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 promoted by GrahamColm 18:36, 9 July 2012 [1].

Paul McCartney[edit]

Paul McCartney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after implementing the previous FAC suggestions, and a thorough copyedit, I believe it is now up to standards. — GabeMc (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Thanks for your comments Lemonade51, I believe the above concerns have now been resolved. — GabeMc (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Mark Arsten, and for your help fixing the cites, and clean-up. The Miles cite was intended to be 1997, and MacDonald was misspelled. I think that should clear up the HarvErrors you brought to my attention. I also moved Benitez and Davies to further reading. Thanks again! — GabeMc (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning to oppose at present

The prose is wobbly in parts. I'll need two or three goes at this, and here's the first:

  • Second para leaps from 1952 to 1961 and back to 1954.
I'm not sure what you mean here, the second graph in "Childhood" goes from 1947 → 1952 → 1953 → 1954, and does not mention any dates in the 1960s. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you mean the mention of his A-level exams at age nineteen, okay, it's fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first member of his family to own a car, his mother rode a bicycle – not clear who was the first member with a car – McC or his mother.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • an early memory her leaving – missing an "of"?
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • he traded it for a £1 – who traded it – McC father or son?
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. More shortly. In the interests of full disclosure I should mention that I went to the same grammar school as McCartney (but later) and had the same English master, A J (Cissie) Smith (a distant relation of George Harrison, I believe), in whose honour I contribute these pedantic quibbles. – Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful and insightful comments Tim riley. I believe I have now resolved all the above concerns, and I look forward to your further comments. Thanks for your time, the article is much improved due to your effort. — GabeMc (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry for the delay in submitting my second batch of suggestions. I am snowed under at present, but I promise to do my very best to have more comments within the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, no hurries, thanks for your time and effort! — GabeMc (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to find time to add further comments within 48 hours. Profound apologies for the delay, and I hope I shall still be in time to contribute while the review is open. Tim riley (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More Riley comments
  • You begin many paragraphs with "He" – which I think should be replaced with "McCartney".
Great suggestion, I think this issue is now resolved. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2005 he released the rock album – this is a very long sentence and needs splitting.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • three sold out concerts – I think you probably need a hyphen for "sold-out"
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • was released in February 2012, that same month – stronger punctuation mark than a comma needed here
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a musician, McCartney was largely self-taught, musicologist Ian MacDonald - stronger punctuation mark than a comma needed here
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He played a piano – I don't really think we need a wiki-link here: see WP:OVERLINK
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Tim riley (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Tim Riley, the article is greatly improved due to your effort. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per choppy prose and punctuation. I will give a more detailed rationale later. --John (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This oppose is obsolete, and without an updated rationale, it should be disregarded. user pinged ~ GabeMc (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look, and thanks for your copyedits, and support. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and copyedits Ling.Nut3, I have fixed the above concerns and look forward to any further comments you make. — GabeMc (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the lead section: "According to the BBC, his Beatles song 'Yesterday' has been covered by over 2,200 artists—more than any other song." This is a statement of fact, not opinion. If there is no serious dispute about it, it need not and should not be attributed in the lead. If there IS a serious dispute about it, it should not appear in the lead. My guess is that the former is true, and "According to the BBC" should be cut. DocKino (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, great point, I agree. It's a sourced statement of fact that should not be contentious. I think I only had it there to cover my butt, thinking people would want to know who made this claim. I've made an edit that I believe resolves this issue. — GabeMc (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Cheers.

