Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Day in the Life/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] A Day in the Life
See below. Johnleemk | Talk 01:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- See also WP:PR listing.
- Support: informative, interesting, decent length, has references. My only comment is: why is it that anything that's Beatles related always seems to be such high quality work? :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. An excellent article. (Could use another picture though) Cyopardi 18:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support, but, is the sound bite and picture used with permission? 16:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Object. Overall this is very close but: 1. I have some concerns with the many extended quotes without attribution. 2. I have some concerns with some of the references cited; several are fan sites which also contain quotes and stories, some of dubious veracity. There is plenty of published material from the principals; we shouldn't need to resort to third-tier websites for details. 3. The Clear Channel thing is a cancer, it has got to go or at the very least be rewritten and moved to someplace less prominent. Jgm 18:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)- OK, I am interested enough in this topic to have taken the initiative to edit the article to address my own concerns (as well as a general tightening, sectioning, and cleanup). I now think it's at FA quality and would vote to support, however, it's perhaps now different enough from the version that was supported by others that it should be re-listed, sent back to peer review, or the prior supporters should indicate continued support or lack thereof, or whatever is consitent with policy or precedent on articles that are significantly edited during FA candidacy. Jgm 15:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hm...that might be a good idea, as although I can't put my finger on it, there just seems to be something wrong with the overall tone of the prose. Just my opinion, though, and a not very well-substantiated one, since I can't find anything wrong in specific. Incidentally, what happened to the mention of Lennon's "sugar plum fairy" counting? Just curious, not really important or anything. By the way, I just happen to be listening to the song right now. Funny coincidence. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The quotes are all obtained from the references — I thought that was obvious? The huge majority of quotes, if not all, are from a site which itself has references (The Beatles Ultimate Experience, which seems to be considered the most credible site relating to the Beatles on the internet, next to their official site and Amazon), or a page which was nothing more than reproduction of a 1967 AFP story (Ottawa Beatles Site). I understand that the sites are fan sites, but I always go over Google looking for other sources to corroborate the anecdotes mentioned. beatles-discography.com has provided a bibliography here. Going to the principal sources would be good, but I don't have the bling bling to buy them — books are rather expensive in Malaysia. As for the Clear Channel thing, this thing's been passed around as a chain letter like crap. A good deal of people have heard about it, so removing it is the last thing we want to do, as it could leave the wrong impression that the song was banned instead of just being listed as a song not recommended for airplay. Johnleemk | Talk 08:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I completely understand that your resources are limited, but I really don't think we want Wikipedia articles to be regurgitations of mostly-unreferenced websites, and I don't think an article put together this way should be a FA without being thoroghly checked against primary sources. Case in point: there are a dozen websites, including AMG that will tell you that the name of the band Black Sabbath was taken from the title of "an occult novel by Dennis Wheatley". The only problem is that it's not true: there is in fact no such novel and published interviews with the principals give an entirely different story. But the Wheatley version is on the web somehow and has spread to most sites that deal with the subject. The point is that we want to be better than fansites that uncritically parrot other websites. Looking at some principal sources just now, I can find at least two instances where the current article differs from what is documented (not to mention the 15-bar vs. 24-bar difference recently corrected). Again, I understand you don't have access to all the primary sources: that's the beauty of the collaborative approach: somebody will, and in the meantime it's best not to use tertiary sources that may or may not get properly fact-checked. I know I am in a minority here, but rather than simply complain, I will try to update this article to reflect the primary sources I have at hand. Jgm 01:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The difference is that while the rumours may be widespread, some minority will have a different story. Surely the Black Sabbath story isn't so predominant that every site on the web dealing with the subject parrots it? The sites I got most of the information from do provide references from published books, and unless you really think they twisted those words, I don't see what's wrong. If there's a website on the internet that has spread stories of this sort, I haven't found it — yet. These sites don't parrot other websites, because much of the information they have is unique, so it's either from their references or fabricated from whole cloth. Interestingly, of all the pages on Google about "A Day in the Life", Wikipedia and our mirrors are the only ones who named the gap in the song as 15 bars long. Could be a starting point for research on whether our original version was correct and the others are wrong, or vice-versa. I appreciate the effort to add references, btw. Johnleemk | Talk 09:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I completely understand that your resources are limited, but I really don't think we want Wikipedia articles to be regurgitations of mostly-unreferenced websites, and I don't think an article put together this way should be a FA without being thoroghly checked against primary sources. Case in point: there are a dozen websites, including AMG that will tell you that the name of the band Black Sabbath was taken from the title of "an occult novel by Dennis Wheatley". The only problem is that it's not true: there is in fact no such novel and published interviews with the principals give an entirely different story. But the Wheatley version is on the web somehow and has spread to most sites that deal with the subject. The point is that we want to be better than fansites that uncritically parrot other websites. Looking at some principal sources just now, I can find at least two instances where the current article differs from what is documented (not to mention the 15-bar vs. 24-bar difference recently corrected). Again, I understand you don't have access to all the primary sources: that's the beauty of the collaborative approach: somebody will, and in the meantime it's best not to use tertiary sources that may or may not get properly fact-checked. I know I am in a minority here, but rather than simply complain, I will try to update this article to reflect the primary sources I have at hand. Jgm 01:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I am interested enough in this topic to have taken the initiative to edit the article to address my own concerns (as well as a general tightening, sectioning, and cleanup). I now think it's at FA quality and would vote to support, however, it's perhaps now different enough from the version that was supported by others that it should be re-listed, sent back to peer review, or the prior supporters should indicate continued support or lack thereof, or whatever is consitent with policy or precedent on articles that are significantly edited during FA candidacy. Jgm 15:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support: Very well-written and informative. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:00, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. An interesting and well written article. I certainly don't think that the use of (suitable) fan sites as references is a problem. It's likely a very large amount of the information on Wikipedia is from such sources and, if carefully chosen and cross-checked, that's just fine. (Of course, if other sources are available they will always be helpful too) -- sannse (talk) 14:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Can I take it that the Evans who counted the bars is the same as the wikified Mal Evans who set off the alarm clock (can one trigger an alarm clock?) and the equally wikified Mal Evans who played 1.5 pianos? If so, can the full name be given first and linked and the other two occurences be delinked? Assuming this sorted, Support new version. Filiocht 15:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
