Talk:The Beatles in the United States/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA review Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found checking against the criteria above - on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   OK - two comments - In addition to establishing The Beatles' international stature, it changed attitudes to popular music in the United States whose own Memphis-driven R&B culture had until then been its dominant influence and a global trend-setter. Surely rock n roll would be a better phrase here, less confusing, especially for many reader who would associate R&B with either balck music or modern pop?; The report had aired on Mike Wallace's morning news program, and was scheduled to air again on the November 22, 1963 broadcast of the CBS Evening News the assassination is wikilinked to the date, but it may need spelling out to younger readers, as to why it did not run in the evening - also this could mention that Cronkite did run the piece later in the month. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Y

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I assume GF on all print sources. ref #5 [1] is a personal web page not a RS and it does not support the statement: U.S. record companies, however, had not released any Beatles music; ref #8 [2] - About.com is not a RS; ref #11 [3] is not a RS; All other online sources check out. No OR - no unsupported statements. Y

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The Shea Stadium postcard required a separate non-free use rationale for its use in this article. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline: A detailed fair use rationale. A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale. Y

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

On hold for seven days for the image rationale and referencing to be sorted out. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1. OK, that's fine. Great working fixing it so fast. Congratulations - this is a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The above points have now been addressed. PL290 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Honestly, I don't see why this is even a separate article from The Beatles. A lot fo the same information is covered between the two pages. It's also a bit of a nebulous topic for a subarticle. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just check against the GA criteria - I don't make value judgements. If I did, Wikipedia would have probably one million articles less. ;-) Jezhotwells (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)