Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

Graham Colm 07:09, 23 May 2014 [1]
.


Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Nominator(s): GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sgt. Pepper by the Beatles. After an extensive peer review, I believe that its well-written, well-researched and comprehensive; the prose is neutral and engaging. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – as one of the peer reviewers I had my queries and quibbles, which were few and minor, dealt with thoroughly there. This is a first-class article; it meets the FA criteria in every way, in my view, and the nominator, and indeed Wikipedia, should be very proud of it. – Tim riley talk 18:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I banged heads with Gabe over a few trivial things, but the very fact that's all I could find does indicate a thorough job's been done on the article. It deserves FA status by its historical importance and the review has been thorough, with lots of feedback. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've found something that everyone else has missed, and so feel very smug. "Disc" or "disk"?!

BencherliteTalk 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, the Wikipedia article is Acetate disc, so that's what I went with. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with Disc, not least because of the contemporary British magazine
Carole Kaye in the studio, or Bruce Johnston or Al Jardine on the road. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Resolved? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last "disk" (note 42) changed to "disc". On a more serious note, I wonder whether there's some overlinking in the "Personnel" section - not just repeated links, but links to common words/terms such as "alarm clock", "singing", "clapping"; I wonder whether links are needed to all those instruments as well.
BencherliteTalk 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a good call on the linking; resolved? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per resolved comments at the peer review. The article is comprehensive and well worthy of FA status. Cassiantotalk 21:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I have no concerns since all the comments I left at this article's peer review have been resolved.
    talk) 22:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yeah, I made some book keeping comments after I closed it, so that Evan knew I had addressed his concerns. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright.
  • Support on prose per my comments at PR. As I said at PR, I'll let another editor do the image check here, just to allow a third/fourth voice on the FU media. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wasted Time R

Some things that I didn't see during peer review, or saw but forgot to mention, or that still need a bit of work:

FTR, I pinged you nine days ago and asked if you had anything to add to your PR, and you ignored the ping, but I'll do my best to address these very minor points. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The musicologists and critics should be given full names and links (when they have them) upon first mention in the text. For example, Walter Everett in "Recording and production" needs a link, Kevin Womack in "Side one" needs a link, MacDonald needs a first name and a link (see later "Side one", where that and a description are given, and then unlink the mention in "Track listing"), Riley in "Side one" box needs a first name and a link (they are given later). There are probably others that I didn't catch. The perils of moving material around ...
I think all the musicologists with Wikipedia articles are now linked. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe worth a mention that George Martin was cut out of the arranging of "She's Leaving Home", leaving him feeling very hurt? See Lewisohn 1988 p. 103.
Its already in note #18. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Side two", "The track ends with a burst of laughter that some listeners interpret as a mockery of Harrison's song, but he explains: ...", I know what "he" refers to, since this was my suggested addition, but I think readers may be confused, especially given the present tense. How about "The track ends with a burst of laughter that some listeners interpret as a mockery of the song, but as Harrison explained shortly after the album's release: ..."
Clarified. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Side two",
    Kellogg's Corn Flakes
    can be fully linked.
Actually, that's a redirect to Corn Flakes. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More importantly, in "Side two", there should be mention of George Martin's splicing of the last hen cluck of "Good Morning Good Morning" directly into the opening guitar of "Sgt Pepper (Reprise)", which has been much remarked upon - see Schaffner 1977 p. 80 for instance.
Added. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Cover artwork", the reference to "the Fool" is really confusing just left there like that, especially with the lower case ... oh no I won't go there! I thought of the Fool on the Hill or the famous Lennon "and sometimes I play ..." quip. I suggest expanding this to "... the Fool ...".
Clarified . GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Concept", "concept album" does not need to be linked again, especially inside Lennon's quote.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as I said in the peer review,
    WP:LINKSTYLE
    says to avoid links within quotations, but there are still some here. See in particular inside "provid[ing] a historical snapshot of England ...", inside "I was writing the song with the Daily Mail ...", inside "musical unity results ...". These all need to be reshaped to get the link outside the quote.
