Talk:A Hard Day's Night (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article A Hard Day's Night (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 5, 2008 Good article nominee Listed


Good article GA
This article has
been rated as
GA-Class on the
assessment scale.
  This Beatles-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.

High
This article has
been rated as
High importance on the
importance scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

I rated this article B-Class for the sole reason of that it didn't site it's references. I rated it High on the importance scale because it was one of the few Beatles films.Vint 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The film project rated High on importance also, but I don't think we can rate this "B". -- Shane (talk/contrib) 16:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 5, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability?: Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Realist2 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video CD

I can't fill in any of the details, but from what I remember this was one of the first films to come on Video CD - or at least it was one of the first films to be released on Video CD outside Japan. I remember back in 1994-ish there was a concerted but doomed effort by various manufacturers to make Video CD take off in the UK, and along with Kate Bush's The Whole Story and Star Trek VI this was one of the launch titles for the Phillips CDi, Commodore CDTV and Amiga CD32 etc. Unfortunately I was only a small child at the time and I can't find an authoritative source. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] main shot in article

are you sure the harrison & boyd shot you have up is a screenshot from the movie?? i don't remember george harrison & pattie boyd sitting next to each other in any scene in the movie...so maybe it's a shot from the set?? =S 70.30.164.129 21:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC) veronica

A photograph of Harrison and a woman who might be Boyd asleep on the train also appears in Roy Carr’s Beatles at the Movies, page 29. The image appears rather candid, possibly suggesting the authenticity of the above photo as being taken from the actual film has reasons for dispute. 207.81.164.238 22:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mockumentary?

A Hard Day's Night does not quite fit the mold of mockumentaries. The dialogue in mockumentaries tends to be improvved. Almost everything in this film was scripted (save for the sequence to "Can't Buy Me Love"). Swatson1978 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A "Mockumentary" is simply a fake documentary. Whatever other specifics each one has in it are not defining rules but the director's preferences.

Is not a mock documentary--which phrase, nor even concept I daresay, nor the word mockumentary even existed in 1964---defined by having NON performers as the main characters.......Hence the "fakeness"?....

Since the Beatles were the real group, the movie is a comedy containing them, with some fun performances? just asking....67.163.141.14 (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on "Mockumentary" either, it just doesn't seem to fit that mould. The humour is more the Beatles' natural style, as opposed to that of Spinal Tap. "Mock documentary" falls into the same trap. Suggest we lose "mock", because the style of Lester's direction is more "fly on the wall" than the usual involved style of other mockumentaries, and principally it is not knowing, as are The Office and Spinal Tap. Lester does not break the fourth wall to any great degree. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OK I am confused

WP:Beatles thinks B class but WP:Films thinks Start? Huh? Are we Beatlemaniacs overgenerous? Are the filmies overharsh? Grin. I'm confused. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but it looks a little better than Start class to me. Start/B, either way is not good enough so the discrepancy doesn't matter too much. I notice they wanted to rate it High on importance but their template's importance feature seems to be either missing or faulty. --kingboyk 16:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ebert Review of Film

This is Roger Ebert's review of the film for use in the article [1] - last accessed 1 November, 2006. LuciferMorgan 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film review

I am adding this reference November 23, 2006, in the event that references are required in future for this page. Carr, Roy. Beatles at the Movies. (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), p.43, 53. 207.81.164.238 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References in Popular Culture

It might be worthwhile to list various occasions whence this film has been referred to or parodied over the years. I can provide three examples. The opening scenes of the first Austin Powers, as well as those parodied in a preview for Goldmember, are directly lifted from The Beatles’ madcap escape from their fans that serves to open this film. Also, in an episode of Eek The Cat, Eek drops into the first sequence on the train, where The Beatles admire Paul’s grandfather. Finally, in an episode of Family Ties, the family returns from having just seen the film; the children did not like it. (Mchelada 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:HardDaysNight.jpg

Image:HardDaysNight.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

With the right references this film could easily be a GA.--andreasegde (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are the photos from Commons really free-use? They're just phtos of the cover, and are not free-use, but fair-use, methinks.--andreasegde (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a great article, and with a little cleaning up, could be nominated soon! Just trying to rally up some support, Andreasedge. Kodster (Talk) 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Listen, I am currently, in English, studying the Beatles, during this lesson, we began to see the movie, and he pauses at the part (opening credits) where the Beatle trips, and explains about it, well I decided to add that little peice of info for everyone to know that, so please, will someone undo the edit that Rodhullandemu undid? Here's the info, just copy and paste (go to edit, then goe to the trivia section i added, then copy and paste when it is authorized):

This would need a reliable source, not just watching the film, because this constitutes original research. Also, Trivia sections are deprecated and the information can go into the article body- if a source for it can be found. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thank you.

