Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Get Back/archive1
Latest comment: 18 years ago by LuciferMorgan
- Comment - In respect of the fact my criteria concerns haven't been addressed (no edits since the 13th), I'd like to see this moved onto FARC once the fortnight window expires. LuciferMorgan 19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- They're all busy on Paul McCartney and, I'm pleased to say, the WP Beatles project has finally caught the citations bug (even checking out books from the library!). We're too undermanned to fix every article at once of course and it looks like Macca's is the current article of choice (which is fair enough as it's rather more important than this one song). --kingboyk 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- True it is more important, though the project shouldn't think I'm going to give it any respite - October 22nd will be the next Beatles FAR from me. If they're all delisted, it doesn't really bother me - like your KLF song FAs for example; if they had to be brought to such high standards, then the Beatles song FAs should be measured the same. If I'm to be frank, there's an article even more important than McCartney - that's The Beatles, and getting that to FA first should be priority over any other FA aspirations. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know where you're coming from and don't urge any alternative path, but they are free to choose their own priorities. Also I think if our current batch of active members are able to get a new article to FA they'll then be more interested in and more able to fix up other FAs. As for The Beatles, that article is way below par and it's gonna need a massive amount of work. Hopefully some of the McCartney work - esp. citations - can be reused in that article. Maybe we can do the same for the other 3 Beatles, which would leave us with little left to fix in The Beatles and 5 very good/possible FA standard articles. Doubtful but possible! I'm rambling so... --kingboyk 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- The McCartney article still needs further citations in my opinion, though I'm a stringent person. I think these FARs have had a positive effect - at least now the Project can see their importance. LuciferMorgan 22:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know where you're coming from and don't urge any alternative path, but they are free to choose their own priorities. Also I think if our current batch of active members are able to get a new article to FA they'll then be more interested in and more able to fix up other FAs. As for The Beatles, that article is way below par and it's gonna need a massive amount of work. Hopefully some of the McCartney work - esp. citations - can be reused in that article. Maybe we can do the same for the other 3 Beatles, which would leave us with little left to fix in The Beatles and 5 very good/possible FA standard articles. Doubtful but possible! I'm rambling so... --kingboyk 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- True it is more important, though the project shouldn't think I'm going to give it any respite - October 22nd will be the next Beatles FAR from me. If they're all delisted, it doesn't really bother me - like your KLF song FAs for example; if they had to be brought to such high standards, then the Beatles song FAs should be measured the same. If I'm to be frank, there's an article even more important than McCartney - that's The Beatles, and getting that to FA first should be priority over any other FA aspirations. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- They're all busy on Paul McCartney and, I'm pleased to say, the WP Beatles project has finally caught the citations bug (even checking out books from the library!). We're too undermanned to fix every article at once of course and it looks like Macca's is the current article of choice (which is fair enough as it's rather more important than this one song). --kingboyk 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)