Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 23:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

~~Problems:~~

In regards to 1b, the article contains weasel words and peacock terms such as "widely regarded as one of the most influential albums ever recorded". Who made this claim? There are some other words to watch in the article as well.

In regards to 1b, the lead may be too long, since the article has fewer than 15,000 words (prose size), it's lead should be 1 to 2 paragraphs long, according to WP:LEADLENGTH.

In regards to 2c, this connects to the words to watch, since they are unreferenced, the claims come under original research.

~~In regards to 4, this again connects to the words to watch, since the article contains peacock terms and weasel words, it's bias.~~

Final commentary: It's a lengthy article with a ton of references which is good to see, good job with the speedy fix and the amount of interesting content in this article. Accepted! Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Acalycine! I've removed the unattributed weasel words from the lead, but I'm not sure that having four paragraphs in the lead contradicts any guidelines; per MOS:LEAD: "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the lead to three paragraphs. Does this address your concern? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, WP:LEADLENGTH says "Fewer than 15,000 characters", not words. This article has 8,200 words but more than 30,000 characters. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine now, what I was talking about with the lead length was the table with the suggestions on that linked page. I've accepted the article as a GA. Well done! In regards to your comment about characters not words, thanks, I always get characters and words confused... Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 01:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked back at this article to see what else needed sourcing after being away, and noticed it's at GA. Nice one Gabe! Next stop FAC? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next stop peer review, then its on to FAC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]