Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Copyedit

This article has improved tremendously. With a bit of copyediting it will really sparkle. Something to watch out for is impairment of readability by over-long sentences, which is a very common problem with Wikipedia in general. What apparently happens is that someone looks at the material and decides to add a fact, then someone else adds their own qualification, and another expansion of the topic gets included so that eventually the sentence drifts around and contains various nuances, and by the time the reader gets to the end of the sentence he can't quite figure out what the main point is supposed to be -- which is clearly something that we want to avoid, so if there's any way you can help out it would be a really good idea to simplify sentences like that, assuming you have the time and are confident in your writing skills. Raymond Arritt 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Raymond Arritt. andreasegde 16:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I am very confident in my writing skills, and my sentences are often convoluted, with many qualifacations (and qualifications of qualifications), and of great length. I realise that communication sometimes requires brevity and simplicity, but the transfer of information sometimes requires a whole concept or idea to be laid out in one go. We do not want an article that runs in the format of

Paul McCartney is a famous person. He wrote songs and played in The Beatles. The Beatles were a famous band. They are the most famous band in the world. Then The Beatles broke up. Paul McCartney became a famous solo singer. He then formed another band. It was called Wings. They became famous.... ad nauseam

It is an encyclopedia for adults as well - lets write it in an adult manner. Clarity over brevity (as was commented on another topic above)LessHeard vanU 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Good points,LessHeard vanU. (Am I sounding too compliant here? Ouch!) All I can say is that if anyone does not think this is FA, then please say so, and make the changes. I give a challenge to all of us: If it's not good enough, then let's improve it. If it is good enough, then would someone please nominate it for an FA. Dear friends, let's stop humming and aahing and get on with it. (Sorry for my strident tone, but I want to move on and get my greasy fingers on other Beatles' articles...) andreasegde 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Raymond isn't completely wrong but I agree with LessHeard. I see there's a copyedit posted -will take a look. But you know, Andreasegde is right- no point in talking about it. I am in an unusually agreeable mood today, apparently. It won't last. Happy new year, all. Tvoz | talk 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
PS I believe this is called "shit or get off the pot". (And from a girl, no less. Oh those Yanks.) Tvoz | talk 20:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It is called that, and a very pertinent comment it is... :) andreasegde 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit II

I have just read through a few paragraphs, and it does look a bit 'sticky' sometimes, (that's the only word I could think of.) I think we should nominate it (but not me, 'cos I'm a back-room boy) and see what the 'big boys/girls upstairs' think. (Sound of fingers tapping/drumming on desktop...) andreasegde 18:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think User:LuciferMorgan would be a good choice to nom - he has been useful in sharpening up the article and seems to know his FA's. Only prob is that I haven't seen him around recently. I do think that the usual crew are too close to the article to objectively see the wood from the trees, even when we can feel it isn't quite right. I would like a third party copyedit and then slap it down in the FA intray. If, however, we can't get it reviewed perhaps we should bite the bullet?LessHeard vanU 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC) ps. I got some second hand cliches for Christmas... Could you tell?
I vote for dragging Kingboyk and LuciferMorgan back (by the hairs of their armpits) to do some sterling work. This project is gaining ground by the hour, and we need to kick ass (thanks to Tvoz for that one... :) andreasegde 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) BTW, I love you all.
I have a deep, and disturbing feeling that I'm going to do it. (I have never done it before, so please be gentle with me... :) andreasegde 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I have just tried to nominate it, but either my brain cells are depleting by the thousands, or I am too disgustingly stupid to know how it works (don't answer that one...) Can anyone help? andreasegde 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(When you have found out how to do the nomination) I would suggest that you leave the article alone a day or so before nominating it. I remember The Beatles FA review commenting on the heavy editing that was ongoing; it has to seem that the article is pretty much complete at presentation or it may fail as a work in progress. Obviously a popular article is always going to be tinkered with, but it should look as if the usual contributors are happy with the situation.LessHeard vanU 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Good thoughts as always, LessHeard vanU, but it doesn't seem as if that many people are seriously tinkering with it at the moment, and I am slightly worried that this turkey may be the one that Santa Claus forgot to deliver. I want to start work on the Lennon article, but (as is my wont) I don't want to leave this one in the GA wilderness. andreasegde 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Have Tony look over the prose, and he'll give an idea of where you need to go. LuciferMorgan 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Grateful Dead

