Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Get all the Beatles albums to at least GA?

Hi. I’ve noticed that out of all the Beatles albums, 7/12 are under GA status, most of them the pre-1966 ones. I’m not criticizing this project, I just think that they need more work. So I’ve decided to enlist your help in getting most of them to at least GA status. I have more Beatles books than I know what to do with, and I want to use them for this. So how about that?

P.S sorry if I sounded slightly arrogant there. Speatle (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey there Speatle. This project as a whole has really lost steam and there's not too many of us around anymore. But I agree with you I think all their main ones should be GA minimum. I know that JG66 has already mentioned taking care of RS and greatly expanded but MMT awhile ago (and maybe Help) but in terms of PPM, WTB, and AHDN those need lots of work. Which ones were you thinking of taking care of first? I know I could assist in getting reviews from newspapers.com or rock's backpages. I also own Lewisohn's Complete Recording Sessions but that'll only get so far. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I think I’m gonna do PPM first. Speatle (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Speatle Which books do you have? Tkbrett you think you could assist too? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Get Back, A Hard Day’s Write, both Some Fun Tonights, the books that come with the 50th anniversary box sets, Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, The Beatles Live, The Complete Beatles Chronicle, the revised Hunter Davies biography, The Beatles Diary Vol. 1 (with the solo years on ebook), the Bob Spitz biography, Revolution In The Head—and that’s only a few! Like I said, I have more than I know what to do with. Speatle (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I added some sources and fixed up the text a bit on PPM, although I still think it needs an overall change in tone. There’s a more citations needed template for the release history section, and I’m not sure where to find references for it. The only place that I can think of that would have information on the different releases would be something like Rate Your Music, but that’s definitely not a reliable source. Speatle (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I say ditch it entirely. I find no use for those sections. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I removed the section, as well as the one in WTB. There were a few citation needed I added, mind trying to find sources for those? Speatle (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll primarily be able to help out with reception. Don't have many Beatle books unfortunately. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any references for both citation neededs. Speatle (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you reckon we should put this in the to-do list? Maybe we’d get more help that way. Speatle (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I've certainly thought about it before, especially A Hard Day's Night, an album that really ought to have a superb article. The earlier-Beatles material is severely underwritten on the encyclopedia, which is why I've tried to focus on pre-Rubber Soul articles. The thing that's held me back from the album articles is knowing how much time and effort will need to go into them, along with the vast literature to contend with. I think once we get things going, that will help. PPM seems like a great place to start. Tkbrett (✉) 21:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Nice to see you’re on board. If all goes well, I’m hoping we’ll be done by Christmas. Speatle (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I see you reverted an edit adding a source for the liner notes. How is the source original research and how would you cite it? Speatle (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Er, you cited the album's liner notes to justify a claim about the album's liner notes. Maybe take a review of WP:OR, particularly WP:PRIMARY first. Tkbrett (✉) 11:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
How else could you do it? Speatle talk please ping me when replying to something I said 11:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Speatle, from WP:PRIMARY, as linked above: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." There are thousands of secondary sources about the band. Use those. Tkbrett (✉) 13:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@Tkbrett, unfortunately from the Beatles books I have, they don’t summarize the liner notes. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 14:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I mean there's at least one without a doubt. They're literally one of the most documented and written about bands in history so it's all about finding the right one. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, if there is, it’s not in my possession. Maybe @Alexcalamaro can help, given that he stated he has a lot of Beatle books. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 20:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, I think in that case a primary source will be acceptable , as A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Anyway, I have added a citation to The Beatles Bible, a respectable source. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, now that that’s settled, we should probably get to finding RSes for the remaining two citation neededs. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there ! I was wondering that maybe we could setup some kind of "working calendar". Something like : April - PPM, May - AHDN, and so on. What do you think ?

