Talk:Seltaeb/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Response
O.K. Reworked the lead section - hopefully addressing the sprucing matter. Andreasegde, what do you think about removing the current monetary examples? I took out the first one, but just wonder if that one should stay - to make the point, but all the others could go. --Patthedog (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, hold your horsefeathers. Looking through the whole thing properly, there was only just the one current $ example anyway as far as I can tell - until I removed it! Figures quoted in the article are the original sums aren’t they? --Patthedog (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the citations throughout the article which lead to the notes section giving the current dollar value. --Brad (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry. They don’t particularly offend me tucked away as they are,  and they are significant if one were trying to interpret the piece in real terms - for example. I believe andreasegde used some software he has for the conversions. Perhaps reference to it could be made somehow - would that make it acceptable? --Patthedog (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, Patthedog, usually a reviewer puts a note on my page. I had conversion tables in a few weeks ago, but someone came along and made them as they are now. I don't mind if all if today's values go, to be honest. Just leave the original 60s amounts, which are good enough.--andreasegde (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just cleaned the books. I had to take three or four out, but all the rest are used as refs, even if only once.--andreasegde (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also just cleaned the "money today", because they were substantial sums back then, and are quoted as that, so using software or "rounding the numbers out" (an editor's comments) just befuddles the reader, as I think now.--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Have put a line under the info box photo.--andreasegde (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The refs, such as "p45" were agreed upon by The Beatles Project, as they simplified them.--andreasegde (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Excrement! That is that then, if the current page numbering format is alright. Yes? --Patthedog (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to pass the article now. That wasn't so bad was it? --Brad (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Superfluous! Thanks.--Patthedog (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)