Bugger - I have just read (and remembered) that Macca made a film about the 'Dead'. Does this man never stop? He's got his bus pass hasn't he? andreasegde 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I put it in. andreasegde 04:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This page should be protected. andreasegde 04:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Compared to other pages I've worked on there's not nearly enough vandalism to justify semiprotection, much less full protection. Though of course there's nothing that says you can't make the request. Raymond Arritt 05:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah, you're right, Raymond. I jumped the gun, but I did read that it should be left alone for a day or two before being nominated for FA. andreasegde 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I Can't Believe It's Not Paul McCartney!

Anyone know what this project was about? Rogerthat Talk 08:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a joke from an old English advertisement for a company about margarine and butter. People tasted the 'marge' and said, "I can't believe it's not butter!" That's all I know... andreasegde 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So when is this article going to get nominated for FA? LuciferMorgan 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Short question

Does the sentence "McCartney later took his A-level exams, but only passed one subject, which was English,[226] or Art.[227]" mean "McCartney later took his A-level exams, but only passed one subject. Sources disagree as to whether it was English,[226] or Art.[227]" or does it mean that McCartney is currently capable of choosing which subject he failed in? Geuiwogbil 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It means that nobody asked him, or that he has forgotten. Bob Spitz ('The Beatles') disagrees with Barry Miles (Many Years From Now - written with McCartney). I would agree with Miles' version, but... who knows? andreasegde 05:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hunter Davies, who is not especially reliable with facts but whose report was much closer to the time, says Art. Raymond Arritt 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mention this conflict among the sources? I can't make heads or tails of that sentence as is. This clarification is quite interesting, but it should be in the article somehow, even if only a footnote. Thanks for your explanations, and good luck in the FA! Geuiwogbil 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the citations to the end of the sentence. andreasegde 16:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I have made a few comments at the above place, mostly directly relating to frustrations I have encountered while contributing to this Project and the articles The Beatles and Paul McCartney. My festering resentment has leaked out in the form of WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. Please feel free to disassociate yourselves from me... ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I have been chopping out the ones that were not needed, and condensing others. andreasegde 12:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul is an ugly duckling

This is the 'ugly duckling' of articles. Quotes I have read: It's too long, it's not long enough, it does not correspond to Wikipedia style (no-one knows who wrote these style rules) it should be forked/merged, drugs were not so important to The Beatles that they should have such a long section (oh, really?) "swathes" of information have been left out, more should be put back in.... need I go on?

I see no way to reconcile these differing 'points of view', and can only predict that McCartney will never, ever reach FA. Such is life... andreasegde 08:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Or... you could put in for GA every time you have addressed one of the matters raised. When it fails on that point, quote them back at themselves. Let them get sick of it! LessHeard vanU 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean FA? Sounds tricky - I like it! andreasegde 08:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But the size problem will always be there. They want nice little articles that will look good in a silver frame on the victorian mantelpiece, right next to a Britannica article. I wonder what would happen if one copied an article from Britannica (paraphrasing it, course) and then sent it for FA? Ho-hum.andreasegde 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Makes me sick! This is the best article on Macca that I've read, speshly on the net, and as for Britannica's, laugh? I nearly handed 'round me ciggies! Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Critique edit

I thought the following made some good points, but needs wikifying (a lot)

McCartney's songwriting has benefited from friendly competition, Lennon in the 60's, Rolling Stones in the 60's, and Lennon again in the 70's. McCartney's critical success with songwriter Elvis Costello in the late 1980's has not transcended to his latter works, "It's as if Costello's McCartney songs were written not for the actual Paul McCartney but for an idea of Paul McCartney. Trippy? Perhaps. But Costello's generous perspective made McCartney something he hasn't been for decades -- interesting." [1]

Is the unquoted section taken from anywhere because if it hasn't then it is opinion and cannot be used. If it is from another source then it needs citing. If it is from the same source as the quoted section, it needs to be made clear. If only the quote section can be used, then it needs context adding which is not original research or opinion. LessHeard vanU 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I took that out before because it makes me want to throw up. Kick it in the goolies and snip it. Absolute puerile POV from a Costello fan. andreasegde 08:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Auto peer review thingy

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_McCartney/Archive_4&oldid=1087036460"