Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Beatles/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Beatles

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Sandy 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This article was promoted over two years ago, see original FA. The current version is vastly different and in my opinion fails criterions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I will highlight a few major things:

  • Poorly sourced; citations are slim.
  • The Beatles had an immense impact on popular music. This isn't discussed anywhere except in the lead (The Beatles' influence on popular culture, an unsourced article, is linked to in passing). If the subject is too broad to be contained in the main article, then it should be succinctly summarized in its own section with a link to a child article (i.e. summary style).
  • The influences section is an overly long list. And it probably shouldn't be isolated in its own section, but rather assimilated into the section(s) that describe their music. It also has random historical anecdotes like when Bob Dylan introduced them to pot.
  • The films section is likewise overly long.
  • The current structuring is disjointed and does not seem the most logical.
  • Overall the writing quality is poor, which can be expected from a popular subject that gets 500 edits per month.
  • Fair use images and sound clips don't have rationales. Punctured Bicycle 14:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The problems with this article in my opinion all stem from what should be Wikipedia's strength, and it's your penultimate point: this is a very popular article and it attracts a lot of edits. Most of the edits are of low quality and are of the "mention everything and the kitchen sink" variety. Unfortunately when WP:BEATLES was created we inherited an article that was already in very bad shape, so all we've been able to do so far is watch it judiciously and at least try to prevent it getting any worse.

I agree that in it's current state the article is at best borderline. It probably deserves to be delisted. However, I think that would be a terrible shame for Wikipedia (and, less importantly) the WikiProject. Are we really willing to defeature one of our top articles? I would hope not. No, much better would be to work to bring it up to the modern standards for Featured Articles. We have plenty of eager helpers at WP:BEATLES (and I have taken an article through FAC before) but the "troops" will need expert help to get it into the shape it should be in. I ask then that instead of considering delisting we develop a plan to make it one of the best FAs on Wikipedia.

While we're at it, the nomination mentions The Beatles' influence on popular culture. We have another fork at History of The Beatles. We need to merge these pieces back together or at least refork. We have started planning this at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history and discussing the problems of the forks and cruft in The Beatles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history.

If we could get a plan together either here or at a WikiProject page, and if we could have some volunteers who know how to write properly referenced brilliant prose, how to structure articles and so on, I or one of my colleagues can send out a bulletin to project members and get working. --kingboyk 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as the members of the WikiProject are willing to lend their time and work on the suggestions given in this review the article will likely remain featured. After all, one of the main objective of FAR is to uphold and maintain the quality of featured articles. I will read the article before the end of the week and present some suggestions. Joelito (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As a member/participant of The Beatles WikiProject I would welcome the views of a third party indicating where the article needs improving. Sometimes it is all the usual contributors can do to ensure that grammer and spelling of edits are correct and sources cited, let alone reviewing whether it is germaine to the article/section. A concise review will likely identify areas which need addressing. With any luck work can be started before said sections are edited out of recognition.LessHeard vanU 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Punctured Bicycle has given a correct overview of the article, and I echo his opinions. As for being defeatured, although we shouldn't be discussing this right now, I don't think it would be shame just because it is "popular" - featured articles are meant to showcase wikipedia's best written articles, not what is the most popular. Popularity is irrelevant - the article's quality is the issue. I can't see it being defeatured though while on the subject, because a ton of Beatles fans'll most likely object, even if the problems aren't addressed. LuciferMorgan 18:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. If you look at our assessment of the article at the top of the page you'll see we've acknowledged it isn't up to scratch. This article's deterioration is Wikipedia's problem - if it had been locked and nobody was allowed to edit it we wouldn't be having the discussion now. If you think it's not a problem for the wiki system that a popular FA can be allowed to get into this state, and it's not a problem for the enyclopedia to have a less than top quality article on The Beatles, I'll have to disagree with you I'm afraid.
All that said, my point wasn't that it shouldn't be delisted because it's popular. By all means delist it if it doesn't improve. My point is that it would be preferable to bring it up to scratch. I'm unable and unwilling to do it by myself, but I'm happy to help with the work or coordination. --kingboyk 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It has (possibly) deteriorated from its FA status because of its popularity, therefore it seems sensible to ensure it maintains a standard which reflects well upon Wikipedia. The article will continue to attract readers (and therefore editors) whether it keeps its status or not, but if it is of a FA standard it will encourage contributions to a similar level. In this way the popularity of the subject matter certainly does have a bearing on keeping its FA classification.LessHeard vanU 21:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of us here might be able to pitch in and help: since there are different WikiProjects, can you just give us a talk page where you all are coordinating the work, and we can move conversations about ongoing work to there? Are you using the article talk page, or a WikiProject talk page? It's very exciting to find a group actually willing to work on improving an article :-) Sandy 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We have the page I mentioned above Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history; we could coordinate work there, or we can start a new one. As long as it's a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles it doesn't really matter where it is :) Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles or something like that would be fine. Thanks everyone for their feedback so far and in particular to Tony for diving in and doing some editing. --kingboyk 21:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you said LessHeard vanU - I think you misinterpreted what I was saying though. Long ago it met FA criteria, but it hasn't kept up to FA standards. I didn't say it should be delisted because its popular, but rather it isn't a good reason to keep it as FA based on popularity. My point was that an article's quality is what should keep it as FA, and that popularity is an irrelevant issue.

