Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Day in the Life/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A Day in the Life

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Johnleemk and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this Beatles song article to undergo FAR for mostly the same reasons I nominated "She Loves You" - in fact I feel there's a few other old Beatles song FAs which should undergo FAR for the same reasons, which I'll do at regular intervals (to give time for editors to address my concerns). If helpful work is being done to the articles I'm sure admins can keep the FARs open anyway. The Beatles are a great band, but a lot of their old FAs haven't kept up to the requirements of FA articles. The Beatles are a popular group and properly attract a lot of people to Wikipedia, so I don't think they should have misconceptions about the FA star. This article needs sufficient inline citations (1. c.). ALL direct quotations need to cite their sources, an example of this is quotes attributed to Beatles members. Other statements need proper citations also, an example being this line in the "Controversy" section;

"It has been claimed that the BBC's ban has not officially been lifted, but like other former BBC bans it has clearly fallen into abeyance, because the Corporation has played the song quite frequently in recent years."

Claimed? By who?

Another example;

"An urban legend was perpetuated that the intent was an officially sanctioned ban on the listed songs, but this has been denied by Clear Channel Communications."

Denied? A citation of Clear Channel Communications statement please?

A section dealing with the critical reaction of the song from esteemed critics / magazines past and present would also help the article, and since this is a Beatles song there must be a hefty trove of possible references to use. Other non-Beatles song articles have found these, so this article shouldn't find a problem. The "Cover Versions" section is way too listy and lets down the article. This section needs a proper intro, and all the sentences in the section need to be tied together to make a cohesive article (1. a.) which will address the disjointed prose. The chart success, or lack of, alongside the differences between versions, is a possible avenue to explore. LuciferMorgan 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • There isn't any need to point out the need for inline citations when we're all well aware of them. However, the fact is that practically all of the article content at time of featuring (much of which is still in the article today) used the web references listed in the collated references section (excluding the Beatles message board cited, which isn't a reliable source by any means). I'm not disputing the need for inline citations, but they aren't critical for articles which rely mainly on a limited number of web sources - inline citations are mainly useful for citing print sources because of the need to refer to a specific page/article in a publication. The same doesn't apply to web sources unless you're using a few dozen (or more) of them, in which case things would get messy. For instance, almost all quotations in the article are from the same webpage - a Beatles quote database. Our purposes could be served just as well by remarking in the references section that "All quotations unless otherwise stated are from source so and so."
Anyhow, most Beatles song articles have the same issues - no inline citations (even though in many cases, I would say they aren't exactly critical because most of these articles rely on web sources) and degradation because nobody frequently pruned these articles of fancrufty crap like inane lists of cover versions. Johnleemk | Talk 08:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I stand by what I said in my nomination. Also I would like to point out when someone nominates an article for FAR they have to say why - so there IS every need to point out the necessity of inline citations. By the way, I make enough comments on FAR's and FARC's to know.
And anyhow, I would say inline citations ARE critical if they have the FA star - if other FA's are required to have inline citations, I don't see why the Beatles should be an exception. Criterion 1. c. of "What is a featured article?" isn't met by this nominated article - I suggest Johnleemk makes himself familiar with the text when saying inline citations aren't needed in FA's (even when directly quoting as well?). Other FA's cite from books (I suggest using www,print.google.com), so why can't this one?
As for the fancrufty stuff in the article which nobody has taken out, where was the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles? The "Cover versions" section could have been made into readable prose which all ties together anyway. The bottom line is FA criteria standards are significantly higher than when this was nominated, and once this initially achieved FA all the contributors rested on their laurels. LuciferMorgan 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • cough* I suggest you reread what I said: "I'm not disputing the need for inline citations". The point I'm making is that they're not critical for this article. An article which would have about 30 footnotes pointing to the same half a dozen notes is desirable, but not critical. As for print sources, I suggest you heed your own advice and look at the FA guidelines and/or WP:CITE. Web sources are just as acceptable as print ones as long as they meet WP:RS. Some other editors have cited books for the article, but as I do not own them, I cannot add inline citations for them.