Thanks for your comments, good eye, Miles 1998 and the Beatles 2000 are not currently cited to in the article, so I have moved them to further reading per your suggestion. I removed the Linda tag. Also, good call on the drumming, I have included some details in the musicianship section as you suggested. Thanks for your time and input! — GabeMc (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for taking the time to make comments, I'll do my best to resolve them. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about the gradual leadership role shift in the group from John to Paul.
Good point Wasted. I think it's fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about most of the big singles during the last two years being Paul's.
I've edited this text string: "McCartney's contributions to the band's hit song's include: "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), "Yesterday" (1965), Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back (1969)", "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (1970).[44]" to this: "McCartney's contributions to the band's early hits include: "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), "Yesterday" (1965), Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" (1966). He was also the primary writer of five of their last six US number ones, which were: "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back (1969)", "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (1970).[46]" Which should address this issue, let me know if it does not. Also the article later mentions that "Hey Jude" was the band's biggest single ever. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about Paul being the immediate cause of the band's breakup (although of course it was headed that way anyway).
If you mean that he was the first to sue for dissolution, then this is fixed now. If you mean he caused it, then that's really just an opinion that is not exactly supported by most of the sources I own (50+ books). There were many, many factors, (drugs, Yoko, marriage, the fact that they had been together for 13+ years, etcetera) and to blame Paul is overly simplistic, would require a WP:SYNTH, and its a bit dangerous IMO, afterall, this is a BLP. To do that topic justice would require a sub-section that really belongs at The Beatles and/or The Beatles' break-up anyway, not here IMO. I could perhaps be convinced otherwise, but please provide specific sourcing, versus a wild goose-chase for me to prove/disprove. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I just mean the former. Remember that to the outside world, the news came in April 1970 that the Beatles had broken up due to McCartney leaving them. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've now added the 10 April 1970 date for Paul's public leaving. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about the 3-against-1 split among the Beatles the characterized the immediate post-breakup period, both legally (McCartney's lawsuits, Eastman vs Allen Klein, etc) and musically (especially John and George, with Ringo collaborating with them and not yet Paul, although Ringo was obviously less hostile than the other two).
Fixed I think, but are you expecting info on their post-beatles musical collaborations at Paul McCartney? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some mention of his drums playing (on five Beatles tracks, then during several solo/Wings albums, especially Band on the Run) should be included.
Fixed. But I'm only aware of his playing drums on three Beatles tracks, which two did I miss? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ballad of John and Yoko" (a hit single) and "Why Don't We Do It in the Road" (maybe Ringo too on that one).
I added "TBOJAY", missed that one last night, but "WDWDIITR" is Ringo, according to MacDonald, Miles and Lewisohn. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "Why Don't We ..." had Paul playing drums in its first recording, but the recording used on the album has Ringo. I should have double-checked ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More description of his piano playing could be added, especially since it's featured on some of the Beatles' most famous late-era songs and with disparate styles - the Fats Domino of "Lady Madonna" to the liturgical of "Let It Be".
Good suggestions Wasted, I added some detail, and will look for more. Please do point me to any sources you are aware of. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • His synthesizer playing/arranging should be mentioned. He was one of the early users of the Moog - somewhere in the Carr-Tyler book it praises him for getting something useful out of it without going overboard - and it became a key part of many of his later songs, e.g. some of Band on the Run, "Wonderful Christmastime", etc.
I did my best to flesh out some detail here. I'll add more as I find it. Which Carr-Tyler book do you mean? I'm only aware of one, low-quality (IMO) out-of-print, expensive picture-book. As far as Moog use in the Beatles, Harrison played in on two songs (as well as an entire solo album in 1968) and Lennon only once, Paul only played it on "Maxwell's SH" to my knowledge, MacDonald agrees.(MacDonald, 2005, p.366) — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your synthesizer examples of "Loup (1st Indian on the Moon)" and "London Town" seem a little obscure. His most prominent post-Beatles synth parts are probably "Jet", "Band on the Run", and "Wonderful Christmastime", with "With a Little Luck" maybe coming fourth. The Carr-Tyler book (((cite book |last=Carr |first=Roy |authorlink=Roy Carr |last2=Tyler |first2=Tony |authorlink2=Tony Tyler |title=[[The Beatles: An Illustrated Record]] |publisher=Harmony Books |year=1975 |isbn=0-517-52045-1 |ref=harv)) is actually very good, a NYT best-seller, and filled the gap in Beatles history books between Hunter Davies and the spate in the 1980s. The quote from page 110 is in reference to the Band on the Run album, but also him in general, and says "... he also plays the Moog synthesizer with more taste than most other exponents of this Frankensteinian instrument." And in any case, this section would be a good vehicle for including mention of "Wonderful Christmastime" in the article, which is probably one of the five most played post-Beatles McCartney songs of all when you factor in the many all-Christmas-from-November-on radio stations. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) I specifically mention "Loup (1st Indian on the Moon)" because I have a reliable source (Benitez, 2010, p.46) that explicitly states Macca actually played the Moog on it himself. That you think "London Town" is an obscure mention is an opinion, Ingham calls the song "particularly memorable".(Ingham, 2009, p.117) Again, I also have a WP:RS that states Macca played the keys on it (Blaney, 2007, p.123). 2) Per Blaney 2007, the keyboard parts on "Jet" and "Band on the Run" were played by Linda, not Paul.(Blaney, 2007, p.85) In fact, according to Blaney, Macca played keys on just one track from BOTR; "Picasso's Last Words". 3) I've added "Wonderful Christmastime", but I'm not sure why you are pushing so hard for inclusion of the Carr-Tyler book, which while it may well be "actually very good" as you say, they are likely incorrect to state that Macca played the Moog parts which they praise. Again, according to Blaney, Linda played almost all of the one-finger, monophonic Moog parts of which Carr-Tyler speak. Also, it's highly unlikely (IMO as a musician) that the syth part on "WCT" was even a Moog, as the parts are polyphonic and they modulate (something a Moog from 1979 could not accomplish), it was most likley a Sequential Circuits Prophet-5, though I am still looking for a WP:RS that explicitly states this. That Paul played keys on the track is enough for now. 5) "With a Little Luck" was already mentioned in the section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I wasn't aware that Linda played those parts, but I'm sure he wrote the part and determined what it would sound like. And I wasn't implying that "Wonderful Christmastime" has a Moog. I'm glad that song is now in the article, but in your sentence "McCartney also played a synthesizer on the Christmas song, "Wonderful Christmastime", a perennial holiday favourite", the text "the Christmas song" is pretty redundant. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Fixed the wikilink. Thanks for the catch! ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some mention of the criticism he endured for keeping Linda in his bands (especially on tour) given her somewhat limited musical abilities. The point is he didn't care what anyone thought, he was determined to have her in his musical life just as in the rest of his life.
Agreed. I added some details to that effect, will add more as I find it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • McCartney's interest in electronic music is overweighted in the "Beatles" section. Yes, I know ever since the 1989 tour McCartney has been promoting this in order to counter the 'Paul just wrote the pretty songs, John wrote the hard-rocking, artistically challenging material' nonsense. And it is worth a brief mention. But Paul did write beautiful melodies, which were inherently more sophisticated and developed than John's. And "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" were both more important in broadening the horizons of what the Beatles could do on record than any of McCartney's electronic experiments. And to give most of a paragraph to this electronic experiment and never mention at all McCartney's role in side two of Abbey Road is just plain wrong.
I think it's fixed now. Let me know if/where you want more/less detail. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian criticism of Liverpool Oratorio seems overweighted. It, or at least aspects of it, got some favorable notices too.
I did my best here, if you are aware of a more favorable review, please do point me in the right direction. As far as I can tell no "real" classical critique gave it an overall favorable review. I could be wrong, and as I said, if you can provide a better example I would be glad to use it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been. Through the mid-1980s his records sold well and he got a lot of radio airplay, but since then he hasn't really. What was his last new song to get any kind of airplay in the U.S.? Probably "My Brave Face" back in 1989, maybe "Freedom" a bit after 9/11. That's it. His concert tours have been very successful, but it's off of old material. To illustrate, has any song later than the early 1980s appeared on any tour after the one to promote its containing album? That's kind of a metric for whether aging performers/composers have vital new music or not.
"The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been."
A very confusing comment. The fourth sentence reads: "He has been described by Guinness World Records as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and "the most successful songwriter" in UK chart history.[1][2]" In "Recognition and achievements" it says: "In 1986 he received acclaim from the Guinness Book of Records Hall of Fame, who presented him with a rhodium disk to commemorate his standing "as the most successful musician of all-time."[1]" The article mentions his three most succsessful songs, and every single #1 he ever had in the US, and in the UK. The lead ends with "He is one of the UK's wealthiest people, with an estimated fortune of £475 million in 2010".
As far as the radio play stuff. Are you asking me to summarize the end of his popularity according to who? Can you suggest a source for this? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have written, "The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been from the mid-late 1980s to the present." The answer being: Album sales, somewhat successful. Singles and radio play, not successful at all. Concert tours, very successful but based upon old material. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I could cite that without a WP:SYNTH, or a WP:OR. An astute reader should be able to tell that his last #1 hits came in the 1980s. I know of no way to cite radio play, or any sources that detail which songs he has played live over the last 42 years (minus the 1980s) of touring post-Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly state somewhere that his last number one hit came in year X, his last top twenty hit came in year Y, things like that. Any of the Joel Whitburn-type sources can verify that. You can say that his last platinum studio album came in year Z, the RIAA database will verify that. You can use a source like this MW/WSJ one to show to McCartney, like many older artists, had struggled to get radio airplay for his newer material. This Chicago Tribune piece confirms that McCartney was dissatisfied with the low radio airplay he was getting. I realize that currently the article doesn't cover any of his record company switches - maybe it should? - but these sources can be used to confirm the point about diminishing airplay for new material. I'll keep looking for sources on what's played in concerts. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article now currently mentions: "[When] his last number one hit came", "[When] his last top twenty hit came " and "[When] his last platinum studio album came". I'm not at all interested in the over analysis of his radio play per song, album, state, region, country or decade, radio play is a dying format anyway, should we discuss his 8-track and cassette sales as well? As far as the songlist at his live shows, the article currently establishes that as of 2002 his live sets of 36 songs included 23 Beatles songs. The article also mentions that in 2005 his shows consisted of 35 songs, with 23 Beatles tracks. The article also makes clear that during his most recent shows in Mexico City, just last month, the band played 23 Beatles tracks in a 37-song set, that's enough detail on his performances of Beatles songs I think, we have clearly established that the balance of his live-set has remained roughly consistent since 2002. P.S., paulmccartney.com is good source for "what's played in concerts". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment: "I realize that currently the article doesn't cover any of his record company switches - maybe it should?", there is now a comprehensive sub-section devoted to 50 years of record label data, thanks again for the great suggestions. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCartney was dubbed "the cute Beatle", according to Miles." This was added based on a comment I made in the previous FAC, but there's no need to limit it the in-text opinion of one writer. There are many references that will say this, look at this Google News archive search for example.
"the cute Beatle" is a direct quote from Miles, who has not been established yet, therefore this quote needs to be attributed in-line. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need a quote. You can write something like, "... McCartney was known as the 'cute' Beatle" and source it. That's not a quote, it's a label, and it doesn't need in-text attribution.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""one-man album with Paul playing all the instruments" himself, writes Beatles biographer Bill Harry." Why the in-text attribution? Do you or someone else really doubt that McCartney played all the instruments on McCartney himself?
Ditto. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should paraphrase this and cite it, no quote is needed.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the feature film Give My Regards to Broad Street, a musical which included Starr, and "was savagely panned by the critics" according to Harry" Was it not panned by critics according to anyone else?
Ditto, I'm merely attributing a quote in-line because it is unclear who is saying it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrase and cite.
I disagree here, and prefer to keep the direct quote/in-line attribution. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed via paraphrase. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""religion did not play a part in their upbringing" according to biographer Barry Miles" Are there other biographers who think differently? If so, that should be presented (with "Let It Be" presumably as partial evidence). If not, this should just be presented as fact and sourced.
No, the sources overwhelmingly agree, I cite Miles because he is being directly quoted, and BTW, "Let It Be" is not at all about the virgin Mary, or religion, Paul's mother came to him in a dream telling him to "Let it Be", or so he claims, her name was Mary. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrase and cite several of the stronger sources.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCartney designed a series of six postage stamps issued by the Isle of Man Post in 2002, and according to BBC News, he is the first major rock star in the world to do so." Either we believe this is a fact, in which case it should just be stated, or we think it is it is suspect, in which case (since this is a fairly minor matter) it should be removed.
Well, the BBC is the source for the claim, so they are attributed in-line, lest the material be challenged later (see below) — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrase and cite. If someone doesn't believe it, they can see what source you are using. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree here. "the first major rock star in the world to do so" is a somewhat bold/ambiguous claim, which I would much rather quote and attribute to the BBC in-line. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is now fixed via paraphrase. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology towards the end of the "1960–1970: The Beatles" section is now all jumbled.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are still ordering problems in this section. "McCartney's contributions to the band's early hits include ..." should come earlier, and before the discussions of "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby". The "For Abbey Road ..." description should go a little earlier, and I think the breakup/aftermath material should be its own paragraph. (The current juxtaposition suggests the Abbey Road medley disagreement was a major factor leading to the breakup, when of course it was just one of many.) The "Between 1963 and 1970 ..." summary should either go near the beginning or near the end, not in the middle of the section. There is a missing link to The Beatles' 1966 US tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this issue is now fixed, though I'm not sure where you expect the Abbey Road material, as it is now mentioned in the chronology during the summer of 1969, when it was recorded. — GabeMc (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To illustrate that the legal/business squabbles went on a long time, McCartney's absence at the band's inclusion in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989 (or whenever it was) should be included.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one of the points about "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" is that the former was their first song to include strings, and the latter the first to include no pop instruments at all. In addition I think something indicating the breadth of McCartney's style during the Beatles is warranted, perhaps text like "While McCartney was featured in many of the group's best-known ballads, he was also responsible for frenetic rockers such as 'Long Tall Sally', 'I'm Down', and 'Helter Skelter'."
I added the requested detail on "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby", but as far as "the breadth of McCartney's style", I think this is already well covered in the "Musicianship#Vocals" section. Though any suggestions for specific material not already included there is always welcome. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's in the later section, but I still think some kind of mention is due in the Beatles section that he was responsible for some of their fiercest rockers. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As John was equally "responsible for some of their fiercest rockers", this is beginning to border on a WP:NPOV issue IMO, so which song/s do you specifically request I summarize and/or mention in the Beatles summary section that are not already covered in the "Musicianship" section or elsewhere? — GabeMc (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were the consequence of his drug arrests? Wasn't he barred from entry into some countries for a while? Where did the 1984 and 1997 arrests take place?
Fixed. Details added. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really needs to be more on his concert tours. The live albums from them are not significant, except for Wings Over America, but other things about them are. The Wings University Tour illustrated his desire to be in a working band and to escape some of his Beatles fame by operating in a low-key manner and not playing any Beatles songs. The Wings Over America Tour was very high profile and a big success but notably with only five Beatles songs played in most shows. The 1989 World Tour was a milestone in that it was the first time, two decades after the fact, that he fully embraced his Beatles past and fully integrated that material into his shows. Since then his tours have explored more of the Beatles catalogue. Some brief metrics on the commercial success of the tours can be given: how many dates, the total gross, rank within other tours for the year, Billboard or Pollstar awards if any. Sources do exist for all this, see for example this Billboard article declaring his Driving Tour the tops in 2002. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insightful suggestions, the article is greatly improved due to your effort. I believe I have resolved the issue of lack of detail on his tours. Let me know if/where you think we need more/less detail. — GabeMc (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the material is good, except that a) you are missing links, each of these tours has its own article and b) the material should be integrated into each of the appropriate "Musical career" sections (Wings, 1982-1989, etc). There's no reason to treat the tours separately from his other musical activity at the time (singles, albums, films, etc). The "Tours" section should just have the list of tours, the same way the "Discography" section has a list of albums. You can also be a bit more concise about describing the Beatles content of the tours, meaning there's no need to name specific Beatles songs played. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and integrated, great suggestions, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, a few further comments on this aspect:
  • "while "Scrupulously avoiding Beatles songs" during their performances, writes Ingham." is another example of an unnecessary in-text quote and attribution. Just paraphrase and cite by saying "while not playing any Beatles songs" or something like that.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wings mananger, John Morris comments ..." the tense is unclear (is he saying this then or now?) and the whole quote seems unnecessary; just say the most of the tour was played in halls. \
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would drop the whole ", including the Little Richard hit, "Long Tall Sally", which McCartney performed during the encore, the only song he played during the tour that had previously been recorded by the Beatles" text, which is unnecessarily complicated; the previous text gets the idea across
I respectfully disagree. The point here is to inform the reader of the first example of a song performed by Wings that had been previously recorded by the Beatles. I prefer to retain this material for that reason. It also illustrates that a Little Richard cover was his first choice when "breaking" the seal on the Beatles recording catalog, which reinforces Richard's influence on Paul. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Live and Let Die" was a top ten US hit too, and you might add a parenthetical that it became a pyro-filled centerpiece of his later live shows.
Good suggestion. Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not concerts, but there needs to be more on Band on the Run: it is by far his most critically acclaimed post-Beatles work, as well as his most commercially successful; it was recorded under trying circumstances (band members quitting, Lagos, etc) and has appeared on several "best albums of all time" list. \
I agree, good suggestion, thanks. I added some detail. Let me know if I missed anything crucial. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, you put too much on it. The "Wings" section is now longer than the "Beatles" section, which doesn't seem right. I think you can omit "It was a US and UK number one", omit the mention of Grammys (they weren't major ones), and omit the mention of "Jet" and "Helen Wheels" (you generally don't mention songs in this section unless they were number ones). At the end where you say "They also recorded six US number one singles ..." you might also give the total number of top tens in both the US and UK for Wings. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted, the Wings section is now longer then the Beatles section primarily because of the Wings tour info, which about doubled its size and which you (rightly I think) told me to integrate into the section. As far as: "I think you can omit "It was a US and UK number one"" What about your above comment: ""Live and Let Die" was a top ten US hit too, and you might add ... that it became a pyro-filled centerpiece of his later live shows." Only BOTR and Venus and Mars were #1s in the UK and the US, so it's notable. As far as "omit the mention of Grammys (they weren't major ones)" please see: "there needs to be more on Band on the Run: it is by far his most critically acclaimed post-Beatles work, as well as his most commercially successful". Per: "omit the mention of "Jet" and "Helen Wheels" (you generally don't mention songs in this section unless they were number ones)." Please see above, also, not exactly accurate, I mentioned "Live and Let Die" (at your suggestion I believe, and thanks, I agree), which was not a number one in the UK or the US. "Jet" and "HW" were hits, the only other two from BOTR that could be called hits, so their inclusion is appropriate to help illustrate BOTRs commercial success. Further, "you might also give the total number of top tens in both the US and UK for Wings." Yeah, I might, but you just said there is now "too much" detail in the section. I'll do some research later and I've included Wings top ten totals for the US and UK. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is for the article to cover the most important things, but do so succinctly. Whether songs reached number one is not the only criteria for giving them attention here. If you go to any McCartney show, what three post-Beatles songs get the biggest audience reaction? "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Band on the Run", and "Live and Let Die". What was the one post-Beatles song to make McCartney's Super Bowl halftime show? "Live and Let Die". What was the one post-Beatles song to make the Queen Jubilee Concert a couple of weeks ago? "Live and Let Die". So that's why I think a little extra attention is warranted to that song. Regarding Band on the Run, I would just say something like: "..., the acclaimed album of the same name, became Wings' first platinum LP. It was recorded in 1973 in Lagos, Nigeria, under difficult circumstances after the sudden departure of two group members. It was the band's first LP to top the charts in both countries and the first ever to top Billboard's album chart on three separate occasions. One of the best-selling LPs of the decade, Rolling Stone named it Album of the Year for 1974 and later gave it a spot on their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. It is regarded by many as McCartney's finest post-Beatles work." That's about half the length of your text but gets the point across equally well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll trim what I can, but lets just agree to disagree on this one. The BOTR material is one medium sized paragraph, hardly excessive IMO for a 140,000 byte article, when you consider BOTR is likely his greatest post-Beatles accomplishment. That it was made in Nigeria is a trivial detail that belongs at the article page, and that you want me to add that back, yet cut other material in the name of brevity seems to me a dichotomy. — GabeMc (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, I think the "dichotomy" is that you've nominated this article twice at FAC, meaning after careful, thorough examination you thought the content in the article was just right. The first time, Band on the Run was not even mentioned in it, and the second time, all it said was "the 'acclaimed' album of the same name, Wings' third, was a massive success that became their first platinum album." So now all of a sudden you think the text I proposed is too skimpy!? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first nom was premature, this second one much less so. In my past experience, an FAC nom was typically ignored for several weeks before any comments even started to come in, so I wrongly thought I could "whip it into shape" before any serious comments, my bad, FAC is not a workshop. My point here, now, is while I have greatly appreciated your helpful, thoughtful and insightful input throughout, I also retain some creative license, i.e. my input has value as well. In a nut-shell, I just think the medium sized graph on BOTR is not excessive in the least. That you want me to mention that it was recorded in Nigeria, now that's excessive IMO, since the article does not mention where any of his other albums (Beatles, Wings or solo) were recorded. I sincerely thank you once again for all the great input that has helped me to improve the article, but it is not my understanding of FAC that a nominator must exactly follow each and every suggestion offered without any autonomous opinions of their own. — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the nominator should fight for his or her vision of the article and does not have to agree with, or implement, all of the suggestions at FAC. I'm just not sure what your vision for the article is, given the swings in weighting that have happened between 2nd FAC, 3rd FAC start, and 3rd FAC now. But I don't think I'd be the only reviewer who thinks that weighting the Wings section more heavily than the Beatles section is backwards. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Macca was in both the Beatles and Wings for roughly the same length of time, so I hear you in principle on weight, all things being equal, however word-counting and content analysis are not equal. As I said above, the Wings section details each of their tours (at your suggestion), the Beatles section does not. Remove the tours info from the Wings section and it would no longer be larger than the Beatles section. Also, the Beatles were a band Macca was once part of, whereas Wings was his band. The Wings section goes into detail about albums that the Beatles' section does not. At any rate, if you absolutely insist that the Wings section cannot be longer than the Beatles section, then what specifically do you think is missing from the Beatles section that should be included and/or what excessive detail is there in the Wings section that would significantly reduce it's size if removed, without compromising comprehensiveness? Also, for the record, as the article currently reads: the Wings section contains 1321 words; the Beatles section: 1038, a difference of only 283 words. Keep in mind also that the Wings section covers over 11 years (1970-81) whereas the Beatles section covers less than 10 (August 1960-April 1970). So is less than 300 words really so undue for a section that covers one full year more? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insisting on anything, absolutely or otherwise. What I would drop is the naming of the members (other than the McCartneys and Laine); it's handled well in the Wings article, with a nice bar chart indicating periods of membership. I don't see a need for it in this article (and neither did you, on either of your FAC submissions). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) You keep mentioning how poor quality the article was at it's prior FACs, or even the start of this one, or what content it included or didn't include then, FTR I agree with you, it was poor-quality then, it's much better today, can we please move on Wasted? What matters is whether or not the article is FA quality now, you keep mentioning that prior versions were not FA quality and you have made your point on that perfectly clear, I don't dispute it, never did really and I do not think it needs to be restated ad nauseum. Anyone can check and see what a miserable state this article was in on 25 April 2012, when I began my extensive copyedit, of which you've proved a valuable asset. Indeed, it's clear that the article has come a very long way in two months, as it looks pretty decent right now, exactly two months later. 2) Anyway, if I did trim out the Wings members names, and their joining/quitting, it would result in a net reduction of less than 100 words, which is well within my editorial discretion. In sum, I prefer that the Wings section names each member. Also, see your comments immediately below, "Indeed, unless I missed it, there's nothing in this section about the constant personnel changes that Wings underwent ... it is an important point." Is an "important point" worth 100 words or so? If more editors than just you complain about it how much space is devoted to naming the former members of Wings, I'll gladly trim them out, but then, why do I even mention his current and former band line-ups by name? Indeed it was you who suggested I specifically add the name of the drummer who played with Macca for only one tour ever. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Also, FTR, the Beatles section is now longer than the Wings section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, unless I missed it, there's nothing in this section about the constant personnel changes that Wings underwent. You don't have to name all the members, but it is an important point.
Seems like excessive detail for an overview article of musician Paul McCartney when there is already a topical article dedicated to the band Wings, but sure, I added details to include every member, when they joined and when they quit. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with you that naming all the members is excessive detail! So I'm not sure why you added it in response to my comment, when all I suggested is stating something near the beginning of the section like "Wings underwent frequent personnel changes, with the McCartneys and Laine the only constant members." Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was fairly easy to just name them all and I would prefer to retain this info now. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording on the 1975-76 Wings Over America/World tour suggests there were more Beatles songs played than there were. I would simply state that there were 5 Beatles songs played in the 29-song shows. If you then want name them, you can.
Fixed. I retained the five song titles as a matter of personal preference. I cannot currently pin-point whether there were 25, 29 or 30 songs played per night, my guess is it varied. Harry says the shows included 30 songs, yet he lists only 25. He does state that the shows were two-hours long, so I included that for perspective. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wings was formally disbanded in 1981, and Laine claimed shortly after that a significant cause of their dissolution was McCartney's reluctance to tour, fearing for his personal safety after the 1980 murder of Lennon." I've always had the sense that Wings just ran its course, both commercially and artistically. And that McCartney's drugs charges in Japan had as much to do with it as what happened to John. Is this really the major reason that sources give for it ending?
Yeah, I'm sure Wings running it's natural course was a major factor also. As far as the Japan drug charges, they were dropped and Macca got off with 10 days in jail, so I'm not sure how that would compare to the murder of one of his greatest friends and former bandmates. Also, though I do not include it in the article out of respect/safety for Macca, according to at least two high-quality sources ((George-Warren, 2001, p. 626), (Benitez, 2010, p.97)) Paul was getting death threats against him (George-Warren) and his family (Benitez). Benitez calls the threats, "the final blow" for Wings. Further, Macca did not tour again for over a decade, something that Wings running its course and/or the 1980 drug charges would not likely have been a notable factor in. Afterall, he was busted twice in 1972, convicted in 1973 and busted again in 1975, yet these encounters with the police left him undeterred, indeed he was busted again in 1984. In summary, most sources are vague as to why Wings split, stating merely when they did. The sources that aren't vague generally hint at McCartney's fear he "was gonna be next", a paraphrased Macca quote I can't locate at the moment. At any rate, the article is merely stating that Laine made this claim in 1981, which is indeed a statement of fact, supported by more than one WP:RS. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few details so as to not make it seem Lennon's murder was the only reason Wings split. Good suggestions as always, thanks again Wasted Time R. — GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later that year he launched the Paul McCartney World Tour ..." Should indicate that it was with a six-person touring band he formed, since you mention the same for his later/current band.
Fixed, band members added. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not sure adding all the band members is needed, just that he did so. If you do keep all the names in, you need to add the drummer switch for the New World Tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I named them all for internal consistency, since Macca's other bands are named. I've added a bit on the drummer switch for the New World Tour. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the New World Tour" - tour names are not quoted.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He toured in support of Driving Rain ..." By this point, the "in support of" notion is obsolete and shouldn't be used. Established rock artists such as McCartney, the Stones, Springsteen, U2, etc. make much more from their tours than they do from their albums. If anything, a new album exists to give them a reason to tour, not the other way around.
Good point. Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's outside the scope of this article, but the four 2002 Driving tours articles should really be coalesced into one, since they were just differently branded legs of the same thing. (That's how Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour is handled, as well as Zooropa and Zoomerang being included in Zoo TV Tour.) That would make the writing and linking less awkward in this article.
I agree 100%, the four "mini-drivin'" tours should be merged together. I would certainly be willing to contribute to this effort, but having never merged any articles myself, I would need some assistance from a more experienced editor in that regard. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ball is rolling on this merge and it could/should be accomplished soon. — GabeMc (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC) The 'Driving' articles are now merged, thanks to Evanh2008. — GabeMc (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on pushing the merge. I neglected to mention it in the previous comment, but the Driving tour was also named the Pollstar tour of the year, see this source. You can include that, very briefly: "and was named top tour of the year by Billboard and Pollstar". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Pollstar detail, thanks for the source. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of time again, more later. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for taking the time to comment and to put forth the effort. The article is greatly improved due to your suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some new comments from me:
  • The list of early Beatles songs he was the contributor of should include "I Saw Her Standing There". Even though not a single, in the U.S. at least it has become one of the best known of all Beatles songs to the younger generation, due to its ubiquitous use during breaks at sporting events and at bar/bat mitzvahs and the like.
Agreed, it is now included in the list. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the discussion of McCartney's bass playing should refer to the Höfner as the "violin" bass, since that's how many people think of it. You could also mention that he returned to using it in the late 1980s.
Well, the thing is, it's erroneously called a "violin" bass, it is actually shaped as a viola. So no, I would rather not spread that misnomer, no matter how popular. That is/should be covered/explained at the topical article dedicated to the instrument. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC) The article now specifies when Macca switched back to the Hofner c.late '80-early '90s. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An upcoming tribute album is expected in June 2012 ..." June is almost over and it hasn't materialized. I would suggest removing this, and adding it back in if and when it happens. In fact, I'd wait to see if it gets much of a reception, since tribute albums have become a dime a dozen at this point.
I agree, it's now removed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mentions of "Coming Up" as both a Wings hit and a solo song will confused the reader who doesn't know the back story. I would either omit the second mention or label it an alternate version.
This is fixed and should be clear now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good advice, thanks again for taking the time out to help Wasted! ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence). Wikipedia policy for proper attribution of quotes is found in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Other guidelines are found in WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is. Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time, however, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated (see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRESERVE).

