Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jim and Mary McCartney/1

Jim and Mary McCartney[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept The good article process does not deal with notability so those arguments for delisting don't hold any water here. Dead links are not a reason in itself to delist and the non-notabiltiy of the sources has not been established. Not sure where the copyright violations comes from, but if that is the case it should be delisted, but it needs some evidence to be presented AIRcorn (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly it’s beyond me how this qualifies as a “good article”. I’m trying to even find the good article reviews of this page from 2007, to no avail. For years, people have questioned the not-inherited notability of these two people yet Beatles stans have taken personal offense to it. For one, I question the notability myself. Mrs. Mary McCartney died a decade before “Let it Be” was written and it’s not as if she gets writing credit for it; the inspiration behind it is beautiful and all, but being the parent of a famous person isn’t WP:GNG. And Mr. Jim McCartney doesn’t have a music career to speak of, he was an amateur, so how is this a good article in the music category? Secondly, just about all these links are dead, not reliable sources, or fan blogs are used as sources (unacceptable). This article is really just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool, where the notability stands on Paul McCartney. And it clearly relies on primary Beatles sources. I won’t go so far as to say some original research was done, but a lot of this info isn’t even verifiable.Trillfendi (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GA review is quite easy to find, it is in the archive of the article talk page here. It still appears to be GA quality to me. The majority of the article is not sourced to primary sources or fan blogs but two quality biographies (Spitz and Miles) which are reliable secondary sources. If you have notability concerns, nominate it for deletion - it already survived an AfD in 2014. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to nominate this article for deletion I would have done that instead of this. But this article is two-in-one so that’s futile regardless. Also, isn’t the Spitz biography alleged to have “factual errors”? And Miles’s is apparently accused of revisionist history from McCartney’s first person perspective (and he was directly involved). Trillfendi (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know exactly where Spitz and Miles fall on the Mark Lewisohn to Albert Goldman scale of Beatle bios - my point was more that they are both major works by reputable mainstream publishing houses and therefore it was unfair of you to characterize the references as being primary sources and blogs. The article became a GA in 2007 (and unfortunately its author Andreasedge has long since retired) so it may well be that it could use a overhaul but I don’t see it as an obvious fail. Perhaps it would be helpful if you pointed to specific GA criteria in which you feel it is lacking? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t even those books that I was referring to as blogs. It’s obvious crap like [www.classicbands.com/RuthMcCartneyInterview.html this], and for God’s sake, websites called “magicbeatlestours.com”.Trillfendi (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really "obvious crap"? Classicbands.com has been running since 2000, isn't user-generated and seems to have editorial oversight [1]. (I did check WP:RSN but couldn't find a discussion about them.) I would have thought they would be ok for just an interview. The other website is being used for a statement that is already sourced to the Miles book, so that could go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean any blog can get interviews if they just reach out, right. From the looks of it, that website falls into the blog/fansite category rather than a music publication website such as a Pitchfork. It also appears that most if not all of these illustrations violate copyright. Even if this article solely had to rely on these two Beatles biographies, in my opinion it still doesn’t meet GA. Honestly if it was up to me the whole thing would be merged with Personal relationships of Paul McCartney. Trillfendi (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I concur that this should be merged to a Paul McCartney page and shouldn't have become GA in the first place. Many Beatles fans do indeed unfortunately overreact to the idea of deleting pages on relatives. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy the band myself, but that doesn't mean I can or should give their family extra leniency. Notability isn't inherited and neither parent is really known for anything of their own merit (i.e. not based on family connections). Even if Jim and Mary did warrant more than just being redirected to something on the Beatle, having a biography with potential factual errors is a concern, so are dead links, and why would people use Google Maps as a source for any claims? See Yew Tree Cemetery, 72 Western Ave, and 12 Ardwick Rd for examples. Excessive family details is also a concern (i.e. I fail to see how it's worth going so much into moving from house to house or "Joe never drank alcohol, went to bed at 10 o'clock every night, and the only swear word he used was 'Jaysus'. Florrie was known as 'Granny Mac' in the neighbourhood and was often consulted when families had problems."). "Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool" seems like an appropriate description to me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close of this GAR - This is the WP:WRONG VENUE to discuss merging. It still appears to me the that the people suggesting delist are more upset about the very existence of this article than its quality. These concerns should be hashed out at AfD. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: I have pointed out many instances of why this article does not meet Good article quality and feel free to visit the page yourself to see exactly what I’m talking about. If one is going to do an article about family members it has to have the same standards as the subject, regardless. Merging with Personal relationships of Paul McCartney was simply my own opinion and a frivolous comment. Not an offical proposal of merging right now. And if it gets to that point, I will propose deletion if I see the need. Trillfendi (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s not clear: copyright violations, many, many unreliable sources, and verifiability are the main reasons this is being reassessed. Trillfendi (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how you got to the copyright violation illustration assertion. Most of these photos are fair use, unless you think the justification forms were done incorrectly? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: if you really consider “magicbeatlestours”, “rockandpopshop”, and “beatlesireland” to be “reliable” sources (see for yourself) then I guess that’s that on that. Trillfendi (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of a source depends on the content that it is supporting. Twitter, you tube and even tabloids can sometimes be reliable sources. To demonstrate that sources are unreliable it needs to be in the context of the information cited (see WP:RS/N as it says basically this when people make requests). Furthermore the good article criteria are not that strict and do not even require everything to be cited. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not for more info on this. I have no opinion on the sources you mention as I am not familiar with them. All I know was that calling them unreliable was challenged here and it was not adequately rebutted. You might be better starting a merge discussion on the talk page rather than trying to delist it (or make a stronger case related to the criteria). `AIRcorn (talk)

@Aircorn: I’m well aware that there are those rare occasions when YouTube and what not can be a reliable source, but a reliable source but reliable source means it’s not poorly sourced. These random, and in some cases [beatlesireland.com completely defunct] fan pages are just that. The criteria includes verifiability without original research. I’m just looking at what I see in this article, I don’t care about the existence of them. I know we don’t have to cite when they sneezed, ate, and used the bathroom (which this article all but does), but it’s not too much to ask for higher quality sources. When most of these don’t even work how is one able to uphold that Good Quality status? We can’t just go by heresay. Trillfendi (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just went off what was written here. I briefly looked at the article, enough to judge that it wasn't just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool or an obvious delist. My decision was made from what was written here and unfortunately a lot wasn't relevant. If you disagree with the close I am fine with you seeking a second opinion from someone else. I am not sure what the protocol here is, I would assume asking at the talk page here or at WT:GAN would be your best options. AIRcorn (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]