Talk:Jim and Mary McCartney/Archive 1

Start
I am surprised that this article has taken so long to be started. --andreasegde 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am throwing things in, but the actual layout of it all is a bit confused at the moment. I have also upgraded this to a B. --andreasegde 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Names
How do we deal with this stuff about McCartney Sr., and McCartney Jr.? Should I write Mr. & Mrs. McCartney? (I don't think so...:) Referring to Jim, Paul etc., seems wrong, but how do we tackle this thorny problem? --andreasegde 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

mis-type?
Like many from Liverpool, the McCartneys were of Irish descent, although is unknown if Jim's grandfather, James McCartney II, was born in Liverpool or England. Didn't  you mean "Liverpool or Ireland"? Tvoz | talk 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops... will correct. Thanks, Tvoz. --andreasegde 17:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also grateful that Tvoz changed catholic to Catholic (as I also feel it should be so) but it isn't in the books I'm reading. --andreasegde 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup - Wikipedia MOS. Tvoz | talk 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes-sirree, bob. Pity you weren't around when we had that awful war about the Beatles or The Beatles. --andreasegde 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was around - I was just hiding from the incoming missiles. Tvoz | talk 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a mess at the moment, but ít will get better, and will join the ranks of The Beatles' GA articles. --andreasegde 01:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt - I figure the best approach is to let you get the whole thing out and then we can play with organization. Tvoz | talk 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Miscellany
Shouldn't this be at Jim and Mary McCartney? Also, are there redirects from Mary McCartney, Jim McCartney, etc.? Thanks for starting this, andreasegde. --Lukobe 19:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You could be right. I'm happy with either. I have changed it... --andreasegde 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

About redirects: I did one up for Jim McCartney, but Mary McCartney is about Paul's daughter, so I added a disambiguation tag on that article pointing to this one, and one on this article too. If anyone has a better way of handling this, by all means do it. Tvoz | talk 23:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And since nothing is ever easy, I realized I had to cross-dab James with this article too. James Paul McC redirects to Paul - I don't think a dab is needed on son James for Paul though. If anyone is still following this, let me know. Tvoz | talk 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys! --Lukobe 08:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tvoz, I don't know how you do it. I was confused after the first sentence... :) --andreasegde 09:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read the text, James Louis (Paul's son) is actually the fifth James McCartney in six generations! --andreasegde 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mohan or Mohin?
Mary McCartney says grandma is Mary Mohin McCartney; here it says Mohan. Fix one please! Tvoz | talk 23:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the text - he changed it from Mohin to Mohan at school so as to not be confused with the hordes of other Mohins. --andreasegde 09:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but that's Mary's father - was his daughter known as Mohan or Mohin or did she use both names too? Tvoz | talk  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * She used Mohan. --andreasegde 16:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have changed it to this: "Mary's father's birth name was Owen Mohin—but he permanently changed his name to Mohan when he was at school to avoid confusion with many other pupils called Mohin—was born in Tullynamalrow, County Monaghan, Ireland, in 1880.." --andreasegde 16:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks - that does it. Tvoz | talk 07:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead and links
You may have noticed that I am refraining from putting too much in the Lead and putting links in so as to not confuse myself by having to delete repeated links later. --andreasegde 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have had to de-link a few that were repeated. Null problemo, mein Herr. --andreasegde 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps
Should the map links go in a separate section or be left in Notes? --andreasegde 10:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The bets are off
If you wanted to bet a confirmed bachelor like Jim (40-years-old) would meet career-obsessed Mary (31) in an air-raid shelter, and then later produce a musical offspring in the shape of Macca, any bookie would take you on. --andreasegde 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GA
Right, that's it. It's up for a GAR. --andreasegde 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Extra
I have put some songs in and have given this article a copy-edit. --andreasegde 12:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Golden Slumbers.ogg
Fair use rationale for Image:Let Em In.ogg

