Talk:Ding Dong, Ding Dong

Ding Dong, Ding Dong has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 21, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The Beatles Low‑importance

This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.

To-do list:

For WikiProject The Beatles

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles.
Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article
Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs
Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood.
Verify : Beatle wives
Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ding Dong, Ding Dong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take this one through GA review. I'll read through it and comment in the next few days. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just had an initial read through which seems ok. Good prose and everything sourced. I'll take another look a bit later, go through the checklist, ask for some assistance with images, etc, but it seems ok to me. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Seems ok, but as I reviewed this with text-to-speech I'll need someone to check for punctuation.~~ Checked (yeepsi)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~Need someone to check that.~~ Checked (yeepsi)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~Need someone to check that.~~ Checked (yeepsi)
	7. Overall assessment.	I'll put this on hold for second opinion so punctuation and images can be checked, but this seems good so there shouldn't be a problem and I'll pass it once it's been reviewed. All good now, so will pass this.

2nd opinion

I'll look over it within the next hour. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 09:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose has been checked. Is the size of Harrison's land needed ("George Harrison purchased the 33-acre")? I'm going to look at the images at some point later today. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 10:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, Yeepsi (and to you, Paul MacD, for all the above). With the 33-acre mention, it's not vital by any means, but it's a detail I'd like to keep if possible. I'd agree that mention of, say, the date the house was built, how far out from Henley the property is, particulars regarding architectural style, etc, on top of this snippet would simply be excessive; but giving the size sets the scene, I think, even if it needn't fully register with readers. Friar Park provides the inspiration for the song, it's where he writes the song, records the song and films the video clip (partly in the grounds), so my feeling is that the size of the property – or some sort of similar bit of info – wouldn't go amiss. The implication's there also, perhaps, that Harrison was pretty cut off from reality, in his 30+ acres at Henley, and the scene at Friar Park had a great deal to do with that – as mentioned in the article, George's excessive use of cocaine, affair with Ringo's wife, the duality in his lifestyle reflected in whichever flag was flying from the rooftop ... Like I say, I'd like to keep it, unless you're insisting it go. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That's fair enough, I do see what you mean – the tiniest detail could mean a lot. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Yeepsi for checking this out. I'll pass this now. Congrats again, JG. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you. I'd been getting a bit worried that the months had gone by since I put the article up for nomination, in December 2012 – not exactly in keeping with the New Year/"Ring out the old, ring in the new" theme ... Thanks again! Best, JG66 (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]