I could also help, specially adding citations (I have a lot of books). Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan, although I think we should make it two months for each album just in case. If we finish working on an article before the two months is up, then that’s fine; we’ll just move on to the next one and rearrange the calendar to suit that. I also have a lot of books; which do you have? Speatle (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Fine. About my books, I have counted 43 Beatles related, in paper (I also have a lot of ebooks). If I have time, I'll try to list them in my user page (it must be easy to do that, using citoid and their ISBNs). Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: Please keep in mind, Beatles Bible is not reliable. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Welp, back to the drawing board. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 12:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd check out that Rolling Stone source I put on the talk page. That breaks the recording down hour by hour, which should be pretty helpful. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
@Zmbro, that didn’t really provide much for the citation neededs. I think this book might provide a reference for the mixing citation needed, but I don’t have it, so I’m not sure. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Speatle, Jerry Hammack's books are published through CreateSpace, a self-publisher, so his books are not reliable sources (WP:SPS). Tkbrett (✉) 16:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough for citations. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 16:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Speatle I think you're main problem currently is that you're too focused on the tags to work on anything else. When I mentioned the Rolling Stone article I wasn't talking about for the tags, I meant for expanding itself. As Tk explained in his most recent edit (which I can't link atm due to mobile), the article in its current state is a mess. Just fixing the current tags alone will not make it a GA. As he stated, the entire article needs rewritten. I would try to do that, meaning start with a specific section, as trying to find sources for sentences we don't even know will be here in two months isn't helping anyone.
Like I said before, I know I'll be able to take care of latter day reception and rankings, but since you said you own a ton of books, why don't you start forming ideas in your sandbox or just follow TK's lead? IMO that's way more productive than what you're currently doing. If the entire thing was ready for GA and had tags it'd make sense, but since the whole thing needs a rewrite, asking for sources on current things isn't getting us anywhere. Hope that helps. If I came off as aggressive that was not my intention. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I’ve started working on a Songs section in my sandbox.
I feel bad that you and Tkbrett have been doing most of the work so far while I sit back and occasionally fix minor grievances. I’ll try to do more work from here on out. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I’m very surprised how difficult it is to write something for every song. I’ve mostly been giving a fun fact about each song and moving on to the next one, which I know definitely won’t fly for a GA. I may get to work on the expansion of the recording section and do the rest of the songs later. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, no problem about avoid Beatles Bible as a source. I thought it would be a RS following WP:USESPS, under the premise that "2.The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claim" (the author has published a book and the site is usually mentioned around the web). But of course, it is always better Lewinshon and the like. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not gonna be adding much today, as I’m recovering from a dental surgery. One thing I did do, though, is put our plans on the community bulletin board. I directed them to the talk page, so maybe we’ll get more help soon.Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Take care !! Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added a work schedule proposal at the nominations section. Feel free to change anything you want from the plan. My rationale has been to start to work in the B articles first as they are near to GA, and then AHDN as mentioned above, the rest for next year. Alexcalamaro (talk)

