Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Something

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Something

Article is still a featured article.

The article fails, rather disatrously, the well written criteria. It is very short - not nearly as long as other Beatles songs that have become Featured, such as I Want to Hold Your Hand and She Loves You. It also is poorly written, using weasel phrases (such as "according to most sources"). More importantly, it also cites practically nothing; there are even points in the article that have been tagged with [citation needed] (and not by me). Further, some citations are given using the incorrect format (i.e. embedded links). The "Explanation" section is useless and redundant. I get the impression that the Beatles fan community simply got behind this one and supported it to become Featured, regardless of the fact that it isn't a particularly good article. I can't justify this being Featured, not by a million miles, and it isn't really ready to become "Good Article" level, either. TheImpossibleMan 01:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Post-closing comment: I've removed {{farc}} since this debate seems to be done. If Beatles related articles are nominated for delisting in future (as they should be if they're not up to scratch) please let the WikiProject know (WT:Beatles). --kingboyk 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Also, four of the five external links listed as References are broken. Andrew Levine 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove for the same reasons as everyone else. In addition, it used quotes too much. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong remove. TheImpossibleMan is right, this isn't even a good article, let alone a featured one. Mikker (...) 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the article could be better; however, next time, please would you raise your comments on the talk page first, or speak to the article's primary author and FAC nominator (who in this case is Johnleemk, who is still very active) before starting a FARC. Here is a link to the FAC from August 2004, which is clearly replete with such biased Beatles fans such as Taxman, Dmn and mav. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know if there would be a point to posting complaints on the talk page, seeing as there has been no discussion concerning the article. The only comments there are silly, unrelated nonsense someone decided to post. And am I suppossed to know/recognize who Taxman and those other people are? TheImpossibleMan 10:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • *resists urge to laugh*. I don't know about Dmn, but Mav is the Wikimedia Foundation Chief Foundation Officer and the main person responsible for introducing references as a featured article criterion (Something was among the first FAs to use references). And Taxman is a very active participant on FACs. Anyway, this is the usual song and dance (as with the two other recent Beatles FARCs) -- I'm aware of this and plan to work on this within the next week or so, time constraints permitting. The article's main problem is a lack of maintenance, which meant that new content is poorly integrated into the article, and that the references are a bit out of date. (They are not broken, however; the reason that the date the content was retrieved is there is so you can use the Wayback Machine to retrieve the page should it be altered, moved, or removed.) The "citation needed" tags really mean that an inline citation is needed (although I suppose that'd make the tag too verbose), because the existing references already corroborate the bulk of the article. I'm not sure what is meant by the article being short -- can you think of any further content that can be added? While the song is pretty popular among Beatles fans, it's hardly as notable as I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, Hey Jude, or even The Long and Winding Road (which was cited in a court case as one of six reasons for dissolving the Beatles), so naturally there is less published material available on Something. As an aside, I find it amusing that people tend to assume these articles should never have become featured and hold them to the standards of today's FAs, because they were quite good -- if not among the best -- in their time. Since we are no longer in that time, naturally the article should be updated. It is annoying to place this on FARC immediately, however, since it appears to be assumed that nobody is watching the article (*cough*). (Just because it's full of spam doesn't mean nobody's watching it.) IIRC the FARC instructions direct you to leave a message on the talk for a few days before nominating. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, too short, few refs. -- King of Hearts talk 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when was length or too few references an FA criterion? Like many, you have confused comprehensiveness with length and equated the two. And if all the references corroborate the article's content, how can "too few refs" be valid? The importance of citing sources is to corroborate the article's content, not create a further reading or external links section. Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Johnleemk, do you have a point to make? Or are you just here to ridicule us for not knowing as much as you? If you want to vote to keep or vote to remove this article, then do so. Otherwise, steer clear of this discussion. TheImpossibleMan 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As the principal editor of the article he may feel it is not strictly ethical for him to vote, although strictly speaking there is nothing to prevent him doing so, but I can understand his reluctance. However, he is entitled to express his views. Giano | talk 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Jacqui's law: the longer a user spends time in polls and/or debates, the more he or she will see each question as a binary of delete or keep or remove. I am not here to ridicule anyone (where did I do that, anyway? Is it wrong to point out how people have misunderstood FA criteria?) but to point out that the FA criteria have been confused -- length is not shorthand for comprehensiveness. Had I not completed my rewrite of the article (now allowing me to state that I am all for keeping this as an FA with a clear conscience), I would probably launch into a lengthy discussion of how and why I would not want to "vote" pending improvement in the article, but since that's done... Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: I find it interesting how people are so dedicated to saying that faults with this article should have been brought up on the talk page and yet at the same time permit other articles to be brought straight to here. Somehow, I just suspect that people are saying that here because it is a Beatles song article. Had it been any other article in Wikipedia, no one would have criticized the nomination if it bringing up issues was not done. Those same people, by staying silent about other FARCs that were brought straight here are seemingly accepting those, and yet, by doing as they say, not as they usually do, are cherry-picking which FARCS they criticize. That is what is annoying. Are you people going to criticize the nominations of Radar, Frankfurt School, and Economics for the same reasons as you are over here? Had I not brought it up here, I would be very pessimistic that the same people saying issues should have been brought up on Something's talk page would be doing the same for other FARC discussions.
  • Furthermore, I like to point out that raising issues on an articles talk page does not work. Ages ago there was a formal requirement here issues had to be brought up at the talk page of an article. If that step was not done, the FARC would be speedily kept. Once, Vowel was nominated for removal through that process. Bringing up the article's faults on the talk page had no effect on the article. It was only after vowel was FARC'd that people started trying to make the article worthy of being kept, which it did become. Furthermore, several articles have had requests for references or featured article review for months or almost a year, and no significant improvements have been made. Based on the results of other articles, bringing up issues about an article on its talk page DOES NOT WORK.
  • Finally, I like to point out that if we can't hold older FA's to today's standards through a grandfather clause, there would almost no point in the existance of the FARC page because there would be almost no possible grounds for removal. Are people here prepared to propose and argue for a new criteria that says: "Today's standards are not retroactive. Do not nominate artices for removal because they do not meet today's standards. Only nominate articles if they do not meet the standards of when they became a featured article." Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • For almost two years there has been a "gentlemens (and ladies) agreement" not to overdo applying newly increased standards to older FAs, especially having to do with references. Have a read through the nomination and talk page archives. There is no way they could have met standards that weren't in existence. So the compromise is to give the new requirements time to be implimented and specifically mention deficiencies on talk pages before nominating. New people to the process should make at least some effort to get to know the norms before jumping in with harsh words. I went through every FA that had no references and placed a request for references as part of that compromise. And further, it often does work to bring up issues on the talk page. Just because it doesn't always work, doesn't mean it's not the polite thing to do. People have requested many times that you do this, so ignoring that is not polite. - Taxman Talk 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My comments have nothing to do with the subject. I couldn't care a less whether it was a Beatles song, or a battle, or a biography, or a fundamental particle, or a city, or an order of chivalry. The point is that this article is not so clearly bad that it is a slam-dunk FARC candidate (considering the nominator's concerns: this article is not particularly poorly written; shortness is not a problem, so long as the article is comprehensive; it has references for its content; there is no mandatory format for references or external links (yet); and I will not dignify the "Beatles fan community" comment with a response beyond pointing out that not knowing who the - relatively well known - FAC voters are is a good reason not to assume bad faith).
In such cases, it would be polite to raise concerns on the talk page or with the main author, particularly when, as here, the main contributor to the article is still very active. If the article was much worse, and/or the original contributor was not around - as with some other current FARCs - I agree that there would not much point in adding concerns to the talk page, although doing so would never be wrong: the worst case scenario would be that an article in need of some help would remain a FAC a few days longer.
