Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagine (song)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012.

Imagine (song)

 * Nominator(s): ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after a thorough copyedit over the last six weeks, I think the article now meets FA standards. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Quick source comments
 * References 67 to 83 are lacking accessdates. — ΛΧΣ  21™  22:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, nice catch, thanks. As I'm a bit unfamiliar with these types of tables, I'm really not aware of how I can add them to these refs. Any suggestions? ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You just need to add  inside the singlechart template (just like in cite news) and it'll work. Cheers! —  ΛΧΣ  21™  00:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed and thanks much! ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I will scan and spotcheck the references this week to give you more feedback. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  01:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Great article. Good job GabeMc, congratulations. — ΛΧΣ  21™  21:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support from someone who loves the Beatles and is a musician.
 * I think the first sentence is a bit bland, particularly given how well-known the song is. I think the fact that it was his best-selling single should be in the opening sentence, IMO.
 * Good point, great suggestion, I've now mentioned that it was his best-selling single upfront. Thanks! ~ GabeMc  (talk 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it appropriate for the first paragraph to go so much into what the song is about? It seems to go into a bit too much detail, which I think is problematic because it's often difficult to say exactly what a song is about, and three sentences on what it's about seems a bit much for the beginning of the article. Hey Jude (another song FA) focuses the first paragraph on the evolution and the song structure. If not in the first paragraph, then someone where in the lede of Imagine, there should be a mention of the structure.
 * Fixed. I've included the song structure detail in the lead. The order in which we discuss the lyrics versus the music is usually an editor discretion thing, but often the lead mirrors the article body, which it does well now. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh, makes sense then! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved the musical notation detail to a note that comes at the end of the first paragraph. This way readers unfamiliar with musical terminology won't be thrown-off by the jargon-esque text and readers that want that info can hover over, or click on the note, or just scroll down to the "Music" section for more detail. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You should mention somewhere in the lede when that album came out (that it came out a month before the single is interesting)
 * Fixed. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Any lines from that Yoko Ono poem would be good. Right now it's mentioned, but there isn't much context. I'd love to know what exactly inspired the song.
 * Fixed. I've added the poem in-line at the appropriate spot. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a glaring omission of when and how the actual composition was written (that is, the music and melody, not necessarily the lyrics). Most featured song articles have that.
 * Can you please explain what you mean by "how the actual composition was written". I'm not aware of anything in the sources that specific as to what you seem to be asking for. That it was inspired by "Cloud Piece" and that he wrote it on his upright Steinway in 1971 is about as much detail as reliably exists. Do you have any specific suggestions? ~ GabeMc  (talk 07:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, many song articles I've read say where the composer was when the composition was written. California Girls was while Brian Wilson was on LSD, Yesterday (song) came to Paul McCartney during a dream (and he thought he plagiarized it). Was it written in one day? In a week? Was it ever in a different key? Any different sections chopped off? That's the most interesting part of the songwriting process, how it begins. So I'd love more on that. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added some specific details (in "Composition and Music") about the when and how. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks much better now! I'm happy to support it now, from one FAC person to another. :) --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the above and as a piano player, I think the main theme is more the opening piano bit, going from C major 7 to F major, not that vocal line. Even if you disagree, that image caption needs to be changed to indicate that is only the main vocal theme. The piano theme is a bit different from that.
 * Fixed. I've clarified that the music illustrates the main vocal theme and not the main piano theme. Also, I'll try to get a music transcription for the main piano theme for the article. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Special thanks to User:GFHandel, and to you HH, for the fine suggestion, as we now have the first 2 bars of the piano intro as well as the main vocal melody line. ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You should mention the song's tempo somewhere. Or, would that not be appropriate since it doesn't have a drum machine?
 * Fixed. ~ GabeMc  (talk 07:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mostly, I feel like it's missing stuff, with how famous the song is. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific please? The article is currently more than 2,100 readable words, but if I can source it I'll certainly consider adding anything notable I've overlooked. Thanks much for your comments. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the most part, it's the lack of the songwriting impetus that's bothering me. Was there a reason he played it on piano and not his primary instrument guitar? Was there anything special going on in his life that caused him to write it? It says how he used the song as inspiration for Nutopia, but I'm wondering about beforehand. Was it the first song written for that album? The last? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great suggestions, thanks! I've fleshed this out now, in both "Inspiration and lyrics" and "Composition and music", but as for why he wrote that song at the piano that day and not with an acoustic guitar is anybody's guess. Lennon wrote using both, perhaps arbitrarily, perhaps because he thought "Imagine" felt like a piano song, the sources (to my knowledge) do not specify the why. As far as "Was it the first song written for that album? The last?", that seems to be a question better answered at the Imagine LP article, but I will certainly try to dig-up the detail and add it if I can properly source it. Thanks again for your insightful and helpful comments. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Jesse V.
 * I noticed that the article has a deadlink and another link problem. Please see its Checklinks entry. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 00:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the deadlink. The other seems fine to me. Thanks for the catch. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 11:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Image review by Crisco 1492
 * File:JohnlennonImagine.jpg - Needs a solid fair use rationale and not ... whatever you call this.
 * Fixed. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Imagine Theme Lennon.png and File:Introduction to the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.png - I'd suggest picking one and sticking with it. Two doesn't seem to fit the minimal use clause of the NFCC.
