Talk:Abbey Road/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

1: 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:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Abbey Road is the eleventh studio album released by the English rock band the Beatles. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license) (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:

• "It is their last recorded album, although Let It Be was the last album released before the band's dissolution in 1970." (it’s not clear. Which one is the last Abbey Road or Let It Be? )

That's a can of worms alright! To keep it simple I have stated that Abbey Road was the last album the group started recording (22 February 1969), but Let It Be was the last one to be finished (cf. MacDonald p. 322 noting that the backing track to "I Me Mine" was recorded on 4 January 1970). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Although it was an immediate commercial success, it received mixed reviews from music critics who found its music inauthentic and criticized the production's artificial effects." (or "Although it was an immediate commercial success, the album received mixed reviews because the critics found its music inauthentic and also criticized it’s artificial effects."?)

I've split this into two sentences. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Since its initial reception, however the album has been viewed by many critics as the Beatles' greatest work and is ranked by several publications as one of the greatest albums of all time." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow? I think a comma is missing after however. Can you use active voice for "has been viewed by many critics" and "is ranked by several publications"?)

Changed to "By contrast, critics today view the album as one of the Beatles' best and rank it as one of the greatest albums of all time" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The album's cover … " (better "The cover of the album …")

Do you mean "The album's cover" is better than "The cover of the album" (which matches your suggestion of passive voice above). It appears to already read as such. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Are you sure you want to link "zebra crossing" in the lead? It’s pretty common.

In the UK, perhaps, but in the US (where the album was very successful), they call this a crosswalk. This is a British album by a British band, so we use British English, but we can't assume all Americans instantly know what a zebra crossing is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Do you want to clearly differentiate between the contemporary and the retrospective reception in the third paragraph of the lead?

Now it's been copyedited down to less space, I think it's less of an issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think the sentence "At one point, according to Beatles author Ian MacDonald, after McCartney declined to attend a recording session due to an acrimonious argument, Lennon visited his house, climbed over the garden wall, verbally assaulted him and smashed a picture he had previously given McCartney." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow. ("acrimonious argument" or simply argument? Argument with Lennon? It’s not clear. Can you a bit neutralize it? acrimonious, assaulted, smashed, bitter are too colourful or is it the position of the source?)

I've chopped down this sentence a lot. It's too much information (the assault is mentioned in MacDonald but only as a footnote). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think the sentence "Halfway through recording, at the end of June, Lennon and Ono were involved in a car accident, and after a doctor had advised Ono to stay in bed, one was installed in the studio so she could supervise the recording process." can be more clear.

See above Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Thus, though the bulk of Let It Be was recorded prior to Abbey Road, the latter was released first, and Abbey Road was the last album properly started by the Beatles before they disbanded." (Can you make it more clear?)

Reworded this. It was quite waffly. MacDonald p322 specifies clearly that the 4 January 1970 date was to clean up work on the January 1969 material. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think the sentence "Lennon was on hiatus from the group and working with the Plastic Ono Band during the September 1969 lead-up to Abbey Road's release, because the group had rejected his song "Cold Turkey"[16] which was effectively the first official sign of the Beatles' impending dissolution." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.

Agreed. I've removed the sentence about "the first official sign of the Beatles' impending dissolution" because received wisdom as documented by sources is that following the rooftop concert, the general public had no real idea that a split was imminent and hence why the Daily Mirror piece on 10 April 1970 claiming McCartney had quit was major international news. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Ritchie333, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)