Talk:Northern Songs/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General

Plant's Strider seems to have done next to no work on this at all. Still happy to GA review the article on its own merits, but his nomination looks a bit bad faith.
There's quite a bit of overlap with Sony/ATV Music Publishing, though it's a different organisation. Might be worth seeing if some of the sources can be reused.
I have a number of Beatles book sources myself, and might suggest stuff from them as I walk through this.
No dead links
No disambigs

Lead

"Northern Songs was a company" - what sort of company? I think this needs clarifying.
AFAIK, all quotes need citations everywhere, and the guidelines in WP:LEADCITE suggesting they are merely a matter of taste does not apply.

Done above two. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Northern Songs was dissolved in 1995" - needs expanding a bit to say exactly what happened (ie: it's now part of Sony/ATV MP)

Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early history and foundation

It's probably worth just explaining how Ardmore & Beechwood came to publish the initial recordings - presumably this was a de facto case of signing to EMI. Also AFAIK the Ardmore & Beechwood published songs are the only ones McCartney has publishing rights over - not sure if this is on topic for this article.

"Lennon and McCartney thought they would own the whole company" - this might want clarifying. Why did they think this? Who told them.

Are the dashes in the second paragraph consistent with WP:MOS? I can never remember.

To us, he was the expert". <--- full stop goes before the quote

capital gains tax needs a wikilink. Also stock exchange terms could do with being wikilinked as they are not necessarily obvious to the layman

Can we list how much the life insurance policy would be worth in today's money (accounting for inflation)?

Did the Beatles really have 2,900 versions of their songs by the summer of 1966? Even being the most popular band on the planet then, I'm not sure there were that many bands around (though I could be wrong). Might be worth seeing if a second source can be found for this.

If "Harrison also signed with the company in 1965", how was it possible that he "founded his own publishing company, Mornyork Ltd. in September 1964"?

"Sing Song Ltd. was used for a brief time" - don't understand what this means.

First sale

Might be worth rewording the first sentence. It currently gives the impression that Lennon and McCartney tried to renegotiate their publishing deal with Dick James immediately upon Epstein's death, as opposed to some time later.

"acting brusquely towards him" needs expanding and citing. The reference given, "Cross", is too vague.

"Early in 1969, James and Silver abruptly sold their shares". Are we sure they did this abruptly? Can we cite their point of view on this as a better balance? The Daily Telegraph source gives the impression that James didn't want anything to do with Allen Klein and sold his shares to Lew Grade because of that.

"The financial power of Grade, their adversary in the bidding war, ensured that the music written by the two Beatles passed into the control of ATV." sounds a bit too WP:FANPOV. He got control because he was sold the most shares - that's it.

Second paragraph seems to start with two points of view mashed together with "Note:" This wants consolidating.

McCartney secretly buying additional shares needs a citation

When Northern Songs was originally floated 5 million shares were offered and Lennon and McCartney received just over 15% each 751,000 shares. McCartney never bought any secret shares. The discrepancy is due to Lennon transferring just over 100,000 shares into a Trust Fund for Julian Lennon as part of his divorce settlement. Citation: http://www.rockmine.com/Beatles/BeatleCo.html 121.99.83.195 (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More later.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After 1980: Offered to McCartney, acquired by Michael Jackson

I don't understand what the citation at the end of "for £20 million pounds" is supposed to be referencing.

"not able to make a joint acquisition" needs clarifying - this source has some more specifics

"McCartney informed Jackson about the financial value of music publishing" doesn't seem to be obviously cited in this referenced source (unless I've just missed it)

This source is suppose to cite McCartney earning £24,400,000 from songs by other artists, but doesn't appear to. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source - can you check?

"We had given Paul McCartney first right of refusal but Paul didn't want it at that time" needs a more clear citation as this can be considered contentious

This source is supposed to cite that Jackson bought the catalogue for either £30.5M or $50M but doesn't (a search for 30 and 50 in the text returns no results)

"Koppelman/Bandier" should read "Koppelman and Bandier

Is the Letterman interview available on a physical medium? If a member of the general public cannot access it, it is not verifiable

1995-Present: Sony merger, McCartney acquires EMI songs

This source does not appear to cite the $95M or £59,052,000 figure quoted.

Should the financial figures relating to Jackson not be in dollars first, given he would have made the transactions in the US?

This source should cite that the finalised details from Jackson's refinancing deal with Sony were not made public, but doesn't appear to.

That's all the article done. I need to have a think about whether or not there's anything missing from it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion, we've decided mutually to end this review so the issues can be tackled at a leisurely pace. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]