FTR, the guideline says: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked", not that they can never be linked, but these are now "fixed". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Charts", it would be nice to have more country listings from 1967, so that the section isn't visually dominated by less impressive reissue rankings. Isn't there a Canadian album chart from back then, for example? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not interested in expanding the charts section, as I feel that its already excessively detailed. If you want to add any then feel free, of course, but obviously this is not at all actionable in terms of the FAC criteria, so maybe this type of stuff is better for the article's talk page. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere I think there should be mention of some of the directly imitative albums that came out in the wake of Sgt Pepper, especially The Rolling Stones' Their Satanic Majesties Request, but also The Four Seasons' The Genuine Imitation Life Gazette, The Monkees' Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd., and others.
Are these really all direct imitations of Sgt Pepper? Aside from being released in the same year, and by the Beatles' main competitors in the 60s music scene, I don't think Satanic Majesties is specifically related, any more so than, say
We're Only In It For The Money. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
FTR, the Four Season's album you mentioned does not even have a Wikipedia article, and at the Monkee's example, Pepper is not mentioned. IMO, the bit about Their Satanic Majesties Request does not belong in this article, since its not notable to Sgt. Pepper, its notable to the Stones album, but Everett does mention it and Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake by the Small Faces as Sgt. Pepper "copycat LPs". Where would this point fit in the narrative? Its not really legacy and its not at all reception? We're Only In It For The Money is mentioned in note #3. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given all the mentions to how the album's songs could not be played live, I think somewhere it could be mentioned that the former Beatles have, in fact, played many of them live. John performed "Lucy" with Elton in 1974, Ringo has made "With a Little Help" the culmination of all his All Starr Band concerts, and Paul has done a bunch of them, starting with "Sgt Peppers -> jam -> Sgt Peppers reprise" being a highlight of his 1989 tour, and since then others such as "Fixing a Hole" and "Lovely Rita" and even including ones normally associated with John like "A Day in the Life" and "Mr Kite". Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, Paul has turned into his own Beatles tribute band! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there is no need for a list of songs that the ex-Beatles (read Paul) performed live, but I think it amounts to maybe two or three ("Sgt. Pepper" and "A Day in the Life") I've never heard of live versions of "Rita", Fixing a Hole" or "Mr. Kite". What source are you using for this claim? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "mccartney fixing a hole live" threw up several videos, though I agree this is off topic for this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Macca perform "For No One", in the mid-2000s I think. I was really impressed with how well he nailed the piano part, which I had always assumed Martin augmented with his own playing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, the point that the article makes is that the Beatles could not and did not perform any of the songs live. It says nothing, IMO, that 7-20 years later ex-Beatles performed a few of them with expanded bands of more than four people. Anyway, what section would this go into if it was added? Legacy? I don't see this as important to the article about Sgt. Pepper, but this might be a nice detail for the relevant song articles. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re redirects, they are good things. Both
Kellogg's Corn Flakes get you to articles that have some material on Kellogg's Corn Flakes, but the latter has more. And if someone ever writes a dedicated article about Kellogg's Corn Flakes, that's the link that will be perfect. Re live performances, of the 13 tracks on Sgt Peppers, 10 have been performed live by former Beatles (1 John, 1 Ringo, 8 Paul - you can find those easily by doing YouTube searches for < mccartney live name-of-song >). The only ones that haven't are "Within You Without You", "When I'm Sixty Four" (but I bet Paul would have when he reached that age, had Linda still been alive), and "Good Morning Good Morning". I think it's significant because it goes against the reputation of the album and it shows that Paul has an interest in keeping the legacy of the album alive in a form it supposedly wouldn't be heard in, live concerts. But we've been around different aspects of this live performance point before in the peer review and you're the one running the show here. I merely suggest, you decide. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
None of the performances that you refer to are four-piece bands called the Beatles. Nowhere in the article does it suggest that the songs are somehow above live "performance" by any ensemble group on earth. I saw McCartney perform "A day in the Life"; I was maybe 10th row in a very small venue, but it was – at best – a "clever facsimile", and not at all notable to Sgt. Pepper, but that might be good material for the song article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I commented at the peer review; it was then, and remains now an excellent article. I'm not brilliant on the Beatles, or on music generally, but with that qualification I think it easily meets the FA criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SilkTork

