Wikipedia:Peer review/The Beatles (album)/archive1

The Beatles (album)

 * 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 April 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 April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I want some advice before I start it on its path to an FA.

Thanks, Cheers,  Kodster  (Willis) (Look what I can do) 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This has some similar issues with A Day in the Life, which I also reviewed. Here are some suggestions for improvement" Hope this helps, you may want to ask another reviewer for feedback at WP:PRV Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of mostly well written material here and it is a good start, however much of it is unreferenced. I see this and the structure of the article as the biggest obstacles to FA (not that it won't need a lot of work in other areas too)
 * A model article is useful to follow for structure, ideas, style, etc. While there are five Beatles FAs, they are all songs not albums, see here. There are a fair number of album articles that are FA - see Kid A for one example.
 * The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD and needs to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is that if it is a header, it should be at least mentioned in the lead.
 * I think there has been some vandalism and "George Barry" used to be "George Harrison" in In May 1968, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Barry assembled at Kinfauns, Harrison’s home in Esher, and demoed 23 songs, most of which would end up on The Beatles.
 * done
 * The section titled "Early material at Rishikesh" could perhaps just be "Early material" or even "Composition". It is out of chronological order - why not start with the Rishikesh retreat, tell the story of writing songs there, and end with meeting a George's house (was Ringo not there)?
 * done
 * Any chance of more exact dates for the Early material... section than "Spring of 1968"? and May 1968? The dates in Rishikesh have to be known. See WP:PCR
 * marked a period of extraordinary musical experimentation and songwriting creativity for The Beatles. needs a cite and is fairly POV as written, perhaps this can be changed to a quote from a reliable source?
 * done removed, way too POV
 * Article needs a copyedit - example of an awkward sentence Author Mark Lewisohn reports that The Beatles held their first and only 24-hour recording/producing session near the end of the creation of The Beatles, during which occurred the final mixing and sequencing for the album. during which occurred? Eek!
 * Much of the "Album sequencing, editing concerns, and release" section reads like original research and desperately needs references or pruned.
 * "Critical assessments and the album's legacy" (perhaps better as just "Critical reception and legacy") should not use bullet pointed lists of reviewers comments (that's what WP:PR is for ;-) ), put it into text instead.
 * Influences, parodies and tributes reads like any fan of any group / artist that ever released an album with a color in the title has added their sentence and left. This needs to be pruned and cited. Unless there is a reliable source that says they were influenced by this album to name theirs, I would leave it out.
 * I would look very closely at organization and try to make it less jumbled than currently. For example, we learn how Lennon and McCartney wrote songs in India, then get details on recording, then on individual songs, including more on how / why they were written. For example, the Dear Prudence story could easily go in with the rest of the India material.


 * Comments by Naerii:
 * The references really need tidying up.
 * #5, #6, #7 contain no information about authors/publishers/ISBNs.
 * #12 & #14 need accessdates.
 * #24 needs publisher and author information.
 * #25 needs accessdates, publishers and authors.
 * #29 appears to be missing an "h" on the http and needs a title, publisher, author and accessdate.
 * #31 needs more information than just "Billboard magazine".
 * What makes the geocities external link reliable?
 * The long lists of numbers under 'Personnel' are pretty messy.
 * The 'influences, parodies and tributes' section needs to be condensed, there are too many stubby paragraphs.
 * Album articles usually have sections listing the positions the album and its singles reached on the charts.
 * Apologies if this seems overly harsh, this is just what I'd say at FAC and what needs to be done before it goes to FAC. The "Recording Sessions" and "Songs" sections are a great read, by the way. -- Naerii  00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment For a band like the Beatles, about which so much has been written, websites like Geocities should not come within a kilometre of the articles. There is no excuse that better sources are not available. indopug (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)