what I've read so far),
but one quote stuck out to me: "it's too like the Andrew Sisters." Should this perhaps be Andrews Sisters instead? I'm not familiar with a band named Andrew Sisters. If it's correctly spelled in the article, perhaps a note about who the speaker was referring to would be in order.slambo 20:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)- After a bit of Googling, I think that "Andrew Sisters" was indeed referring to them. I've changed the wikilink appropriately. Johnleemk | Talk 08:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for verifying my suspicion. I've read through the article, and the prose is pretty good and quite thorough, but I'm not convinced on the images. Repeating the infobox image seems less than top form, for example. Are there any other images that would be appropriate here? slambo 14:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I can't think of any that would be deemed fair use (I could try hunting for a picture of them singing the song on The Ed Sullivan Show, though). I will not be available until Sunday, however, so it will have to wait. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I need to know how to capture a still from a particular frame of an MPEG file on Linux (preferably using mplayer) if we're going to get a decent photo. Johnleemk | Talk 11:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for verifying my suspicion. I've read through the article, and the prose is pretty good and quite thorough, but I'm not convinced on the images. Repeating the infobox image seems less than top form, for example. Are there any other images that would be appropriate here? slambo 14:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- After a bit of Googling, I think that "Andrew Sisters" was indeed referring to them. I've changed the wikilink appropriately. Johnleemk | Talk 08:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support
Weak support - nice work but the length of the quote by George Martin in the ==At work in the studio== is a bit over the top. Please shorten it and I'll change to Support.--mav 02:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) - Comment - there's no reference to cover versions. Presumably a number of other artists must have covered it sometime. Any chance of a short section on this? jguk 14:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Very very very few artistes have made a cover version of the song, so all I could get was a couple of sentences. I mean, you know that notable cover versions are lacking when allmusic.com's review of the song doesn't even list one or two covers as it usually does for others. Johnleemk | Talk 11:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Just wondered if you'd seen http://www.shelovesyou.info/ - it doesn't seem to be referenced on linked to - could be an interesting link? Also, this google seach suggests that there have been some covers worth mentioning, jguk 23:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, I haven't seen shelovesyou.info before, but there's not much there that isn't already in the article. The theory on "Sie Lieb Dicht" is interesting, however. As for the Google search, you ommitted the quotes around "cover version". When they are added, you only get 600+ results. Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Just wondered if you'd seen http://www.shelovesyou.info/ - it doesn't seem to be referenced on linked to - could be an interesting link? Also, this google seach suggests that there have been some covers worth mentioning, jguk 23:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Very very very few artistes have made a cover version of the song, so all I could get was a couple of sentences. I mean, you know that notable cover versions are lacking when allmusic.com's review of the song doesn't even list one or two covers as it usually does for others. Johnleemk | Talk 11:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Object for these reasons: empty spot in infobox; album blurb in the infobox is contradicted by the article; the part about the stereo recording being lost seems a bit short (how was it lost? Was it stolen? Burnt in a fire? Misplaced?)Okay, they're resolved. [[[User:Michelle T|Miss Madeline]] | Talk to Madeline 16:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)- The empty spot in the infobox has been fixed; the other issues are very hard to address, though. Firstly, there is a lot of contention among fans about what constitutes an original album. Most album chronologies do not count the American albums because these were piecemeal albums constructed by record companies and not designed by the Beatles themselves. I've tried to address this in the infobox, but I think it's very wordy and ugly now. As for how the track was lost, nobody is really sure. I've done a lot of research on this (to the extent of checking out nearly every book related to the Beatles in the Malaysian British Council), and nobody ever says how the track was lost; it's a complete mystery. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
