# Talk:You Never Give Me Your Money

I removed the lyrics--we usually don't post song lyrics due to copyright. Rob 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Rob, 
Not to quibble but are you going around altering articles based on "we usually"? That's not how it works. If you are stating that this is a copyriht infringement, do so. Otherwise it doesn't really sound like you know what you are doing. --APDEF (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


### opening paragraph
The opening paragragh referring to nasality, mock-baritone, impression of styles, etc, is totally subjective and unreferenced.  This isn't a book report.--APDEF (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't a ref to Spinal Tap be included?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.19.104 (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:You Never Give Me Your Money/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I will try to start this review in the next couple of days and complete it soon after. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No disambig links or problems with external links. Moisejp (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
I checked the sources that I had access to, and found no copyright vios. The prose is concise and clear with no errors.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
All OK.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
All sources use pass reliability standards.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Gives a good overview of the song, including sections about its background, recording, personnel, and cover versions.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
The article is neutral and has no biases.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
No edit wars. Stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
No images are provide, thus no rationales needed.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Comments:

"Tenacious D have regularly included this song in their live performances as a "Beatles Medley" along with "The End" from Abbey Road." But the source given doesn't say that they perform the song "regularly". Maybe add additional references to be able to say they "have performed the song multiple times"? Or combine it with the next sentence, and say "Tenacious D and Paloma Faith have each performed this song live in concert."
There are many sources (such as this) that document Tenacious D playing the song, including changing the line "Monday morning, turning back" to, well, something else and playing the mid-section instrumental break badly (probably deliberately), but none of them are reliable sources, so it's been difficult to prove the "regularly" bit. I've added a few other sources, and just changed it to say they've performed it live. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Should the author of the "Songs of the Beatles" review be Ron Wynn? Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Great, it all looks good. Congratulations, this is now a GA! Moisejp (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Umm, @Binksternet:, I'm aware of this guideline, but AFAIK everything in the "covers" section is reliably sourced - indeed, I recall trimming it down to only sourced stuff during the GA review. Can you revert? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't say that the cover version should be "sourced" – the bar is higher than that. I removed the songs that were not notable per WP:NSONGS, or were not discussed in publications talking about the song itself. WP:SONGCOVER is a really tough guideline, and only a few people on Wikipedia pay any attention to it. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Binksternet: Sorry, I don't understand. If a reliable source says a notable artist released the song on a notable album (as Sarah Vaughan did on Songs of the Beatles), or had attracted attention for playing the concert (as Tenacious D and Paloma Faith have done), then they should have a cursory mention. Sources also mention that Tenacious D changed the lyric to "Any job, got the sack, what the fuck is in my crack" and Faith's cover was derided as rubbish, but per WP:NPOV that information is not needed. I don't mean to pull rank, but if the information wasn't relevant surely the GA reviewer or anyone taking a look when it went to DYK would have mentioned something, wouldn't they? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
A notable artist releasing a notable album frequently includes non-notable songs on the album.
If the attention that was given to the cover version in the media was not talking about the topic of the song then the attention does not fit WP:SONGCOVER which says:
When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies: • the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition), • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.
So if there's a concert by an artist, and the artist covers the song, the media coverage about the concert does not meet the SONGCOVER guideline.
Here's what SONGCOVER references look like: At the "Long Tall Sally" song article I just added a Larry Birnbaum book which discusses the song and the artists who covered it. The book describes in detail the most memorable covers and then it lists the other people who covered it. All of that stuff meets SONGCOVER. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't agree with that. I've proposed a change on WT:SONGS, we'll see what consensus makes of that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The bass on the track is definitely McCartney, overdubbed. You can find bootlegs of the original backing track online, and I've seen one with the bass isolated. Harrison did play bass on the backing for "Golden Slumbers" / "Carry That Weight" at a later session. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on You Never Give Me Your Money. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823070004/http://www.mojocovercds.com/cd/297 to http://www.mojocovercds.com/cd/297
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Reworded the 2nd sentence in this section so it's clearer which "session" is which.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)