  • 1a It is well written. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1d It is neutral. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e It is stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 At 55 kB (9032 words) it is just over what is generally considered
    WP:TOOBIG for Wikipedia. The longest / most detailed sections in the article are the Production section, and the two sections describing the songs. They are at the absolute limit of what we find acceptable in terms of amount of detail, and it might be debatable if they would be improved with a copy-edit. I find the information to be useful and interesting, and justified given that this is such a notable recording. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The page you link to gives "may need to be divided", so this certainly is not "too big". Furthermore, as you've noted already, major topics tend to need larger articles. An FA on World War II, for instance, would likely not be comprehensive enough if it was only 40k characters. This is one of the most major albums I know of, and it makes sense for this to have 50k — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I feel the article passes criteria 4, though it is appropriate to ponder if the sections I mention could be improved by making them more concise. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think this article is too long at all. It's likely the most famous pop or rock album of all time, and merits the comprehensive treatment that has been given. Looking at User:Dr_pda/Featured_article_statistics#List_of_articles_by_proze_size, there are about 200 existing FA articles of equal or greater length, many on topics that are less well known (some are downright obscure). If anything, looking at the edit history, I think some important or useful points have been removed from the article, or moved into Notes, perhaps due to wariness about the article being considered too long. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some
    WP:Captions attached to the media in the article, which are not succinct as required in criteria 3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Again, for what it's worth, those longer audio captions are one of things I like best about this article. They give the reader a focused chance to explicitly read and hear about the same thing, a rarity in most writing about music. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be useful to mention our personal likes and dislikes as regards the appropriateness of the FA criteria, as there may be a body of opinion that says that captions should be self-contained text boxes. You could raise the issue at either Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions (or both!). In the meantime I think it's worth being aware that having a succinct caption does not mean that the information gets deleted; the information should be placed in context within the main body of the article. The caption is meant to identify the media, so it can be related to the text, and also to invite the reader to engage with the text. Currently, the understanding is that captions are not meant to be an alternative to the text, but an invitation to engage with it, and thus with the article as a whole. But, as I say, there may be a body of opinion away from that which may be worth investigating. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told more than once that some critical commentary in an ogg description field helps strengthen the FUR, but my question here is: Why is this a sticking point in an article that is otherwise an excellent candidate for FA? As I said below,
WP:CAPTION refers to images only; there is no mention of ogg description fields in that guideline. I would argue that ogg descriptions are quite different animals than image captions. Images generally need less explanation than ogg files, which do not convey any visual information on their own. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Wasted and I would add that the slightly more detailed than average captions go a long way towards justifying the use of the non-free files. Further, this is a style point that's not really actionable in terms of the FAC criteria, IMO. Having said that, it would be quite easy to move a couple of the caption comments to the in-line text, but I personally prefer to have critical commentary in the captions as well, which – as Wasted points out – provides a focused analysis of what is heard in the ogg files. In other words, its "six on one hand", and I don't see any issue with having an ogg box that's about the same size as an image would be, particularly when the captions are critically discussing the content of the ogg files. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, – after a bit of copyediting – there are currently a total of 9 sentences in the four ogg captions – all of which specifically pertain to what's heard in the sound sample. I don't think that this is excessive in the least. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW,
WP:CAPTION seems to refer only to images; it does not mention the description field of an ogg file box. It also says: "Captions can consist of a few words of description, or several sentences." Further, "Succinctness means using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which means using a relatively small number of words." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The FA criteria is " It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions..."; though you are right that