Also this exchange,

Comment In the lead section: "According to the BBC, his Beatles song 'Yesterday' has been covered by over 2,200 artists—more than any other song." This is a statement of fact, not opinion. If there is no serious dispute about it, it need not and should not be attributed in the lead. If there IS a serious dispute about it, it should not appear in the lead. My guess is that the former is true, and "According to the BBC" should be cut. DocKino (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, great point, I agree. It's a sourced statement of fact that should not be contentious. I think I only had it there to cover my butt, thinking people would want to know who made this claim. I've made an edit that I believe resolves this issue. — GabeMc (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Which thirty hours later resulted in this thread, a subject I cannot remember being challenged in years, if ever. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References to BBC News are inconsistent. Some use BBC while others use BBC News. Also think that publisher should be BBC and work BBC News. Keith D (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, good eye. I have made the useage consistent throughout, preferring BBC News as the publisher, per two other related FAs (The Beatles and John Lennon, for project consistency) and a previous FA suggestion by Brianboulton. If I used the "work" field, BBC News would be italicised, which, as a non-print source would be in error. — GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are now fixed, thanks for the catch and for taking the time to help! — GabeMc (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Noleander

I would be happy to, will work on this later tonight. — GabeMc (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Accomplished. GabeMc talk, 07:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, images of buildings taken from public streets are covered in England by FoP, however, I claim to be no expert on this matter. — GabeMc (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this site says: "All of the images in the archive as the source of sound and image, are to be used under Creative Commons license". Not sure if that is enough, if you think it wiser to just remove the image I would be happy to do so. — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now swapped out File:Paul, George & John.png for File:The Beatles in America.JPG, a public domain image. — GabeMc (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --Noleander (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough one. All the other images on this site are credited to "Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton". The image in question, is actually a screenshot from a video credited to www.whitehouse.gov, though clearly PBS was also involved in the filming or maybe just the airing. So is the screenshot the property of PBS or the White House? If you think it would be better to just remove it and/or replace it with one from the same source yet explicitly credited to Samantha Appleton I cetainly will. — GabeMc (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is probably safer to just use one of the still photos from that web site, since the photographer is named. --Noleander (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only other two images on the site that include McCartney aren't that useful, and the section really does not need another image anyway, I deleted File:Mccartney gershwin.png from the article to resolve this concern. GabeMc talk, 07:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander image review. --Noleander (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and helpful advice. GabeMc talk, 07:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Source spot check Having failed to complete my editorial comments above (pressure of other things, and not reluctance), I think I owe it to the nominator to volunteer to do the requested spot check of sources. I shall be at the British Library on Thursday this week, and will order the necessary books. If anyone else gets in first I shall make way. Tim riley (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Later: I have ordered Harry 2002 The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia, Benitez 2010 The Words and Music of Paul McCartney: The Solo Years and MacDonald 2005 Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties. Review to follow on Thursday. Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim Riley! ~ GabeMc (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While a lot of hard work has obviously gone into the substance, this article requires a serious, thorough copyedit. It is just chockful of grammatical errors (punctuation appears to be a particular problem). There are also many instances of poor handling of quotes. Here's a typical example of a problem that occurs at least a dozen times:

MacDonald considers McCartney's Mellotron intro on "Strawberry Fields Forever" a "main feature" of the song's "texture".

