Wikipedia:Peer review/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band[edit]

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like more input before I nom the article at FAC.

Thanks, GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wasted Time R[edit]

Infobox:

  • This gives the recording begin date as 6 December 1966 but the article text says sessions began 24 November 1966. Maybe the text should clarify that the recording of the first song that made it onto the album was 6 December.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology 'next' link to The Beatles' First seems unwarranted to me. It's very obscure and if the article on it is correct, it was a re-release of a 1964 original release.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'll also have to do something about the chain at Magical Mystery Tour, since right now it's a dead-end for the British releases. Seems to me a double-EP containing six new songs should be chained with the albums in addition to with the regular EPs. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The one that dead-ends is the EP chronology; there is an album chronology further down the infobox that does not end at MMT. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • This was shortened from four to three paragraphs during the GA review due to a misunderstanding by the reviewer. At 50 kB readable prose size, the article definitely merits a four paragraph lead and I think the old one should be reinstated.
Restored. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, the old lead had all the different musical styles on the album, which is very important, and also the three most well-known songs from it ("With", "Lucy", "Day"), which any album article lead should include.
Restored. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviewer also didn't like "is widely regarded as one of the most influential albums ever recorded" in the lead and it was removed. I disagree that these are 'weasel words'; they are true, are borne out by the article text and its cites, and even by those who think the album is overrated on its artistic merits would agree that it has been very very influential. Now maybe one could argue that the new third (old fourth) paragraph is enough on this count, but I still think it's worth saying where you had it.
I think they made a good point in that its a bit strong to state without a direct quote, so I've restored the point as a quote. Let me know if this is an adequate solution. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one thing I wouldn't restore from the old lead is "their work on songs such as "Strawberry Fields Forever", "When I'm Sixty-Four" and "Penny Lane" ..." This would be confusing to less expert readers who might conclude that the first and last of these are on the album. Better to leave that for the article body.
Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be a good idea to give the years of the Larkin and Rolling Stone best-ever lists.
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with the link in "send out four waxworks ... "
Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not at all convinced by the theme of the second paragraph, which seems to be that the end of touring allowed them to make a great record. They had been making great records all along during the touring era. When did Lennon say "We're fed up with making soft music for soft people"? The Beatles never made "soft music" at any point in their career; this sounds like one of those 'Lennon is liable to say anything' remarks that can be disregarded. When did McCartney say "Now we can record anything we want ... and what we want is to raise the bar a notch, to make our best album ever"? They had already done just that twice, with Rubber Soul and Revolver, while they were still touring! They could largely ignore the material from those albums when putting together their set lists. I agree that the end of touring was a significant change in The Beatles' history, and yes it gave them the time and freedom to further push the boundaries, but they were already pushing those boundaries anyway and I think this paragraph is overstating the case.
I'm not sure that I agree with you, but more to the point every source that I used for the article made a strong point about the retirement as the key moment that allowed the Beatles to spend so much time on a record; its used quite literally by everyone to set the stage. While its true that their previous releases are considered as good if not better than Pepper, I think the point here is that they finally had the freedom to take 5 months to record without having to fulfill any other commitments during that time. E.g. spending 55 hours on "Strawberry fields" and 35 hours on "A Day in the Life" would not have been possible under a deadline. Further, they left to tour Germany just two days after completing Revolver, which must have put a strain on those sessions, or at the very least they felt compelled to finish the album before the tour lest they miss a contractual deadline. This point is reinforced by the fact that two of the first three songs that they recorded were pealed-off for a single. Maybe I'm not making the point in the best way possible, but the sources are adamant and consistent that retirement from touring afforded them the freedom to work unencumbered, making the elaborate and indulgent Sgt. Pepper recording sessions possible. Had the Beatles committed to another tour for say, January or February 1967 Pepper would have been a much different album. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you say in this response, but the text in the "Background" section goes further with those two quotes by John and Paul. I think they should be replaced by some form of what you wrote here. Both quotes seem to be from the same source, Geoff Emerick's book written 40 years after the events in question. There's a good chance he misremembers them or constructed them, but regardless, they just aren't accurate in terms of depicting Beatles history. Some of the rest of that page in the book doesn't ring true to me either. Back then concerts weren't used to support specific albums like they were later; the Beatles and Rolling Stones and other groups had asynchronous record releases and tour schedules. Is there any evidence that the Beatles tried performing Revolver songs in concert but gave up? That's the first I've heard of that. And what Lennon supposedly says about being able to record music they don't have to play live applies just as well to Revolver and it does to Sgt Pepper. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they performed "Paperback Writer" in Japan (there's film of it included in the Anthology docs), but I'm not sure about any other Revolver period songs. The other points are made in recording and production, but as far as the two quotes: does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping into say that an old issue of Q Magazine printed the 1966 US Tour set list in full (sorry, I threw my copies out years ago, not thinking they'd be useful cites on a free encyclopedia project). As well as "Paperback Writer", they performed "Nowhere Man" and "If I Needed Someone" off Rubber Soul, but nothing on Revolver itself was ever performed live. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to help out, Wasted. As always, you're comments are most helpful; I look forward to the rest! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and inspiration:

