Talk:Bill Harry/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    • [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

No problems found found when checking against quick fail criteria, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Early years: He attended the Catholic St. Vincent's Institute, but had to get used to the priests dispensing corporal punishment on a regular basis. But? wrong word to use here, perhaps ...where he had to get used to...

What a total misunderstanding of the English language. It was a place that was respected, but was not friendly, in any sense. Using the phrase ...where he had to get used to... would mean that it was accepted that boys would have the stuffing knocked out of them on a daily basis. --andreasegde (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Liverpool College of Art: ..he worked on a demolition site, taking part in demolishing a flour mill in Birkenhead. redundancy - suggest just he worked on a demolition site.

Doing what, exactly? Isn't the fact enough?--andreasegde (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    • ...and in the top floor Jacaranda club (run by Williams, who later managed The Beatles). Who is Williams, this is the first mention.

Williams is mentioned in the lead. Didn't you read that?--andreasegde (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Mersey Beat: Virginia's parents helped the paper during this time, as they paid for classified ads, and arranged for Harry and his future wife's first photographs together. The photographs bit - does this refer to pictures of Harry and fiancée? If so this is unnecessary information.

"arranged for Harry and his future wife's first photographs together". Good grief, isn't that clear enough?--andreasegde (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Although, because of the employment situation in Liverpool at the time, The Daily Worker newspaper announced: "The Mersey Sound is the sound of 30,000 people on the dole." How is this relevant to the article subject.

Because it wasn't how other people saw The Mersey Sound.

    • P.R. and present: there is some repetition in this section of information in the previous section; Note: Mersey Beat will return to publication in August 2009 with a 24-page special issue to celebrate the Liverpool International Beatle Week in Liverpool.[ Rewrite to update as it is now end of August. The list of books is fine, but there is no mention of his writing them in the article.

Of course there is. Read the quote underneath the list of books.--andreasegde (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    • The lead does not fully summarise the article.
    • Overall, I would suggest a complete rewrite, copy-editing for style, omitting unnecessary detail, possibly splitting out the detail on Mersey Beat to a separate article.

You really want to stick the knife in. I wonder why? --andreasegde (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): ; b (citations to reliable sources):  ; c (OR):
    • The article is adequately referenced, but a large number of key references are primary sources, eg merseybeat.com and triumphplc.com. Many other references, e.g. #34 [1]; #33 [2]; #36 [3]; #38 [4]; #20 [5]. When viewd as a whole ther are very few reliable secondary sources here.
  2. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):  ; b (focused):
    • Possibly rather too broad. Too much detail about Mersey Beat, there shoudl eb more on his subsequent career.

Mersey Beat was his career, and still is part of his career.--andreasegde (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • File:Threepence 1943.jpg is not neccessary, the cover price is not mentioned in the artcile and a picture of a threpenny piece is not needed.

"Splitting the price of the newspaper (threepence) with retailers". Blind again.--andreasegde (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • I do not believe that this article is at Good Article standard at present. I suggest working to make this an artciel about Bill Harry. Obviously the Mersey Beat era is important, but there should be coverage of his career since then. There is probably neough material to have a separate Mersey Beat article. referencing needs to be radically improved with less reliance on primary sources. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the best yet: "I suggest working to make this an artciel [sic] about Bill Harry." It's called BILL HARRY, or did you not notice that?--andreasegde (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)