Talk:Bill Harry/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * MoS issues


 * The lead needs a little improvement. I recommend the following:
 * Shortening the lead to two larger paragraphs instead of three smaller ones.
 * That first sentence needs to be split up into smaller sentences. One-sentence paragraphs are generally avoided.
 * The lead may need to be expanded just a little to provide a more broad overview of the article.

I am working on it now.--andreasegde (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where that came from, but it's gone now.--andreasegde (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Prose issues
 * In the "Liverpool College of Art" subsection: The title was suggested by the owner, Frank Hesselberg, as a play on his own comments, and being truthful, but was abandoned after a few issues. → I'm not exactly understanding the middle of that sentence in particular. Can you rewrite that to make it a little more clear?

"in their thoughts and actions and not like the "dilettantes and dabblers", whom Harry disapproved of for wearing duffle coats and turtle neck sweaters."--andreasegde (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the same subsection: Despite this, he maintained that students at art college should be bohemians in their thoughts and actions and not like the "dilettantes and dabblers", as Harry called conformist fellow students, who wore duffle coats and turtle neck sweaters. → It also is a little wordy and hard to understand. Did Harry call his "conformist" fellow students "dilettantes and dabblers" who "worse duffle coats and turtle neck sweaters", if I'm reading correctly? If so, just slightly reword that so it makes more sense and flows better.

They are both mentioned in the lead, but I will add something in there about them being student friends. (I see that someone has already put their full names in the article...)--andreasegde (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the same subsection: At the time, artist and teacher Arthur Ballard thought that Harry and Sutcliffe both overshadowed Lennon at college, stating they were both "extremely well educated, and very eager for information." → I'm assuming you're referring to Stuart Sutcliffe here (and obviously John Lennon), which is the first time in the body of the article in which he is mentioned, which normally means you give the full name and provide a wikilink. Were Sutcliffe and Lennon fellow students of Barry's? If so, that should be mentioned in there.

"Despite his misgivings about Lennon's attitude, Harry introduced him to Sutcliffe, who was a small, soft-spoken and shy student."--andreasegde (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the next paragraph: Meeting Lennon had been a shock for Harry, as Lennon often dressed like a Teddy boy and was a disruptive influence at the college, but Harry introduced Lennon to Sutcliffe. → It doesn't flow quite correctly when I read it. You're going from the shock of meeting Lennon to "but he introduced Lennon..." That should probably be rewritten. I recommend two separate sentences there: one for the shock of meeting Lennon, and one for introducting Lennon to Sutcliffe.

Gone.--andreasegde (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In "The First Issue" subsection, I agree with the previous GA review in that the image of the threepenny image is not really needed in this article. It really doesn't contribute anything more to the article, unlike the other pictures, which do.

I took Harry's quote tags out and put the sentence directly after it, with a slight change: "The Daily Worker newspaper denounced the enthusiasm of younger people in Liverpool by saying "The 'Mersey Sound' is the sound of 30,000 people on the dole".--andreasegde (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That last sentence in "The First Issue" subsection (regarding The Daily Worker) doesn't make logical sense there. Wouldn't it be a better idea to have that in the previous paragraph?

"500 different groups, which were constantly forming and breaking up, with an average of about 350 groups that were playing concerts on a regular basis"--andreasegde (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence in "The Liverpool Groups" subsection: Between 1958 and 1964, the Merseyside area had about 500 different bands, forming and breaking up, with an average of 350. → How it's written doesn't make sense. First, you're saying 500 and then 350. I'm not sure if the fact of bands quickly forming and breaking up created that average or not; it's not clear according to how it's written. Can you clarify that a little better, please?

I totally agree. I will cut it and add it to the the Mersey Beat article.--andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Done.--andreasegde (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coverage issues
 * In "The Liverpool Groups" subsection, I don't think displaying the complete results of the Mersey Beat poll is necessary and goes past the focus on Bill Harry. I think that paragraph should be nixed and reduced to a mention of The Beatles on top with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes being fourth. The following (3rd) paragraph can also be cut down and made more concise and within the context of Harry and Astrid Kirchherr arranging for that photo of The Beatles to be taken. Remember this the article is more about Bill Harry as opposed to Mersey Beat.


 * Things to remember (for future reference)
 * Commas do not always precede coordinating conjunctions such as "and", "but", or "or". A comma is normally used when the second half of the sentence following the comma could technically stand alone as a sentence of its own.
 * In Wikipedia, "smart quotations" are used. That is, the end-quotation precedes the end-punctuation (i.e. a comma or full stop) unless that quotation is a full sentence itself.
 * Stay consistent with your prepositions. You seemed to have alternated from "in the Ye Cracke Pub" to "at the Ye Cracke Pub" (even though "at" is preferable here).
 * Focus on writing longer, fuller paragraphs as opposed to shorter, choppy paragraph. Fuller paragraphs makes the writing look more professional to readers.
 * Avoid certain words to avoid such as "although" and "supposedly" whenever you can, because more times than not, they serve to editorialize (i.e. not maintaining NPOV) rather than state.
 * Stay consistent with abbreviations. You had "P.R." with full stops, and then you had "PR" without them. Stick with one (though the former should be the right form in this case).
 * Don't forget to wikilink those important terms, but also be wary of overlinking.
 * You will need alt text in the images (though not a GA requirement). Please see WP:ALT for more details.

GA nomination placed on hold pending improvements to the issues above (except the "things to remember" section; that is not part of it but for your own reference). MuZemike 00:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Thanks for the review. I will work on this tonight.--andreasegde (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but I will have to work on this over the next few days. (Job pressure and all that, y'know...)--andreasegde (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, please take your time. First things first, anyways. MuZemike 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I still have to rework the lead, and change those P.R. things and at/in.--andreasegde (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's about it... (?)--andreasegde (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Passed. Good work on the improvements. MuZemike 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I thank thee kindly, and very much as well. :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)