Wikipedia:Featured article review/I Want to Hold Your Hand/archive1

Article no longer FA

Review commentary

 * Talk messages left at Johnleemk, The Beatles, and Songs. Sandy (Talk) 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for FAR because;


 * 1) Fails criterion 1. c. - ALL direct quotations need inline cites, and additionally factual info plus other info which can be considered original research such as commenting upon lyrical meanings, all need inline cites. LuciferMorgan 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Noting that this makes three FARs for Johnleemk (Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson and Get Back), in case he needs extra time on any. Sandy (Talk) 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Including this one makes 4. If he wants extra time, I hope it can get granted. LuciferMorgan 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's only three - Horatio Nelson, Hold your Hand, and Get Back. Did I miss one? Sandy (Talk) 02:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I thought the Horatio bit was two FAs, ie. Horatio Nelson and 1st Viscount Nelson. Sorry for the mistake. I hope he can have extra time though if he needs any. LuciferMorgan 10:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Apart from the referencing problems, I donot like at all this long quote in "In the studio".--Yannismarou 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've inserted inline citations for most of the quotes. Extraordinary Machine 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I feel the "Notes and references" section would benefit if they were split and vastly cleaned up. In addition to this, the article still needs other inline cites. LuciferMorgan 18:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations. Marskell 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove if concerns I raised in my nomination aren't addressed. LuciferMorgan 14:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of inline citations have been added, but a bit more are still needed, as well as a thorough copyedit. Some of the prose is very fancrufty - sample paragraph (with no citations, lots of superlatives, and some awkward prose):
 * On 29 November 1963, Parlophone Records released to the United Kingdom "I Want to Hold Your Hand", with "This Boy" joining it on the single's B-side. Demand had been building for quite a while, as evidenced by the one million advance orders for the single. When it was finally released, the response was phenomenal. A week after it entered the British charts, on 14 December 1963, it knocked "She Loves You", another Beatles' song, off the top spot, the first such instance of the same act taking over from itself at number one in British history, clinging on to it for a full five weeks. It stayed in the charts for another fifteen weeks afterwards, and incredibly made a one week return to the charts on 16 May 1964. Beatlemania was peaking at that time; during the same period, The Beatles set an incredible record by owning the top two positions on both the album and single charts in the United Kingdom.
 * With a bit of attention, this article could possibly retain its status. Sandy (Talk) 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove, issues raised above not addressed, citations, POV and possible OR still a problem. Sandy (Talk) 15:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist today Some work done, though no specific editor has made a pledge to save this article and address all of the concerns. Since a month has passed, I think it should be delisted immediately. LuciferMorgan 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lucifer, you've entered your Remove/Delist twice. Sandy (Talk) 15:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I put my remove in once, and then said it should be delisted today. It's been four weeks and no work's being done - why do editors keep open FARs that have no work being done after the limit has expired? There's no point to it, and it's rather dumb. The FAR page has a few articles there with sufficient time left, so why clog up the page with expired FARs that nobody is working on? LuciferMorgan 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)