The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll get a review posted for this shortly.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
-
PianoUpMyNose This article is really well put together. Its prose is solid, and its referencing is on par with a Featured Article. The one significant issue is the level of technical language that's used to describe its composition, which affects readability and makes the article inaccessible to people who are not subject matter experts.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 22:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien: Thank you for taking the time to do this review and for the encouraging words. My replies are below. PianoUpMyNose ( talk) 04:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Well-written
- Just as a suggestion, it might be better if background and recording were combined into one section, and then composition was its own section. There's a lot more composition information compared to the other two, and it would also help keep things a little more chronological.
- Makes sense, done.
- The composition info leans really heavily into music jargon and technical details. If there's an alternative way to write a given fact that's more accessible to a layman without losing any important information, that would be the ideal. Otherwise, any technical language should be at least briefly explained so a layman can follow the general sense of what it's saying. The rule of thumb is that articles should be useful both to people who are and people who aren't knowledgeable about the subject. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable goes into more detail on this.
- Yeah, I definitely got carried away with the details in this section. I did a significant trim to make it clearer and more useful to an average reader.
- Not really a GA issue, but keep MOS:SEAOFBLUE in mind. It can be confusing when two or more blue links are side by side.
Further to the film's premise of Starr being targeted for assassination by a cult
– Without context, this seems like a strange thing to mention in passing. Maybe this should get its own sentence. Something like "The film's premise involves Starr being targeted for assassination by a cult. In line with this, the Beatles perform the song under the protection".
- Done, went with your wording.
- Verifiable with no original research
- All sources appear to be reliable and high quality.
- One thing I always note when reviewing music articles is that quotes should only be used when the specific wording is important. If it's possible to paraphrase without losing the meaning, that's preferable. This is particularly relevant when discussing the reception, which can fall into the trap of "Reviewer A said X, Reviewer B said Y". WP:RECEPTION provides some advice on improving coverage of reception.
- I also trimmed this section a bit and tried to replace the quotes with paraphrases as much as I could. Let me know if I should also remove or trim the lengthy Rolling Stone quote.
Spot checks:
- Gould (2007): Good. Checked all uses.
- Davies (2016): Good. Checked both uses.
- Turner (2009): Good. Checked both uses.
- MacDonald (2007): Good, except it says that Harrison just played guitar, not "lead guitar" like McCartney. Checked all uses.
- Good catch. I copied the note that explains the lead guitar confusion.
Broad in its coverage
The article covers the aspects I'd expect of a song article: production, composition, release, and reception. It does not go off topic at any point.
- Neutral
Gives a fair analysis of the reception. No aspect of the song or its creation is given undue weight.
- Stable
No recent disputes.
- Illustrated
Both images are non-free. Both have valid non-free use rationales with justifications for their use.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll get a review posted for this shortly.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
-
PianoUpMyNose This article is really well put together. Its prose is solid, and its referencing is on par with a Featured Article. The one significant issue is the level of technical language that's used to describe its composition, which affects readability and makes the article inaccessible to people who are not subject matter experts.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 22:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien: Thank you for taking the time to do this review and for the encouraging words. My replies are below. PianoUpMyNose ( talk) 04:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well-written
- Just as a suggestion, it might be better if background and recording were combined into one section, and then composition was its own section. There's a lot more composition information compared to the other two, and it would also help keep things a little more chronological.
- Makes sense, done.
- The composition info leans really heavily into music jargon and technical details. If there's an alternative way to write a given fact that's more accessible to a layman without losing any important information, that would be the ideal. Otherwise, any technical language should be at least briefly explained so a layman can follow the general sense of what it's saying. The rule of thumb is that articles should be useful both to people who are and people who aren't knowledgeable about the subject. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable goes into more detail on this.
- Yeah, I definitely got carried away with the details in this section. I did a significant trim to make it clearer and more useful to an average reader.
- Not really a GA issue, but keep MOS:SEAOFBLUE in mind. It can be confusing when two or more blue links are side by side.
Further to the film's premise of Starr being targeted for assassination by a cult
– Without context, this seems like a strange thing to mention in passing. Maybe this should get its own sentence. Something like "The film's premise involves Starr being targeted for assassination by a cult. In line with this, the Beatles perform the song under the protection".
- Done, went with your wording.
- Verifiable with no original research
- All sources appear to be reliable and high quality.
- One thing I always note when reviewing music articles is that quotes should only be used when the specific wording is important. If it's possible to paraphrase without losing the meaning, that's preferable. This is particularly relevant when discussing the reception, which can fall into the trap of "Reviewer A said X, Reviewer B said Y". WP:RECEPTION provides some advice on improving coverage of reception.
- I also trimmed this section a bit and tried to replace the quotes with paraphrases as much as I could. Let me know if I should also remove or trim the lengthy Rolling Stone quote.
Spot checks:
- Gould (2007): Good. Checked all uses.
- Davies (2016): Good. Checked both uses.
- Turner (2009): Good. Checked both uses.
- MacDonald (2007): Good, except it says that Harrison just played guitar, not "lead guitar" like McCartney. Checked all uses.
- Good catch. I copied the note that explains the lead guitar confusion.
- Broad in its coverage
The article covers the aspects I'd expect of a song article: production, composition, release, and reception. It does not go off topic at any point.
- Neutral
Gives a fair analysis of the reception. No aspect of the song or its creation is given undue weight.
- Stable
No recent disputes.
- Illustrated
Both images are non-free. Both have valid non-free use rationales with justifications for their use.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.