It continues to amaze me that people are so quick to nominate FARCs and vote "remove" without lifting a finger to improve the article. Radar is a case in point - making a few improvements earlier today was easy; just do it. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Assuming bad faith is a very easy thing to do (and apparently so is assuming the existence of a pro-Beatles cabal). For me, (assuming I regularly made the rounds of our FAs to check on how well they meet the criteria), I would give the article a couple of days' time if the problems are not totally devastating. As Giano and Taxman have noted, this article was far from beyond repair (and I have just spruced it up with footnotes, trimmed unsourced content and excess verbiage, etc.). Its scope is fairly narrow, making it easy to research and write new material if there was anything missing. (A questionable assertion, by the way; nobody has shown how this article wasn't comprehensive prior to the rewrite. Length is not shorthand for comprehensive. Anyone can write pages upon pages of meaningless prose.) Radar and economics, on the other hand, have an incredibly broad scope, making it far less likelier that anyone could fix them up without a lot of work. During the period that that work would take, it would be unconscionable to mark those articles as FAs. However, considering how quickly Something could be improved, it would not have mattered if it remained an FA for a couple of days longer than it might have been, no? Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in spite of the nominators patronising and dismissive comments this is yet another of the older FAs which met all the criteria when it passed the FA process, and is not so bad it needs a FARC today. Criticisms should have been aired on the talk page first....I'm not the least interested in the subject so I have no idea if the content is comprehensive or not, but that is not something that changes so I will assume it is. Well written is well written, that does not change - if it was so when it passed it must be now, all this talk now of compelling prose is frankly ridiculous, what compels some people makes others want to vomit. I'm glad Johnleemk "resists urge to laugh" because he has very little to laugh about, there is no reason why anyone should be expected to know the FAC commentators, and nothing to be ashamed in not knowing them. Having said that two of them are in fact highly respected Wikipedians who were refering to, writing, and referencing to suit the style of Wikipedia at the time. Johnleemk seems to be on to the subject now, so lets keep it as a FA. Finally, please Miss Madeline do not bolden and enlarge your comments, shouting is frankly rather vulgar, you should be able to make your point without that. Giano | talk 18:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"Well written is well written, that does not change - if it was so when it passed it must be now" Why is that? It's been heavily edited. Here's the diff from its promotion to now. Derex 17:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not that bad, I'm sure John will fix it up even better, and objections clearly should have been brought up on the talk page to at least give a chance to deal with them first. Think civility and politeness. If that doesn't work, only then bring it to FARC. - Taxman Talk 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't mention anything on the talk page because no one posts there. There are three comments, two of which are trolling related, and one which was posted only yesterday concerning the trolling content. It's not like Something is a highly maintained article that has constant discussion and I went over everyone's head. TheImpossibleMan 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's just simple politeness. And there is a chance it will work. But we can stop beating a dead horse because now you know. - Taxman Talk 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    Just because an active discussion means the page is watched does not imply that a lack of an active discussion means the page isn't watched. Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom Zzzzz 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; my rewrite is complete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Johnleemk's rewrite. — FireFox • T [14:26, 2 April 2006]
  • Comment The article has been revised extensively since yesterday; those voting remove based on the old version should check the new one and possibly reconsider. Phr 14:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment - I think its good that so many citations have been added, clearing up one of the major problems of the article. However, it still is not particularly well written. For example, in the lead: "After the breakup of The Beatles, it was covered by several singers such as Frank Sinatra, James Brown and Smokey Robinson, making it the second-most covered Beatles song after "Yesterday"." The fact that James Brown, Robinson, and Sinatra covered it is not related to the fact that it is the second-most covered Beatles song; they are only a few people. It was covered by hundreds, of other artists, and THAT is what makes it the second-most covered Beatles song, not the fact that a few famous artists did a version. Additionally, there are some very wonkish sentences. ""Something" was the only Beatles single in the United States to top the charts with a Harrison composition on the A-side." Maybe it would be simpler to say that Something is the only Harrison song to go #1?
