Talk:Paul McCartney/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by TonyTheTiger in topic GA Reassessment
GA Reassessment
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Notified: Andreasegde (talk · contribs), Ward3001 (talk · contribs), LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), John Cardinal (talk · contribs), Tvoz (talk · contribs), Kingboyk (talk · contribs), Ultraviolet scissor flame (talk · contribs), Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk · contribs), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merseyside, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Notified: Floydian (talk · contribs), PL290 (talk · contribs) --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Kept--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I note that the article has been rigorously modified to shorten it from 67KB readable prose to 40KB readable prose between April 2007 and July 2007. I personally feel that the article was shortened far beyond the necessary amount. However, I leave it to the interested editors to maintain quality encyclopedic content in a quantity between 40-60KB within contemporary standards of both WP:SIZE and WP:WIAGA with a possible eye toward WP:FAC at some point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am reviewing this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. In all honesty, if I had to make a pass or fail without any editorial changes on this article I would pass it based an its general adherance to WP:WIAGA. I am especially pleased with its extensive citations, which greatly aid the reader. However, during this review process several issues have come to my attention.
It is unclear to me why File:Paul and Dot Rhone.jpg is essential to the article. It is the only Fair use image in the article.- Removed. Artichoker[talk] 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reading the posting by the person whose panties are in a bunch down below it appears that there is objection to the removal of Dot Rhone. My problem with this image is WP:NFCC#8. The image has two subjects. It does not pass NFCC for McCartney because we have a fairly young picture of him and saying we need a younger picture of him does not pass NFCC. I have tried this argument with Jack Kemp. Thus, the question is does the fact that Rhone is in the image make it pass. Most are aware that McCartney has had girlfriends. We do not need proof that he has. Rhone does not need to be identified in the McCartney article. Thus, there is no reason to include the image of him and a former girlfriend if we can not get a non-FU one. For example, Brad Pitt does not have an image of Jennifer Aniston, his former wife. When it was at FAC, I requested one be added. Although there are numerous images for which fair use could be claimed, no image was added because there is no justification for adding a FU image of the couple in his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Panties in a bunch indeed. I have once again removed the image as it fails NFC criterion 8. Artichoker[talk] 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reading the posting by the person whose panties are in a bunch down below it appears that there is objection to the removal of Dot Rhone. My problem with this image is WP:NFCC#8. The image has two subjects. It does not pass NFCC for McCartney because we have a fairly young picture of him and saying we need a younger picture of him does not pass NFCC. I have tried this argument with Jack Kemp. Thus, the question is does the fact that Rhone is in the image make it pass. Most are aware that McCartney has had girlfriends. We do not need proof that he has. Rhone does not need to be identified in the McCartney article. Thus, there is no reason to include the image of him and a former girlfriend if we can not get a non-FU one. For example, Brad Pitt does not have an image of Jennifer Aniston, his former wife. When it was at FAC, I requested one be added. Although there are numerous images for which fair use could be claimed, no image was added because there is no justification for adding a FU image of the couple in his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Removed. Artichoker[talk] 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The redirects are self-referencing.
- Fixed. PL290 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Several deadlinks need replacing.
- Done. PL290 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There is extensive debate at Talk:Paul McCartney#Reduce size by splitting info to sub-articles? on splitting this into multiple articles. In April, when the debates began, the article had 67KB of readable prose. The editorial action following the debate have reduced the article to 46KB of readable prose. This is well within the desirable range length for a full biography of an important notable person. I would like to see the tag removed from the top of this article now that the debate is twelve weeks old. I do not want the reader to have to do to much navigating from the main article and hope it does not fall below 40KB when all the WP:SPLITting is completed.
- I've removed the {{Split-apart}} tag as requested and made a suggestion on the talk page about concluding the split exercise. PL290 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why is the article continuing to shrink? How much smaller is it going to get? When I started the review it was 46KB and now it is 40KB. I hope it does not shrink too much more because we don't want to make the reader have work to bounce around from article to article to figure out what they want to know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- See Talk:Paul_McCartney#Concluding_this_exercise at the end of the split discussion. PL290 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I will repeat my comments here that I made there. There seems to be a huge problem here. No one understands what the length of the article is. It is not 100KB long. It is 40KB "readable prose". You have shortened it way too much as a result. Read WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. 40-60KB is in the grey area. For a very notable person with lots of encyclopedic content, it is O.K. to be in this range. Taking it from 67KB down to 40KB was overkill.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ahem. We respectfully remind the honourable reviewer, who is no doubt busy with many other matters too, that consensus for splitting out the relationships was reached prior to the action being taken. A consensus which, as can be seen in this very conversation, the honourable reviewer was aware of; and not only was aware of but joined with; and not only joined with but reinforced very specific aspects of; all in all, in fact, confirming the precise action taken and result obtained in terms of not falling below about 40K of readable prose. The consensus was reached over a 12-week period, recognizing the principle no need for haste and the other principles embodied by WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZE. Additionally, it was observed at the start of the review that "much is made of his relationships in the article", demonstrating—albeit while making a different point—an imbalance of article content: further confirmation that the consensus to split out relationships was soundly based. The resulting, more balanced article appears to be exactly as envisaged and intended when consensus for the action was reached. In view of all these facts the reviewer may wish to withdraw the above commment. PL290 (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea where you are from, but I think you Commonwealth folks are far too generous with your "honourable" titles. Nonetheless, with regards to the matter at hand, I am not an experienced WP:FAR reviewer where highly contentious debates on this issue are often held and resolved, but in my limited editorial experience on this issue, when most articles are described as exceeding 60KB of readable prose and pointed toward WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT for guidance intended to encourage 40-60KB articles, they do not get reduced to the absolute minimum of the range. The reader is somewhat inconvenienced to have to bounce from article to article. In truth, I did not want the article to get smaller than than the 46KB it was. I just don't believe that if the editors knew the length in terms of readable prose that they would have felt so pressed to split off so much detail. I leave it to the involved editors as long as it stays within the 40-60KB range, but the article is looking somewhat thin given the number of split articles. Let's just work on getting the deadlinks and other issues resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ahem. We respectfully remind the honourable reviewer, who is no doubt busy with many other matters too, that consensus for splitting out the relationships was reached prior to the action being taken. A consensus which, as can be seen in this very conversation, the honourable reviewer was aware of; and not only was aware of but joined with; and not only joined with but reinforced very specific aspects of; all in all, in fact, confirming the precise action taken and result obtained in terms of not falling below about 40K of readable prose. The consensus was reached over a 12-week period, recognizing the principle no need for haste and the other principles embodied by WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZE. Additionally, it was observed at the start of the review that "much is made of his relationships in the article", demonstrating—albeit while making a different point—an imbalance of article content: further confirmation that the consensus to split out relationships was soundly based. The resulting, more balanced article appears to be exactly as envisaged and intended when consensus for the action was reached. In view of all these facts the reviewer may wish to withdraw the above commment. PL290 (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I will repeat my comments here that I made there. There seems to be a huge problem here. No one understands what the length of the article is. It is not 100KB long. It is 40KB "readable prose". You have shortened it way too much as a result. Read WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. 40-60KB is in the grey area. For a very notable person with lots of encyclopedic content, it is O.K. to be in this range. Taking it from 67KB down to 40KB was overkill.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It would not hurt to structure the WP:LEAD for four paragraphs given the editorial interest in this article and the extent of editorial content. It seems much is made of his relationships in the article, but the LEAD does not mention anything about them or much of the remaining article content that follows the relationships.
- Missing parts added to Lead. I judged it OK as 3 paras the way it ended up. PL290 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please address both citation needed tags.
- I've added one of the two missing citations (Lennon's planned and cancelled visit during his Lost Weekend);
we still need one for "McCartney is the only artist to reach the U.K. number one as a soloist, duo, trio, quartet, quintet..." etc.... ideas anyone?PL290 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC) - I see someone's done the second one now. PL290 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've added one of the two missing citations (Lennon's planned and cancelled visit during his Lost Weekend);
Can you make the images compliant with WP:ALT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done. PL290 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- You may have to talk to them on the talk page at WP:ALT because I know they are making infoboxes compliant one at a time as they come up at WP:FAC. If this infobox is not yet able to accommodate ALT, leave them a message and the will get to it lickety split. Let me know when you have gotten it up to speed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also now done. (They updated {{Infobox musical artist}} within the last hour!) PL290 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- You may have to talk to them on the talk page at WP:ALT because I know they are making infoboxes compliant one at a time as they come up at WP:FAC. If this infobox is not yet able to accommodate ALT, leave them a message and the will get to it lickety split. Let me know when you have gotten it up to speed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I will be monitoring responses on this page and then make a final determination on the article's rating after seven days from now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Response: I bring your attention to this: "I will be monitoring responses on this page and then make a final determination on the article's rating after seven days from now". Does this not sound rather arrogant and self-opinionated? “"I will”, “final determination” and “seven days from now”? Is this a threat by McCartney’s Landlord? It certainly seems so.
What about "This article will be monitored, and a final decision will be made" AFTER consultation with the people that actually work on it, via the talk page.
- Most writing is considered better in active voice than passive voice. A final determination will be made by me about this review. I look forward to commentary, but I will be making the final decision unless I ask for a second opinion. I have asked for second opinions on two of the twenty-eight articles that I have swept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I closed the Hillary Rodham Clinton individual GAR to get broader opinions at a community GAR. Unlike here they were vehement against shortening the article. The other 2nd opinion is a current review of Gordon Brown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Let’s go back to the comments: “In all honesty, if I had to make a pass or fail without any editorial changes on this article I would pass”, and, “I am especially pleased with its extensive citations, which greatly aid the reader.”
- Yes the article is generally good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
“It is unclear to me why File:Paul and Dot Rhone.jpg is essential to the article. It is the only Fair-use image in the article.”
Let me explain: ““It is unclear to me”, means you need an explanation. Why don’t you ask for one? “It is the only Fair-use image in the article.” Only ONE Fair-use image in a whole article? Doesn’t that say enough about a photo that could NEVER be replaced with a free-use photo?
- See above for a clear explanation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
“It would not hurt to structure the WP:LEAD”. It wouldn’t hurt, but would it FAIL a GA review? The mind boggles.--andreasegde (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do not understand why you are boggled by a comment like that. It is clear that the article could be improved with a more comprehensive LEAD. What is boggling about that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Dot Rhone is going back in, because no explanation is needed.--andreasegde (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)