Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eleanor Rigby (song)

Eleanor Rigby (song)
I know, another Beatles article. At this rate, we'll have their whole repetoire. But I think it's FAC quality. Self-nom. Failed its first FAC. It's also been in peer review. It's come a long way in its FACness, and the issues the first time around have been resolved. Thanks! --The PNM 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Good luck! Let me know if you need any help. Pack n Canes |   say something!   13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I like the song, it's OBJECT for me sorry, Too short, not enough pics for FA, not very informative, not the best overall. Aren't I a meany? Spawn Man 08:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object:
 * There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs. Those need to either be expanded or merged into an adjacent paragraph.
 * Taken care of! Thanks to help from Johnleemk. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * External links should go in the references section at the bottom, not within the article itself. Footnote them using  in the article, and  in the references.
 * Done with one thing, at least. Thanks! --The PNM 02:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical asides throughout the article interrupt the flow of the prose. See if you can work those into the actual prose without setting them off in parentheses.
 * They're gone. --The PNM 20:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry much about finding additional pictures; there's not much else that you could add. If you stumbled across a licensed or uncopyrighted picture of the Beatles performing the song, then include that, but otherwise I think the pictures are fine as they are.
 * Thanks for taking care of my concerns. I don't think it's fair to pile on more stuff to do after you've already met most of my objections, but this article badly needs a copyedit and the prose needs to flow better.  I'll withdraw my objection on the grounds that the objection specifically has been addressed, but I'll have to abstain until it comes up to a better level of writing.  Also, as Johnleemk notes below, be on the lookout for POV writing.  Pack n Canes  |   say something!   19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It just seems like you are going in to too much detail on such a narrow area. I can't deinatively say yay or nay, but the premise is awfully small here. HereToHelp 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Also:
 * While I would love to support a Beatles song article that I didn't work on much, right now, I have to object. The length and pictures are fine, but there are far too many instances of unencyclopedic writing; to just cite one from the lead itself: "The songwriting credit is Lennon-McCartney, though it was originally written by just Paul McCartney and all the Beatles contributed bits of lyrics." The second paragraph of Significance, in particular, is full of such writing. I also dislike the incredibly short sections near the end, and would merge them if I could find an arrangement that would work. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the offending lines; is there anything else that is awkward? --The PNM 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I still had to make some minor changes, but after delving into the Signifance section more, I'm quite convinced I can't support until it is rewritten. I find the section rather overt in its POV (when it shouldn't even have one in the first place). If we could cite the opinion as that of a Beatles biographer or some of a music reviewer (or someone like that), then it would be great. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Johnleemk, the opinion actually IS from Ian MacDonald, the Beatles' biographer and author of "Revolution in the Head" (just had a new edition this year). Specifically, his entry on Eleanor Rigby -- practically the whole entry is about its signficance. Is it okay now? I put a reference, but should I make some inline reference? (like: According to Beatles' biographer Ian MacDonald...).--The PNM 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A textual reference would probably be best, but it seems a bit odd to me if we devote two paragraphs to the opinion of one Beatles biographer alone &mdash; that itself can appear biased. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I'd like to see a lot more referencing.  There are two inline links, and four "references", but I have no idea what fact is referenced by what.  I'd also agree with Johnleemk that the writing is a little uneven.  Some of it is quite good, while in other places it is awkward.  I don't agree that any more images are necessary.  Jkelly 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the article and my sources and done all in-line references. I added one more that I had forgotten (when I added the significance section) and removed one, since the section that that referenced is now deleted. Is that good now? Thanks. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I notice that something from the first peer review hasn't been addressed: Why is it at Eleanor Rigby (song) when Eleanor Rigby is a redirect there? &mdash; Laura Scudder | Talk 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've done a request for move to Eleanor Rigby. --The PNM 03:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC). It's on Talk:Eleanor Rigby (song).
 * Object. The long quoted passages should probably be re-written into prose. The sources should be in APA or MLA format, with a short description/excerpt of what is available at each site in case those sites ever go down.
 * "a score by George Martin". A score for a song? Was Martin the song's arranger as well as the producer; did he write any of the instrumental?
 * "the Shangri-Las...a Motown rendition". That should probably be "Motown-style", since the Shangri-Las weren't Motown artists.
 * In general, the article is a bit on the short side to be about such an important song. There has to be a bit more that can be said about its impact on pop culture.
 * A few POV problems, like "striking lyrics" (in the lead).

It has potential; it just needs some work to ge it there. --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)