WP:Caption does indicate that you don't need to be terse, though the point is also made that the caption is not intended to carry the whole story, but be an invitation into the text. Some people don't look at captions or infoboxes, preferring to concentrate on the text, so if there is important information which is ONLY in the description line / caption, then that may not be helpful to all readers. Few readers expect a caption to be everything, and if after reading the caption they turn to the text for more explanation, they may be disappointed or frustrated if there is nothing further to be found. And, if the information is in both the caption AND the main body, and is given at length in both, then there is some unnecessary redundancy. However, this is only my reading of the situation, and that is what is useful about a group approach to an audit, there are a range of views and opinions given. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
SilkTork, okay, I moved all but one sentence of text from the captions to the article body. Is this concern now resolved? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. I'm just working through the last of the criteria. I have a minor caption related issue below. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Studer J37 is mentioned in the caption to the image, but not in the article body. There appears to be some interest in the association of the Studer J37 with the Beatles, particularly with its use on Sgt Pepper, so perhaps naming it in the article body might be expected by some readers, and perhaps a minimal amount of information, such that it was a Swiss company. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the situation regarding File:Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite - 2012 reproduction.jpg? This is not the usual image shown. Is there a copyright concern with the original image? And, if so, how does the this "reproduction" overcome that copyright concern - or does it create new copyright issues, as it's now a recent work? SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't an image of the original also be a recent work? Crisco 1492 told me during the PR that the file was acceptable. Maybe he can add to this discussion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wikipedia has made a stand on photographs of two dimensional works of art, so you're probably right that it doesn't matter. But I note that it hasn't been moved over to Commons. There is a recent author named which is at odds with the licensing which says that it's in the public domain because it was published before 1923. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SilkTork: Essentially, the US doesn't recognise the sweat of the brow doctrine (i.e. a new copyright from reproducing or digitizing something, no matter how slavishly); as the Wikimedia Foundation's servers are in the US, that is how we can have 1 gigapixel scans of famous works like the Mona Lisa, as well as why we don't require people scan PD photographs themselves. That this is a recent reproduction of an earlier work is (assuming it is an accurate reproduction, which is what I asked at PR) unrelated to the US copyright. Although the UK does recognise the sweat of the brow doctrine, the WMF still refuses to recognise it (see the National Gallery case), and thus UK reusers may be in a bit of a pickle. In short, though, it's free if it is an accurate reproduction. That being said, good catch with the creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my understanding as well, and Crisco's comment about UK copyright is exactly how the
    National Archives and reuse them as PD on here. While I'm morally uncomfortable about waving stuff in the National Gallery's face because the letter of the law says it's probably okay, I don't think anyone would contest a circus poster from 1843. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I don't think the lead meets
    WP:Lead as a satisfying summary of the most important points, considering that many readers only read the lead. When and where the album was recorded is missing. Abbey Road is mentioned in the line: "Following the Beatles' August 1966 retirement from touring, and the ensuing three-month break from Abbey Road Studios, they endeavoured to improve upon the production quality of their prior releases", though it's not clear what this means, and it could be read as suggesting that the Beatles didn't record at Abbey Road. Recording and production is summarised as "The producer George Martin's innovative recording of the album included the liberal application of signal processing and the use of a 40-piece orchestra", which is perhaps a little too brief and not clear: why is recording a 40-piece orchestra in itself innovative, and what does "signal processing" mean, these don't appear to be explained in the article. Out of curiosity, why is it "The producer George Martin..." rather than "Producer George Martin..."? SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