Quoting things as simple as "main feature" and "texture"—and two of those in a single sentence? That may be suitable for a Zagat guide, but not an encyclopedia article. Again, that's one example of many. N.B.: I happened to pull that example from the very brief Keyboards subsection, in which there are no less than five grammatical errors, most of them involving punctuation. An outside copyeditor needs to be brought in to give the whole thing a fresh eye.—DCGeist (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment DCGeist! I agree and I've fixed (with a paraphrase) the specific example you gave above and I would be happy to fix any other specific examples you are willing to bring to my attention. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I will go through the article tonight and paraphrase as many unneeded quotes as I can. I'll also work on the punctuation issues you've mentioned, though I must admit that I find your comment in that regard somewhat vague as to what specifically is in error, RE:punctuation. Any specific examples and suggestions you are willing to provide would be most helpful. Thanks again! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Since your above comment from the 25th, I've gone through the article top to bottom, and I've paraphrased as much of the quoted material that seemed to need paraphrasing. I don't really see any more of the "quote" issue you commented on above, but if you see anymore, please do let me know so that I may resolve the issue. Thanks again for your contribution to this FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, with one exception, all of the grammatical errors in the sample Keyboards subsection have been corrected. It's not clear to me if you or GoingBatty are responsible for the corrections. At any rate, if you wish, I can recommend to you a few online guides to proper comma usage. The improper use of commas was the primary grammar problem I saw in Keyboards, and I continue to observe it (along with other misused punctuation) throughout the article.
For the moment, here is the remaining error in Keyboards, which resulted from an attempt to correct a misused comma:

McCartney played piano on several Beatles songs including: "Every Little Thing", "She's a Woman"...and "The Long and Winding Road".

Except for series that encompass one or more grammatically complete clauses, use either a colon or an expression such as such as, for example, or including, but not both to introduce a series. In the present case, either of the following would be grammatically correct:

McCartney played piano on several Beatles songs including "Every Little Thing", "She's a Woman"...and "The Long and Winding Road".

McCartney played piano on several Beatles songs: "Every Little Thing", "She's a Woman"...and "The Long and Winding Road".

I hope your efforts to recruit a copyeditor to go over the whole piece pan out.—DCGeist (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specific tip DCGeist, I am sure it will prove helpful. I would appreciate links to any online guides you find useful. I'll go through the article with that specific tip in mind, thanks again! ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-check

I have checked for accuracy of citation and innocence of close paraphrase against Benitez, Macdonald, and Harry (2002).

RE: Harry, 2002, p.848–50. On page 848, he writes "a two hour show with approximately 30 numbers". You are correct to say that Harry does not explicitly state that this was the first time Macca played Beatles songs live, but he does include his set-lists from prior tours that include no Beatles songs, and the set-list he provides for the tour in question does in fact contain five Beatles songs. Also, Ingham, 2009, p.106, states that in the previous tour, the band "scupulously avoid[ed] Beatles songs", and on p.107, while describing the tour in question, he writes: "featuring a modest handful of McCartney's Beatle tunes". Also, McGee, 2003, p.85 states: "Paul decided it would be a mistake not to ... [perform] a few Beatles songs". In Blaney, 2007, p.116: "And for the first time, McCartney included songs associated with the Beatles, something he'd been unwilling to do previously". I've added these sources as in-line cites to the statement in question, which I believe resolves this isssue. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Thanks for taking the time to help! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Tim riley (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I am most impressed with the precision and clarity of the citations. – Tim riley (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, and for your time and thoroughness Tim Riley! Much appreciated! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

Lead
Yes, both quotes are from Guinness. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Childhood
Great suggestion, I believe this is now resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (by another editor). ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've fleshed out some detail there, to make it clear that the two became friends right off. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestion, I believe this issue is now resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I removed the text string "after some adjustments". ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quarrymen
Actually, skiffle originated in the US so the assumption that US readers will be ignorant about it is like saying UK readers will need Jazz or Blues music explained to them. Also, the Quarrymen played a mix of skiffle and rock-n-roll, not only skiffle tunes, so to call them a skiffle band is not as accurate a description as could be IMO. At any rate, per your suggestion, I've copyedited the section for balance, and I've added some detail on what skiffle is, and made clear that rock-n-roll was also a significant aspect of the Quarrymen repertoire. Though really, this does seem to beg the question, "why not explain what rock and roll is as well". So this addition could lead to excessive detail, we shall see. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Though for clarification, they weren't touring Germany, they were booked as a resident band in Hamburg. I think this is made clear in the article now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
60-70
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me here if I am wrong, but isn't the time span for BM established in the preceeding sentence? "they became increasingly popular in the UK in 1963 and in the US a year later", also I think why he was dubbed the "cute Beatle" is self-explanatory, not? If Macca were called the "tall Beatle", or the "short Beatle" or the "big Beatle" then this would be easier to quantify. As far as finding the first person ever to refer to Macca as the "cute Beatle", well, that sounds like a wild-goose chase to me. Sure, I'll look for it, and I'll do my best to find it, but I'm not gonna spend hours and hours on this one trivial bit, hope you understand. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, great suggestion, this is now fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed insignificant material per your suggestion. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and normally I would have, but in this case, the quote frags are 52 pages apart in the book. Can we omit 52 pages and use ellipses to connect them. I've fixed this per your suggestion, until further clarification, assuming you are correct in this instance. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles had absolutely nothing to do with the feature film other than the trailer, and the film's use of four unreleased recordings (among the other Beatle songs used in the film). What detail if any, would you suggest I add here? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (by another editor). ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is now sufficiently detailed, let me know if you think it requires more details. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as simple as, "PM was not on speaking terms with 2 or 3 of the band members from 1970 to 1988", at various times during that period, he was on speaking terms with all three, just not specifically in 1988 when an active lawsuit was pending. To accurately document when Macca was and when Macca wasn't speaking to G, J, or R, and the various sporadic lawsuits filed against each other and others would require a topical article of it's own, IMO, perhaps this should be covered with the appropriate amount of detail at the Beatles, or the Beatles lawsuits. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is now clarified and fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I just removed the clause as the commercial success of "Hey Jude" is well covered later in the article. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1970–1981
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, they were not replaced for the album of which the graph is speaking to, BOTR, but you make a great point about the lack of clarity there, so I believe I have now resolved this issue with a graph restructure. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. The article makes clear that it was during Wings' 1975-76 tour that Macca was first willing to play Beatles songs live, "The tour marked the first time McCartney was willing to perform Beatles songs live". The "why" part is less clear, though one of the cites for the claim, McGee 2003, p. 85 says: "Paul decided it would be a mistake not to ... [perform] a few Beatles songs". I could certainly add more detail there if you think it's needed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, removed unhelpful sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I removed the unneeded attribution. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1982–1990
The "most recent" language comes from User:Wasted Time R's above FAC suggestion that the article needs to make clear when Macca's most recent hits were. You can view the subsequent discussion here with them here, which occured when another editor, User:Evanh2008 questioned this language at the McCartney talk page based on WP:RECENT. Do you recommend changing "most recent" to "as of 2012", or adding "as of 2012" while retaining "most recent"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed via trimming, I don't think it still needs to be broken in two, please correct me if I am wrong. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
91-2000
Rephrased. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article now also mentions that after the London premier, it was performed around the world, and that it was a UK #1 classical album. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestion, now implemented. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never minded. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2001-pr
I agree. Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the years. Super Bowls are idiomatically referred to by Roman numerals. Because the American football season covers two years, it would reduce clarity to use a term like "2002 Super Bowl". I think both the year and Roman numeral are useful, to clear things up for non-football fans and those outside the U.S. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed wording. PM did have his solo work available on iTunes before 2010, at least since Memory Almost Full. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tweked it a bit further, linking to Dance versus using ballet twice in the sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Musicianship
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed/clarified. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acoustic
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Electric
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vocals
Thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keyboards
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drums
Linked. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early Influences
Fixed/clarified. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creative outlets
Removed, I can't pin down exactly how many exams he took, some sources say only two, and some sources say he passed English, not art. I added some similar detail with sourcing. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this looks good now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed/clarified.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Painting
Reworded. Clarification request, according to User:DCGeist's FAC comment above, "Except for series that encompass one or more grammatically complete clauses, use either a colon or an expression such as such as, for example, or including, but not both to introduce a series.", so, what is best practice in that regard? ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the semicolon was not correct. The colon is not ideal either. Best is "including A, B, .." without thee colon. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, moved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writing
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Film
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lifestyle
Thanks, great point. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, fine suggestion, thanks for taking the time to teach me! Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Girlfriends & Wives
No she does not, there involvement together was limited to a brief sexual fling, she is not notable. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beatles
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestions, this is now fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, trivial datum removed, issue resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is now fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recognition
I agree, fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Notes section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Business
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I disagree a bit on this one, and to me, it's nice right at the end to wrap up the story. I believe the two graphs in the sub-section spell out the situation well. It's buried in the last graph, and not higher up in the Business section because essentially, Macca had little or nothing to do business wise with NS, other than writing songs published by them, and temporarily owning some of their stock. He has since only reduced his business position in NS, now defunct/absorbed by Sony/ATV. Please correct me if you disagree, I would be happy to add deatil to improve the section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
Thanks for the compliment, and the thorough and insightful review. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to help out Noleander, your comments are much appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from JG66

Hi GabeMc. A few specific points about the text, which reads pretty well for the most part, I think:

Good catch, they wouldn't use that point in the UK. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was added at the specific request of another reviewer, so I'm not sure what I should do with this one. FTR, I'm fine either way, but it's also not too ridiculous to educate the reader here in what is a realtively small section anyway. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not too ridiculous, and I understand it's not easy when another reviewer has suggested something different. No big deal, but I wonder whether the sentence might read better without the bit explaining "that originated as a musical form in the US in the first half of the twentieth century". Just a thought. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I kinda like the "made in the US" bit, as I think many readers assume skiffle originated in the UK, and because it makes clear that the Quarrymen's repertoire consisted of rock & roll and skiffle, both with origins in the US. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified, I believe. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are a few specifics, but more generally:

