Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I've Just Seen a Face/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2021 [1].

I've Just Seen a Face

edit
Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 14:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by the Beatles featured on their album Help!, except in North America, where it appeared as the opening track of Rubber Soul. Tkbrett (✉) 14:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

edit
Addressed comments

Before I get into my comments, I would like to clarify that I know very little about the Beatles so I'm very much a non-expert in that regard. My comments are below:

  • The infobox says this song was handled by Parlophone, but that record label is not mentioned in the lead, and instead Capitol Records is mentioned so it is a little confusing for an unfamiliar reader like myself.
  • I've included further info on the song's release to clarify the situation.
  • For this part, is today appreciated as a fan favourite from the band's pre-Rubber Soul era., I would avoid using "today" as that can change depending on when a person is reading this article.
  • Following the guidance given at WP:PUFFERY, I've changed the wording to specifically refer to the song's Rolling Stone rankings.
  • I believe so. I'm not an expert in the subject, but as I understand it, the country and western genres went through a process of amalgamation from the 1950s through 1970s. In the 1960s, "country and western" was the term of choice, whereas today we just call it "country". This is the term Paul uses in his authorized biography: "['I've Just Seen a Face'] was slightly country and western from my point of view" (Miles 1998, p. 200).
  • That makes sense to me. As I continued to read the article, I had a clearer sense about this. Thank you for the explanation. The history of country music is interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is nitpick-y, but if read literally, this part, A cheerful love ballad, the song's lyrics discuss, describes the lyrics as a cheerful love ballad instead of the song.
  • By all means, point out the little errors. How about: The song is a cheerful love ballad, its lyrics discussing a love at first sight and conveying the singer's associated excitement and inarticulateness.?
  • For this sentence, The Beatles recorded the song in June 1965 during their Help! sessions at EMI Recording Studios on the same day they recorded "I'm Down" and "Yesterday"., I'd avoid repeating "recorded" twice in the same sentence.
  • How about this? The Beatles completed the song in June 1965 during their Help! sessions at EMI Recording Studios on the same day they recorded "I'm Down" and "Yesterday".
  • This part, while another acoustic guitar plays simultaneously to provide a contrasting effect, reads somewhat awkwardly as earlier in the sentence, you identify George Harrison playing a solo and it is not clear who is playing this part.
  • Yes, I presume it's John doing the contrasting acoustic part, since he did the rhythm guitar for this song, but I'm worried about WP:SYNTH since Everett 2006 doesn't actually say who is playing the other guitar. What exactly do you find awkward about it?
  • That is a fair concern. If John is not directly connected to this part, then I agree it is best to not name him. I just found it awkward to directly name the guitarist in one part of a sentence and in the other, just say that the guitar plays (seemingly by itself) if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question for this part, Reviewers and commentators have described "I've Just Seen a Face". What is the difference between reviewers and commentators?
  • I'm distinguishing between people like Stephen Thomas Erlewine, who reviews songs and albums for the website AllMusic, and someone like Walter Everett, who has written extensive musicological works analyzing the Beatles' discography, but isn't really a critic.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. It is good to distinguish between the two as a critic will have a different approach and writing style than a musicologist. Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments for the lead and infobox. I hope this is a helpful start. I will read through the article either tomorrow or later in the week and add more comments at that time. Have a great rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For this part, had been rejected for inclusion, do you know who rejected them? Was it other members of the Beatles, the record label, or someone else entirely?
  • The band rejected its inclusion. That's as specific as i can get it.
  • I believe the citation placement in this sentence, Working on a piano, he composed the melody first, beginning it as an uptempo country and western-inflected piece., hinders readability. I know that it is acceptable to put citations in the middle of a sentence (as it is more up to personal preference), but I find that these citations cut up the sentence rather awkwardly and more noticeable than they should be.
  • Agreed. Collapsed into one citation at the end of the sentence.
  • This is another nitpick so apologies for that. If read literally, this part, Split into three phrases, the intro's illusion of acceleration, is saying that the "illusion of acceleration" is split into three phrases, not the intro.
  • Tried this: Splitting the intro into three phrases, its illusion of acceleration ...
  • After reading the "Genre" section, I do not think it is accurate to call this a bluegrass song in the infobox. This section uses phrasing like "tinged", "inflected", "tempo", "feel", and "soaked", but does not outright called it a bluegrass song. This reminds of other song articles, where critics identify "elements" of a genre in a song and that is not enough to put that genre in the infobox. I understand this song was later covered by bluegrass bands, but I do not see clear evidence that critics classified the original as bluegrass.
  • Upon reflection, I think you're right. Quite a few describe it as either folk or folk rock, but I wasn't sure if it makes sense to have both listed since folk rock feels like a subgenre of folk. What do you think?
  • I do not think the clear templates are necessary, but I am honestly not super familiar with them.
  • I have each of them there to prevent quote boxes from cutting off lower section titles on different screen sizes. I removed the one in the genre subsection b/c I don't think it's entirely necessary.
  • This part, Made up of run-of verses and alliterations, McCartney later described, reads as if McCartney is made up of run-of verses and alliterations.
  • I joined the first part to the preceding sentence to avoid the ambiguity. Also, fixed "run-of" to "run-on".
  • Is there a reason why the "Recording" section is after the "Composition" section? From my experience, it would usually go first.
  • Since WikiProject Songs doesn't provide much guidance in the way of article layout, I've based this article on some of the many Beatles related GAs, such as "Think for Yourself". As for FAs, I've seen it done this way at "Something", whereas "Hey Jude" uses the format you mention. I like it better with the composition described first, since it moves things along chronologically, with the song being written before recorded.
  • I have two comments for this part, Recording took place in EMI's Studio Two, with George Martin producing the session. I do not think the producing link is entirely necessary as a majority of the music articles I've read do not use it. I would also avoid WP:Plusing. I do not have an issue with it, but I have received this note in the past and I've been told to avoid it in FA writing.
  • I really need to review WP:PLUSING again ... Anyway, how about this? Recorded in EMI's Studio Two, George Martin produced the session with assistance from balance engineer Norman Smith.

