Wikipedia:Peer review/I Want to Hold Your Hand/archive1

I Want to Hold Your Hand

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's a great song, and is an important part of the Beatles' history.

Thanks, Cheers,  Kodster  (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 02:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I removed the semi-automated peer review to save space at PR (the link to it is still there, above) and to follow the directions. I also note that I thought the article had received a review from a real person because of the SAPR - I will try to make some comments on it next. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the FAR for this article and agree very much with it. Here are a few suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that it needs more references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, for example the last five paragraphs of "Launching the invasion" are uncited and s are many stats and extraordianry claims. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - see Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK - example: Most notably, bop-guitarist Grant Green included a stunning jazz recording ...
 * Several places read like original research - one example It could be argued that Lennon is leading McCartney, as Lennon's vocals are more prominent on the recording; ... Some of this may be the writing style. It would be better to attribute this - "Critic XYZ argues that Lennon is leading McCartney..." also not sure if the cite addresses this point or not. Or the Note: Hand claps are evident on overdub but can not be accurately assigned to all four Beatles without definitive proof. If it does not say in relaible sources who did this, then it should not be in the article WP:NOR
 * done, well not really in the article, but I know of a reliable source that could be used
 * Refs are incomplete in terms of information given. Internet refs need at least url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be useful here.
 * I would try to follow chronological order where possible - now we go from the single to 1984 and airbrush out Paul's cig, then back to the early 1960s and the album
 * Two uses of essectially the same image in the article (infobox and US single cover) might be seen as abusing WP:FAIR USE - what does each provide that is unique?
 * Article has a lot of short paragraphs that could be combined or perhaps expanded with others.
 * External link article looks like it should be used as a ref instead, assuming it meets WP:RS