Colonel Valh ala-112 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

In the opening credits of the movie, one of the Beatles trips and falls on accident. This shot was originally meant to be deleted, but was then decided later to be kept. Also, if you closely after the Beatle trips and falls, you can see the crowd chasing them laugh.

[edit] On review (on hold)

I am reviewing this article today.Realist2 (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To do list

  • Sort out red links
Completed
  • Remove IMDd link , its unreliable
Completed - no longer used as a source
  • Remove unfree image
Completed
  • Release history section completely unsourced, why?
Completed
  • Information on the locations would be better merged into the backdround section.
Completed
  • Generally the article is insufficiantly sourced. I could go through it with citation tags ....
Completed hopefull all covered now

Hum i will put this article onhold, it must be sourced better. If you dont think you can resolve these issues within 7-10 days let me know. Realist2 (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA 2nd opinion

Just to clarify a couple of things:

  • I assume Realist2 means Image:Hard Day's Night CAV Criterion Open.jpg? Other non-free images are acceptable as they are used sparingly with a rationale.
Completed removed, unnecessary
  • Redlinks are acceptable if an article could feasibly be created from them. The only redlink I see is to a notable role (a film producer), which is OK for GA.
Completed
  • Agree that the IMDb reference should be replaced with a [{WP:RS|reliable source]]. Shouldn't be too difficult as the point it supports is quite broad.
Completed
  • Locations should not only be merged, it should be written in prose.
Completed
  • Similarly, the awards should be written in prose and sourced.
Completed
  • "New York Times film critic Bosley Crowther..." needs referencing
Completed
  • "After six weeks the film had grossed $5.8 million in rentals." paragraph needs referencing.
Rejected removed, no source
  • "David Crosby admits, “I came out [of the theater] and swung..." needs referencing, as does other points in this paragraph.
Rejected removed, no source
  • As Realist2 says, generally it is unsourced. I have only listed a few examples.
Completed
  • Single years should not be wikilinked -- only when in full dates.
Completed

Hope this helps. The JPStalk to me 09:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

More:

  • Formatting quotations like that makes it look fragmented. Just integrate them within the text. The quotation in the lead particularly looks odd and is itself perhaps a little too specific for the lead.
Completed
  • The above is especially true of the 'plot' section, which ahs some very short paragraphs.
Completed
  • Lose the 'Academy awards' subheading -- reception will accommodate it nicely, and write in prose.
Completed
  • "The film is also credited with being a precursor of pop music videos." Paragraph too short. Suggest combining with previous paragraph.
Completed moved to "Influence" & expanded.
  • Television, film and magazine titles should be italicised.
Completed
  • Could you make more use of the Ebert article?
Completed expanded "Influence heading"
  • I've replied to Rodhull...'s question about the IMDb on my talk page.
Completed
  • Keep the Allmovie etc. links as external links, not references. References should be indicated at the relevant point.
Completed moved
  • Lose the Ebert External link as he is listed in references.
Completed

The JPStalk to me 17:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] side comment to 2nd opinion

  • Yes I did just mean that picture, sorry if that wasnt clear.
  • There are a number of citations required and i have offered to add citation tags to the article if needs be (this offer was mad at their talk pages as well). I dont intend to list the vast number of citation problems, im sure these experienced editors who often review articles themselves dont need that level of spoon feeding. Realist2 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Good Article reviewing is a read-only process and does not extend to adding [citation needed] tags. These issues should be addressed in the review. And, no, we need neither spoon-feeding nor patronising nor insults. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thanx for the heads ups. Realist2 (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What's all this about??? I had no problem at all when Realist2 put "citation needed" on the articles he reviewed for me. It saved his time, and mine, by not him not writing, and me not reading reams of stuff. Whatever may have gone on in the past is complete bollards now, because Realist2 and Kodster are two editors that I have a lot of respect for. These editors are working for free, don't forget, and are doing some really good work. Okay? Okay.--andreasegde (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Its ok we've had a massive argument "AGAIN" but its cleared the air, Rodhullandemu wasnt aware that i had grown up was all, he was understandably concerned about my own pov biases but i think ive put him clear on where i stand. He can trust me to reach an impartial view. I was asked to review the article personally, im so happy and glad that people i have argued with in the past have gone to such lengths to forgive and forget and to also respect my views. ;-) Realist2 (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading this article, I think it's great. Definitely worth a GA! Sorry I couldn't really work on this, having nominated this. Thanks to Realist2, The JPS, Rodhull..., and all involved! Great job!
Realist2, your call. Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If everyone is finished working i'd be happy to review it, i think rodhull wants to make more adjustements though ? Realist2 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think at present all it really needs is sources for the Releases section. Everything else is covered, I think. I was going to take a short break to watch the last "Torchwood" & return refreshed a little later. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha. sounds good, i would rather wait till your sure your finished, im in no rush. Realist2 (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds more like it. You are all good people and it fills my heart with joy (a little bit too poetic, no?) to read such nice words. May your sails be forever pushed to the west (that is not only too poetic, but confusing - please forgive me). Have fun. :) --andreasegde (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"May your sails be forever pushed to the west". Are you telling them to move to this rotten place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodster (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Poetry !!!!!!, another talent andreasegde ? Realist2 (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

