Talk:Hello, Goodbye/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 00:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

I've already been reading through, and checking my Revolution In The Head. Looks good. I think this should be a fairly quick and straightforward review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork. I'm grateful you could take this one on (I've never forgotten the lesson you gave me on the correlation between a Lead section and the article body at the All Things Must Pass GA!). Anyway, enough of the flattery: do you happen to have any thoughts about whether we've got enough commentary now on the main promo clip to include a non-free image here – perhaps of the hula dancers around Ringo's drum kit, with a Sgt. Pepper uniform or two in the shot? Hardly a pressing issue; just thought I'd ask while it was on my mind. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you do have enough commentary, and that such an image would in fact be useful and encyclopaedic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Meets GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Fail

General comments

This is a well researched and well presented article. Very useful and informative. My only queries are:

Why is a US cover used to illustrate a release from a UK band? Copies of the UK cover are available: [1].
There has been some unwanted IP edits. These seem to be under control, though might semi-protection be appropriate here?
Is mention of the guitar auction in the Promotional films section relevant and appropriate?
The short citation method is awkward to use for readers (and reviewers!), and is inappropriate for a non-print medium. Some older established users have a preference for it so it remains as an option, though the more context-appropriate long citation method is the more commonly used style on Wikipedia as it allows readers to check citation details in one click with all the appropriate information in one line.

However, none of these queries are serious enough to delay listing, and are raised here for consideration as part of ongoing development. Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SilkTork! I'm sorry I didn't comment earlier (I was dealing with another GA review) but I am glad to see the article pass. (Oh, and addressing some of the concerns above: from what I can find, the British release didn't have a pic sleeve [the one shown is Swedish]. Not that it really is a pressing issue anyway.) Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I misread my search result. From what I can gather, this [2] was the UK sleeve. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Funny how so many countries use picture sleeves besides Britain. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, big thanks from me also. And for your reply regarding the inclusion of an image from the promo clip – that's great.

Regarding the points you raise under General comments:

I don't really have any experience with requesting semi-protection for an article. I'd not noticed any great level of interference from IP users (then again, I've only been watching the article since June, or whenever it was that Beatleswhobeachboys nominated it first time around, at GA1). JG66 (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the guitar-auction point. Although I have been known to overspend on guitars myself, it's not a point that interests me personally – which is probably why I hid half of what was there originally in an end note. I don't see its inclusion as inappropriate, let's say: the guitar sold for an awful lot of money, and it was only used in what I take to be the third promo for this song (aside from Harrison being photographed with it during a take of the "Walrus" segment in Mystery Tour), so there seems to be a good reason for including the detail. If I can access one of those books discussing the Beatles' equipment, hopefully I might come across something to add that will make our treatment a bit more respectable. JG66 (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With your comment about citation style, are you saying that ideally the full publication details should appear each and every time? I can see your point about how a single click would then give readers everything in one hit, but with this article's 60 or 70 citations coming from books (a figure that I think is quite low, compared to other Beatles-related song and album articles), that would make for a frighteningly long Citations/References section, no? JG66 (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]