Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hey Jude/archive1


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

The article was kept 11:12, 27 August 2007.

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Johnleemk, The Beatles Project and Songs
 * Message left at John Cardinal

I'm nominating this article for FAR because;


 * 1) The sections "Cover versions" and "Cultural references" are extremely listy, violating 1. a. They need to be converted into clear, eloquent paragraphs which tie their subject matter together cohesively.
 * 2) "Critical acclaim" fails 1. b. and isn't comprehensive at all. Firstly, the section title fails NPOV and should be renamed "Critical reception". Secondly, the reaction of critics past and present hasn't been touched upon in no shape or form in the section (apart from an AMG quote). Considering the popularity of the song, critical reaction should be easy to find.
 * 3) There's no evidence to prove that Alan Pollack is a reliable source, and that the website in question is reliable. Is he an esteemed musicologist? How many publications does he have to his credit? At the moment the Pollack article used seems to be self-published and fails reliability.
 * 4) The song's musical structure is discussed briefly in the "Critical acclaim" section - this isn't critical acclaim, so it shouldn't belong there. It should be in its own section entitled "Musical structure".
 * 5) "Promotional film" section has an uncited quote.
 * 6) One citation links to Youtube, which is likely a copyright violation. Another citation (23) is a broken link.
 * 7) The "Love" subsection under "Single release" has no information on how the song was remixed, no nothing. It also fails to discuss critical reaction to the remix.

I feel all these points need to be addressed for this article to retain FA status. LuciferMorgan 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the...erm...fair use "rationale" for Image:Heyjude.jpg enough? Just out of curiosity. I've thought about dedicating the section to "talk page highlights" a few times. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the rationale for that image will have to be amended accordingly in order to apply to guidelines, and written properly. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in fixing the article; however, about half the problems mentioned could be resolved by reverting the article to how it stood as of when it became an FA. Most cover versions and cultural references have not received sufficient attention from secondary sources to warrant a mention. I have no interest in the ridiculous reliable sources guideline when applied in wedge cases such as this; however, as stated here, the works in question are not being published by Pollack, and were compiled and published by other people. And as for the fair use rationale, whoever wants to fix it is more than welcome to, but considering that it is a still from the promotional film and TV show episode both discussed heavily by the article, this shouldn't be too hard to do - and I doubt anyone doing it would do more than slap the ridiculous boilerplate which serves no purpose except to slavishly serve the literal meaning of non-free content policies without addressing their principles. Okay, sorry, I won't be bothering y'all again. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally don't like this article. I am right now seeing this article from the view of a non-editor who has just come to wikipedia to get information. The things which will be a turn off are:-
 * Not systematic at all.Quite a messy article.
 * Not many pictures. Thus, makes the article dull.
 * The flow of the article breaks up in between a lot. Didn't have a nice smooth time while reading the article.

Perfect song article has to be Hollaback Girl. Hey Jude and Hollaback Girl both are FA, but you can yourself see the difference. I don't want to be rude, but i think this article does'nt deserve to be FA and has reached till here because of Beatles' fans. Luxurious.gaurav 15:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Progress update?  This article looks to be within striking distance of restored status, so it's not clear why the few remaining loose ends (listiness, etc.) can't be cleaned up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody has opted to undertake the article and improve it, so all the concerns I highlighted remain unresolved. LuciferMorgan 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've discovered this FAR and am throwing my hat into the ring. I'll do a cleanup first and then search for any news sources that might be pertinent (time.com, msnbc.com, etc.). Give me a week or so. WesleyDodds 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The listy sections have simply been taken out instead of being cleaned up as I recommended, although the info there actually needed to be there. This means now that comprehensiveness is at fault (1. b.) also. LuciferMorgan 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll work back in what I can, but a lot of it was essentially trivia. Those sections had been added well after the first FAR. WesleyDodds 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and quality and sufficiency of citations (1c). Marskell 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1b and 1c. The listy info that was removed needs integrating into the article, and not simply taken out. LuciferMorgan 00:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Still working. Should finish with prose fixes soon enough. Hopefully will go to the library soon to check out additional sources. WesleyDodds 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from one "cite needed" tag, the article is rather well sourced now. Is there anything I should look up? My library literally has an entire shelf of Beatles books. WesleyDodds 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see a problem with the current level of sourcing, once you make that fix of course. The o/s issues are poor prose in areas, and in general the article is overlinked. Ceoil 01:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I worked on the overlinking, better now? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just redid the "Release" section. Found some sales figures that were more accurate, so all the cite needed tags have now been addressed. Someone should review my prose for that section, though; all the shifting around I did might have confused things. Now I need to expand the "Musical structure" section (I have a source, it's just a bit . . . esoteric at times) and work some of the cultural references stuff back in under a "Legacy" section. Once that's done (by the end of the week, I promise you) we should be able to keep this article featured. WesleyDodds 08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Musical structure" section taken care off. Now to work some of the cultural references back in, and we should be done. WesleyDodds 07:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (many of my edits to the article are quite minor). Good save. If there are any outstanding issues, I'm confident WesleyDodds will address them within the appropriate timeframe. CloudNine 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well done Wesley, but a light copy editing is needed yet. My only quibbles are from the lead, can you rephrase:
 * "begins with McCartney singing gently while accompanying himself on piano" - its a Paul song fine, but still the phrasing is too sentimental.
 * "Despite being over seven minutes long" - Carnt say why I dont like it, but I dont.
 * "Hey Jude" lasted two weeks at number one in the British charts" - lasted?
 * "for example, it appears at number eight in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" - too informal, sound like you are addressing your reader.
 * These are qibbles only. Ceoil 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll probably just rewrite the lead. Been thinking about it. WesleyDodds 20:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. WesleyDodds 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.