Wikipedia:Featured article review/She Loves You/archive1

She Loves You

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Johnleemk, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Sandy 17:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks sufficient inline citations, mostly using one source within its modest 5 external references (a violation of criterion 1. c.). It also quotes from a hefty number of people (Beatles members, George Martin etc.) without saying where the sources derive from. With the notable exception of one review in the "The Release" section, there is nothing else in the article which discusses the critical reaction of esteemed critics past and present. LuciferMorgan 15:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issues being brought up have to do mainly with its age - the article became featured long before even the first proper version of footnoting was created. The main issue is inline citations, which shouldn't be a problem. Talking about citing "esteemed critics" is one thing, but finding them is another. At best, one can usually only discuss the general reaction of critics (one the article covers decently, although perhaps not as in depth as might be desired), although on rare occasion, some reviews do have a particular eminence that is difficult to ignore. Music doesn't really have any outstanding critics whose opinions generally ought to be cited by a comprehensive article (unlike movies, which have, for instance, Roger Ebert). Johnleemk | Talk 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really agree, at least it's not been a problem for WP:KLF. Whilst there aren't so many named critics in music there are esteemed magazines - NME, Rolling Stone, and so on, and also - in Beatledom - a host of biographies and books which dissect the songs. There might not be a Roger Ebert equivalent, but NME or the newspapers of the time would be great. Good luck getting hold of em though! --kingboyk 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still feel that a "Critical Reaction" section would greatly benefit the article, and other recent song FA's have them. LuciferMorgan 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think expanding the article's discussion of critical reaction isn't a bad idea, I don't think we should have a whole section about it for the sake of it. I've read such song FAs, and they don't read very well to me because of how they are structured; presenting a number of different reviews simply because one can isn't very encyclopedic, and makes the article read rather disjointedly at times. Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a fair opinion - feel free to get a consensus of editors. I think some critical reaction sections are like you say awkward and bad, while some others are good - depends how they're written I think. Mainly though, all the quotes in the article need proper inline citations which is the main issue Wikipedians will seize upon. Like kingboyk said though, since it's a Beatles article there should be a host of sources to call upon. LuciferMorgan 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment No edits have been made to the article since 30 August, so once the fortnight window expires I suggest moving this to FARC. LuciferMorgan 14:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness, references and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove As the FA criteria concerns I raised haven't been addressed. LuciferMorgan 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per above. --Yannismarou 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]