Wikipedia:Peer review/Strawberry Fields Forever/archive1

===Strawberry Fields Forever===


 * 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 June 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's an important Beatles song, and definitely needs to be have a good standing on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Strawberry Fields Forever/archive1. Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Expand the lead per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * done I think the article is just about done, so I expanded the lead to summarize all the details.
 * Biggest problem is lack of references - needed for GA and especially for FA. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * done
 * Make sure all of the sources meet WP:RS What makes Refs 19 or 21 reliable sources?
 * Refs 19 and 21 removed, but I don't know about the rest.
 * The "References" section needs to be used as inline cites and the External link (Pollack) is already cited as a note.
 * done All the References are already used in in-line citations, and the external link has been removed.

Thanks a lot, but that's nothing that I didn't already know. I would appreciate it if you could go into further detail. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 02:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were me, I would fix the things I know are wrong first, then ask for feedback, but whatever floats your boat ;-). Here are some more things I noticed:

Hope this helps, not sure what else to say (especially since you know it all already ;-) ) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Provide context for the reader - for example, in the Background and composition section, mention why Penny Lane is important too, perhaps something like Lennon's "Strawberry Fields Forever" and McCartney's "Penny Lane", which would become both A sides of thesingle, shared the theme of nostalgia for their childhood in Liverpool. See WP:PCR
 * WP:QUOTE says quotes less than four lines long should be in the text, not set off as block quotes.
 * done
 * It always helps to have a clear narrative line - tell a story. For example the recording section is full of interesting stuff, but jumps around - we learn about takes, then editing them together, then go back to the Mellotron. I would try to look at things in some order, perhaps chronological.
 * Working, I'm using Google Books to work on the Recording section, but I usually can only find one page of info (it's only a preview, remember). I'll go to the library as soon as possible, but it's a holiday in the states (Fourth of July), and the library is closed. However, if anyone wants to help, a great source is The Beatles as Musicians: Revolver Through the Anthology, which has a lot of info. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done I got some books and made it a story
 * Thanks. I guess it's a good thing if the peer review is short: there's not a lot to do. :) Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also true that once the other major problems are addressed, then more minor things can be polished - sort of like if you are in a car wreck, you don't worry if you need a hair cut before calling the ambulance ;-) If a ref is remopved or changed, the text might change too - once the refs are fixed, drop me a line on my talk page and I will be glad to be more nit-picky Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Realist2 comments: I gave it a quick copy edit, I will add more thoughts here step by step.
 * I see inconsistency with the names of the US and UK. Sometimes the names are written out in full, sometimes there are dots, sometimes no dots. Sometimes you say Britain. My personal choose is US and UK. I avoid the extra dots because it looks messy nest to the end of a sentence or comma. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done
 * It might be nice to drop the personnel section to the bottom so that it doesn't slow the pro's and display it more like this. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 13:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done
 * It mention's the disastrous tour of the Philippines. What was so bad about it? As a non beatle fan I have no idea. One line or sentence (with a source) should clear that up. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 23:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done
 * When Lennon returned to London, he had revised this verse, added another verse, and had the chorus (then a bridge).[16] - Hmm, is it me maybe, I just can't quite understand what this area of the article is saying? — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done Made the sentence clearer
 * The Beatles Anthology should be wiki linked. I was going to do it myself but there appears to be a few articles with that name and I'm not sure. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done That is really confusing, but it was referring to the film.
 * The paragraph that starts talking about Brian Wilson is really disjointed because of all the bracketed text, I'm sure you can make that flow better. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done I removed the brackets. It should be better now.
 * Current ref #15 (geocities) isn't reliable, ref #18 (soundscapes) needs a writer detail (Alan Pollack) and current ref #39 needs a publication date. The rest of the sources are excellent. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done (?) I got books to replace the geocities, I added Alan Pollack to the soundscapes thing, but the website for #39 doesn't have a date besides 2003, so that's all I put. It's better than nothing, and that won't stop a GA anyway. :-) All the best, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously the lead needs a serious expansion but you know that, complete those few extra points and I see no reason not to attempt GA. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done See above.


 * Thanks, Realist2. After I fix Ruhrfisch's next comments and fix the lead, it's GA for this article (my first attempt in over a month). All the best, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I avoided repeating comments by others. Enjoy, I have the monster that is the MJ article to take care of right now. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 15:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Extra Realist2 comments:
 * New MoS rules say that dates should no longer be wikilinked at all, dates were de wikified on the Michael Jackson article today by MoS expert Tony1 ahead of it's FA review. As a result you might want to change other aspects of how you give dates to I will leave this stylistic aspect to you. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 17:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More Ruhrfisch comments: Looks much better, here are some more comments, mostly nitpicky stuff. Hope this helps - it seems close to GA Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any reason why John Lennon is not wikilinked in the lead?
 * done
 * Lennon famously saying, "Cranberry Sauce". "famously" seems a bit POV, would it also make sense to add that this phrase has been misinterpreted too?
 * done; took out "famously" and added about "I buried Paul".
 * I would add to the lead that the song was eventually included on the Magical Mystery Tour album
 * done
 * The lead prose could be tightened up a bit if this is going to FAC.
 * The caption Strawberry Field now attracts large numbers of tourists is a bit vague - I would make it clearer that what is pictured is one of the gates of the Liverpool Strawberry Fields
 * done
 * I thought it was a double A side single, but Lennon's "Strawberry Fields Forever" and McCartney's "Penny Lane", the B-side to the single,  this says it was an A / B side. Which is it?
 * done
 * Background and composition ends with the first demo version - should it at least mention the writing of the rest of it?
 * No it doesn't, it ends with him writing the first verse and finishing the song (the first verse was the last written).
 * This is unclear to me The meter of the refrain is complicated by one half-measure, ...
 * done Changed it: A half-measure, as well as the fact that the vocals begin in the middle of the first measure, complicate the meter of the verses.
 * Problem sentences:  What Alan W. Pollack calls the "approach-avoidance tactic is encountered in the verse, as the V chord never resolves into an I chord as expected."[19] At the end of the verse, the V chord turns into an I chord after passing through the E-flat major (IV) chord. How about starting it something like According to Alan W. Pollack the "approach-avoidance tactic is encountered in the verse, as the V chord...? I also note that these two sentences seem to contradict each other - the first says it never resolves into an I chord, but the second sentence says it does. Which is it?
 * What I was trying to say was that the V chord never resolves DIRECTLY to the I chord (hence the "as expected"), but passes through the E-flat major chord. I understand that it sounds like "The V chord does not resolve to I, though this would be expected". I'll change it.
 * done Here's the change: According to Alan Pollack, the "approach-avoidance tactic" is encountered in the verse, as the V chord never resolves into an I chord directly as expected.[19] Instead, at the end of the verse, the V chord turns into an I chord after passing through the E-flat major (IV) chord.
 * I think the Promotion and reception section needs more reviews, particularly from contemporary sources. As it is it does not seem to have any quotes from any reviews of the song itself.
 * done Added Time source (March 3, 1967 should be contemporary ;-)); that's all I could find, but then again, that's all Hey Jude has in terms of reviews.
 * Some of the refs seem to need more information - for example Mojo Magazine, July 2006 - is there an article title or author name, or page number?

Why is this an 'archive'? Anyway, this article contains two excellent examples of why autoformatting is becoming unpopular. See the date ranges for January and December. They will be broken by autoformatting. Links that break dates are not merely a stylistic issue, they are wrong. As Realist suggests, you have the option of removing *all* linked dates. Some people like to to this because you will not only fix the broken dates but you will also make the good links stand out. Lightmouse (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)