Talk:Flaming Pie/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Thanks for taking it - I was starting to lose hope in this one. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
This looks solid to me on first pass, and ripe for promotion. I've listed some concerns below and directly made a few changes of my own. If you feel I've over-stepped myself on any of these points, let me know or feel free to just revert. Thanks for your continued work on Beatles topics, it's much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The background section could use slightly more context on the Beatles Anthology: filling in the obvious context that McCartney used to be a Beatle, and perhaps a sentence explaining what the Anthology project was.
 * Will do last with lead. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the language in the "Recording and structure" section for neutrality. "Keen sense" and "indulging" seem like slightly editorializing terms. Let me know if this is okay.
 * I also broke up some sentences that had 4-5 clauses for readability purposes.
 * These are alright with me. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The commercial reaction was everything McCartney could have hoped for. " -- this seems a bit editorializing, speculating on what McCartney "could have hoped for" -- it's also a bit vague compared to the specific commercial achievements that follow. Could this sentence simply be cut?
 * ✅ removed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "was the best new entry of the week" -- perhaps "was the most commercially successful new entry"? "Best" could imply a broader judgement.
 * ✅ Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Reception of the album was relatively weaker" -- was the reception commercially or critically weaker in other countries?
 * I think it was a bit of both - compare Flaming Pie (the review template specifically) and Flaming Pie to Off the Ground (template) and Off the Ground, for example. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you find a source explicitly comparing them? Without a source making the same point, it might be a small bit of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ couldn't find anything, so I've removed it. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Some consider Flaming Pie to be one of McCartney's finest solo outings." -- this opinion doesn't have a clear source; see WP:WEASEL
 * ✅ removed, can't find a source at present (I'll probably stumble across it by accident months later, though). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "is a reference to a humorous story" -- can you explain the story in a sentence or two here? I assume you're talking about "It came in a vision--a man appeared in a flaming pie and said unto them "From this day on you are Beatles with an A."" You might just include this as a quotation or a block quotation; it's relevant and funny.
 * The lead needs to be expanded a bit to better summarize the text. For example, no mention is made of the album's critical and commercial reception. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do/check above two, with background point, tomorrow, and then that should be all the issues fixed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks--I'll check back again tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ quote. Just doing lead, and then it's good (no pun intended). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ lead. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I made a few more tweaks to the lead. Feel free to revert any to which you object. Will do the final checklist in a second. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

 * A few last minor points above. I've also marked a dead link, but this isn't an issue for GA. Let me know your thoughts and then I think this is good to go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen the Japanese link before in other solo-Beatles articles, but I'm not sure whether you can class it as a RS or not (I didn't add it to FP, it was already here). I'll have a look for an alternate Norway link at some point later. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll post a query to WP:RS/N regarding the Japanese link. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at this again, I feel a little silly posting to RS/N about this; this really looks like an individual's website without the editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking that makes something a RS. It's probably best to replace it with a reliable source with the same information, or simply remove this sales figure from the article. What do you think? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I went to a RS site for Japanese chart positions which I hoped might also had sales, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it, even when using Google translator translate the whole page, so I'll just remove it. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ removed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's it, then, except to say thanks again for your work to bring this up to GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)