Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hey Jude

Hey Jude

 * Article is still a featured article

Where to start? It uses way way way way way too many quotes... The Awards and Acclaim section has too little on acclaim from people... Featured Articles shouldn't have trivia... the image of the Beatles on the Frost Show has no fair use rationale... some phrases seem too over the top or weaselly, such as "exuberant"... too little on the chart performances... some of the claims made in the article should probably need inline cites of some sort... the section about the trial should probably be expanded as it doesn't provide enough info... the prose is certainly not brilliant. Nominate for removal for all of those reasons. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles performing Hey Jude on the Frost Programme. Apparently there are some people who for unknown reasons insist on mindlessly hewing to "process" even though it's blatantly clear why this is fair use: it's a TV clip, bla, bla, bla, fair use when it comes to "Hey Jude", the Beatles or the Frost Programme, bla bla. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Featured in August 2004 - nom - diff. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as it now stands. Well done, Johnleemk. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Shouldn't these problems be brought up on the talk page before FARCing? Anyway, tidying up these Beatles song articles is on my to do list - I recently cleaned up Yesterday (song). Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * After much slicing, dicing and footnoting (diff), I'm ready to say I think this should be a keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Johnleemk rewrite --Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The numbers of the inline cites are out of order. Furthermore, here is your fair use rationale for image:heyjude.jpg
 * I do not understand what purpose your comments serve. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The numbers are supposed to be "out of order". I'm using the new Cite footnoting process, which obliterates all the problems Footnote3 had (including previewing and section editing), and this is what it's supposed to do. Even if I converted back to Footnote3, the recommended procedure is to make the footnotes "out of order". And I think the fair use rationale is blatantly obvious, which is why I get pissed off when people demand a fair use rationale when it stares them in the face (see my comments on the Erich von Manstein FARC). The image was broadcast on a television programme. Under US law, discussion of the television programme with the fair use image is legal. You don't need anyone to tell you that -- it's right in our fair use article or WP:FU. Johnleemk | Talk 04:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The Cite footnoting system works well here, and in this case, the boilerplate fair use justification provided by the template is adequate.  Maybe this only happened after Johnleemk's cleanup, but I think this article reads very well:  it establishes greatness in a sweet and succint way, rather than straining for it like, oh, others I won't name.  Anville 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not comprehensive. There is very little on acclaim from individuals and no mention of cover versions. The section about auctioning off lyrics as it is written implies that it was just one person's word against another. Is this true? With the footnotes the way they are it is hard to tell which of the references go with which inline cite. Also, this article uses quotes way too much. I don't see how something that just regurgitates what others have said is exemplifies "our very best work", and has prose that is "compelling, even brilliant". Lastly, it is imappropriate to express your displeasure on a non-discussion namespace. Your comment (not the template) should be removed from the image page. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Acclaim from individuals is not really important; I find they often cause more problems than they solve, in that quoting reviews often makes the article sound POVed (just look at Anville's example, or some other stuff I've worked on like Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)). There's no need for it. The auctioning section is correctly implying that it was just McCartney's word against the other fellows -- that's all there was to it. The footnoting is in full compliance with the way Cite was designed, and also with the recommendations of Footnote, which seeks to create some uniformity in how we footnote our articles. While I agree the old article used quotes excessively, I don't think it does so here -- most of them have been pared down to only the relevant parts. If the article doesn't flow well, I would agree they're a problem, but it flows well and it's clearly not a mere collection of quotes, so I don't see the problem. These problems are clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, so I suppose it'll just depend on which way FARCers lean. Johnleemk | Talk 06:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)