OK im going to look through it all now and mention any further corrections (if any) needed. This will take some time but I would appreciate it if everyone let me finish my job before commenting or making further edits to the article. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You can always put an {{inuse}} tag on the article while you're doing this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK there IS still red links for the producer, i really think they should be removed for an article that is this good.
Completed OK, leave it as it is for now, although redlinks are not fatal to a GA status
  • There is still a link to IMDd at the Right hand side, can we just do away with it, it weakens the credibility of the article.
Completed has been removed
  • Again on the RHS, uncredited music by ... (in the brackets), just delete it, its far to specific.
Completed
  • Remove the "Beatlemania" word, i think its in the article twice, its not prefessional, just say "at the peak of their popularity" with a link to beatlemania.
Completed
  • "he had shown a knack for Liverpudlian dialogue" - is knack english slang? alter that word.
Completed "talent" might be better, or link to [here] - changed to "aptitude", less colloquial but less clumsy than "adeptness"
  • McCartney's grandfather causes minor drama at a casino - doesnt quite work. Needs rewording
Completed left as it is, but is he "McCartney's" grandfather? Paul is playing a character- "Paul". He is not credited as "McCartney" in the cast list, although it is obviously him.
  • Is the dialogue sub heading nessary, its only 3 lines long, unless you intend to expand it???
Completed merged, probably not worth a sub-heading of its own
  • Make sure pounds and dollars are correctly wiki linked.
Completed - done, but only needs doing once, if at all.
  • There are about 3 dates in the production section that need wiki dating.
Completed
  • The reception section would look better as a sold paragraph, it looks disjointed.
Completed - recast but Crowther's is long enough to stand on its own.

Sorry, Realist2, I undid your edits by accident. You'll have to do them again. I fixed the majority of the things you said. :) Please feel free to talk to me on my for any comments. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, theres a few things on the list left to do, kodster handled the ones crossed out. Let me know when they are done. Realist2 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Some notes: We don't need {{fact}} tags when what is asserted can be verified through a Wikilink; this would just clog up the whole of the encyclopedia. Have replaced a piece of plot because otherwise there would be a reference without a target. Have removed "studio thought that their fame would not last beyond the summer", on the basis that it's not essential, no idea how it can be sourced anyway, and it's not critical to the article. All looks fine now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final review

Part1 (A=Pass B=Pass) - Well written, correct style and formatt.

Part2 (A=Pass B=Pass C=Pass) - Well sourced, correctly formatted, no original material.

Part3 (A=Pass B=Pass) - Broad, covers the main points without going off point.

Part4 (A=Pass) - Neutral

Part5 (A=Pass) - Stable

Part6 (A=Pass B=Pass) - Good pictures with good captions.

GA PASSED!


Well done folks!!! - --Realist2 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Realist2! We got there. I've put the template at the top, you just need to swap my sig for yours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good the thing is even if im being a little strict, it just makes FA easier ;-) Realist2 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And I hope your opinion of me has changed,,,, at least a little. Realist2 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Very much, in fact. I apologise for misreading your motives. Let's move on to the next GA Nom. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, mi amiga/o ! Realist2 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what I call really nice. Is this what happens when I stop editing?--andreasegde (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Only when, not because. Thanks for your input, plenty more work around the corner! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My heart is overflowing with.... (wait a minute, I'Ll think of something :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You have such a way with words, Andreasegde, just like a true poet. :) Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job, sorry I missed the celebration! What with A Day in the Life, Thriller, etc. etc. Another GA for Wikipedia! Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)