I'm not active in the Wikiproject, so I can't answer your question, but the issue at hand is whether coverage of the cover versions would be encyclopedic. Every song, especially one by a band such as the Beatles, has a lot of cover versions, so we need to be selective in discussing only the most notable ones. The cover version list in the article did nothing to indicate notability for these cover versions; simply because a famous person sang a song (or sampled a few seconds of it, as appears to be the case for a number of covers listed) doesn't mean it's worth mentioning in an article (otherwise Yesterday (song) would be hundreds of kilobytes big). Yes, readable prose could be produced. But would this be prose worthy of inclusion? I don't think so. There aren't any cover versions of "A Day in the Life" that are so iconic/well-known that an article excluding them would not be comprehensive. Johnleemk | Talk 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A quote from "What is a featured article?" criterion 1. c. - "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations." I have looked at FA guidelines, and have time and time again during FAR. This is why my concerns are actionable. Articles actually fail to gain FA status nowadays due to lack of inline citations, and they lose their status based on this also.
www.print.google.com is where you can view a limited number of pages from a book. Web sources are indeed just as acceptable, though you said there is "a limited number" so I pointed out that this isn't reasoning for the article's 1. c. weaknesses and how to get around this. The editors who placed these DIRECT quotes in without citing the name of the interviewer, the magazine/newspaper and publication dates need to address the problem. I think readable prose on "Cover versions" is worthy of inclusion in a summary fashion. LuciferMorgan 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to miss the point that we're vehemently agreeing with one another WRT inline citations. I never said we shouldn't be adding inline citations to this article; what I said was that the lack of inline citations is not a major problem because it doesn't substantially detract from the article. You don't need to act as if I'm a dinosaur when it comes to inline citations or as if I haven't read the relevant guidelines.
Practically all the direct quotes are from the same (web) source. The reason for this is that this source collated the quotes from other sources. Also, as long as the number of sources provide a wide spectrum of views about the article's topic, I don't think the article would fail to meet the referencing requirements for FA. (And I don't think the reliability of the sources is in dispute, since a number of their authors also authored books which are in the top Google Print results for the song title.) And I agree readable prose is worthy for inclusion, but the question is what do we put in the readable prose? If none of the cover versions stand out, how are we to select them for inclusion? (This seems to be the case, btw; none of the sources I've reviewed mention cover versions, unlike with other, more-covered Beatles songs such as "Something" or "Yesterday", where writing a cover version section can be quite easily done.) Do we choose by what we favour/prefer? I'd suggest that contravenes NPOV. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to say the prose isn't in dispute on my behalf, with the exception of the "Cover versions" section which has now been removed. Notability should be decided by what the music critics have commented upon, even if small. If one complains there's none, I'd like to say this is the Beatles. In other words the person isn't looking hard enough. On another note, whoever said we choose what we favour? I didn't. This would reach GA in my eyes, though for an FA it falls short (check All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) for what meets current FA criteria as far as song articles go).
Fair enough you feel inline citations isn't a major problem, but I feel it is a major problem though for an FA - as for the "dinosaur" comment, feel free to have your own interpretations of what I'm saying. I've said it a 100 times, and I'll say it another 100 times until my message gets through, 1. c. of "What is a featured article?" is a requirement which isn't met by this article, not a guideline. Requirement. Feel free to "act" as if I've said something totally different, no doubt you will.
These web sources should have have cited their sources for direct quotes, and so should this article - the interviewer, the name of the magazine/newspaper, the date of issue, everything. One source isn't acceptable for inline citations, as this provides only the view of the author in question.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) .
I'd add that The JAMs' "All You Need Is Love" was a small-scale independent release by a band who were at the time "underground" (6500 copies were pressed plus however many of the picture sleeve 12"; I don't know how many of the latter but I'd have an educated guess at no more than 10,000). "A Day in the Life" is one of the most acclaimed songs in rock history by the band who have generated more column inches than just about anybody in the twentieth century.
I keep saying to WP:BEATLES folks "get the books out and start citing" but unfortunately it just doesn't happen. I wish I could take a lead but - besides being too busy - all my books are boxed away at the moment.