Here are some more comments to the end of the "Recording" section. I will be really stopping here for tonight. I am enjoying reading the article so I got sucked in lol. Please let me know if you have any questions. I am always happy to see song articles in the FAC process. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Aoba47, glad to hear you're enjoying it so far. My responses to your comments appear above. Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses! I will collapse my comments later today when I continue to read the article, but I will leave them up for now so you can see my responses to your responses. I greatly appreciate your explanations. My full review should be posted sometime later today. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, replaced the Memphis sound inspired "Drive My Car", shouldn't there be a hyphen between Memphis sound and inspired? I am admittedly not the best with this so I wanted to ask rather than make the edit myself.
  • I was wondering about that as well, and I think you're right, but I'm not certain. Anyway, I've gone ahead and added it.
  • After reading the "Release and reception" section, I revisited this part from the lead, Reviewers and commentators have described "I've Just Seen a Face" in favourable terms. For the third paragraph of this section, there are a decent amount of negative or more subdued criticisms. I am not entirely sure if it is accurate to characterize the song's contemporary reviews as "favourable terms".
  • Those aren't contemporary reviewers – rock music criticism didn't really exist in 1965 (for more on this, refer to the talk page discussion). Those are retrospective commentators reflecting not so much on IJSaF as a song qua song, but on how its inclusion on the North American Rubber Soul changes the album's feel. To avoid the ambiguity, I've re-titled the section from "Release and reception" to simply "Release". I've also added a sentence to the lead regarding how these commentators view the change.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but it seems that all the retrospective reviews for this song are positive. I am guessing there are not any negative retrospective reviews?
  • Try as I might, I haven't been able to find anything. Every substantial review or piece of commentary made regarding the song appears here, as far as I am aware. The worst impression seems to be Doggett saying it has "an entirely satisfactory acoustic arrangement" (though he also calls it "a McCartney gem", so he obviously still admires it).
  • I would revise this part, with Turner arguing it has been "key in stimulating a relationship between bluegrass and the music of the Beatles", as it is another instance of WP:PLUSING.
  • Changed to: ... covered by several bluegrass artists, and Turner argues it has been ... Alternatively, I could make them two separate sentences if you think that works better.
  • I believe I already know the answer to this question, but I want to make sure. Since the original version of this song was never released as a single, it could not chart. Is that correct?
  • Hmm, I'm don't think so. In Everett's book The Beatles as Musicians, he lists every Beatles song added to the most popular radio station in 1960s New York, WABC. "I've Just Seen a Face" ranks at 77, but Everett lists its Billboard Hot 100 position as "Album Cut", seemingly implying it did not have the opportunity to chart as an album track.
  • From my understanding (and I could be wrong so take it with a heavy pinch of salt) was that songs from earlier time periods only appeared on charts if they were marked as singles and released to radio and album cuts being able to chart was more of a recent phenomenon. That being said, I could be wrong though. This is probably a better question for someone who is more familiar with this part of music history. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the end of my review. Again, I am very unfamiliar with the Beatles so I am only focusing on the prose. With that being said, I really enjoyed reading this article, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once the above comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your helpful comments. I really appreciate your attention to detail. Tkbrett (✉) 19:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I have left my responses above, but I have collapsed everything to save space. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. You have done a wonderful job with this article! Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a lot of sense. Going through the above and skimming the article I was tempted to do it unilaterally, but you may prefer a withdrawal - is this a formal request? Either way, the usual two week wait before nominating another FAC will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JG66

edit

Tkbrett, I'd been meaning to write something on the talk page but once you opened a peer review, I thought about participating there, and now you've nominated the article for FA, I figure I'll bring my comments here. Sorry to say, I find the article too long, and it's surprising to see it carrying a four-paragraph lead section. The last time I looked at the page was back in July, and I'm not convinced that all the expansion that's taken place since then is necessarily for the better.

