Talk:Phillips' Sound Recording Services/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. After I read through it again, I will be adding comments. Please feel free to make comments or ask questions. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Percy Francis Phillips - I don't think this should be bolded, as only the article name is to be bolded.
• "38 Kensington" - was Kensington a Street, Avenue, Lane?
• "After a decline for batteries..." - after a decline in demand for batteries? or alternative wording.
• "...and many others." - I would remove this as unnecessary.
• "He then started selling and recharging batteries,..." - "then" is almost always an unnecessary word
• "...where local people would meet" - and local people would meet there - or some alternative wording
• "whilst" - while
• "Vortexion portable) an MSS (Master Sound Systems) disc cutting machine, an amplifier, a 4-track mixer, three microphones: a Reslo, an HMV ribbon microphone, and an AKG," - could some of these terms be wikilinked to an explanation? Also other recording terms in the article? Also "skiffle", since you wikilink "doowop".
• "demo discs" - were they called "discs" in 1955?
• "Phillips' first recording was himself..." - of himself
• "and a few days later recorded..." - he recorded
• "Play with a light-weight pick-up" - what does this mean?
• I think the lead is a little short for the article per WP:LEAD. Perhaps you could add a few more summary statements.
• You have three Fair use photos, but they do seem all to be justified. The referencing looks complete and consistently formatted.
• All in all, a very interesting article. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I will put this on hold to give you time to address these issues, as I know you are traveling for two weeks. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through all the points, and I believe I have corrected them all.--andreasegde (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• "A CD of Phillips' recordings is to be released in the near future." - could you give a time frame for this? e.g. As of 2008, a CD of Phillips' recordings was planned to be released soon. - or some other wording you like, since the article will be read for years into the future, way after 2008. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken out the sentence, but will put it back in when the CD is released.--andreasegde (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• I am concerned that some of the references do not meet WP:RS.

For example, http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2&_800040 appears to be a trivial link.

Trivial? It's ancestry.co.uk...--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And the links to Spencer Leigh, e.g. http://www.spencerleigh.demon.co.uk/Fabs_Outofthecaverns.htm. Is he a reliable authority?

Yes, he is, as he has written numerous books about various subjects.--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Beatles source - http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/1950s/58.07.14%20phillips/58.07.14phillips.html Is this a reliable source?

Yes it is. It's very comprehensive, and detailed. I have personally checked the facts on it. The huge amount of personal photos give it credence.--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the fan sites are O.K. if they reference fan-type information, or the Billy Fury site if you rely on it for factual information that is generally available. Or his personal opinion, stated as such. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but for such a short article, are we being too intense here? It's not an FA candidate, and never will be.--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Just trying to cover the bases and avoid and instant delisting. I think the article is very interesting and well-written. The fact that it focuses on a relatively little-known aspect of music history makes it all the more valuable. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The prose is of good quality and flows well. b (MoS): There are no obvious MoS issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): It is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The references are relevant to the material cited. c (OR): There is no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Broad enough to provide context. b (focused): Focuses on the issues of relevance and interest.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: It is neutral in point of view.

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): Three fair use images, properly tagged, that are relevant to the material in the article; the image subjects are discussed in the text.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thank thee most kindly for your hard work.--andreasegde (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)