Indeed, it is in wikipedia's best interests to have such a popular article as FA, but as long as it actually reaches the required FA criteria in the first place like other less popular FA articles have to also strive towards. In other words, just because its the Beatles it doesn't mean FA criteria is more flexible. LuciferMorgan 02:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your points, LuciferMorgan, as I feel that the article is not of the same standard as when it became a FA. I am commenting that maintaining the standard of a "popular" subject is more difficult, given the variety and volume of subsequent contributions, as opposed to a perhaps more esoteric article. A review would be an opportunity to address areas where the "quality control" has not been as rigorously applied as may have been desirable. I also maintain that keeping popular subjects to such standards, whilst hard work, is perhaps more beneficial to Wikipedia owing to the volume of hits such subjects creates. I agree that the standard should be the same as everyone, but suggesting that it is recognised some articles are harder to maintain to that standard.LessHeard vanU 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've copy-edited the long lead to kick-start the process—only about 40 changes. Who else will help? It's not poorly written, and is excellent in some respects. Should it be an upper-case "T" in all instances of "The Beatles"? Tony 08:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see the archived talk pages regarding capitalising the "t" of The in "The Beatles". To summarise, we took the advice of third party grammarians on Wikipedia who concluded that the current format is correct, and it is Project Policy (as is the use of British English, generally).LessHeard vanU 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a copy edit for old times sake and a lot more inline citations will bring it up to scratch. A small number (emphasis on small) of paragraphs are stubby though - whether to leave them alone, combine them with other paragraphs, are expand them, its up to everyone to decide. The influences section - can influences be instead mentioned as each album is cited and briefly critiqued throughout the group's career? The influences section is something reviewers will highlight if they think it isnt up to FA - another course of action would be to keep the section but instead remove the bullet points, give it a good copy edit, and tie together the disjointed paragraphs in the section and discuss how the band's musical endeavours changed over time, while citing some Beatles music experts with their comments here and there. LuciferMorgan 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe some of the "random historical anecdotes" belong on the undernourished Beatles History page. As for the influence section being too long, I doubt that's possible.--Crestville 09:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Status? Needs more citations and Summary style, move to FARC. Sandy 20:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. But let's hope this one is saved in FARC. Tony 13:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (2c), length and summary style (5), images (4), and writing quality (2a). Marskell 19:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove (if shortcomings aren't addressed) The article basically needs more inline citations (2c). Also, my views on the influences section have fallen on deaf ears. I think it would be much more interesting to document (with appropriate inline citations) what the musical influences of the Beatles were and how they changed from their earlier years to their later years, as opposed to the bullet point format which creates disjointed prose and breaks up the overall flow of the article (2a). Also, the bullet point style isn't encyclopaedic (not in my opinion anyway - Wikipedians please note this is just my personal opinion). LuciferMorgan 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove The fact that this article is completely different than the one promoted two years ago is reason enough for it to have to go through the FAC process again. Aside from some copyeditting, the problems outlined above have not been addressed adequately since the article was nominated here: limited citations for such a big topic, poor structure/organization/layout, not comprehensive (their influence needs to be discussed), etc. Punctured Bicycle 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per all of the above, and still lacking thorough inline citations. (I can't believe I'm voting against the Beatles :-( Sandy 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Status. I don't want to remove something where there's been fifty edits in three days (much was reversion, but still!). Is anyone working on this? Marskell 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Sad to say there hasn't been much improvement in the article, and most of the recent edits were reversions or tinkering rather than adding references or brilliant prose. The article clearly isn't up to modern FA standards. It might be unusual for a member of the associated WikiProject to support removal, but fair's fair and there's been plenty of time given for the article to be improved. --kingboyk 09:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)