Those are only two examples; the article is still poorly written. Considering that Featured Articles should feature "Brilliant prose", I still can't justify this being an FA. TheImpossibleMan 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed some of the most glaring examples I could find. I don't think that the sentence pertaining to cover versions is false, however. It states that the song was covered by many others, gives some examples, and then states that the former led to it being the second-most covered song after Yesterday. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My point was that it is gramatically incorrect. According to that wording, three cover versions make it the second most covered song Beatles song. TheImpossibleMan 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • More importantly, why is there no cite for that claim? Matt Deres 00:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Good job, Johnleemk. Anville 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think you guys are looking closely enough at the article. Its writing is still quite poor, even in the lead, and there are still references missing. Nevermind new standards - Featured Articles have always been required to be written brilliantly, and the prose in Something is still quite sub-par. TheImpossibleMan 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - this document needs a copyedit. At one point, it uses a colon to set off a quote, and then later uses a comma to do the same thing. Also, it has a section called "Awards and Accolades". *Resists urge to laugh*. It's quite funny that the primary author of this document had the chance to remove accolades and didn't, considering that according to him a review would make it non-neutral. Ditto for singling out the cover versions of one particular person. *Bursts out giggling* Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, Johnleemk said this at the FARC for Hey Jude [1]:
        "Acclaim from individuals is not really important; I find they often cause more problems than they solve, in that quoting reviews often makes the article sound POVed (just look at Anville's example, or some other stuff I've worked on like Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)). There's no need for it."
      • Based on his own words, this article is not NPOV. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Then edit Miss Madeline! We are all editors able to press the save button. If you feel there are faults - edit them, instead of just talking about them. Improve the page as you see fit, don't just sit there complaining Giano | talk 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • That comment was taken out of context entirely. I was referring to the practice of mentioning or citing reviews to indicate critical response, not to the practice of citing a review to comment on particular features of the song (I'm presuming you're referring to the quote from the reviewer in the section on structure). Otherwise, do tell me how to describe the lyrical features of "Something" without making the article weaselly, POV or both. (Just because I think it may be a simple and straightforward song doesn't mean others will; I personally know a number of Beatles fans who either think it's a hallmark of Harrison's musical genius, or the most simplistic tripe he ever wrote.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • So now apparently whether an article is an FA or not hinges on uniformity in how it begins quotes. And Sinatra's cover version is not given undue weight, considering that: 1) Sinatra was himself a famous singer; 2) Sinatra called it the greatest love song ever, something considered notable enough to be mentioned by two or three different sources for the article (while none of the other cover version producers' comments, if any, appear to have withstood the test of time), so all we are doing is reflecting the weight given to particular comments by our sources; 3) Sinatra's error in describing the song (which he committed on several occasions) has also been given weight by our sources; 4) Sinatra made a modification to the song which the original composer liked so much that he himself adopted it. Mentioning these facts is not undue weight. If the half the article was devoted to them, yes it would be. But a paragraph summarising what our sources have to say on this is not undue weight, especially when you consider that some of them do (namely Marck) devote half of their content on "Something" to Sinatra and his cover version. Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Johnleemk has done a great job here. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I was asked to vote on this page because the keep/unfeature vote was deadlocked. Last time I checked, however, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We discuss, but we do not vote. Anyway, as for my two cents on this article, I do agree that it is not perfect. There are grammatical issues, and the article might not be fully comprehensive, although that particular argument is nothing without example. But, seeing this discussion, I can tell that almost every person who has left a comment has a strong opinion on this article. I, however, don't know much about this article's history. I can't tell you who started it, or who its biggest editors have been, without looking at the history pages. I can't really pick out points of contention, or find problems with it. I can, however, say that if I were to personally evaluate it for Good Article status, I might pass it depending on my mood and alertness, and my sensitivity to errors and shortcomings. I can say that, if this article were presented to FAC, that I would recommend a promotion to Featured Article status based on its apparent completion of all requirements. I can say that while this article is not perfect, no article is perfect and we should never expect them to be as such. I can also say that based on what I have read, and based on what I have just said, I recommend a keep. Finally, I can say that I really need to cut back on the number of words I write; this is just a ridiculously large comment. - CorbinSimpson 03:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as revised; excellent. I have lightly copyedited. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after Johnleemk's excellent rewrite. --Terence Ong 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_removal_candidates_Something_6c93.html"