All samples have been taken out. --andreasegde 10:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:
 * 1) I would feel more comfortable with the fair use in the infobox picture if it used the fair use template or similar format just so that fair use can be clearly determined. Same with Angela_Ruth_and_JIm_1964.jpg.
 * 2) As albums are covered by fair-use only in the case when they are being used to "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question," the image cannot be used to illustrate the subject of Mary McCartney. Furthermore, the image is lacking a fair-use rationale. The only way that this image would be acceptable is if it were the only visual representation of Mary McCartney ever created and published. For the same reason Apple4.jpg cannot be used in this article, despite the interesting fair use rationale.
 * 3) The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize every major point brought up in the article (for example, it does not touch upon Jim's second marriage). Also, since citations are not required in the lead, POV statements such as "Mary was a warm and caring mother" should be avoided if possible.
 * 4) All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
 * 5) "With her wavy, unruly hair, and a distracted look in her eyes, nobody noticed Mary as she sat quietly in an armchair." (Marriage) This is not a very encyclopedic sentence and should be either reworded or removed. The overall tone of the article edges dangerously close to be unencyclopedic, but this statement certainly needs to be removed. It also raises some questions above the POV of the article.
 * 6) Speaking of encyclopedic, I'm not so certain that including the exact addresses of everywhere they lived is encyclopedic.
 * 7) The "Second marriage" section is far too short to justify even a Level Three heading. It should be either expanded or made a paragraph of "Marriage" (renamed to "Marriages")
 * 8) "Jim and Mary McCartney had children late in their lives, later than was usual according to the attitude at the time. They were respected by their children as loving parents, although both Jim and Mary taught their children discipline and respect for others. They encouraged their children to grow musically as well as intellectually and concentrated on making sure they grew up in a family-oriented household. Jim continued this tradition with his adopted daughter, Ruth McCartney." (Children) This sentence is extremely POV without a citation. Admittedly, some of this this is covered in the section, but not enough to merit such uncited POV that serves a very limited purpose in an encyclopedic context. "Later than was usual according to the attitude at the time" needs a citation, at the very least.

These are just the most pressing concerns regarding the article. The article reads like it was taken directly out of the book that is cited, full of excess details and POVish statements that, while substantiated by references, raise deep concerns about the encyclopedic tone of this article. Also, I started a copy edit, but gave up by the children section, as this needs some considerable work as well. Normally when a review encounters a small number of problems, it is put on hold to allow for several days to allow for these changes. In this case, however, I feel that the problems are too numerous and severe to justify a hold. This article would benefit from time spent purged it of unencyclopedic statements to create a more objective, factual and encyclopedic article. There are just too many facts in the article that, while verifiable, are neither notable nor encyclopedic. I suggest a project-specific peer review, or at least a read-over by a pair of eyes who are unfamiliar with the subject and are specifically looking for encyclopedic tone. For this reason, I am failing the article for now. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 02:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

 * 1. Done.
 * 2. Apple4 gone. I know of only one other photo of Mary, which is of such poor quality that it can not be used.
 * 3. Lead: "summarizing the most important points"... I thought I had done that, but will do.
 * 4. Will do.
 * 5. All sentences were gleaned from books, and are paraphrased and referenced. Will clean.
 * 6. All the addresses were mentioned in the books. Writing "they often moved" would be unclear, IMO, and would suggest lack of information about the subject.
 * 7. The second marriage can not be expanded as not enough information is available, and I didn't want to merge Angela with Mary. Will think of solution.
 * 8. I was informed that a short heading was acceptable, and even needed. Ho-hum. --andreasegde 10:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I broke my own rule by adding too many adjectives. I will clean this very shortly, and will put it back on the list soon. --andreasegde 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination
I have cleaned this article with a stiff brush, and have nominated it again. --andreasegde 18:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, looks like you've mastered this article writing thing mate! Still a lot of Spitz and Miles though ;) --kingboyk (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anybody have any other books? The authors (Spitz, Miles and Cynthia Lennon) come from both/three sides of the coin, so to speak, so I balance what they say. As I live in Austria, I will buy Bill Harry's boks when I'm in England again, and a whole range of others (who all conflict with each other at some points). When I have them, one can expect a flurry of references... :) Who's the next person to document? (Four GA's up for review, BTW) --andreasegde 20:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold
Please leave a note on my talk page when these issues have been resolved. Cheers, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ”The pair were both under-age when they got married, but found a place to live together in Scotland Road, Liverpool” - Change "got married" to "wed", and add a wlink to marriage
 * ✅ Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

