Talk:Seltaeb/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nice article overall but just a few issues to clear up on.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
~~Recommend that the lead section be spruced up a bit to summarize the entire article.~~
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Many books are listed in the references section that are not used in the notes section. What particular books were actually used in the writing of this article? Also recommend tidying up page numbers to p. 495 instead of p495 etc.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
What is the source used for dollar conversions to the present value? You might also consider not using them as the article is obviously written to explain the 1960s time period, making the time period of the figures obvious.

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Recommend that the replaceable argument be changed to note that unless a photo in the public domain can be found, the photo is currently the only one available. Conceivably there could be a public domain photo out there somewhere or one could be created in the future.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
~~You need some sort of caption for the infobox photo.~~
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Where I've said recommend, it is an issue that won't hold up the passing to GA but are things I thought would improve the article. I'm placing the review on hold for now. --Brad (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

O.K. Reworked the lead section - hopefully addressing the sprucing matter. Andreasegde, what do you think about removing the current monetary examples? I took out the first one, but just wonder if that one should stay - to make the point, but all the others could go. --Patthedog (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, hold your horsefeathers. Looking through the whole thing properly, there was only just the one current $ example anyway as far as I can tell - until I removed it! Figures quoted in the article are the original sums aren’t they? --Patthedog (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the citations throughout the article which lead to the notes section giving the current dollar value. --Brad (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry. They don’t particularly offend me tucked away as they are, and they are significant if one were trying to interpret the piece in real terms - for example. I believe andreasegde used some software he has for the conversions. Perhaps reference to it could be made somehow - would that make it acceptable? --Patthedog (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this, Patthedog, usually a reviewer puts a note on my page. I had conversion tables in a few weeks ago, but someone came along and made them as they are now. I don't mind if all if today's values go, to be honest. Just leave the original 60s amounts, which are good enough.--andreasegde (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just cleaned the books. I had to take three or four out, but all the rest are used as refs, even if only once.--andreasegde (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also just cleaned the "money today", because they were substantial sums back then, and are quoted as that, so using software or "rounding the numbers out" (an editor's comments) just befuddles the reader, as I think now.--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have put a line under the info box photo.--andreasegde (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The refs, such as "p45" were agreed upon by The Beatles Project, as they simplified them.--andreasegde (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excrement! That is that then, if the current page numbering format is alright. Yes? --Patthedog (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to pass the article now. That wasn't so bad was it? --Brad (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous! Thanks.--Patthedog (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]