Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Get Back/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Get Back

Get Back

edit

This has obtained approval from peer review; it was nominated before but failed because of insufficient support votes (there were no objections, to the best of my memory). Self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Could we get a table(s) of some kind to illustrate how this album did on the charts? There's some mention in the text, but it doesn't seem adequate for such a successful song. Everyking 08:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Ambi 09:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, you can disregard my objection all you like, but it still stands. I don't see how this can be considered comprehensive without better chart data. Everyking 13:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comprehensive does not mean trivia. See Wikipedia:Informative. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • ...That's not trivia. It's more important than some of the stuff that's already in the article. Everyking 20:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is possible, as the records have not been kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Huh? There are Billboard charts and all going way back, I thought. Everyking 13:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • It's possible I'm wrong. Could you point us to the data? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The method I use in the article is the same as the one I recommended for Autobiography, an option which has garnered signifcant support, I should add. Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That's fine, because detailed charting tables carry close to zero valuable information. There are simply too many variables unaccounted for in the charts, as explained in Billboard 200 -- and those limitations apply to all such popular music charts. They do indicate that a song was popular, but they really do poorly at indicating how popular. The fascination with chart details reminds me of the "Kitty Porn" story that was at thecorporation.com years ago. "In a recent study conducted by Richard Little it is estimated that there are over a million billion pictures of cats on the Internet. That number is expected to rise by some 30000000% over the next year. Projections for the year 2,010 show that there will be more cat pictures on the internet than molecules of oxygen in the atmosphere. Of course some critics have questioned Richard's study pointing to the fact that Richard is only ten and a half and call the study "dangerous, unfounded fiction" Supporters claim it's not dangerous at all. Both sides agree however that it would be impossible to come up with accurate numbers... so we'll use these.'' (And actually, singles charts are even worse, because they factor in airplay, which isn't really a measure of popularity at all.) iMeowbot~Mw 10:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I think it needs improvement. Everyking 13:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • It appears however that almost no one agrees with you. I for one do not agree that your hyper detailed chart data is anything but fancruft. We are talking about a song here, its not like its a crucial medical fact or something. - Taxman 21:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • You get your vote, and I get mine. It's not a bad article. I just don't think it's quite comprehensive yet. Everyking 21:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, if everyone disagrees with you then I would suggest that the objection is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • It seems easily actionable to me; surely anyone who knows that much about the song can put together a little chart illustrating its popularity. Everyking 01:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • It is actionable, as one would simply do it, an action. But since consensus is that it does not need to be done, the objection can be more or less ignored. Consensus, just like on every other decision on wikipedia is the rule here, not actionability. - Taxman 22:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 09:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, good article! iMeowbot~Mw 09:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article. I think it's a really good thing that it's very consistent in style and content with other Featured Article songs, so that instead of having an unrelated bunch of great articles, it's heading towards creating a "set". Rossrs 12:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support jguk 15:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Could use better inline citations though. See comments in one of the above nominations for more on that. I see one inline citation to a Playboy interview, but that is not listed in the references section. Maybe it would be better though in a notes section or similar if it is not indeed a good reference for the whole article or if the actual article was not available to you or another editor. - Taxman 21:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object briefly. The writing isn't there yet. Needs a bit more copyediting - the last two paragraphs of the first section, and the first para of the second section, for instance. +sj +
    • How is it now? Johnleemk | Talk 10:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Great, thank you. +sj + 05:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, as promised. Fredrik | talk 18:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. JuntungWu 06:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Get_Back/archive1&oldid=1138461545"