IMO we should try to get both PPM and WTB up to standard before next year in time for their 60th anniversaries (since those are first). We have over a year for each so it should be do-able (hopefully) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It sorta depends on how long it takes for us to be satisfied with our expansions, and there’s always the chance that the GAN won’t be successful first time. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 22:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Good point Zmbro, I have modified the dates so next album will be WTB. Also, as we go along we can adjust the plan. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Also Rubber Soul could probably be removed as well given that JG66 is going to nominate it soon, and it will likely be a GA by the time we get to it. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
My plan was to try to get all the albums to GA before Christmas, take a short break, and then start going for FAs. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 22:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Would the songs section still meet GA/FA criteria if there weren't separate subsections for each song, but rather just a sentence or two about each? Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 12:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Speatle Imo yes, mainly because there are multiple covers. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I mostly finished Side One, although I couldn’t think of anything for Ask Me Why. How do you reckon we could fit in the September and November 1962 sessions into the Recording section without disrupting the flow? Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 16:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Speatle Good question. I'm thinking we need a background section to discuss the build up into recording (maybe even have Pete Best's firing) and for recording, maybe some subsections for say "initial work" (i.e. the Sept and Nov stuff), "main recording" (for the entire 2/13 session), and "overdubs" for Martin's later work and possibly mixing. There should be enough info for all of that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Zmbro, good idea. I’ll get to work on that once I finish the Songs section. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 17:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you reckon the Background should start at the EMI contract signing or John meeting Paul? Personally I want to go with the former. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The EMI signing. We're not doing a full history of the quarrymen, just a simple build up that led to the album itself – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 16:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Any more updates on PPM? I'm done with retrospective reviews so I've mostly done all that I can do. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I’ve been feeling really demotivated lately. I’m worried that this was much too big of a project for a new user like me. I’ll try to work some more on the Background section in the next few days. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Speatle It's all good! I know it can sometimes feel overwhelming; I mean, I invested upwards of 300 in this and that alone. The important thing is to take it one step at a time. If you need any help feel free to ask here, the Teahouse, etc. Or just take a wikibreak! This site is a collaborative WIP so if you need assistance just ask :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think I’m so exhausted to go on a WikiBreak yet.
Switching to more light-hearted subjects, PPM seems to be C-Class now. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
It most certainly is. If Rubber Soul is listed as B that in no way that makes PPM a B. Whoever classified it as that is mistaken. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Fine.
So given that the incomplete Songs section I wrote is completely inadequate right now for GA, I was wondering if we could salvage some text from this diff. It’s got a few inaccuracies (according to Lewisohn, ISHST was written in late October 1962 instead of September) and it’s probably not up to date with current MOS guidelines, but those can be easily fixed. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 18:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Wow. WP was a different place back then. I'm sure we could take some info from that but definitely not all. It primarily needs to match RS, Pepper and AR in terms of in-depth-ness; we don't want too much detail. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
There isn’t even an album Infobox! Truly times have changed.
Another roadblock would be finding sources to match the info. They haven’t really made it easy for us to readd it, given that literally none of it’s cited. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I’m almost done with pre-cleanup work for the Songs section. All I have to do is rearrange the songs into their proper order and then the fun begins. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you intend to do recording on PPM? I just did the entire section for WTB (bout damn time fr) and intend to do the same for AHDN. If not I'll do that too. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I’ll do PPM and AHDN. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 12:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I started work on ISHST, but I have two things that I can’t figure out how to fix.
  1. I need to figure out a segue to the “beauty queen” to “what I mean” sentence, as I feel that’s pretty important.
  2. Does anyone have Illustrated Record by Carr and Tyler? I want to include their opinion about the song in the bullet point, but I don’t have the book.
Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A funny thing I noticed, this talk page is now around the size that PPM was before we started working on it. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Speatle, I have notice that you are working in the songs section. I could help you uploading audio bits of the songs. So later, we could add them to the article, the way it has been done in Rubber Soul album. Alexcalamaro (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alexcalamaro, I don’t think we should add clips for all of the songs, just the more important ones, e.g “Twist and Shout” and “Please Please Me”. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 13:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
please see WP:SAMPLE – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so I guess that cuts it down to providing an example of John’s voice in “Twist And Shout”. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 13:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, we’ve missed the proposed date and crossed into June, which is entirely my own fault. Zim’s done all they could do, and I’m pretty sure Tk has as well. I have no idea what Alex is doing, and I’m just sitting back and occasionally writing a sentence or two in my sandbox. I don’t even know why I’m procrastinating so much, it’s just laziness. This is starting to become a trend of mine, both on and offline. Starting big projects and never doing anything to get to the end goal.

(ps sorry for the horrible sig)

<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.26em "Nimbus Mono L";color:#000000'>[[User:Speatle|<span style="color:black;">'''19'''</span>]][[User talk:Speatle|<span style="color:black;">'''79'''</span>]]</span>&nbsp; (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Was actually thinking about posting about this. I mean in my opinion more productive work has been done on PPM, WTB, and AHDN in the past few months than anything in the past like three years. That's something at least. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 12:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe. I’ll try to start working on the recording section again. 1979 (contribs)   12:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
If it's more trouble than not I could easily write a recording section using Lewisohn and that Rolling Stone article. It was easy for the other two so it shouldn't be hard for PPM. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we could collaborate in my sandbox. 1979 (contribs)   13:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there. I have changed the proposed dates for the GA working at the article table. I have left only years, as it seems more realistic to me. Cheers Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. I still think that if we really put our minds to it and get a GA reviewer really fast (there’s a chance of this as the Beatles are quite popular and thus the nom might be noticed sooner) we might be able to get it to FA in time for 60th anniversary. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 15:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
PPM is nowhere near GA quality. I honestly assumed we just gave up on this given how little anyone has contributed in the past 2-3 months. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I know. I think in the next few days I’ll try rereading my Beatles books and summarizing them in a Google Docs file or something (with page numbers) for both PPM and future reference, but I have no idea if that’ll do any good or just be another dead end. Maybe we could try something closer to GA (e.g Beatles For Sale) and come back to PPM in a couple of years. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 19:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Zmbro thoughts? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 22:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I've been adding content to Beatles articles based on Mark Lewisohn's 2013 book. Please Please Me appears to be another one missing crucial content from that book, such as the fact that George Martin proposed making an LP far in advance of the release of the song by that name. I'll be BOLD and add it. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, and maybe you can put it better than I can. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 22:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Getting George Martin to FA

George Martin became a GA in 2007 and evolved little after that. I've spent the last three months building out the article to a more standard length by 2022 standards. How far is the article now from getting to FA, do we think? -- Jprg1966 (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For starters, remove the sources from the lead section; add WP:ALTTEXT to images; images need adhered to WP:IMAGESIZE; yes the article has lots of detail, but having countless two-three sentence paragraphs across the section I don't see going well at FAC. There's also still unsourced clauses (i.e. "Other comedians he worked with included Terry Scott, Bruce Forsyth, Michael Bentine, Lance Percival, Joan Sims, Bill Oddie, and the Alberts.") and things like "(See below.)" is not ok. I'd suggest opening a peer review and maybe reaching out to some of the FAC regulars for input. Hope this helps! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, there's quite a few ref errors showing on my screen; several ISBN sources use the template while others don't; there's a few unreliable sources like IMDb; "Selected non-Beatles hit records produced or co-produced by George Martin" violates MOS:NUMBERSIGN (those should say "no. 1", etc. like the rest of the prose; awards and recognition should be in prose and not bullet points... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding sources, most aren't archived, few missing access dates, things like IMDb and Facebook are not considered reliable, some book sources are either missing (i.e. The Beatles 2000) or aren't used, book sources are missing location of publications, website sources are missing website/publishers, dates published, authors, etc. IMO it's quite a ways away from FA. I commend you for all your work done to it, but it definitely still needs quite a bit of work. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Those are all good catches. I'll do what I can to fix it up. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of John Lennon UFO incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Lennon UFO incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lennon UFO incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Tkbrett (✉) 12:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"List of Beatles members" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Beatles members to the article List of members of bands featuring members of the Beatles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 17 § List of Beatles members until a consensus is reached. Many other similar redirects to the same target, including The Beatles' line-ups, are also being discussed in the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

How reliable is Philip Norman?

I know Shout! has a very anti-Paul bias, but I have no idea about his recent individual biographies of John, Paul, and George. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 16:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

In her book on Beatles historiography, Erin Torkelson Weber identifies Shout! as "a flawed work of history for three reasons: inadequate historical distance, lack of documentation, and deliberate authorial bias". She adds that, "These weaknesses continued to erode its overall value and credibility as more research was done, sources became available, and impartial analysis was applied" (p. 117).
Norman's biography of McCartney came out in 2016, too late to have been discussed in Weber's book, but she writes a blog to keep up those which have since come out. In her review, she describes Norman's bio as "the best of the small but sub-par selection of biographies available on the still-living McCartney". That was seven years ago, so things may have changed in the pecking order — such as the publication of volume one of The McCartney Legacy by Adrian Sinclair and Allan Kozinn — but Norman's biography of McCartney would obviously still prove a valuable secondary source.
Norman's historical distance is improved, though not ideal — most historians recommend that at least fifty years has passed since the subject is deceased, whereas McCartney is still active. Norman's bias has seemingly evaporated, which is the biggest improvement. Where Norman remains weak is his lack of citations and bibliography. Weber writes: "This decision perpetuates one of the greatest weaknesses involving the entirety of Norman’s Beatles work; failure to distinguish between evidence and authorial interpretation. Sweeping generalizations are made and readers are informed multiple times what specific historic figures were thinking/feeling at any given moment, but whether these accounts are supported by evidence or wholly the result of personal, authorial speculation is not clear." Tkbrett (✉) 16:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The recent George bio does have some refs in the back, however it mostly seems to be from his previous work from what I remember. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 16:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The best George bio – like the best Paul bio – is likely still to come. Beatles scholarship is in many ways still in its infancy. Tkbrett (✉) 20:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Evidently the ones used in all the George solo GAs were good enough, though.
George and Ringo are really neglected in Beatles books. I almost want like a Ringo version of the Lennonology books, Ringology, perhaps? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 20:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
JG66 was always reliable when it came to Beatles sources, especially George stuff. Hopefully he comes back to WP soon. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh he left? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 22:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, hasn't been active for nearly a year, sadly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
What about Ken McNab? I’ve been reading his ‘63 book recently and it seems pretty solid so far. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 00:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Also happy new year I guess blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 00:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)#Requested move 29 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Archive_10&oldid=1265185186"