Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beatles for Sale/archive1

Beatles For Sale
Passed peer review with not many comments. Self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I had some minor issues with the described relationship between the UK and US albums, but I went ahead and addressed them myself. Assuming you are OK with the changes, I support this nom.  Jgm 13:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The article is inadequately researched. The bulk of the text is a set of quotations drawn from a single webpage, http://www.geocities.com/~beatleboy1/dba04sale.html, (which is listed iin the article references) filled out by unsourced commentary with, at best, NPOV issues. Monicasdude 23:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Revised: Although my initial objections have been met to some degree, I find the patched version less suitable as an FA candidate than the original. The extensive inclusion of AMG commentary greatly unbalances the article; it now is dominated by the recent opinions of a single, not terribly distinguished writer (with virtually no contemporaneous commentary). And the covers section calls for a discussion of the songs themselves to be comprehensive. Monicasdude 20:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is why I've been rather reluctant to nominate the article for FAC, actually &mdash; there's not much that can be said about the album besides the various Beatles' reminiscing and perhaps some description of the songs. I agree the commentary reads as a bit POV at times, and will try to sort that out, but the fact is that Beatles for Sale is probably the Beatles' most unremarkable album. The only commentary I can see is the description of the songs, which I think is always going to sound a bit POV, since any work of art is going to have many interpretations, and most 3rd-party commentary is probably hidden away in archives, considering how old this album is. I'll see what I can find at AMG and Q, though. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed to Support. Jkelly 23:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Object, unfortunately. Per Monicasdude, with two added concerns.  One is that there is so much literature on The Beatles that a truly comprehensive article is going to need an awful lot of research, which pretty much precludes using any material from geocities websites at all.  In the case of artists without much secondary literature, fansites can be a great resource.  With The Beatles, it is problematic.  Secondly, the article over-uses fair use images.  The cover of the preceding and next albums aren't being added under WP:FU policy.  Images for The Beatles are particularly tricky, I am sure, but this isn't the way to go.  Jkelly 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If I understand what you are saying, no album article using the current album box template (which includes album cover art) can make feautred status. If so this issue is bigger than this nomination and needs to be addressed where the template is discussed.  Jgm 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The current album box template, as given at WP:ALBUM, which is the associated Wikiproject for album articles, and to whose standards FACs about albums must meet is Template:Album infobox. Template:Album infobox 2, used in this article, is a variant upon it.  I'm unwilling to start FARC'ing album articles that use it, but I am also unwilling to support new FAs that don't adhere to Project guidelines.  Jkelly 04:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the album infobox was an oversight on my part &mdash; I think it's most inappropriate to call those images "fair use". I've since removed it. Simply classifying the Geocities webpage as unreliable is inaccurate, I think, since it's an online repository of Beatles quotes collated from sources directly cited by the website. Books in Malaysia are expensive, but I may be able to look at local libraries and get some books from there. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have some Beatles books on hand; I'll take a look and see if I can help. Jgm 16:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate to be a pain, but, well, the (very short) lead currently states "by their relentless recording and performing schedule, the Beatles chose to return to the inclusion of a number of cover versions in Beatles for Sale." I have no idea how to evaluate this statement, because, while the article now lists several references, there's no link between the statements and each reference.  Is this something a member said, or speculation by a critic, or what?  I want to support this article, but I feel that clear referencing is especially important for articles on the arts.  Is there any chance that I will see footnotes?  The "Personnel" section is also not formatted to WP:ALBUM suggestions, but I will happily fix that myself, if I hear that there are no objections.  Jkelly 02:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've now somewhat explicitly attributed where those quotes came from. Go ahead and fix up the Personnel section. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object: The images Image:HelpUK.jpg and Image:HardDayUK.jpg are tagged as fair use, but they are used only for decorative purposes. This does not meet the requirements for fair use.  They should be removed. --Carnildo 06:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jgm has been a kind soul and added print sources to corroborate the article. I've soothed my conscience by NPOVing the article with commentary from AMG and Q that, at any rate, at least sounds a lot better than the pedestrian stuff we used to have. Johnleemk | Talk 10:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object to it appearing on the main page, at least. It seems the majority of music related FAs that have made the main page are Beatles related. While I'm a fan, and realize the great significance of the band, there are plenty of other music subjects out there, and the Beatles are getting to much attention in this respect. -R. fiend 17:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's unactionable, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I've never explicitly requested any of the articles I've worked on substantially to be featured on the front page (at least, as far as I can remember), and I will oppose such a motion if and only if it comes up as a suggestion precisely for the same reason as you. This is not the place to discuss it, however. Johnleemk | Talk 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what is the right place to discuss it? -R. fiend 04:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. As per Monicasdude, nearly half of the article is quotations and there is wayy too much dependence on All Music Guide. Article suffers from overlinking of dates. Overall, article is bare in terms of relevent wikilinks. —jiy (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)