In my opinion, it's as if you're trying to squeeze in a presence for every Beatles author who's ever written about the song. That's an exaggeration, I know – there are several hundred books about the Beatles – but there is that feeling that the article's become bloated, and I think some discernment is needed. The third and fourth paras under Release is one area; paras 2 to 4 under Retrospective assessment and legacy make up another. Is it not possible to halve the number of biographers we hear from? This is an approach I've always used, or always tried to use, with Beatles song and album articles – in fact, because of the massive amount of coverage any Beatles music continues to receive in formal reviews, from music critics, it's often impossible to include much in the way of personal opinion from biographers in sections discussing an album's retrospective critical standing. (On legacy-related points, yes, it's often the biographers who weigh in, but not their personal opinion on whether a piece of music is good or bad. On the other hand, it's not as if "I've Just Seen a Face" has much in the way of a cultural legacy outside of music; it's not like a lot of Lennon and Harrison songs where their impact is sociocultural, in the way that the Beatles are often described as having influenced and mirrored the times.)

What I've found with these song articles is I look across as many of Beatles writers as I can, most of whom are also music journalists – in no particular order: Ian MacDonald, Mark Hertsgaard, Peter Doggett, Nicholas Schaffner, Jonathan Gould, Steve Turner, Tim Riley, Walter Everett, Chris Ingham, Alan Clayson, Philip Norman, Kenneth Womack, John Kruth (in his capacity as author of a book on Rubber Soul) and Robert Rodriguez. I then pare down the comments and opinions to perhaps five at most, ensuring that the result is an accurate reflection of what seems to be an overall picture. I think the sections mentioned need a bit of that, because we just seem to be presented with more and more, but it doesn't really feel to me as if it's a benefit to the reader. One example would be Jim Fusilli under Release; why are we hearing from him, when he's writing as a Beach Boys biographer? It's sort of like the page has become a repository for anything that's ever been written about "I've Just Seen a Face".

Similar situation with the section on the Charles River Valley Boys' version – it seems way too detailed. Also under Other versions, given what appears before, I don't think we need to hear from the Dillards' banjo player; the inclusion of four writers' comments on that version also strikes me as over the top.

Sorry if this is more of a drive-by blurt than a considered review. I would try to present things in a bullet-point list, but to me, there's an overarching issue that's apparent from a distance, and from the very start in the overly long lead. Eg, do we need to have that bit about the Harrison solo accompanied by another guitar for contrast? Ditto with the song becoming "an immediate favourite of McCartney's" in combination with all the other detail on his post-Beatles versions? JG66 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, JG66; I know you're not usually a fan of the FAC process, so I was glad when I saw you lifted your embargo for this one.
@FAC coordinators: JG66's above comments suggest quite a few rewrites to this page. I respect his opinion and so plan to work through them, but given the scope of the concerns I'm wondering if it makes sense to withdraw the nomination while the rewrites happen and then resubmit it in a week or two? Tkbrett (✉) 12:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a lot of sense. Going through the above and skimming the article I was tempted to do it unilaterally, but you may prefer a withdrawal - is this a formal request? Either way, the usual two week wait before nominating another FAC will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd like to request a withdrawal. Thanks, Gog the Mild. Tkbrett (✉) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict>Tkbrett, your willingness to take feedback and work so openly and co-operatively here is becoming a genuine source of wonder to me ... All power to you. (As for me, I'm afraid I find myself tired and a bit jaded; still love the research and writing, but not much outside that.)
The article does need a fair amount of cuts and trimming, I think, but I'd hope that wouldn't mean it misses the boat this time around. If it's of any help, in para 3 under Retrospective assessment and legacy, I suggest cutting everything from "Author Chris Ingham describes" to "the 'simple folk style' of McCartney's 1968 composition 'Mother Nature's Son'". None of that strikes me as being especially related to an assessment of the song, in terms of a critic saying it's good or bad, or anything that's meaningfully legacy-related. (Perhaps the straight descriptive points could fit up at Composition/Music or Recording.) It's that section on the Charles River Valley Boys version that needs the most work, imo. JG66 (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/I%27ve_Just_Seen_a_Face/archive1&oldid=1053111792"