Wikipedia:Featured article review/Real Love (The Beatles song)/archive1

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Johnleemk, Beatles and Songs. Sandy (Talk) 18:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for FAR as it fails criterion 1. c. This is because;


 * 1) All direct quotations need inline citations.
 * 2) All the information needs verification from reliable sources.
 * 3) All opinions attributed to other people and critical comments made upon situations / lyrics / music etc. need inline citations. LuciferMorgan 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria are citations and sources. Joelito (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove if my FAR concerns aren't addressed. LuciferMorgan 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment—The writing is OK, but the first paragraph needs fixing:
 * "Real Love" is a song originally written and performed as a demo by John Lennon, later re-worked by the three remaining members of The Beatles (Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr) in late 1995. The song was released as a Beatles' single in 1996 in the United Kingdom, United States and many other countries; and it was also the opening track on The Beatles' Anthology 2 album. It is the last "new" credited Beatles song to date to originate and be included on an album.


 * Insert "and" before "later". Remove hyphen from "re-worked". Remove apostrophe from Beatles'. Remove "and" after the semicolon. Remove "also". Remove "to date".

I don't see quite so many problems in subsequent text, but a check of the way ideas are integrated into sentences, and of redundant wording, would not go astray. Tony 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article appears to have had a number of citations added, and the writing seems mostly OK. Lucifer, can you identify areas that still need citation or other work?  Sandy (Talk) 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The original FA nominator removed three places where I asked for citations, where original research is clearly an issue. This is in the "Lyrics and melody" section, where comments are made upon lyrics. Unless such comments come from notable critics, then lyrical comments shouldn't be there. I'd put the tags back, but then again I might be accused of trolling - check the edit history to see where my citation requests were removed. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * May I add this as another reason I'm not returning - FA nominators are a law unto themselves. Johnleemk is clearly annoyed most of his Beatles FAs were defeatured due to my nominations, so removed the cite tags. So my vote stands at Remove due to the blatant original research which comments upon the lyrics. LuciferMorgan 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see (I saw). The tags seemed well placed to me, and on the first, the text is not in the cite.  Don't go. Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem. I made a comment on the article's talk about my removal of fact. To date, I can't find any response there. And please cut the bullshit about "FA nominators (being) a law unto themselves". If you wanted the tags put back, you could've told me, or gone ahead and done it. It doesn't make a difference to me; I generally ignore Beatles song articles nowadays for a reason. In my view, there is a major difference between critical commentary ("this song is good" or "this song is bad" or "this aspect of the song is noteworthy", etc.) and an objective description of the song. The three sentences in dispute are merely paraphrasing the song's lyrics, so it's really ludicrous for them to require a citation. All the real critical commentary has been sourced. Johnleemk | Talk 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cut the bullshit? There's no bullshit about it - why don't you cut the bullshit about inline cites? I had this pointless discussion with you months ago regarding inline cites, and you didn't get the message - you just banging on about the References section. As for putting the tags back, I didn't as I've been accused by Raul of trolling - check Operation Downfall's FAR. The lyrics need citation as they're saying what they're about - a music critic now are you? No, I thought not, so it's original research. All the Beatles articles defeatured so far had the same problem and this is no different. Your FAR commentary is the only ludicrous thing going on here, or "bullshit" to be more frank. LuciferMorgan 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)]


 * If you honestly can't see the difference between now and then, we might as well stop talking. I never disputed that the content we talked about then ought to be cited. This, on the other hand, is paraphrasing the song lyrics. It is not analysis or commentary - it's summarising the song's lyrics. It's not even drawing any inferences from the lyrics. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: All chart ratings and sales statistics ought to be cited. In "Lyrics and melody" the first paragraph appears like WP:OR. It is better to take someone else's subjective commentary as a quote and then cite the source as is done in the second paragraph (which is only one-line, not good practise and should be merged with the first paragraph). If these are fixed, I would vote Keep, otherwise I would vote Remove. --RelHistBuff 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The charts and sales stats are cited; the only problem is that my source (an online website run by a Beatles biographer) has since apparently gone down. (That's the reason WP:CITE asks us to include the date we originally retrieved the webpages - so it can be determined what revision of the site we got the info from, and it can be looked up in the Wayback Machine.) I've been hunting around for decent reviews which paraphrase the song's lyrics so we can stop beating around the bush here, but most of them seem to assume (for understandable reasons) that if you wanted to know the song's theme, you could just listen to the song or read its lyrics instead of reading a review. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, after going through a dozen pages of Google results and a few more on Google Books, I dug up a review which briefly touches on the song's message (most others focused on either the song's structure or history). It's not entirely satisfactory IMHO, but it'll do, I think. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, great. What about the second paragraph in "The release" section? The first sentence states that it entered at #4 of the British charts and eventually reached #1 in both US and UK charts. This is not cited. Actually, there must be something I don't understand as the parenthetical element contradicts the image caption where it says it reached #4 and not just entered at #4. Or does the #1 position refer to the album? If so, this sentence should be rewritten and if the #1 position does refer to the album, a cite is needed. --RelHistBuff 13:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That was poor writing on my part - Anthology 2 topped the charts, but the single itself did not. I've made some organisational changes which hopefully clarify matters, and added citations. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding citations. The only concern I have is regarding John Lennon putting the song on the backburner; was he working on it prior to his murder for the next album, or had he shelved it? If a citation could be found for this, then that'd be cool. Thanks once again. LuciferMorgan 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said on Talk:Real Love (The Beatles song), putting on the backburner = shelved. As the preceding paragraphs in the section state, he worked on the song informally in the late 70s, and then abandoned it. We don't know of what plans he had for the song, if he had any plans at all. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe LuciferMorgan is wondering where you got the assertion that he shelved it. If no one knew his plans or if he had plans, then it is best not to make that assertion. How about just saying, "The song reappeared in 1988, when ..."? Anyway this is good enough for a Keep for me. Good job. --RelHistBuff 16:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll note a keep here as well; good work despite some gnashing of teeth. Regarding the last concern, it seems an observation of an absence. Perhaps "Lennon does not appear to have worked..." rather than "Lennon shelved..." Marskell 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I've reworded the sentence. Johnleemk | Talk 10:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Contitional keep, if that one sentence that concerns Lucifer can be re-worded. Sandy (Talk) 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed you tried to fix some problem with the refs, but I'm not sure what the problem is...the later errors you tried to fix appear to have been introduced by your initial mistaken edit. "British charts" is a named ref that already appeared earlier in the article, so there was no need to redefine it. Johnleemk | Talk 10:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Mine isn't a keep, as these days most song article's have a section properly dealing with critical reaction from music critics. I hope I don't come across as being annoying, but if anyone agrees with my stance then hopefully time can be extended on this one? If not, then consensus is consensus I suppose. LuciferMorgan 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, reluctantly. It's not the best FA. Tony 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)