Talk:Love Me Do/GA1

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


GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 07:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria[edit]

Pass
  • Images. There's one image used, which is appropriate and has appropriate tags. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Stable. No evidence of edit warring. There are a number of reverts by IP accounts. It is not uncommon for high profile articles to get an undue amount of attention by casual users, both helpful and unhelpful. In general it is preferred to keep articles unprotected; however, if there is a problematic amount of unhelpful/vandalistic editing I will semi-protect on request. Do regular contributors feel that the unhelpful edits are manageable? SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Article appears to be neutral and unbiased. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Query
  • Prose. I've not read it in depth yet, so this is an early comment. The prose is mostly clear and effective - giving the reader the essential information. While the quality, style and level of clarity varies through the article, it is effective enough for GA criteria. However, there are occasional errors, such as tin pan alley instead of Tin Pan Alley, "its stark 'blunt working class northerness'", where stark has been placed next to blunt - this is either a contradictory or a redundant use of blunt, "Annversary", etc. The article would benefit from a copyedit both to clear up occasional minor errors, and to provide a more uniform writing style. By itself, however, I don't think the prose is an issue which would prevent the article being listed. It's just that the more I read, the more problems I find, so it's part of the picture as a whole. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Focus. While the recording is both interesting and important, the song is notable for more than just the recording sessions. As it stands the article is almost all about the recording. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Fail
  • Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Original research. There are moments in the article when an opinion is expressed, but there are no sources given for the opinion, so the impression given is that it is an editorial opinion. Such as "As the tambourine was not included on the 4 September recording, this is the easiest way to distinguish between the Starr and White recordings", and "it might seem odd that Martin was not then present to oversee the 11 September re-make." SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sourcing. Some challengeable statements, such as the Get Back sessions paragraph, and "with White on drums" have no cited source. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Layout. There are some very short sections - 50th Annversary Mix-Up & Recording and mixing details, and some sections that are lists which could be better presented in prose, and there is a Miscellaneous section, which appears to contain assorted material that would be better if organised into appropriate sections. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Coverage. There is no reception section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC) And there is little on the composition of the song - much of the Composition and recordings section is on the recording. And information on the recording then continues in the vaguely titled Background section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC) While it is briefly mentioned in the Miscellaneous section, readers may be looking for more information on the promotion of the song - that Epstein bought 10,000 copies and stored them in a warehouse in Whitechapel, and that he got other groups he managed to buy the single as they toured England, as that is a significant part of the association with this song. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

On hold[edit]

This is an important song, and the article generally attracts around 400 readers a day. Attention has recently soared due to the 50th anniversary, and readership hit a peak of nearly 12,000 readers on the 5th October, the actual anniversary day. A good deal of information has been gathered, and by the amount of material, and the organisation into sections, the article gives the appearance of being of Good Article quality. Sadly, however, when reading the article there appears to be a number of issues that I feel it is going to take time to sort out. There is important material missing - the information which puts the song into context and explains to readers why the song is important, and how music critics and society as a whole have responded to the song. And there is rather a lot on the recording sessions, and this material is a bit mixed up, so we are taken through the recoding sessions several times.

Given the importance of the song, there will be a lot of material available in reliable sources, and it would be possible to both build on what is present here (restructuring and editing it appropriately), and to add additional necessary information. I suspect, however, that it will take a while to do this. My feeling is that this article is a bit of a way from GA standards. However, when sufficiently motivated, people can do excellent work, and I would strongly encourage the significant contributors to work toward improving the article. I'll put on hold for an initial seven days to give a chance to work on the improvements. I would not expect all the work to be done in seven days, but if there is sufficient progress I would be willing to hold the review open for a further month in order to get the work done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn[edit]

Nomination withdrawn to allow work to done at a more leisurely pace. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)