✅ Changed it Joe and Florrie McCartney.--andreasegde (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ Cut it out. --andreasegde (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ”The McCartney family moved shortly after Jim's birth to 3 Solva Street in Everton” - Jim or Jin? If Jim, this means they moved after their first child was born, right?
 * ”and was paid less than £1” - You’ve noted his salary, you don’t need to do it again.
 * Any idea why Paul didn’t attend Jim’s funeral?
 * I read that he "didn't want to upset the band members", which I thought was really too silly to mention. It was two days before the tour, so only McCartney really knows. Not a nice thing at all. I have changed it to "Paul was unable to attend the funeral". --andreasegde (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

✅Have used your paragraph below. Thanks. --andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ See above. --andreasegde (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ Done. --andreasegde (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ I did, and I hope it sits well. --andreasegde (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ --andreasegde (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ”During the celebration Mary sat quietly in an armchair, but when the air-raid sirens sounded at 9:30, they all went down to the cellar to wait for the all-clear, but that night there was an intensive bombing raid, so everyone was forced to sit in the cellar until dawn.” - Overuse of “but”. Suggest rewording too;
 * During the celebration, Mary sat quietly in an armchair, until the air-raid sirens sounded at 9:30. At that time, the group moved to the cellars to wait for the all-clear, but as there was an intensive bombing raid, the message did not come.  Everyone was thus forced to sit in the cellar until dawn.
 * ”Although registered on his birth certificate as James Paul McCartney, he was known as Paul thereafter” - Change “he” to “their first son”, so it makes more sense.
 * ”Ruth remembered that Jim was funny and musical with her, but also strict when she was young, and was insistent that she learned good table manners and etiquette when speaking to people” - What’s this got to do with the rest of the paragraph, which discusses Paul buying Jim houses and horses...? Might wanna move it to another paragraph
 * ”When skiffle music became popular, McCartney swapped the trumpet for a £15 Framus Zenith (model 17) acoustic guitar.” - Change “McCartney” to “Paul” (presumably), to keep it consistent.
 * ”Michael would later have success on his own with the group The Scaffold.” - wlink for The Scaffold
 * It's already linked in the Lead. --andreasegde (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

✅ It was linked improperly in the Lead, but I have fixed it. --andreasegde (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) ✅ Nobody ever spotted that before. Who's got eagle-eyes? :) ✅ --andreasegde (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ”Paul wrote "Let It Be", because of a dream he had during the Get Back/Let It Be sessions.” - wlink - Let It Be (song)
 * In the “References”, standalone years (eg. 2001) don’t need to be wikilinked
 * Of the 5 external links, I think only #3 and #4 are relevant
 * Why isn’t this article linked to on The Beatles?
 * I thought it was. It is now. --andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if Category:Paul McCartney songs is relevant here
 * They are referenced in the Songs section. --andreasegde (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed version:

Good luck, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, this editor (&mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide ) is good. I am looking forward to reading his comments. --andreasegde (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Teeheehee, thanks :) &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  09:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Passed. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  05:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I thank you kindly Sir, and I must say the last two reviews were the most pleasant I have ever had. Meticulous you are, but very friendly too, and not a hint of any arrogance at all. I thank you. --andreasegde (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)