Wikipedia:Featured article review/Real Love (John Lennon song)/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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:58, 11 May 2010 [1].
Review commentary
editReal Love (John Lennon song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Johnleemk, Oanabay04, John Cardinal, WikiProject The Beatles
I am nominating this featured article for review because it seems to have image copyright problems (3). Plotfeat (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seeing a lot of 1a and 1c issues as well:
- The prose is very choppy, with lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. The "Release" section is just terrible.
- "apparently to "effect the... snappy tempo" as Alan W. Pollack has speculated. " -- blatant wild-guessing.
- Very large chunks of unsourced-ness throughout. Lots of unsourced claims in total, including first paragraph of "Reuniting the Beatles."
- Dubious sources:
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the time to bother with fixing this, but source 5 consists entirely of verbatim quotations from legitimate publications; if someone has the time and inclination, it's a fairly straightforward step to verify them and replace the references appropriately. Re source 17, I am not personally knowledgeable about musicology, but he seems regarded enough to have his own article. Broken links, AFAIK, are not generally a big deal, especially since I suspect the Internet Archive would be quite helpful in this area. Johnleemk | Talk 07:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Just wondering; since I FARed this ages and ages ago, when it was kept as an FA, what's changed in terms of the article or the FA criteria? LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement for high quality sources and the fact that everything should be properly cited? I'm seeing a lot of unsourced statements. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those requirements were already there when I nominated this article for FAR, which you'd be fully aware of if you read the original FAR where I stated why I nominated the article for FAR. Therefore, either that FAR was wrongly deemed a keep, or this FAR nomination is for false reasons - one or the other. Your concerns I feel are valid, but those concerns should've prevented it from being saved the first time around because as I said, those requirements were there all that time ago. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the last FAR was wrongly deemed a keep, myself. Also, that was four years ago, an I don't think the "high quality sources" concern came into being until maybe a year ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those requirements were already there when I nominated this article for FAR, which you'd be fully aware of if you read the original FAR where I stated why I nominated the article for FAR. Therefore, either that FAR was wrongly deemed a keep, or this FAR nomination is for false reasons - one or the other. Your concerns I feel are valid, but those concerns should've prevented it from being saved the first time around because as I said, those requirements were there all that time ago. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, prose YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Extreme lack of sources, and the ones that are used are questionable at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Not enough sources, including (at least) one that is dubious and one that is dead. A GA, yes, but an FA, no. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Sourcing concerns, unreferenced issues, short paragraphs, concerns about comprehensiveness as well. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.