Talk:The Beatles in the United States

Initial page

Page has been created with initial material but there's probably plenty more that belongs here. PL290 (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It starts with the trip to America

Surely it should start with when records were released in America. 78.144.250.49 (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a Background section with a bit about this. It's covered in another article but it's good to make that clear here. PL290 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What's this?

"From the 1920s, the United States had influenced popular entertainment culture throughout the world"... which goes on, and on, and on, to talk about American music (complete with photo) but says nothing about The Beatles. It's gotta go, buddy...--andreasegde (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I disgree. It's a highly significant part of the background. It shows the extent of The Beatles' achievement in turning all that on its head. Those of us who know may take it for granted, but the article should present the facts in a way that tells any reader the scale of the achievement. PL290 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a part of The Fabs background, but then again, I also think the meeting with Elvis in the main article is too much. On another note, I get the feeling (in me water) that this article looks (I say looks) a teeny-weeny bit too much like trivia. Those nay-saying hammers are hovering, and how they love it. (I mention this because I've had experience, but don't tell my mother, she doesn't know). :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's good to have some fresh eyes to improve the article; new perspectives are helpful. I worked a lot on it and considered it to have developed well. But obviously I don't WP:OWN it and would want editors to make whatever changes they judge improve it, which I know can include surprises for me since I was staring at it for so long. Having said all that though, I cannot see that removal of part of the background by this edit was at all an improvement. The subject matter of that paragraph may not be "a part of The Fabs background", but the article is not titled "The Fabs". The subject matter of that paragraph is very much a part of the background to the fact that they conquered America, which is of course what this article is all about. In my view that paragraph should be reinstated without a doubt. (Why is that Top-priority icon appearing below? Is someone trying to tell me somethihng, or has it just slipped down!) PL290 (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I found out that it was the musician=yes box. I deleted the yes, and it went. It's been irritating me to death for weeks on other pages.--andreasegde (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Beatles in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GA review Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found checking against the criteria above - on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   OK - two comments - In addition to establishing The Beatles' international stature, it changed attitudes to popular music in the United States whose own Memphis-driven R&B culture had until then been its dominant influence and a global trend-setter. Surely rock n roll would be a better phrase here, less confusing, especially for many reader who would associate R&B with either balck music or modern pop?; The report had aired on Mike Wallace's morning news program, and was scheduled to air again on the November 22, 1963 broadcast of the CBS Evening News the assassination is wikilinked to the date, but it may need spelling out to younger readers, as to why it did not run in the evening - also this could mention that Cronkite did run the piece later in the month. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Y

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I assume GF on all print sources. ref #5 [1] is a personal web page not a RS and it does not support the statement: U.S. record companies, however, had not released any Beatles music; ref #8 [2] - About.com is not a RS; ref #11 [3] is not a RS; All other online sources check out. No OR - no unsupported statements. Y

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The Shea Stadium postcard required a separate non-free use rationale for its use in this article. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline: A detailed fair use rationale. A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale. Y

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

On hold for seven days for the image rationale and referencing to be sorted out. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1. OK, that's fine. Great working fixing it so fast. Congratulations - this is a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The above points have now been addressed. PL290 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Honestly, I don't see why this is even a separate article from The Beatles. A lot fo the same information is covered between the two pages. It's also a bit of a nebulous topic for a subarticle. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just check against the GA criteria - I don't make value judgements. If I did, Wikipedia would have probably one million articles less. ;-) Jezhotwells (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination

The assertion that the identity of Kennedy's assassin would remain in doubt for decades is pure nonsense and has no place in an entry on The Beatles. Has there been ridiculous conspiracies surrouding Kennedy's assassination? Yes, but there have also been ridiculous theories concerning 9/11 and the responsibility for Kennedy's assassination is no more in doubt than who is behind the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, this entry's discussion of the supposed effects Kennedy's assassination had on teenagers seems to be hyperbolic, to say the least. The entire section discussing Kennedy's death in this entry is pretty bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Article has been vandalized

Notice the dates in this article, which range over the past two millennia. Needs correction. Mikemcgregor1616 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

The article is now a redirect and has lost its Good status. AIRcorn (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)