There's other sources though: most libraries in the English speaking world will have at least one book with at least some coverage of the band, and many will have one or more biographies; they'll also have archives of old newspapers. Universities often subscribe to ProQuest or similar, an online newspaper archive. There's simply no shortage of reliable, citeable material on The Beatles or this song. The argument "but we've relied on web sources so we don't need citations" just doesn't cut it for Featured Articles; we (I can say "we" because besides being pretty much a one-man WP:KLF at the moment I'm also the founder of WP:BEATLES - how ironic!) shouldn't be relying on these sources in the first place. Most of The Beatles articles (although not all) just aren't anywhere near FA standard sadly, and mostly for this reason. --kingboyk 17:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
(deindent) Are there critics who have commented? Undoubtedly. Have these critics anything to say about cover versions? If they have, these comments are rather hard to find. AMG, which nearly always has something to say about at least one cover version, is silent in this regard, as is every other source. The fact is, none of the cover versions of this song have made enough of an impact to be worthy of comment in a comprehensive encyclopaedia article; as I said, half of the ostensible cover versions originally listed were just sampling the song, so they don't even count as covers. And as for the implication that I'm strawmanning, I was attempting to explore possibilities for including a discussion of covers; however, as I noted, the only grounds we have for selecting what covers to, well, cover, are our own personal preferences, because critics are silent about cover versions.
You are taking the literal approach to reading the rules. The mischief rule, which looks at the purpose we implemented inlien citations for, indicates that inline citations, although (as always) desirable, are not critical because there are other ways of meeting the intent of our policies concerning referencing. For instance, practically all quotations are from the same secondary source, so one could fulfill the intent of policy (which is to identify the precise source for each statement an article makes) by simply noting that "Unless otherwise stated, all quotations are from source X." As for one source alone being unacceptable, this fails to account for the fact that our lone source itself is based on a number of identified sources - it merely collates the material desired (in this case quotations) from the sources and places them in one document. As for your demand that we cite the primary source for each quotation - that's not practical very often. (The one exception would be the famous David Sheff interview with Lennon published in the January 1981 issue of Playboy, and even then, I don't see how you expect editors to dig up the specific page number for quotations from a magazine issue over a quarter of a century old, especially when the only way for most people to get their hands on this interview is in web form.) Secondary sources should be (and unless we've recently changed the policy in question) and are acceptable for things like this; if we can get the primary source, it's a bonus, but secondary sources ought to be fine. Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Secondary sources are fine but they should be reliable and that means preferably books.
  • Rogers, Joyce A. (1996). Amuse Yourself!. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2004. --- Amuse Yourself, Joyce A. Rogers: reliable source??? redlinked blog site?
  • The Beatles Studio. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2004. --- Beatles.com.hk, presumably unofficial tribute site. Who's the author and what's their pedigree?
  • Lewisohn, Mark, The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, Hamlyn, 1998 --- Now we're talking. The "bible" written by arguably the foremost Beatles expert.
  • The Beatles Anthology, Chronicle, 2000 --- Not bad, but uses need to be cited (with page numbers) as this might be a primary source. We need the ISBNs too.
--kingboyk 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine using the secondary sources for now if they're reliable as kingboyk, and if this is the case, but if Wikipedians can gradually find the primary sources feel free to replace the secondary sources. One secondary source though I feel is unacceptable as the author has their own feelings regarding the songs which comes through in texts. Hopefully somebody will be able to work on this FA sometime. LuciferMorgan 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that secondary sources from reliable authors are the preferred sources on Wikipedia. See WP:RS: "secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references." --kingboyk 18:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think this applies to direct quotations from actual music interviews, though secondary sources would be used mostly for critical reactions and so on. LuciferMorgan 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Move to FARC, lacking citations throughout, hopefully they will be addressed with additional FARC period. Sandy 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Featured article criteria concerns are insufficient citaions (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 10:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. I don't see any improvements. Pooooor sources. Insufficient inline citations. Some stubby paragraphs. I hope some people will work on the article and I'll have to change my vote.--Yannismarou 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Per my original issues highlighted in FAR, which yet to have been addressed. I hope some people work on this article like Yannismarou does. LuciferMorgan 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Issues not addressed in a month of review. Sandy 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per all above. No one is making a serious effort to improve this.UberCryxic 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)