1) In formal BrEng its better to include the definite article lest you introduce a false title. 2) The reader will click the article signal processing if they want to better understand what it is, but to expect that it be explained here in detail is a bit much, especially in light of your complaint about the length of the very section that you are now asking me to expand. But FTR, there is a lot of detail about varispeeding, tape echo and ADT in the article, which are all types of signal processing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, does this series of edits resolve your concern regarding the lead? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does removal potential confusion; well done. However, we still don't have the basics of when the album was recorded nor how long it took. We are told that Peppers is a concept album, but not what the concept is. The lead comes over as rather minimal, and perhaps teases more than satisfies. I do think that it is important for all articles that as much effort is put into the lead as the rest of the article; it is even more important for complex and high profile topics - this is immaterial of whatever audit process the article is going through, though it is part of the criteria at GA and FA level that the lead is appropriate. This is because many (possible the majority) of readers only read the lead. To read the entire article takes some time and concentration. This article would take most readers nearly an hour to read through, and at the end the reader would have absorbed just 50 - 70% of the information. See Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues. It is because of this that the lead as a stand-alone summary of the important points of the topic is vital. There's been a lot of work done on this article, so it would be worth making more of that research available for more readers. Regardless of what happens in this FAC, it would benefit a significant number of the daily average of 2,500 readers if the lead were worked on a bit more. I am willing to help out on that, though I have a few other things on at the moment, so not sure when or how much.... ;-) SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, I think your additions to the lead were excellent; thanks for that. I've made a few more copyedits and I think its looking much more concise now. Do you think the lead looks okay at this point, or is does it need more improvement? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b - it is comprehensive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a minor query. Over the years I have frequently seen Pepper as the top rated Best Album Ever on various polls, and had the impression that it was for a while, and possibly still is, the album that most frequently tops both critics and listeners polls as the Best Album Ever. There are some sample polls given in the Legacy section, but I wondered if you had come across in your research any source that did summarise Pepper's overall position on such polls. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. It tops some lists and not others; there is no centralised list that everyone agrees on. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed review. I'm not sure what else the lead needs at this point, as its getting pretty long, IMO, and I truly feel that it summarises the article's "most important points" without being overly detailed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've missed the answer to Crisco's question: is this confirmed to be an accurate reproduction, and not warranting a new copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is a picture of the original in George Martin's book about Pepper, and as far as I can tell this reproduction is faithful to the original. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is information about the reproduction here: [2]. If the creators of the reproduction, Andy English and Peter Dean, have licensed it for re-use then it can be used, and the licensing details would need to be updated to reflect that. If they have not, then an argument would need to be put forward for fair use, which might be difficult, given that there are other versions available. What is interesting is the picture of John Lennon pointing at the poster he bought. That image is reproduced several times on the internet, and I can't see who owns the rights to the photograph. Given the encyclopaedic relevance of that image, John Lennon pointing to the very poster that inspired a key song on such an important album, and that it can't be repeated because Lennon is dead, I think that fair use could be argued, same as the lead image on Pink Floyd of all five members of the band. What is interesting about the Lennon image, is that the poster is white rather than sepia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Lennon image: [3]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that its a much better choice, but is it acceptable that we do not know who the author of the photo is? If so, I'd be happy to upload that image and write a FUR. Having said that, this would make three non-free images in addition to the four FU ogg files. Are we certain that swapping what we believe to be a PD image with one that almost certainly not is a good idea? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the creators of the reproduction, Andy English and Peter Dean, have licensed it for re-use then it can be used, and the licensing details would need to be updated to reflect that." According to what policy? If this is a simple, faithful reproduction, the WMF has previously stated that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" (works of art here being understood in a general manner, including posters and old photographs). Otherwise all of the images here that were not taken by Gabe or a Wikimedian (i.e. all of them) would be just as protected as you think the poster is. Although the UK does recognize sweat of the brow as eligible for copyright protection (see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for a country-by-country dissection), Commons, Wikipedia, and the WMF accept only the US understanding of said doctrine.