 * I disagree. 4 bars of music amounts to about 12 seconds of the song, or about 6.66% of the total. It's my understanding that ogg files can contain up to 10% of the song without breaking the the minimal use clause. Also, as one image is illustrating the vocal melody and the other the piano theme, you could argue that all that music (when played together) is really just two bars of the song, about 6 seconds and 3.33% of the total musical notation for vocal and piano. Further, that percentage is leaving out the bass guitar, drums and strings, so in actuallity, the percentage of musical notation used is likely less than 1% of the total music contained in the song, which would certainly qualify as minimal use to me, unless I am missing something. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I consider an audio sample more useful for the average reader. I can't visualise (audiolise?) the music based on the sheet notes, but the average reader could probably get it from a single 18-second clip. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I agree in principle, but there is already an audio sample in the infobox. The musical notation images are for readers who want to see what the music looks like, which is something you cannot demonstrate with audio. Am I correct in my assumption that the 4 bars (less than 1% of the total music) does contitute minimal use? Thanks much for the review BTW! I appreciate your taking the time to help. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What about moving the clip out of the infobox and into the section? That would be a bit more viable, and the audio clips are not meant to be married to infoboxes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that the NFCC state "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I think the clip would be "equivalent significant information". A link to sheet music hosted (legally) elsewhere in External links would be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I really don't think an audio file and an image of musical notation are equivalent. A sound file is audio and the musical notations are visual. I'm curious, why would 1% of the total music of the song not constitute minimal use, and why would 2 bars be okay in your estimation but not four? ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the NFCC. 1% of the total music is "Minimal extent of use", not "Minimal usage". Minimal usage is the number of items. In describing the composition of a work there is no need for three different files (one audio clip and two sheet notes). You've got four NF files in the article already, with another that may or may not be free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." All four NF files covey different, non-equivalent information. 1) The single artwork (which really shouldn't count as it is pretty much required, not?) demonstrates what the single sleeve looks like. 2) The audio sample conveys what the song sounds like. 3) The musical notation images demonstrate what the music looks like. Also, to count the musical notation images as two is a bit inaccurate, as they are both images of music from the same song, that occur simultaneously throughout most of the song. If I wanted to demonstrate the intro and the outro with audio files, would they also count as two? Thanks for taking the time to educate me about this stuff, I really appreciate it! ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've yet to express any concern over the single's cover, as it is indeed relevant. They are two files, and so counted separately. If you want a third opinion on this one be my guest, but I strongly suggest removing at least one of the two pieces of sheet music. I've offered an alternative above that you could use as well (instead of using an external link at the bottom you could use External media...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per: "I've yet to express any concern over the single's cover" you said: "You've got four NF files in the article already", I assume one of those four is the single's cover, another the audiofile (which I would personally rather ditch than the notation) and two musical notation images. Question. - Since music is a language of its own, in order to convey it visually, one would need to include an image of the sheet music, no? The context of sheetmusic is the only place the language of musical notation makes any sense. Why is this any different than a direct quote from the English language source? ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the number, but not the cover specifically. I have no issues whatsoever with the cover (except the FUR, which you've fixed). Have you considered the external media template like I suggested? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now drastically reduced the resolution of the non-free musical notation files. Does this solve the issue? ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That works a bit better... the audio sample should show what it is being used for (i.e. the refrain, with the beat and tempo). I'd actually stop after the oo whoo oo ho (yeah, I suck at onomatopoeia) as "you may say I'm a dreamer" is a sentence fragment — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a sound file with better timing and fading. I think it should resolve the issue, let me know if it does not. Thanks again for taking the time to comment here, it's much appreciated. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:John Lennon Imagine 1971.jpg - Apple is a British company, so its possible this ad was run in the UK first. Any proof otherwise?
 * It is filed at WikiCommons as public domain, so I'm not sure what to do with this one. Are you asking me if I can prove that the image was not ever used in Britain? ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that it was never used in Britain, but that it was originally published in the US and not Britain. If originally published in the UK than UK copyright law would apply and this would be non-free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The main question is the image. The text is negligable. Was the image first published in this ad, or was it used before, in the UK? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, I'll do some research and see if I can't answer the question as to where the image was first published. Thanks again for all your great advice! Question: Assuming the Billboard image is in fact NF and not PD, the accompaning text is critically analysing "Imagine", and it mentions that Spector first attempted to record Lennon's piano part on the piano in the picture, in the room in the picture, the same room featured in the 81-minute film and the well-known music video. Could a decent FUR be written to justify the images use for these reasons? ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Theoretically it's possible, but I wouldn't feel comfortable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I see no evidence that this image was first published in Britain, in fact, considering that Imagine was first released in the US on 9 September 1971, and not released in Britian until 7 October, chances are that the image was first published in the US, since the image is from an ad from 18 September 1971, three weeks before the UK release. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:John Lennon Peace Monument - PEACE ON EARTH - October 9th 2010.jpg needs a freedom of panorama tag (FoP-UK)
 * Fixed. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Piccadilly Circus Advertising with Imagine quote.jpg - I would be inclined to accept this as the ads all seem to fall under PD-simple. Others may disagree.
 * File:Lennon imagine.jpg - This is a two-dimensional work of art and would not fall under FoP in the US. A possible copyright violation (the photograph is free, but it is be a derivative work of a non-free work which is fully protected).
 * Removed. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the sake of argument/education: could a mosaic tile based work of art really be deemed two-dimentional? The tiles and surrounding grout have significant height differences that constitute a third-dimension. ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, as the work is in the US, 2- or 3-dimensions makes no difference as both are completely protected. No chance for FOP. If the mosaic were in the UK that would be a valid arguing point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll only be doing an image review, per the WT:FAC talk page request. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Media looks okay now. Thanks for your patience. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great review! ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good to me. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- with my delegate's hat on I generally comment on form rather than content but in this case I'll make an exception: we have some criticism in the article regarding hypocrisy in the lyrics but is the music (which personally I consider blancmange, though that's neither here nor there of course!) universally regarded with favour? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look into what I can source on that. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now added a bit of scholarly criticism of the music to the "Composition and music" section. Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Rothorpe (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Great job Hotcop2 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.