Talk:Sony Music Publishing/GA2

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

Staring review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment I have no concerns when checking against quickfail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * I have made copy-edits throughout to improve grammar and sense.
 * History
 * Founding
 * The UK rights to rock 'n' roll music from the US were also bought by ATV. All rock 'n' roll music? A slightly surprising statement to me.
 * Changed. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Early history
 * and the now-knighted Sir Lew Grade A clumsy phrase, consider re-wording. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Len Beadle, the company's head, Head what? Chief executive, chairman, managing director? Please clarify. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The catalogue also contained Little Richard's greatest hits. Which one, is this Lieber-Stoller? ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The ventures, along with the continuing royalties from Lennon and McCartney, ensured that large amounts of money were frequently rolling in for ATV Music Publishing. Which ventures? clarify. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * rolling in is unencyclopaediac, as is was failing to bring in big money. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All done.


 * Acquisition
 * The companies were bought by Australian businessman Robert Holmes à Court, who disposed of them quickly and to his great profit. Hundreds of people lost their jobs in the process. This needs a little explanation and expansion. OK, I have fixed this section myself with citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shortly afterward, Jackson's attorney, John Branca, revealed that the Northern Songs catalogue was up for sale Revealed implies that this was a secret. Might be better to reword, perhaps ..John Branca advised Jackson.... ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The attorney stated he wasn't; it was too pricey. is the phrase it was too pricey a quote? - if so place in quote marks - if not reword in a more neutral way. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ono was pleased that Jackson had acquired ATV Music Publishing Two paragraphs before it was stated that Jackson had bought Northern Songs. Clarify. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All done.


 * Merger
 * After Jackson's acquisition of ATV Music Publishing, his record label, CBS, were negotiating the sale of their record division. Implies a connection between to two deals. If so please explain. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon seeing the success of the sale, Sony sought to break away from its core business of hardware manufacturing and into music, films and games. Sudden introduction of new company Sony, may need rewording to explain. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jackson was the company's director and attended board meetings religiously. Presume you mean Jackson was a company director... ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The flaw in the arrangement was that each party had to agree on a decision before it could be made. Both sides held the power of veto and if neither party agreed on a matter, it wouldn't happen. The flaw implies a point of view. Reword in a more neutral manner. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All done.


 * Recent history
 * In 1998, Jackson announced plans to sell the royalties generated by the Beatles, Bob Dylan and other musicians whose work is controlled by Sony/ATV. The company, who also publish the music of Oasis, Willie Nelson, Cyndi Lauper, Pearl Jam and Leonard Cohen, stated that the royalties generated would be collected and used as collateral for a bond offering in excess of $100 million.[12] "If such a deal is cut, it would be done to expand his own investment portfolio", stated Bob Jones, head of media relations at MJJ Productions. So what happened? - that wss eleven years ago!
 * Removed. I can't find anything stating the deal went through. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jackson's company purchased the business for $370 million. Earlier it was described as a joint venture with Sony. Clarify.
 * Done. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole section (Recent history) is very bitty and incoherent. Consider completely rewriting and condensing.  ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed and reworded some parts. And I have done some more copy-editing and pruning of redundacies. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Value
 * Industry experts valued the catalog at.... In earlier usage the British spelling was used. Spelling needs to be consistent throughout.
 * Done. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The company's song catalogue is believed to generate up to $80 million a year, and The Beatles' hits bring in $30 million to $45 million a year. So is the beatles income additional to the $80 million or part of it? Please clarify.
 * Done. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jackson's other publishing firm, Mijac, is valued to be worth at least $75 million. perhaps this company should have been mentioned earlier. What is its relationship to Sony/ATV? Which artists are on its roster?
 * Done. It only publishes Jackson's music. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Infobox
 * Is the company headquarters still in London?
 * I think so. Shall I remove it? No not neccessary, I couldn't find out on the web. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Timeline
 * OK, with exception of the clumsy now-knighted. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * OK, with exception of the clumsy now-knighted. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC) ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK the article is now fairly well written, there is still room for improvemnet throughout but it does meet GA criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * Complies with sufficient elements of MoS. I moved the see also section to the appropriate place. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Ref #2 does not support the preceding statement, just mentions ATV in passing. All other online sources check. Assume good faith for print sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC) ✅Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All sources appear reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * The article is fairly broad. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * The article is fairly well focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Appears to be a fair representation. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article is stable. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Images are correctly tagged and licensed.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images have appropriate captions
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I shall place the article on hold whilst editors address the concerns raised in the prose section. Please place comments below here or after the detailed comments above. I shall be watching this page. This is very near to good article status, but the prose does need attention as cited above. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK The prose is now much better, still room for improvement, but it does meet the "fairly well written" criteria. I am happy to pass this. Congratulations.  Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for your helpful review, comments and fixes. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK The prose is now much better, still room for improvement, but it does meet the "fairly well written" criteria. I am happy to pass this. Congratulations.  Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for your helpful review, comments and fixes. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for your helpful review, comments and fixes. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)