As for replacing this PD image with a fair-use one... that's explicitly against policy, in particular
WP:NFCC #1. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There has been a misunderstanding here. The rule applies to photographs of PD work. This is not a photo of a PD work, but a photo of a modern work of art based on the original poster. See this link for a description of how the work of art was created, and then reproductions of that work were sold in limited editions. Given that the creators have sold this in limited editions, they may wish to protect their work of art. Or, they may not. But without their explicit licensing agreement, we cannot make that assumption. The image uses PD licensing for a modern work of art. That is inappropriate and misleading. The licensing as shown would apply to a photograph of the original poster. If we used one of those, such as File:Affiche MrKite.jpg there wouldn't be an issue. But the decision has been to use a photo of a recent work of art - apparently without permission. The user who uploaded the image is not active on Wikipedia so we cannot ask them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 03:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every effort has been made to be true to the original poster and it is printed using the same methods that would have been used in 1843." This is a reproduction. It is the very definition of a reproduction. That this is not from a photographic reproduction does not change the fact that, under US law, the threshold of originality has not been crossed. Yes, they did a hell of a job. No, that doesn't grant them copyright in the US. This is acceptable under current doctrine, per Commons:Derivative works: "Exact replicas of public domain works, ... cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here we get onto tricky ground: if this is an exact replica, why are we preferring it over photographs of the period poster? But, anyway, my concern appears to be solitary, so is not going to make any difference. The article is a good one regardless of the use of that image, but I do have a concern that the image use is inappropriate so I will leave that concern on file. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why it's being preferred here, Gabe is probably the one to ask. I personally think a scan of an original would be better, assuming of course that one could be found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco and SilkTork, I wouldn't say that its being preferred here; it was in the article long before I ever edited the page and I'm not aware of another that would be more appropriate. I also don't think that the promotion of this article should be delayed because of this disagreement. If it would be better I'll just remove the image and someone can add it – or another – back at a later date when all this is sorted out. I don't think its good practice to rake content builders over the coals with this type of stuff, which 9 times out of 10 comes down to who you ask and when. Nikkimaria, will you please weigh-in here, since we appear to be at a stalemate. Absent any consensus on this matter by the end of the day I'll just remove the image so the issue is remediated, at least in terms of this FAC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 15:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the most part I agree with Crisco, but since a scan has now been found that's a better option anyways. The new poster does need a US PD tag, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As regards the lead. Yes, that looks fine. My only remaining concern is the poster image. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • Support - All my outstanding concerns were addressed in the peer review. Article looks great! Evan (talk|contribs) 04:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My work was done at peer review. Further work has been done here at FAC; I dare say that an article like this will always attract a lot of attention as people seek to improve it. For my money, subject to the resolution of any outstanding source or image issues, the article is now a worthy FA, and I'm pleased to have had a small part in its development. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - We need an images and a sources review unless I have missed them.

talk) 19:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Will do a source review tonight or tomorrow morning, unless someone beats me to it. Tim riley talk 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned at the PR, "Audio conveys different information than prose" is not very helpful when it comes to NFCC#1. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The FURs are solid at all the ogg files, but what specifically are you concerned about? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this edit resolve your concerns? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better. The "encyclopedic purpose" is described under Purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link me to an example of an acceptable ogg FUR? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: FUR is adequate, see continued discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk)
Source review

Trust me to volunteer to check a reference section with 356 citations! That said, they seem to me to be a model of their kind. The instructions on how to drill down in the relevant web sites (e.g. "Click Avvia la ricerca") are particularly impressive. I have only three comments, none of which are very important:

  • It doesn't greatly bother me, but when you give short summaries of which ref says what, you sometimes use sentence case and sometimes start in lower case – cf refs 200 and 203 on the one hand and refs 12 and 218 and the rest on the other. The first two are the only capitalised ones I found.
  • Ref 12: should this be Beatles' with an apostrophe?
  • Ref 329 – you don't say "(In Portuguese)" as you do for ref 347

And that really is my lot, after my very best efforts to find fault. Bravo! – Tim riley talk 20:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Thanks for the kind words and the herculean effort reviewing the refs and the article! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All now fine by me. Tim riley talk 20:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This
    talk) 06:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band/archive1&oldid=1138471200"