Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
The Beatles, or if you prefer, "the White Album", is a roller coaster ride of watching the Beatles go from a group in harmony to four solo artists at loggerheads with each other. Or is it a demonstration of increased creativity of the band? Or is it a single album padded out to be a double to keep everyone quiet? If George Harrison was "not guilty", was Yoko Ono? Was Paul McCartney a nice guy trying to keep the group together or an ego-maniac who threw his toys out of the pram when Ringo wouldn't play the drums just so? Whatever the case, the article passed GAN in mid-2014 and has seen regular attention and traffic since to check the balance of neutrality and comprehensiveness is kept in check.
@ Dr. Blofeld: thinks the article is a worthy candidate to take to FAC, and has bluntly told me to "grow a pair" and take it there, and that's why this PR is open. He recommends pinging @ Tim riley:, @ Brianboulton:, @ SchroCat: and @ Wehwalt: for views, and I think @ JG66: is as committed to keeping the quality of this article in check as I am.
Up-front, I think it's worth declaring my POV - there are more Beatles sources than you can shake a badger at, but my favourites are Mark Lewisohn's Sessions and Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, though the latter has a serious POV (I think he doesn't like " Helter Skelter"), you can spot it a mile off. Of course, my favourites may not be yours!
Discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)... don't forget me! Cassianto Talk 18:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have a number of articles, including this, The Who and Keith Moon articles which are approaching FA standard and you need an injection of confidence or "cajones" into your own abilities that it's achievable. Didn't mean to be blunt, but just to try to get you to see that there is no such thing as perfection.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll work through slowly if that's OK; my time on here is limited, so these comments will be sporadic. It would only seem right that I comment here, in memory of our former Beatles expert, GabeMc. I will adjust minor fixes as I go, but please feel free to alter or revert as you see fit. Cassianto Talk 18:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Style question: Hi Cassianto. I notice you're been adding a definite article before "musicologist Walter Everett", "author Mark Lewisohn" and the like, even though all such examples (I think I'm right in saying) didn't carry one here previously. I realise there are two schools of thought on this false title issue. Personally, I find the constant mentions of "the musicologist …", "the producer …", "the sound engineer …", "the music critic …" etc. in music articles really jarring; it's more formal, but I'd say overly formal. (I remember a couple of editors queried the same point as, or just after, Sgt. Pepper made FA. One even started removing each "the", only to then give up and self-revert once they'd seen just how many examples there were in the article.) So, are you really wedded to the idea of avoiding these false titles? It's not incorrect to say "when sound engineer Ken Scott played back the tape", as I understand it – simply a case of personal preference, no? JG66 ( talk) 05:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I am wedded to the idea, yes. It's good common English and is taught at all English universities. Are you an American by any chance? I only ask as it's mainly the yanks who think it's a style thing. Omitting the definite article makes the introducer sound like it's coming out of red top newspaper or celebrity magazine. I won't patronise you by reminding you that this is neither. Cassianto Talk 08:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Generally comprehensive and reads well, but a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick drive-by: ref # 223 used twice in the Certifications table (Music Canada) is throwing up a ref error as having differing content. Sorry, but I have no idea how to fix it myself in the tables set up like that ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The review is getting plenty of trade at the moment, and I'll look in again in a few days' time. Tim riley talk 17:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting stuff and very high quality. I've made a couple of minor tweaks here and there that you can see in the history. A few other points:
Done down to the start of the Release section and I'll pick up the remainder soon. – SchroCat ( talk) 14:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Packaging
Critical reception
Cultural responses
An excellent read and worth strongly considering a run at FAC, of you can get Tim riley and/or Brianboulton to join in the fun. Drop me a line when you get there. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
The Beatles, or if you prefer, "the White Album", is a roller coaster ride of watching the Beatles go from a group in harmony to four solo artists at loggerheads with each other. Or is it a demonstration of increased creativity of the band? Or is it a single album padded out to be a double to keep everyone quiet? If George Harrison was "not guilty", was Yoko Ono? Was Paul McCartney a nice guy trying to keep the group together or an ego-maniac who threw his toys out of the pram when Ringo wouldn't play the drums just so? Whatever the case, the article passed GAN in mid-2014 and has seen regular attention and traffic since to check the balance of neutrality and comprehensiveness is kept in check.
@ Dr. Blofeld: thinks the article is a worthy candidate to take to FAC, and has bluntly told me to "grow a pair" and take it there, and that's why this PR is open. He recommends pinging @ Tim riley:, @ Brianboulton:, @ SchroCat: and @ Wehwalt: for views, and I think @ JG66: is as committed to keeping the quality of this article in check as I am.
Up-front, I think it's worth declaring my POV - there are more Beatles sources than you can shake a badger at, but my favourites are Mark Lewisohn's Sessions and Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, though the latter has a serious POV (I think he doesn't like " Helter Skelter"), you can spot it a mile off. Of course, my favourites may not be yours!
Discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)... don't forget me! Cassianto Talk 18:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have a number of articles, including this, The Who and Keith Moon articles which are approaching FA standard and you need an injection of confidence or "cajones" into your own abilities that it's achievable. Didn't mean to be blunt, but just to try to get you to see that there is no such thing as perfection.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll work through slowly if that's OK; my time on here is limited, so these comments will be sporadic. It would only seem right that I comment here, in memory of our former Beatles expert, GabeMc. I will adjust minor fixes as I go, but please feel free to alter or revert as you see fit. Cassianto Talk 18:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Style question: Hi Cassianto. I notice you're been adding a definite article before "musicologist Walter Everett", "author Mark Lewisohn" and the like, even though all such examples (I think I'm right in saying) didn't carry one here previously. I realise there are two schools of thought on this false title issue. Personally, I find the constant mentions of "the musicologist …", "the producer …", "the sound engineer …", "the music critic …" etc. in music articles really jarring; it's more formal, but I'd say overly formal. (I remember a couple of editors queried the same point as, or just after, Sgt. Pepper made FA. One even started removing each "the", only to then give up and self-revert once they'd seen just how many examples there were in the article.) So, are you really wedded to the idea of avoiding these false titles? It's not incorrect to say "when sound engineer Ken Scott played back the tape", as I understand it – simply a case of personal preference, no? JG66 ( talk) 05:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I am wedded to the idea, yes. It's good common English and is taught at all English universities. Are you an American by any chance? I only ask as it's mainly the yanks who think it's a style thing. Omitting the definite article makes the introducer sound like it's coming out of red top newspaper or celebrity magazine. I won't patronise you by reminding you that this is neither. Cassianto Talk 08:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Generally comprehensive and reads well, but a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick drive-by: ref # 223 used twice in the Certifications table (Music Canada) is throwing up a ref error as having differing content. Sorry, but I have no idea how to fix it myself in the tables set up like that ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The review is getting plenty of trade at the moment, and I'll look in again in a few days' time. Tim riley talk 17:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting stuff and very high quality. I've made a couple of minor tweaks here and there that you can see in the history. A few other points:
Done down to the start of the Release section and I'll pick up the remainder soon. – SchroCat ( talk) 14:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Packaging
Critical reception
Cultural responses
An excellent read and worth strongly considering a run at FAC, of you can get Tim riley and/or Brianboulton to join in the fun. Drop me a line when you get there. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)