Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive1

The Beatles

Self-nomination, but I haven't made any major contribs to the article, just copyedited once or twice. The article's prose is brilliant, and it's non-controversial (unless we're somewhere in the Bible Belt in the 60s). Johnleemk 11:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good article about an important musical phenomenon -- Cabalamat 17:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A lovingly crafted article. Occasional minor grammatical errors should not bar this from feature status. Denni 19:52, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
Neutral. I think this really needs to be broken up into sections. Kingturtle 20:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. It is a good article but it triggers a Page size warning (making it 16 U.S. pages long at 12 point font) - not everybody wants such detail. Some sections could be summarized to a few to several good-sized paragraphs with detail moved to daughter artilces such as Beatles discography, The Beatles' influence, the many Beatle album articles and also a timeline (which doesn't seem to exist yet). Perhaps an easier way to do that would be to create a History of The Beatles article and leave a 5-10KB summary of the history (just the most important stuff) at The Beatles. Some sections like 'After the breakup' seem to be a bit disjointed with many single-sentence paragraphs that read more like a timeline than prose (lots of sentences and paragraphs start with "On" or "In" - oftentimes right after each other). --mav 06:19, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. At least, I split it off. History now is about one or two pages, with the rest offloaded at History of the Beatles. Johnleemk 08:16, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks better, but the length was only part of the problem. There still are many sentences starting with "On" and "In" and most, if not all, of the sentences at The Beatles are directly copied to History of the Beatles - that's going to be a bit annoying to people who read both the summary and the detailed history article. To fix that, the current history section could be condensed with exact dates stripped, longer sentences shortened, and smaller paragraphs merged. Some sectioning is also in order. I would do all that myself right now but I'm sure somebody else is editing that article I also need to go to bed. --mav
    - Better now? Johnleemk 09:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wow - that was fast. Great improvement and I now add my full support. --mav
Support. Very nice. James F. (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the most part. "The Beatles were the most influential music group of the rock era." -That's not NPOV. User:MKultra
Oppose. Too much POV and proclaiming the Beatles as the greatest thing to ever happen to the world. Not enough mention of controversies and the common opinion that they were overrated by the white media to overshadow the many black acts that were charting at the time. Reads more like a fan page, and no mention of the common knowledge that they cheated their way to stardom by paying teens to go into record stores and request their albums, forcing record stores to order more Beatles albums in making them #1 because of shipment numbers. Street walker 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.Good point.It's actually a world conspiracy.They payed a billion teenagers to buy their albums.You're good , you know.Maybe this would interest you The Protocols of the Elders of Zion