Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Love (song)

Real Love (song)
I put this on peer review for a couple of days, but nobody showed up. Since that page is so long, I decided not to burden the servers and just go ahead and shoot for FAC status. I haven't written a sogn article for quite a while, so feel free to point out anything I've missed. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: No one seems to be showing up here either I'm afraid, so I've had a look. I'm unsure exactly who "bootlegs" is. Regarding the phrase "Beforehand, the closest The Beatles had come to reuniting (while they were all still alive)" I think we can dispense with the jokes this is an encyclopedia. "[H]e's solid, really great. He knows how Ringo's snare should sound" why is the "H" in brackets, or did the man drop them, it's unclear, and what exactly is "Ringo's snare" Why does "#" keep coming before numbers, is this something to do with pop music? The same "#" later is used to define sharp notes (I understand that much). The references are all links, were any written ones used? In spite of all this, it's not a bad article. I have just come to the conclusion I don't think I know enough about the subject to support it or oppose, and the page does not do a lot to help me;  and no I'm not aged 94. I just have this horrible feeling I am displaying huge ignorance here. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:49 (UTC)
 * Bootlegs are (usually) illegal copies of unreleased songs. I'm not sure what the joke is about the sentence you're referring to, but maybe that's because I'm from a different culture. The "H" is in brackets because the original letter used was "h", being part of a sentence in the original quote. I will clarify what is meant by snare soon. "#" is used before numbers because it is commonly used as a shorthand to denote the word "number", as in "number one". No written references were used, although a few of my sources are published authors. Johnleemk | Talk 30 June 2005 08:53 (UTC)
 * Support Following explanation and clarification. It is a very comprehensive account of the song and its history. I wouldn't think there is any more that could be said. Giano | talk 30 June 2005 11:56 (UTC)
 * Strong opposition. What!? A Beatles song article without the lyrics themselves!? --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:45:23 (UTC)
 * What!? A Wikipedian advocating a violation of copyright law? Johnleemk | Talk 30 June 2005 16:20 (UTC)
 * Even I knew that! Giano | talk 30 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there's a law difference between different places. In Hong Kong using other people's work by quoting and listing the original authors and source without conflicts to the original author's benefits will not violate the law. Deryck C.
 * Hmm, hey maybe we should get Jimbo to move the wikipedia servers to Hong Kong! Borisblue 1 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)
 * Maybe not- Hong Kong' copyright law seems the same as the rest of the world. From Hong Kong's intellectual property department site I quote "Subject to conditions, fair dealing for research and private study; criticism, review and news reporting, for use of works in library and school are permitted. Yet users should still be cautious about possible infringement. Photocopying an unreasonable amount of a book might constitute an infringement, for example." Maybe you should remove the objection Borisblue 1 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Wikipedia's servers are currently physically located in the US. In addition, Wikimedia is registered as an entity in the US. So until Jimbo can fly those servers over to Hong Kong, we're subject to US law. This is why we don't ever directly put lyrics in articles. Johnleemk | Talk 1 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
 * Support: this is an informative entry; it gives a good deal of background on the origins of the song without going into excessive detail, the inlined pictures supplement the text appropriately, and the critical and popular reception of the song is described accurately and concisely. --Jacj 2 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose . Gee it'd be nice to see a non-Beatles FA song article (see Layla - yes, blatant cross-promotion!), but this is a very good article on the history and importance of the song. Unfortunately, the last two pics in the album both claim definite copyrights and cry fair use. I'd like a bit more info on what sort of fair use - for Wikipedia, or just in general. Address this and I'll have no qualms about reversing my vote. Harro5 July 8, 2005 02:13 (UTC)
 * Huh? The top and bottom images are the front and back of the single cover. The middle image is a screencap from the music video, which is almost certainly fair use. There's no appropriate fair use template for music video screenshots, though; only movies and television programmes. Johnleemk | Talk 8 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)
 * I'm not expert on copyrights; I thought these might need some more clarification. Wouldn't the back cover come under the same fair-use template as the front? Anyway, if this is good, support. Harro5 July 8, 2005 23:19 (UTC)