The Beatles
Good point. I agree, and others have mentioned it as well. The material is much better as a Musicianship sub-section, and it is one now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned "We Can Work it Out" earlier in the section. As far as more details on specific albums, I hate to invoke sub-articles, but that all sounds like stuff that should be covered in detail at the Beatles, or the appropriate album/song page. This overview article is already getting bogged down in detail a bit, IMO. As far as Macca's "claim to greatness". That sounds like WP:NPOV territory to me. His nightlife around London was absolutely typical of any musician his age, at the time, and not particularly notable. Also, some aspects are covered in other sections, if you read the whole article, in totality, that picture is painted, if somewhat vaguely. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry − "We Can Work It Out" was there all along. Perhaps I didn't express myself properly, though, in my comments about McCartney's increasing sophistication and its reflection in The Beatles' music. I was referring to Mac's mixing in circles that included Robert Fraser, John Dunbar, Tara Browne, Michelangelo Antonioni, via the Ashers − yes, this was very typical of musicians then, but the point is (as acknowledged by McCartney, Miles, MacDonald and Sounes) he was the only Beatle fully exposed to this influence, living full-time in London and being unmarried and without children. I agree the level of detail in this section needs to be limited, but I'd still say a sentence or two covering this mid-period Beatles development very generally would be a useful addition. Looking back in the article's edit history to about four days ago (wow, you've been busy!), I can see you led from discussion on "Yesterday" to a mention of a possible electric version of the song and on to the recently deleted point about Mac visiting Dunbar and making experimental tapes; while it was right to lose that level of detail, what those extra two sentences did was segue nicely into the mention of "Paperback Writer" being "a satire of pop ambition" and "Eleanor Rigby", "a neoclassical tour de force", and the growing sophistication of McCartney's compositions during the period was implied over the three or more sentences without being stated directly. Now, along with those deleted details, the implication has gone, and I think something does need stating directly on the subject. (Certainly, the flow into that point about "Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" seems a bit abrupt.) Again, the lack of any mention of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepp's until the very end of the section is very surprising, in my opinion. And if you are concerned about the article getting bogged down in detail, why those two sentences about the Magical Mystery Tour soundtrack's commercial fate, when "However, the film's soundtrack was more successful." pretty much covers the point? (Don't mean to push the issue − just wasn't sure you understood my original comment.) JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as this comment, please see your above comment, "The segue from "Yesterday" discussion into the one regarding visiting John Dunbar's flat comes as a bit of a surprise; a definite hiccup, so to speak. Seeing that the text goes from a such a speedy, generalised approach in the previous paragraph and through the previous sentences in this one, it feels like we get bogged down in the tapes discussion. I can't help thinking that a very brief mention of McCartney's early experimental work is needed here, and then a more detailed subsection for these experiments could be included under Musicianship. As I say, the change in pace is very noticeable." So I guess I'm a little confused and seem to be getting a mixed message here from you on this point. I'm not sure how that info could be chopped up while retaining meaning in the parts. FTR, the graph wasn't deleted, I moved it to a sub-section of Musicianship, as you suggested, so to also mention it in the Beatles section would be to introduce redundancy, not? More specifically, what do your suggest I add to the Beatles section that is not already covered in the Musicianship sub-section "Tape loops"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting difficult! No, of course, the tape-loops mention wasn't deleted altogether − but deleted (removed) from this section. I understand the message might appear mixed: to go into some detail regarding Dunbar, tape loops and their use in "Tomorrow Never Knows" (as you had it previously) did strike me as a noticeable change of pace, yes, something that could be avoided because you rightly include a section on Musicianship; a general mention of Mac blooming artistically during the Rubber Soul to Pepp's period, through his immersion in London's countercultural scene, might break what I referred to as a "speedy, generalised approach" (not much, though, I'd suggest, if handled deftly), but it is an important point to make in a subsection that serves as an overview of Paul McCartney's Beatles career. And I don't really see that there's any NPOV issues in that, or that any very general mention here might make a later discussion on tape loops redundant. To me, if I were to make a bulleted list of points to cover in this section, a rough sketch, its items would be exactly as you have it until the end of your discussion on "Yesterday". Next point(s) would be the mid-'60s phase culminating in Sgt Pepper's. To repeat and/or clarify what I wrote below last time around, I'm referring here (and in most of the points I raised, I think) to what comes to mind at a particular point in the article − in this case, as one reads about a year in the Beatles chronology: personally, I read the post-"Yesterday" text down to mention of Brian Epstein's death and wonder where discussion of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper's has got to. Fine, there's an Oh good − there they are moment at the end of the subsection, before Wings, but back when one's reading about 1965−67, it feels like an obvious omission. Again, this feeling is exacerbated by the surprising level of detail given to Magical Mystery Tour: "Released in the UK as a six-track double extended play disc (EP), in the US the material was issued as an identically titled LP ... setting a record for the highest initial sales of any Capitol LP up to that point." (I mean, all up, three sentences discussing MMT's commercial fate ... And who/what is Capitol in the Paul Mac-Beatles story? Point two: he co-wrote "She Loves You", the biggest selling single in the UK for quite a while; the lack of that detail earlier on makes this MMT description even more out of place.) Yellow Sub to some degree also − the phrase "In early 1968, the group were filmed for a promotional trailer" seems unnecessary; the Mac-centric point which you include is that it was "a production based loosely on the imaginary world evoked by McCartney's 1966 composition". (Don't want to throw another spanner in the works, but now I'm wondering about the lack of a mention of "Hey Jude" in '68 ... I know, I'm sure someone else has said delete it!) But to rewind to what I was trying to say in my comment above this one, the sentences that have gone from this section over the last four or more days (possible electric version of "Yesterday"; Dunbar & tapes) did at least serve as a good segue into your discussion of "Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby", both in the flow of text and also in the implied message of growing sophistication in Mac's songwriting. (There was no explicit mention of Mac's artistic growth or of those '65−67 albums, no, but at least the message was implied.) What's left now is a jump into talking about two singles that weren't from the year discussed previously (1965) that doesn't seem like a natural progression. My suggestion is that the point about Mac's maturing as an artist now needs to be made explicitly somehow, incorporating mention of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepp's. As far as specific text to insert, all I could find − and it serves as inspiration rather than anything necessarily usable, I'm afraid − is from MacDonald p. 153, 1998 edn (discussing We Can Work It Out): "From now on, his partner [McCartney] would be in the ascendant not only as a songwriter, but also as instrumentalist, arranger, producer, and de facto musical director of The Beatles." Sorry, if I had a day to spare I'm sure I could do some research and come up with something succinct to plug the gap. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added summary material on Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper per your suggestions. I hope this resolves some, or maybe all of your concerns, at least with the Beatles section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this article has really changed since I last looked at it a few days ago. I would really caution against repeating too much general Beatles history here. The material added on Rubber Soul, Revolver, the end of touring, Sgt. Peppers, etc is mostly not specific to McCartney. It is all material that readers can better find in The Beatles and the individual album articles. This section should be focused on McCartney's role in the Beatles. So to mention that McCartney was the driver behind Magical Mystery Tour is okay, but all the stuff about, say, how the recording process worked on Sgt. Peppers - why is that here? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted, per your comment, "I would really caution against repeating too much general Beatles history here." Could the same be said for Wings? The added material speaks to the band's growth in general, and to Macca's increased leadership specifically. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McCartney was responsible for almost every aspect of Wings, so I don't have a problem in that respect. But with the Beatles, most of the changes described are just as much John's and George Martin's doing, and to a lesser extent George Harrison's. The reader who doesn't understand this will be misled by this text, and the reader who does understand it doesn't need to see it repeated here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific with your criticisms. What info was added that does not directly pertain to McCartney, and what specific material do you suggest I remove? ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll respectfully remind you of your above comments at this FAC Wasted Time R, "The "Wings" section is now longer than the "Beatles" section, which doesn't seem right.", "But I don't think I'd be the only reviewer who thinks that weighting the Wings section more heavily than the Beatles section is backwards". ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further, currently the Beatles section contains 1968 words, the Wings section has 1440. So, I don't think this a WP:UNDUE issue, is it? ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of length. For example, instead of going on about how the Beatles did not play their Revolver material on tour – which was attributable to many factors and not McCartney specific – you could mention "For No One" and "Here There and Everywhere". The latter is McCartney's favorite of all the Beatles songs he wrote (at least in the interviews I've seen - he talks about the chordal pivot from the bridge back into the verse) and is currently unmentioned in the article. Instead of the long Emerick quote – and from the Lewisohn book I have the impression that it was John, not Paul, who was the driving factor behind trying to produce a different 'sound' in the studio using devices such as ADT – you could mention that "Penny Lane" was McCartney's reflection upon his Liverpool origins and that the distinctive piccolo trumpet part was his inspiration following seeing a Bach concert on TV (foreshadowing his classical music involvement). Also, is McCartney becoming the "de facto musical director of the Beatles" from 1965 on really a consensus view? I've never gotten this impression. This seems like one writer's opinion getting too much weight here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the Revolver material not being able to be played live explicates the Beatles' notable transition from live act, to studio band, the first group ever to do so. I've mentioned "Here There and Everywhere", because as you said, it is one of Macca's personal favs, and "For No One", as MacDonlad describes it as one of Macca's "most perfect pieces"(2005, p.205). I've used a unique and more informative Emerick quote, from his book (with Massey). Lewisohn, though the most reliable source for facts, was never in the studio with the Beatles as was Emerick, who goes on and on in his book, about Macca wanting to experiment and try new recording ideas during Pepper. So you are wrong to assume it was only Lennon who pushed for studio innovation, that is a tired cliché IMO. I've added the detail you suggested on "Penny Lane", good suggestion, thanks. I've also mentioned "She's Leaving Home", per your suggestion. As far as the Lennon-McCartney power struggle. 1) per your comment, "McCartney becoming the "de facto musical director of the Beatles" from 1965", the article says the usurpation began in 1965, not that it was completed. 2) MacDonald is absolutely correct/supported by sources to suggest that the beginning of Macca's usurpation of Lennon's musical dominance was indeed late 1965, the high quality reliable sources widely agree. Lennon had a nervous break-down that year, and he later became addicted to LSD (if that's even technically possible, but Lennon was a massive user, on par with Hendrix and Barrett according to many a RS). Lennon had generally dominated the band's singles until late 1965, and Macca began to dominate the A-sides with their very first release of 1966, "PW/R". Anyway, the article claims that by late 1965 Macca began to usurp Lennon, and that he became de facto leader in 1967, after Epstein's death in August of that year, which the article makes perfectly clear. Wasted, I'll ask you again. What material was added that does not directly pertain to McCartney, and what specific material do you suggest I remove and why? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove or greatly condense: the Hamburg period description, "My Bonnie", "Love Me Do", the first list of albums, short promotional films/forerunner of videos, no Revolver in concerts/end of touring (end of touring is currently in three consecutive paragraphs!), the whole Emerick quote (this one doesn't demonstrate any McCartney connection any more than the other one, and I disagree re studio effects - John was obsessed with altering his voice, Paul never was), "Strawberry Fields", the detail on Magical Mystery Tour's commercial results, and the "Between 1965 and their break-up in 1970" sentence (redundant based on what's now before it). You will claim that some of these things, like the end of touring, are very important in band history ... sure, but so are many other things that you haven't included, like that the Beatles were the first band to write all their hit songs, play all their own instruments, put all good songs on albums instead of one or two singles and the rest filler, have high-quality album covers, revolutionize personal style with their long hair, showcase an original sense of humor in press conferences, set records that still hold for simultaneous hits on the US singles chart, have the first really good film vehicle, etc - and I'm only listing things from 1963 and 1964! You cannot possibly relate the whole story of the Beatles here, so my feeling is, don't try. Just relate the story of Paul in the Beatles. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, thanks anyway. If I removed all that material then the Wings section would be larger than the Beatles section, which you've said twice cannot happen. Also, please keep in mind, as I'm sure you already know, others edit the article, and others have made some great suggestions that led to content additions. So I would rather not disregard all comments by others, because you do not approve of the newer content. This is a community effort, which is good. Several people have given advice, diversity of opinion is a good thing. Also, I like the way it is now, sure, maybe a tweak or two, or three is needed, but hey, at the end of the day, you, I, have to like the article to put so many hours into editing it. I mean, if I can't use that little amount of space to summarize the most defining period of Macca's life, a full deade, then I'm fine with that. You are now arguing over about 3.5 medium sized paragraphs. There are currently 2089 words in the Beatles section (about 3.8 pages in a word.doc), and 1440 words in the Wings section (about 2.8 pages in "word"), so there is no issue with weighting as you seem to imply. For evidence of this, according to Lobo's comment below, the article is currently 14,000 words, so if 2,000 are dedicated to 10 years, then that means 1/7th of the article is dedicated to the most notable 1/7th of McCartney's life. As far as your comment, "Just relate the story of Paul in the Beatles." Well, I honestly believe I've done that, quite well if I do say so myself, with much help from my friends thankfully. I'll wait to hear from some fresh perspectives, but for now I just disagree with you, and I retain that right. I will copyedit with your suggestions in mind however. Thanks again. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GabeMc. Here's what I've come up with as a guide for content and scope in the Beatles section. (Don't really know the protocol, so I've cut & pasted the whole section below, minus images.) I have to say, I mostly agree with what Wasted Time R has written, about there being way too many things in there that aren't Mac-specific at all. My suggestion about that all-important middle period ('65 to '67) was a couple of sentences, with one or two additional points later in the section perhaps − I'm not quite sure how it ended up leading to so much new info. (Wasted's right: talk of whether Revolver songs were played on tour, discussion on recording techniques used for Sgt Pepper's − that's all band-article material, or one on Geoff Emerick or George Martin, not a section within Mac's article.) Perhaps even more could be cut from this; on the other hand, maybe a few of Mac's album tracks need highlighting, as has been suggested most recently. (I was thinking of She's Leaving Home, personally.)
Please note this really is a guide − so I've made no attempt to source anything new I might've added in the following text, but all statements are easy to source within the works you've used, I'm sure, certainly in the ones I've referred to in earlier comments. Also I've cut & pasted this from Word, so any new quote marks will be wonky no doubt, new links (if I've bothered adding them) may be out. The important thing from my point of view was the scope of the piece, not minor copy-editing points. PS. I realise the final line of the section has now been made redundant, but it's left in anyway for now. Anyway, hope all this is of some use ... JG66 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort, but really, your massive copy-paste (see below) is not appropriate here, or helpful to this FAC. It would have been much easier/appropriate to bullet point your specific suggestions for changes, versus copy-pasting the entire section here. 1) it really bogs down an already long FAC, 2) Since 95% of your copy-paste is from the current version of the article nearly verbatum, it gives the false impression that you are copyediting the entire section, or that the entire section needs a re-work IYO, versus the reality, which is that you are in fact suggesting extremely minor removals of material. I personally like the text as it now reads, but I will keep your suggestions in mind as I continue improve it. Thanks again. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

The Beatles were represented by Allan Williams, their informal manager, starting in 1960.[1] Williams' first booking for them was a series of performances in Hamburg.[2] During their extended stays there over the next two years, they performed as the resident group at two of Bruno Koschmider's clubs, the Indra, then the Kaiserkeller. Periodically, the band received breaks from playing in Hamburg, and would return to Livepool, performing regularly at the Cavern Club.[3] In 1961, Sutcliffe left the band and McCartney reluctantly became their bass player.[4] The Beatles recorded professionally for the first time in Hamburg, performing as the backing band for English singer Tony Sheridan on the single "My Bonnie".[5] The recording would later bring them to the attention of a key figure in their subsequent development and commercial success, Brian Epstein, who became their manager in January 1962.[6] Epstein negotiated a record contract for the group with Parlophone that May.[7] After replacing Best with Ringo Starr in August and releasing their first hit, "Love Me Do", in October, they became increasingly popular in the UK in 1963 and in the US a year later. Their fans' frenetic glorification became known as "Beatlemania", during which McCartney was sometimes referred to by the press as the "cute Beatle".[8] In 1963 and 1964, the band released four studio LPs: Please Please Me, With the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night and Beatles for Sale.[9] McCartney's contributions to their early hits included "I Saw Her Standing There", "She Loves You", "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1963), "Can't Buy Me Love" and "She’s a Woman" (1964), all of which were co-written with Lennon.[10]

In 1965, the Beatles were appointed Members of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) by Queen Elizabeth II. The same year, they recorded the McCartney composition "Yesterday", featuring a string quartet. Included on the Help! LP, the song was the group's first recorded use of classical music elements and their first recording that involved only a single band member.[11] "Yesterday" later became the most covered song in popular music history.[12]

By the end of 1965, with “We Can Work It Out” and the album Rubber Soul, McCartney had begun to usurp Lennon's role as the dominant musical force within the band. From that point on, musicologist Ian MacDonald writes, McCartney "would be in the ascendant not only as a songwriter, but also as instrumentalist, arranger, producer, and de facto musical director of the Beatles".[13] Rubber Soul is described by critics as a significant advancement in the refinement, and thematic profundity of the band's music.[14] The song "In My Life", of which both Lennon and McCartney claimed lead authorship, is widely considered a high point in the Beatles catalogue.[15] Recording engineer Norman Smith states that the Rubber Soul sessions exposed indications of increasing contention within the band, "the clash between John and Paul was becoming obvious", he writes, and "as far as Paul was concerned, George could do no right — Paul was absolutely finicky".[16]

In 1966, one week before the start of the group's final tour, they released Revolver. Featuring sophisticated lyrics, studio experimentation, and an expanded repertoire of musical genres ranging from innovative classical string arrangements to psychedelic rock, the album marked an artistic leap forward for the Beatles.[17] The LP's release was preceded by the single "Paperback Writer", a McCartney composition which Beatles biographer Jonathan Gould describes as "a satire of pop ambition".[18] Revolver featured the McCartney song "Eleanor Rigby", which included a string octet. Described by Gould as "a neoclassical tour de force ... a true hybrid, conforming to no recognizable style or genre of song".[19] With the exception of some backing vocals, the song included only McCartney's lead vocal and the strings arranged by producer George Martin.[20]

After touring almost non-stop for a period of nearly four years, and giving more than 1,400 live performances internationally, the group gave their final commercial concert at the end of their 1966 US tour.[21] Later that year, McCartney was commissioned for what would be his first musical project apart from the Beatles, a film score for the UK production, The Family Way. The score was a collaboration with Martin, who used two McCartney themes to write thirteen variations. The soundtrack failed to chart, but won McCartney an Ivor Novello Award for Best Instrumental Theme.[22]

Sensing unease upon the end of the band's touring period, McCartney then pressured the other Beatles to start a new project, which eventually became Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.[23] Widely regarded as rock's first concept album, McCartney was inspired to create a new persona for the Beatles, a vehicle for experimentation, and to demonstrate to their fans that the band had matured as musicians.[24] McCartney explains, "we were fed up with being the Beatles. We really hated that fucking four little mop-top approach. We were not boys, we were men ... and [we] thought of ourselves as artists rather than just performers".[25]

The band adopted an experimental attitude during the subsequent recording sessions for the album, beginning in November 1966.[26] The sessions produced the double A-side single "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" in February 1967, and the LP, featuring the McCartney-penned title song, followed in June.[9] The Sgt. Pepper cover was based on an ink drawing by McCartney, depicting the Beatles standing in front of a wall featuring framed images of their heroes.[27]

"After Brian died ... Paul took over and supposedly led us you know ... we went round in circles ... We broke up then. That was the disintegration. I thought, 'we've fuckin' had it.'"[28]

~ John Lennon, Rolling Stone magazine, 1970

Epstein's death in August 1967, created a void, and the group was left perplexed and concerned about their future. McCartney, stepping in to fill that void, gradually became the de facto leader and business manager of the group Lennon had once led.[29] McCartney's first significant creative suggestion was to propose that the band move forward on their plans, to produce a film intended for television, which was to become Magical Mystery Tour. The project was "an administrative nightmare throughout", writes Beatles historian Mark Lewisohn.[30] The film—largely directed by McCartney—garnered the group's first significant antagonistic critical response.[31] However, the film's soundtrack was more successful: augmented with tracks from the band's 1967 singles and issued as an LP in the US that December, it set a record for the highest initial sales of any Capitol album up to that point.[32] The accompanying non-album single, “Hello Goodbye”, was written by McCartney, and he would likewise supply the A-sides for the Beatles’ next two singles, “Lady Madonna” and “Hey Jude”, both released during the following year.

The band’s animated movie Yellow Submarine, a production based loosely on the imaginary world evoked by McCartney's 1966 composition, opened in cinemas in July 1968. Though the film was generally admired by critics for its visual style, humour and music, the movie's soundtrack album would be issued six months later to a less enthusiastic response.[33] From June through October 1968, relations within the band became particularly strained during the recording of The Beatles, commonly known as the White Album. It was the band's first Apple Records LP release, and the new label was a subsidiary of Apple Corps, formed as part of Epstein's business plan to provide the group tax relief.[34] Like the other Beatles, McCartney would increasingly use Apple as a vehicle for his extracurricular projects, producing and writing hit singles for the likes of Mary Hopkin and Badfinger.

Tensions within the band increased in January 1969 during the Let It Be sessions, another film project instigated by McCartney, originally titled Get Back after his song of the same name. With McCartney alone in wanting the Beatles to return to live performance, he was filmed lecturing his bandmates: "We've been very negative since Mr. Epstein passed away ... we were always fighting [his] discipline a bit, but it's silly to fight that discipline if it's our own".[35] The resulting album and documentary film would be shelved until 1970, when their release would be accompanied by two more McCartney-penned hit singles in “Let It Be” and “The Long and Winding Road”.

In March 1969, McCartney married Linda Eastman, and in August, the couple had their first child together, Mary, named after Paul's late mother.[36] For Abbey Road, which was to become the band's last recorded album, George Martin had suggested "a continuously moving piece of music", urging the group to think symphonically.[37] McCartney agreed, but Lennon opposed the idea. They eventually agreed upon McCartney's suggested compromise, featuring individual songs on side one, with side two including a long medley.[37] In October 1969, a rumour surfaced that McCartney had died in a car crash in 1966 and been replaced by a look-alike, but this was quickly proven false when a November Life magazine cover featured him and his family with the caption, "Paul is still with us".[38]

By 1970, following business disagreements over the group's management, McCartney found himself pitted against his bandmates, leading him to announce his departure from the Beatles on 10 April.[39] He filed suit for the group's formal dissolution on 31 December 1970. More legal disputes followed, as McCartney's representation, his in-laws John and Lee Eastman, fought Lennon, Harrison and Starr's business manager Allen Klein over royalties and creative control of musical projects. The band was formally dissolved in an English court on 9 January 1975, though sporadic lawsuits against their record company EMI, Klein and each other persisted until 1989.[29] When the Beatles were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, their first year of eligibility, McCartney did not attend, stating that unresolved legal disputes would make him "feel like a complete hypocrite waving and smiling with [Harrison and Starr] at a fake reunion".[40]

Between 1962 and 1970, the group released twenty-two UK singles and twelve LPs, of which seventeen of the singles and eleven of the LPs became number ones.[41] The band topped the US Billboard Hot 100 twenty times, and recorded fourteen number-one albums as Lennon and McCartney became one of the most celebrated songwriting partnerships of the 20th century.[42] Between 1965 and their break-up in 1970, they produced what some critics consider to be the band's finest material, including the innovative and widely influential albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles, and Abbey Road.[43] McCartney was the primary writer of five of their last six US number-one singles: "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back (1969)", "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (1970).[44]

Great suggestion, good catch, I've added some detail on Apple, and will add more as I find it, but for the record, Apple was part of Epstein's business plan, to avoid taxes, so I wouldn't exactly give Macca credit, even if it was in some way his "idea". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even covered at the Beatles, currently a FA. This article is about Macca, not Harrison. Also, I seriously doubt Harrison's three or four high quality songs per year were "a key factor in the their eventual demise". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read something about it (the significance of Harrison's growth as a songwriter) in Herstgaard the other day and in a Rolling Stone Press book. That's a worry that it doesn't even merit a mention in the band article − logically, it affected the whole group dynamic, just as Yoko's arrival did. Anyway, yes, I take your point − not an issue that's needed here perhaps. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Harrison coming into his own was certainly a factor in the break-up, I don't deny that, but there were so many factors that the material would bring WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues I predict, as well as bogging down the Macca article with excessive detail about Harrison. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you want the article to make clearer that Macca "was a bossy so-and-so", I think if you read between the lines a little enough of that comes out. There are Starr and Harrison quotes to that effect, also Lennon's quotes aren't that flattering. The article has a quote from Macca "lecturing the band". I don't think the article should get too deep into why the Beatles broke up. 1) WP:BLP, 2) WP:UNDUE, this article is about Macca, not the break-up of the Beatles, 3) there is already an article, the Beatles' break-up, linked to in the second graph of the Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this point goes hand in hand with one under Wings, about the lack of any mention of critical negativity towards his '70 solo work, about the picture being a little too roseate at times. Mostly though, as with the issue about Rubber Soul, Revolver, etc (above), I was referring to thoughts that come to mind at a particular point in the article as one reads about a year in the Beatles chronology. (My earlier suggestion about mentioning Live Aid was another example.) Anyway, it's good to hear you're considering addressing that Wings point at least. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, good suggestions, and as I said, I'll do some research and see if I can't balance this aspect out a bit. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would totally break the current flow and muddy the solo versus Beatles work, no need, the official announcement came one week before the album's release, so to say it was released after the break-up is not at all misleading or inaccurate. They were well past the point of no return by 10 April 1970. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really agree with the first point you make here, but never mind. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if the flow wouldn't be broken per se, I think Macca's first solo work need not be squeezed in at the end of the Beatles section, would be awkward IMO because as my second point states, Macca announced he was leaving the band one week before the album was released, which makes it perfectly accurate to state that McCartney was released after their break-up. I also think it's the most logical place to start his solo career, being his first solo album, and released after the Beatles broke-up. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wings
I'll keep this in mind, and introduce some balance after a bit of research. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, thanks, I think I fixed it now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, I've tweaked the prose a bit, and added some detail for accuracy and balance.~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1982−1990
Great catch, not sure how that got missed. I fixed it now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. You've done a great job of pulling the article together. I don't mean to sound too anti-McCartney; in the musical career section in particular, I think build up his presence at the time of unquestioned greatness (Work It Out, Revolver, Sgt Pepper's) but for the article to be even a GA, it has to state the other cold reality also. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to offer some great suggestions JG66. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, hope these comments help, GabeMc. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Big help, great suggestions JG66, I will keep them in mind as I research and edit. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Accedie
A lack of consistency in this area may be blamed on my fixing this issue in the sections where I've done a thorough copyedit so far. Clearly, any introduction to these quotes should be in past tense. szyslak (t) 21:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that past tense is best, and I will do my best to improve the article's consistency in that regard. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, which verifiable facts would you remove from the paragraph, and why? The graph is currently summarizing the article per WP:LEAD. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What material specifically do you think is "trivial crap" and which "bulleted lists" do you think should be summarized in prose? Per your suggestion, I've now summarized Macca's musical collaborations with Starr. It was already covered for Lennon (two jams) and Harrison (one backing vocals over-dub). ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Macca is a painter of 30 years with over 500 completed canvasses to his credit, so it is notable where, when, and why he first became interested in art. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a little background info on Macca's official biographer, a former Beatles employee, not relevant? Many sources find Apple, and Zapple notable enough for a brief description, as this article currently does. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrates a non-musical, or non-professional side to his personality/life, hence it's inclusion in "Lifestyle". ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is now removed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I searched for several hours for a WP:RS to back up this statement but could not, so I just deleted it, as it didn't add that much and/or wasn't that needed anyway. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lobo: The article has certainly improved a lot since the last FAC, and I commend GabeMc on all the hard work. I'm afaid I do still find much of the content after "Musicianship" (and even some of the stuff there) to be bloated and given too much importance. For instance, all of "Creative outlets", in my opinion, could quite easily be compressed to one paragraph giving a summary of his interests and achievements in these areas. Just to prove my point, here's an alternative: "McCartney is an avid painter who has exhibited his work in public. He has also written a book of poetry and a childrens' book." That alone could more or less cover the first two subsections! I'm not suggesting it should be that brief, but it also proves how padded this section is. The "Drugs" section is even worse since it has little relation to his notability, and - to be brutally honest - I don't even think the football section should be there. So he loves football...okay, so do 90% of other British men! I really think this is trivial. Personal relationships...again, we have a lot of unnecessary information here, such as "Rhone felt McCartney had a compulsion to control situations, choosing clothes and make-up for Rhone, encouraging her to grow her hair out like Brigitte Bardot's,[297] and at least once insisting she have it re-styled, to disappointing effect."

All in all it's an impressive article, but it is just too detailed at times IMO. The sections most in need of attention, for me, are "Creative outlets" and "Lifestyle". Please don't let my comments be a downer, I'm sure this fault is only a result of your enthusiasm for the man and the article. That can only be admirable. :) But I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting until the less important sections are substantially trimmed. --Lobo (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your first specific point, a good one. As for the second, well ... if I added every notable festival that Macca has ever played in 42 years as a solo artist, it would only serve to increase the verbosity of which you disparaged in your general comments, which I might be tempted to resolve by trimming a few sections, but as you are the only reviewer who has really ever gone there, specifically, I'll hold off for now, since really, you can say "I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting until ..." all you want, but unfortunately, you might not support anyway, no matter how much material/edits/personhours I delete. Macca smoked pot for 40-50 years, habitually, according to many reliable sources, and he was busted five times, once for cultivation, so it is certainly notable. He has painted over 500 canvasses, and had major showings where thousands showed up, 45,000 at one, so that's also notable. Many edits went into the FB section, many not mine, so to delete the work of others to please one off-hand comment seems rash. He is indeed a rabid fan, or was, and two graphs in the bio of a 70 year-old man does not seem excessive. If and when others complain about similar concerns I will reassess. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about Glastonbury, it just seemed like that section was very detailed so I thought I'd point out an omission. I have no objection to there being lots of detail about his musical career by the way. I wasn't saying his painting, drugs etc shouldn't be mentioned, it should, I just think the article dwells on these things more than is necessary. And in such a long article (oh my god, 14,000 words!!! I didn't know it was that long!), I'm inevitably going to be looking at what could be trimmed. Although, I'm starting to think it may be the introductory bit to "Creative outlets" that makes this section look so bloated to me...I can't really see a need for it? The football, I'm afraid, I really do think should be deleted (other than perhaps a sentence about him being a fan and supporting both Liverpool teams) - it trivialises the article IMO. I'm surprised no one else has commented on it. When I get home from work, I may start a discussion about it on the talk page. I know it is horrible deleting stuff that you spent time researching and writing, but trimming out the fluff is also a big part of article refinement. I most likely would support if this was done, since I can't see anything else wrong with the article. I sincerely think this would be an improvement, but I understand your reticence in acting upon it as well...just think about it. People are actually more likely to read your work if it doesn't look too daunting. ;)
That sentence I picked out - it was actually "..was later a point of relation" that I found a bit strange. Would it be accurate to say "McCartney and John Lennon would later bond over this..." or something similar? Because I think that would be clearer, if so. Congratulations again on all the work you've put into the article. --Lobo (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I much prefer "point of relation", the reliable sources do not say they bonded over it per se, in the sense that it was something they discussed at length, and which strengthened their friendship, just that they had a common frame of reference, as a sad child who lost a parent. A commonality of experience, hence, "point of relation". The introductory bit to "Creative outlets" sets up all the material to come. To remove it would undercut the section. It needs an intro, IMO. I've trimmed most of what I believe should be trimmed out, and I like the article as it reads now. Is 14,000 words to many for one of the most famous and successful entertainers of the last 100 years ... who also happens to be 70 years old? Huh? Who says 177,000 bytes is the limit for McCartney's bio and why? These seem like arbitrary limits you are applying without any rationale. As if you think the sections that bore you need to be deleted, or the article isn't good enough. As far as article length, as I said above, currently the McCartney article is about 178,000 bytes, look at others to compare

Please keep in mind, you do not have to agree with or like every section for it to be FA quality. It seems like you have an issue with his lifestyle and creative outlets sections in general. Are there prose or punctuation issues, or anything less vague that can be addressed? ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Alright Lobo, I stayed up all-night, and edited the sections you suggested editing. In total I trimmed over 11,000 bytes, around 6% of the article you last saw. So I'm calling your bluff, I trimmed. Now what? I did my best to trim the sections you suggested trimming. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ GabeMc (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after looking through the article, I feel confident that the following areas can be adjusted for brevity without adversely affecting the article. These are out of order, so bear with me.
The Beatles - I don't think the paragraph on the Pepper cover is terribly important. You could trim it without affecting the article. I think also the last paragraph of this subsection (beginning "Between 1962 and 1970") is also unnecessary. We've already covered the major singles and albums in detail, and don't need to summarize here. Other than that, this section looks perfect to me.
Drugs - This section is reasonably succinct, and I do think most of the content should stay. This sentence:

In 1997 he spoke out in support of decriminalisation of the drug: "People are smoking pot anyway and to make them criminals is wrong".

is entirely unnecessary, however. We already have the bit about him signing the Times advert in 1967, so no one reading the article really needs to know that he also talked about it thirty years later. You could also tweak the bit about the Times thing, maybe cut out the name of the group that produced it and the celebrities who signed it. Maybe something like this:

His attitude about cannabis became public in 1967, when he, along with sixty-four others (including the other three Beatles and Epstein), added his name to a 24 July advertisement in The Times which called for its legalisation, the release of those imprisoned for possession, and research into its medical uses.

would work? The way I see it, the names of the others who signed it really aren't that important. The Beatles and Epstein should be mentioned, obviously, but the others aren't terribly important, for our purposes.
As an aside, does the "never arrested by Norman Pilcher's Drug Squad" clause need to be there? I'm sure there are lots of English policemen he was never arrested by.
Football - I would say trim all the specifics, as was suggested by Lobo, and mention that he supports both clubs. I could be wrong on this, though.
Anyway, Gabe, I'm with you on the article not actually being too long, per se, but I think it does spend a bit too much time on some things. I feel strongly that the "Musical career" section was fine before some of the additions. I don't dislike it now, and I still think it meets the FA criteria, but I think it has gotten away from summary territory for certain, and it seems like that particular guideline is something those who commented here should have thought about before asking that it be expanded in those areas.
That said, all my concerns are now a matter of taste, so on some level the changes I mention may not be necessary. I don't think any of the above concerns are (or should be) a barrier to getting this already inordinately long FAC successfully passed, as it has met all the criteria for quite some time. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is getting a bit ridiculous IMO. To address your concerns, 1) if Macca sketched the Pepper cover, then it is notable enough for inclusion, as the most famous cover ever. 2) The last graph of the Beatles covers their chart, and lasting success and influence, something the summary section does not do. 3) I think it's notable that he has been openly for pot legalisation from 1967 until recently. It establishes his continued opinion. 4) I just disagree, with the drugs thing, wikipedia is getting too touchy. Why hide all the controversy? 5) I nuked the FB sub-section, I fought too hard for that one, out of respect for Brits, and those that had dedicated time into crafting it, but it's not worth it to me at this point. I don't even like football, nor do I care that Macca does. 6) What specifically about the "Musicianship section" is excessive IYO, as most of the material was added there at the direct request of other FAC reviewers, in particular, User:Wasted Time R. Thanks for your comments Evan. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Per Lobo's suggestions, I trimmed out over 11,000 bytes. I believe all the remaining content is important to the subject, well-weighted, and worthy of inclusion in a featured article. ~ GabeMc (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, maybe we've just reached the point where almost all of everyone's requests for inclusion have been granted, and now the article is much longer, causing comments to come in requesting trims. FWIW, I agree that some trims were needed, and I have already trimmed almost everything that was specifically contended, as far as I know anyway, I may have missed something in the above text. IMO, no actionable objections are currently left unresolved. Please correct me if I am wrong. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Among the seven or eight online guides to proper comma usage I looked at, the following two struck me as potentially the most useful: [2] and [3].—DCGeist (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are "multiple grammatical errors" as you say then perhaps you would be kind enough to give a few examples here so that they can be resolved and the article improved. Many editors have gone through the article since you last commented, at least 4 or 5, not counting me. So it appears you can see errors all the rest of us have missed. Please, do share some specifics, or this is merely an unactionable objection, with no rationale to support the concern you want others to look for. Also, I think it is a bit inappropriate of you to even comment here, now, when you and I are in the middle of several talk page disputes at the Beatles. I could be wrong, but to comment here negatively, while there are open RfCs and content disputes with which you and I are directly involved, seems improper, IMO. Maybe someone can clarify this point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Currently open content disputes between User:DCGeist and myself: here, here, and here. Also, while I hate to ABF, I cannot help but feel this has something to do with the whole "The/the" Beatles issue, which has mysteriously reappeared recently after 18 months of silence on the issue, I hope I am wrong about this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We were involved in those "disputes"—I thought they were content discussions—at The Beatles a week and a half ago. You didn't presume back then to argue that they disqualified me from vetting this FA candidate. As for now, why in the world would I want to give you any more help after this gratuitous display of bad attitude? The fact that your grammar is poor and you have been unable to recruit or retain a competent copyeditor is your problem (and, unfortunately, the article's), not mine. As an example for the benefit of the delegates, I provide the sentence with multiple errors that it took me about two seconds to spot when I went to look at the current state of the article:

While London Town (1978), was supported by the US number-one, "With a Little Luck", and was a top-five in both the US and the UK, critical reception was less favourable, and McCartney expressed disappointment in the release.

The prose in much of the article does not come close to meeting the FA standard for similar reasons, and on that basis I oppose its promotion.
P.S. GabeMc's comments are veering into very silly territory, but just for the record, aside from enforcing consistency, I couldn't care less about the endless "The/the" debate.—DCGeist (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, your example above has one, maybe two unneeded commas. Am I incorrect about this? Please tell me how many errors there are in the graph, I'm curious. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were three commas that were wrong (not simply "unneeded") in the sentence. So, to answer your question: Yes. You were incorrect about that. There are no remaining objective errors in the graf consequent to Rothorpe's intervention; however, the second sentence, judged on prosody, is most sour. The pertinent FA criterion calls for prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." The prose of this article is sporadically engaging, never brilliant, and well short of professional standard. Guess what: A serious copyeditor could change that.—DCGeist (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DCGeist, your oppose seems little more than a sour grapes retaliation against me, I will reiterate, it is not appropriate to oppose an an FAC while you are currently in the middle of more than one content dispute at a related page with the nominating editor. Please, can any admins verify whether or not I am correct in this assertion? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the comma usage guides you linked to seem to be dealing largely with the serial comma, which is optional per WP:SERIAL. Of course, the MoS seems to be increasingly unpopular these days, so that may be part of the issue. Yes, the excerpt you posted is grammatically screwed-up. The majority of those problems have been solved by I and others, I believe. I intend to go through the article tonight for one last, thorough copyedit. Since I'm a professional writer, I think I should be able to satisfy at least the "competent" criterion you mentioned. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's schedule that copyedit for tomorrow (Friday), actually. Sorry. I'm easily sidetracked... Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To both GabeMc and DCGeist: Neither of you are assuming good faith about each other. I don't think DCGeist is opposing this FAC as revenge for a silly capitalization dispute from months ago. In fact, I think he has/had legitimate concerns about poor grammar. I also don't think it's fair to blame GabeMC himself for the errors, nor is it very nice to tell him to his face that he "has poor grammar". But even if he were responsible for every single, solitary grammar mistake, that wouldn't matter to me. I copyedit articles, not people. Also, I would appreciate another look at the prose quality. I've just done a thorough copyedit, mostly after DCGeist's "oppose" !vote, and more changes are on the way. DCGeist, do you think I and the others have come close to giving this article a "comprehensive, skilled" copyedit? (If you think my copyedits are half-assed and incompetent, I promise my feelings won't be hurt.) I don't deny there's room for improvement, as there will be if/when this article is promoted. I do, however, feel that the prose meets or almost meets FA standards. szyslak (t) 13:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Szyslak, well said. I will not assume bad faith on DCGeist's part, but to clarify, he and I are not currently in a "The/the" dispute "from months ago". We are currently in dispute over several other issues, which began weeks ago and are ongoing. I should not have dragged "The/the" into this, for I have no reason to believe it is a factor in Geist's !vote. I agree that DCGeist's personal attacks on me are inappropriate, and I stand by my comment that I feel it is improper to oppose an FAC when you are currently in more than one content dispute (at another article) with the nominating editor. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no idea about any motives DCGeist may have had, I agree that opposing a FAC nominated by an editor you're in dispute with doesn't look good to say the least. It would be understandable if one were to wonder whether he just doesn't want you to have your star. szyslak (t) 22:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Szyslak, if you insist on dragging out the off-topic discussion of personal motives, then at least make a little effort to get your facts straight. My last contributions to any Talk thread at The Beatles were made on June 25, within a half hour of when I made my first contribution here regarding the issues with grammar. GabeMc in his response here several hours later did not then think to characterize our Beatles Talk exchanges as "disputes", nor did he when I again weighed in here on June 27. On the contrary, he thanked me for my help on both occasions. Only when I noted here that there still remained many grammatical problems in the McCartney article a week-and-a-half later did those Beatles exchanges—to which I had contributed nothing since June 25—magically transform into "disputes" that supposedly disqualified me from vetting any FAC in which GabeMc might be involved. Szyslak, it does not look good at all when you make derogatory insinuations about fellow editors in evident ignorance of what has actually taken place. That said, I hope you are as ready to move on to more productive efforts as I am.—DCGeist (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've insinuated nothing. All I was saying is that it's understandable that GabeMC might have taken things that way. I said above, "I don't think DCGeist is opposing this FAC as revenge for a silly capitalization dispute from months ago" ... or any other disputes, disagreements, arguments, pleasant conversations, or however else you want to characterize the interactions between you and GabeMC. No really, I don't think you have ulterior motives. I do think that if you've been in conflict with an editor, people tend to look at your opposing a FAC they've done extensive work on in a different way. szyslak (t) 07:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But the point, as I have attempted to demonstrate, is that I had no reason at all to believe GabeMc and I were "in conflict", until GabeMc suddenly determined that exchanges elsewhere that had ended, at least on my part, a week-and-a-half ago constituted "disputes", rather than normal back-and-forth on maintenance and improvement efforts. Ach. There's enough actual (if often equally silly) conflicts on Wikipedia; the last thing we need to be doing is imagining new ones into existence.—DCGeist (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Now I'm sorry I even got myself involved in this discussion thread. At this point, I don't care who is in conflict with whom., or whether a conflict even exists. szyslak (t) 09:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GoingBatty, I needed that! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The issue is not about "how many commas to use." There are, indeed, different acceptable styles for handling commas in certain grammatical situations. The choice of one of those styles over another is neither a problem in general nor an actionable objection in the context of a Featured Article Candidacy. The problem we face here is a massive amount of objective grammatical errors, largely involving punctuation, particularly commas. The nominator is not well versed in English grammar and he has failed to recruit a copyeditor capable of diligently applying good English grammar to the article. I have never claimed that the article is a "horror". It is simply replete with grammatical errors and is not close to representative of our best work.
Evanh2008, both of the online guides I commended to GabeMc deal with MANY issues beside that of the relatively minor issue of the serial comma, which involves only a choice and consistency. Most of those MANY other issues are matters of grammatical right and wrong; this article currently gets them wrong over and over and over again. As my initial contributions to this thread should have made plain to any adult here, I would very much like this article to achieve FA status. However, the prose does not now come close to meeting that standard. And the only real horror here is GabeMc's abusive treatment of those who displease him. I trust it is evident who is truly sucking on those "sour grapes."—DCGeist (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following are all from a randomly chosen brief subsection, Activism, in the middle of the article:

Paul and Linda became outspoken animal rights activists after their vegetarianism was realised when Paul saw lambs in a field as they ate a meal of lamb.

"After their vegetarianism was realised" is not English. "Paul saw lambs in a field as they ate a meal of lamb" is very awkward, unnecessarily confusing, and prone to a risible misreading.

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The couple debated with Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams...

There are various grammatically proper ways to handle titles and names; this is not one of them.

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McCartney has been involved with several charity recordings and performances, such as the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea, Ferry Aid, Band Aid, Live Aid, and the recording of "Ferry Cross the Mersey".

This sentence employs the serial comma, though most of the article does not.

Fixed, comma deleted. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...in 2008 he donated a song to Aid Still Required's CD to assist with recovery from the devastation done to Southeast Asia from the 2004 tsunami.

This passage falls apart with "to assist with recovery from". The final "from" is also incorrect.

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2009, McCartney wrote to the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso...

Another mishandled title/name construction.

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problems in this randomly chosen subsection look to be representative of the sort of problems that remain throughout the article. Copyeditors, please keep an eye out for them.—DCGeist (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to make some specific suggestions, much appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on DATED I see the discussion above where we acquired all the "as of 2012"s; I now think we have too many of these, and that it may indicate an underlying problem with too many factoids. I have made a more detailed comment in article talk on this. --John (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Many of these additions were made at the direct request of FAC reviewer User:Wasted Time R (see above), and this discussion with Wasted. I'll go through and remove the excess factoids added to resolve prior FAC comments. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, even though I restored the "as of" constructions. I would've removed some (the entire claims, not just the "as of"), but I prefer not to mix technical edits with content edits. Many of the "as of" claims are trivial IMO, such as the most recent UK top 20. szyslak (t) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Szyslak, at the McCartney talk page, John has made a list of suggestions for deletion. Perhaps you could find the time to go there and give some input. Again, "the most recent UK top 20" was added at the direct request of User:Wasted Time R (see above for a link to the subsequent discussion at their talk page). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article top to bottom and moved as much chart data to notes as seemed proper. I've retained the most important points in-line (number-ones, album sales) but if I missed anything please let me know. Thanks again for all the great teamwork! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I loosened it. :P Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not quite... I found a couple more missing commas :D Now, though, it's 200% error-free! Accedietalk to me 18:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I am finding problems with the references, which I have either fixed or listed on the article's Talk Page. Please double-check them. Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

Support Given my comments have been addressed and the article has improved dramatically, I support this based on comprehensiveness and prose. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments I think there is a consensus to promote this candidate. Any remaining issues can be dealt with post FAC, on the article's Talk Page. Thanks to the nominator and all the reviewers for engaging in our FA process. Graham Colm (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Spitz 2005, pp. 200: Booking them in Hamburg in 1960, 243: "Williams had never formally served as the Beatles manager".
  2. ^ Miles 2001, pp. 23–24.
  3. ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 21–25: Hamburg, 31: the Cavern Club.
  4. ^ Miles 1997, p. 74: McCartney: "Nobody wants to play bass, or nobody did in those days".; Gould 2007, pp. 89: On McCartney playing bass when Sutcliff was indisposed., 94: "Sutcliff gradually began to withdraw from active participation in the Beatles, ceding his role as the group's bassist to Paul McCartney".
  5. ^ Spitz 2005, pp. 249–251.
  6. ^ Miles 1997, pp. 84–88.
  7. ^ Spitz 2005, p. 330.
  8. ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 59: "Love Me Do", 75: Replacing Best with Starr., 88–94: "Beatlemania" in the UK., 136–140: "Beatlemania" in the US; Miles 1997, p. 470: the cute Beatle.
  9. ^ a b Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351.
  10. ^ For song authorship see: Harry 2002, pp. 90: "Can't Buy Me Love", 439: "I Saw Her Standing There"; Harry 2000a, pp. 561–562: "I Want to Hold Your Hand"; and MacDonald 2005, pp. 66–68: "I Saw Her Standing There", 83–85: "She Loves You", 99–103: "I Want to Hold Your Hand", 104–107: "Can't Buy Me Love", 171–172: "We Can Work It Out"; For release dates, US and UK peak chart positions of the preceding songs see: Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351.
  11. ^ Buk 1996, p. 51: Their first recording that involved only a single band member; Gould 2007, p. 278: The group's first recorded use of classical music elements in their music; Lewisohn 1992, p. 180: MBE.
  12. ^ MacDonald 2005, pp. 157–158: "Yesterday" as the most covered song in history.
  13. ^ MacDonald 2005, p. 172.
  14. ^ Levy 2005, p. 18: Rubber Soul is described by critics as an advancement of the band's music; Brown & Gaines 2002, pp. 181-82: As they explored facets of romance and philosophy in their lyrics.
  15. ^ Spitz 2005, p. 587.
  16. ^ Harry 2000b, p. 780.
  17. ^ Gould 2007, p. 348.
  18. ^ Gould 2007, pp. 325: "a satire of pop ambition"; Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351: Revolver&#39, s release was preceded by "Paperback Writer".
  19. ^ Gould 2007, p. 350: "neoclassical tour de force", 402: "a true hybrid".
  20. ^ Harry 2002, pp. 313–316.
  21. ^ Gould 2007, p. 347: 1,400 live performances internationally; Lewisohn 1992, p. 230: final commercial concert
  22. ^ Blaney 2007, p. 8.
  23. ^ MacDonald 2005, p. 254.
  24. ^ Miles 1997, p. 303: McCartney was inspired to create a new identity for the Beatles; Harry 2000a, p. 970: Rock's first concept album.
  25. ^ Miles 1997, p. 303.
  26. ^ Lewisohn 1992, p. 232.
  27. ^ Miles 1997, p. 333: On McCartney's design for the Sgt. Pepper cover (primary source); Sounes 2010, p. 168: On McCartney's design for the Sgt. Pepper cover (secondary source).
  28. ^ Wenner & George-Warren 2000, pp. 24–25.
  29. ^ a b Benitez 2010, pp. 8–9.
  30. ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 238–239.
  31. ^ Gould 2007, pp. 455–456.
  32. ^ Harry 2000a, p. 699.
  33. ^ Gould 2007, pp. 487: Critical response; Lewisohn 1992, pp. 278: Filming of the promotional trailer, 304: Yellow Submarine soundtrack release.
  34. ^ Gould 2007, p. 470: Apple Corps formed as part of Epstein's business plan; Lewisohn 1992, p. 278: The beatles first Apple Records LP release.
  35. ^ Brown & Gaines 2002, p. 299: "We've been very negative since Mr. Epstein passed away"; Lewisohn 1992, pp. 276–304: the White Album, 304–314: Let It Be.
  36. ^ Sounes 2010, pp. 171–172: Paul and Linda's first meeting., 245–248: On their wedding., 261: On the birth of their first child Mary.
  37. ^ a b Gould 2007, p. 563.
  38. ^ Gould 2007, pp. 593–594.
  39. ^ Lewisohn 1992, p. 349: McCartney's departure from the Beatles (secondary source); Miles 1998, pp. 314–316: McCartney's departure from the Beatles (primary source); Spitz 2005, pp. 243: Lennon's personal appointment of Klein, 819–821, 832–833: McCartney's disagreement with Lennon, Harrison and Starr over Klein's management of the Beatles.
  40. ^ Harry 2002, p. 753.
  41. ^ Roberts 2005, p. 54.
  42. ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351: US and UK singles and album release dates with peak chart positions; Gould 2007, pp. 8–9: "one of the greatest phenomena in the history of mass entertainment", "widely regarded as the greatest concentration of singing, songwriting, and all-around musical talent that the rock'n'roll era has produced"; Spitz 2005, p. 856: "not anything like anything else ... [a] vastness of talent ... of genius, incomprehensible".
  43. ^ Harry 2000a, pp. 1–3: Abbey Road, 107–109: The Beatles, 916–917: Revolver, 969–979: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band; Levy 2005, pp. 8–11: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, 14–15: Revolver, 18–19: Rubber Soul, 28–29: The Beatles, 33: Abbey Road.
  44. ^ Bronson 1992, p. 247: "the band's most successful single"; For song authorship see: Harry 2002, pp. 358–359: "Get Back", 410–411: "Hello, Goodbye", 415–416: "Hey Jude", 508: "Let it Be", 533: "The Long and Winding Road"; For release dates, US and UK peak chart positions of the preceding songs see: Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351.
More