The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 11:03, 5 May 2012 [1].
Paul McCartney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because this long neglected important article deserves our full attention. — GabeMc ( talk) 02:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. I removed the spaces around the em-dash in the lead; otherwise, I couldn't find anything to fix in the lead. Well done. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Sources comments: These comments relate to the first two columns of citations, though some of the points raised are more generally applicable.
I will check out the others shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Cryptic C62. I strongly suggest that the author withdraw the nomination, as there are way too many problems in this article.
For starters, I'm disappointed to find that the lead doesn't seem to summarize the article at all, but is instead a collection of superlative trivia designed to convince the reader that McCartney is the coolest person in the universe:
Seriously, we get the point already. The lead should, ideally, contain some information from each of the main-level sections of the body; Childhood and Contact with fellow ex-Beatles are not represented in the lead.
What's worse, the body of the article itself is also riddled with single-sentence paragraphs, unsourced statements, and meaningless trivia (often all three at the same time):
I also find it rather odd that Discography and Tours don't even contain summaries of the contents of the daughter articles. Perhaps this is standard practice for larger articles, but it just looks sloppy. I think that after the bushels of meaningless trivia are scooped out of this article, there will be plenty of space to put summaries in these sections (which, ironically, are among the few that the reader might actually care about).
There are also some problems with the sourcing:
From the outset the most important Heralds were called Kings of Arms. The rank still exists today and on our visit Hubert Chesshyre, Clarenceux King of Arms, was our guide. He explained the history and showed us archives dating back 600 years. We saw example of arms ranging from ancient knights of old to more recent ‘clients’ such as Sir Paul McCartney.
And I'm sure there were plenty of others that I missed. I reiterate my advice: Withdraw the nomination. The article is simply not ready. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. The article is fundamentally flawed in terms of WP:WEIGHT and WP:Summary style. The amount of material given to things like drugs and football is quite excessive compared to the amount of material given to his actual musical career. This is an article that goes into considerable detail about this or that FA Cup yet never mentions "Hey Jude". (Many other of McCartney's best and most famous songs are never mentioned either, including "Eleanor Rigby", "Long and Winding Road", "Live and Let Die", "Maybe I'm Amazed", etc, and others like "Let It Be" and "Band on the Run" are only mentioned in passing when describing later performances.) It talks about his LSD trips but never mentions that he was a highly inventive and influential bass player. It talks about his ups and downs with John but never describes what it was about their songwriting that was so acclaimed and important. It talks about an asteroid named after him but never mentions Beatlemania or Paul's persona as the 'cute' one during that era. His 30-year partnership with Linda is given the same space as his first girlfriend and less space than a long quote about Everton FC. To be honest this article looks like the pieces of an article left over after the important parts were shipped off to other articles. But that's not how summary style works, you still have to summarize the important parts and the summary sections still have to be in proper balance with the rest of the article. You cannot assume that readers will look at subarticles, because in fact, they won't. Last month Paul McCartney got 267,000 views while Paul McCartney's musical career got less than 2,000 (figures for other months are comparable). What kind of understanding of McCartney did the 99% of readers who didn't click the subarticle get? Not a very good one. This article has to tell the most important things about McCartney, and right now it too often tells the least important things. If you look at the George Harrison article, it while not perfect, has a considerably better weighting. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose, re Wasted Time R. I agree with everything s/he said, and thought the exact same thing when looking at the article. Thank you for working on the page, it certainly is important, but some attention needs to be paid to the content and layout. Far more focus needs to be given to his musical career and importance, and far less given to other aspects of his life (I like personal life info, but this is a bit excessive). -- Lobo (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I am entirely in agreement with User:Wasted Time R's posting (above) -- Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 09:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 11:03, 5 May 2012 [1].
Paul McCartney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because this long neglected important article deserves our full attention. — GabeMc ( talk) 02:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. I removed the spaces around the em-dash in the lead; otherwise, I couldn't find anything to fix in the lead. Well done. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Sources comments: These comments relate to the first two columns of citations, though some of the points raised are more generally applicable.
I will check out the others shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Cryptic C62. I strongly suggest that the author withdraw the nomination, as there are way too many problems in this article.
For starters, I'm disappointed to find that the lead doesn't seem to summarize the article at all, but is instead a collection of superlative trivia designed to convince the reader that McCartney is the coolest person in the universe:
Seriously, we get the point already. The lead should, ideally, contain some information from each of the main-level sections of the body; Childhood and Contact with fellow ex-Beatles are not represented in the lead.
What's worse, the body of the article itself is also riddled with single-sentence paragraphs, unsourced statements, and meaningless trivia (often all three at the same time):
I also find it rather odd that Discography and Tours don't even contain summaries of the contents of the daughter articles. Perhaps this is standard practice for larger articles, but it just looks sloppy. I think that after the bushels of meaningless trivia are scooped out of this article, there will be plenty of space to put summaries in these sections (which, ironically, are among the few that the reader might actually care about).
There are also some problems with the sourcing:
From the outset the most important Heralds were called Kings of Arms. The rank still exists today and on our visit Hubert Chesshyre, Clarenceux King of Arms, was our guide. He explained the history and showed us archives dating back 600 years. We saw example of arms ranging from ancient knights of old to more recent ‘clients’ such as Sir Paul McCartney.
And I'm sure there were plenty of others that I missed. I reiterate my advice: Withdraw the nomination. The article is simply not ready. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. The article is fundamentally flawed in terms of WP:WEIGHT and WP:Summary style. The amount of material given to things like drugs and football is quite excessive compared to the amount of material given to his actual musical career. This is an article that goes into considerable detail about this or that FA Cup yet never mentions "Hey Jude". (Many other of McCartney's best and most famous songs are never mentioned either, including "Eleanor Rigby", "Long and Winding Road", "Live and Let Die", "Maybe I'm Amazed", etc, and others like "Let It Be" and "Band on the Run" are only mentioned in passing when describing later performances.) It talks about his LSD trips but never mentions that he was a highly inventive and influential bass player. It talks about his ups and downs with John but never describes what it was about their songwriting that was so acclaimed and important. It talks about an asteroid named after him but never mentions Beatlemania or Paul's persona as the 'cute' one during that era. His 30-year partnership with Linda is given the same space as his first girlfriend and less space than a long quote about Everton FC. To be honest this article looks like the pieces of an article left over after the important parts were shipped off to other articles. But that's not how summary style works, you still have to summarize the important parts and the summary sections still have to be in proper balance with the rest of the article. You cannot assume that readers will look at subarticles, because in fact, they won't. Last month Paul McCartney got 267,000 views while Paul McCartney's musical career got less than 2,000 (figures for other months are comparable). What kind of understanding of McCartney did the 99% of readers who didn't click the subarticle get? Not a very good one. This article has to tell the most important things about McCartney, and right now it too often tells the least important things. If you look at the George Harrison article, it while not perfect, has a considerably better weighting. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose, re Wasted Time R. I agree with everything s/he said, and thought the exact same thing when looking at the article. Thank you for working on the page, it certainly is important, but some attention needs to be paid to the content and layout. Far more focus needs to be given to his musical career and importance, and far less given to other aspects of his life (I like personal life info, but this is a bit excessive). -- Lobo (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I am entirely in agreement with User:Wasted Time R's posting (above) -- Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 09:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply