Talk:Julia Lennon/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

The lead does not adequately summarize the article.

I have altered the lead to place more emphasis on her influence on John Lennon (see new section below).

There's a lack of context and improper scope. The first two sections, "The Stanley family" and "Alfred 'Freddie' Lennon" have very little to do with Julia in the first place, and need to be restructured and refocused on the article subject. Basically the article is structured around her spouses and children, which begs the question: what's the point of having this article if it cannot be cast in respect to the subject?

I have tried to condense the section on the Stanley family and remove what I believe are some irrelevant details. I have also added a new section on her influnece on John Lennon, which I think needs to be expanded upon - after all, the only reason she has an article on Wikipedia is because she was John Lennon's mother, so I believe there should be more on her encouragement of his music while she was alive, and the hold that she continued to have over him in death. Ian MacDonald, author of the acclaimed book of musical analysis Revolution in the Head,goes as far as saying he had a "quasi-oedipal obsession" with and a "tortured devotion" to her. Much of this came out in the extensive therapy he and Yoko had with Dr. Arthur Janov.

The nicknames should be cut own; they sound informal, are of little use or importance, and lengthen the text unnecessarily.

I have changed "Alf" to "Alfred" througout. (I would have called him Lennon, but then that could be confused with John.)

Most of the images used are non-free, and as such need to comply with WP:NFCC, but I don't think File:Freddielennon.jpg, File:Lennon as a young boy.jpg, File:Julia Lennon in 1950 PNG.png and File:Julia's house at 1 Blomfield Road.jpg meet criteria. They are mostly decorative, are not the subject of critical commentary, and lack author/source information (File:Julia in hat.jpg is missing author and provenance information as well, but I think you can strengthen the fair use rationale for inclusion.)

I agree with you that most of the non-free images are not needed and I've removed all but File:Julia Lennon in 1950 PNG.png and File:Julia in hat.jpg, for which I will strengthen the rationale.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts I've removed Julia Lennon in 1950 as well as it doesn't provide anything that the other one doesn't do equally as well.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many references appear to be unreliable, for example: britishbeatlesfanclub.co.uk, ancestry.com (paygates), homepage.ntlworld.com, darksweetlady.tripod.com (error), iknow-northwest.co.uk, beatlecity.com, triumphpc.com, holysm0ke.tripod.com/Smith.html, and www.beatles-bootlegs.com

Checking out some of the sources, I don't see a problem with britishbeatlesfanclub.co.uk, although it is a fansite, the article is an interview with Julia Baird, Julia Lennon's half-sister:obviously a reliable source. Similarly, ancestry.com is simply reproducing a primary source, the 1881 census. I also don't see anything wrong with the triumphpc.com reference: it's an article by Bill Harry, a friend of John Lennon and editor of the Mersey Beat magazine- an extremely knowledgeable and reliable source. Some of the others do just appear to be fan pages, however, so I'll do my best to replace those.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is we can't verify whether an interview is legit, or whether they've changed or added or distorted information; as for the primary source, we can't tell if there's been invalid research or synthesis from the original source. Just because they cite something reliable does not make the publication itself reliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the article on hold for one week, longer if contributors make significant edits to addressing the above. Keep me informed of progress on this page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Delete it from a GA rating. You people will have your way, and I'm not here to stop you, because I've had enough. Your attitude is driving more and more editors away, with your nitpicking and constant raising of the bar. Do it, and enjoy yourself.--andreasegde (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a member of WP:Beatles, though I'm not that active in that area, and I think it would be a shame to see this fine article delisted. I agree the lead could be improved, and there are too many non-free images. I'll have a go at addressing the rest of your concerns; probably tomorrow - I have a date with my wife tonight:)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has any progress been made on the above? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Have you not read my responses above?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the matter of the sources used. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are still concerns listed above that have not been addressed, I am delisting the article. It may be renominated at WP:GAN at any time. If you have questions, leave me a message on my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whatever happened to being bold and fixing it yourself instead of complaining, and then delisting it? No, that would be too simple for the self-elected despots, would it not? Lazy and authoritative are the words that spring to mind.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]