  • When discussing the Pet Sounds insipiration/competition, it's worth noting that Brian Wilson and that album had in turn been inspired by Rubber Soul.
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production:

  • Regarding: "He explained: "It was going to be a record ... [with songs that] couldn't be performed live: they were designed to be studio productions and that was the difference."[34] McCartney commented: "Now we can record anything we want ... and what we want is to raise the bar a notch, to make our best album ever."[35]" This relates to my comments before, with one of those quotes now relocated here. You've got to make clear that Revolver contained a number of songs that couldn't be performed live at the time too and also contained significant stretching of their musical boundaries. I've looked through the whole article and it's never really made clear that Revolver foreshadowed many of the devices and experiments of Sgt Peppper - Indian music, backwards recordings, psychedelia, slice-of-life vignettes, churning guitar lines, etc. And "Tomorrow Never Knows" is arguably more avant-garde than anything on Pepper. I'm not saying this as a Revolver partisan - I like Sgt Pepper better - but credit needs to be given where it's due.
I guess I'm a bit perplexed by this concern. I don't see any need to frame the Pepper album in terms of its relation to Revolver and I don't see any need to make it clear which songs on Revolver couldn't be performed live – its off-topic – or which ones can be seen as forerunners of Pepper tracks – its trivial speculation.
IMO, this is covered in proper summary style with the lines: "Sgt. Pepper continued the artistic maturation seen on the Beatles' albums Rubber Soul (1965) and Revolver (1966)" and "According to Riley, Rubber Soul and Revolver are 'miracles of intuition' that are 'greater than the sum of their parts' while in comparison "Sgt. Pepper is tinged with conceit".'[204] He describes Sgt. Pepper as 'a flawed masterpiece that can only echo the strength of Revolver'.[205]" GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as: "credit needs to be given where it's due", I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't see this point made as explicitly as you suggest by any WP:RSs. I see comparisons of the tracks on Rubber Soul and Revolver, but not much regarding Revolver and Pepper. RE: "Indian music, backwards recordings, psychedelia, slice-of-life vignettes, churning guitar lines, etc": there are no backwards tapes on Pepper except for the run-out groove, psychedelia and "churning guitar lines" were nearly omnipresent in rock music during 1966-67, which tracks on Revolver are "slice-of-life vignettes" and which RSs describe them as such while comparing them to Pepper tracks? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of those other mentions of Revolver are very specific. All I'm looking for is one sentence, something like this: "The trend towards exploring new and adventurous musical territories, and recording songs that could not be performed live, had already begun with the previous year's Revolver." Now if I'm really the first person ever to make such an observation, you're right, it can't be used here. But somehow I doubt that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've read most of the sources and none explicitly states that. I'll keep looking, but I think this might be resolved after I work in Martin and Emerick's books. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good start: According to the Beatles biographer Hunter Davies, "the really serious experimentation" started in April 1966, with the closing track from Revolver – "Tomorrow Never Knows". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I think it's misplaced there, coming after the Pet Sounds material. I still think it would be better near the end of the first paragraph of "Recording and production". And if you want a cite for the other part of this, Schaffner 1977 pp. 58-59 says, re the 1966 American tour: "To the Beatles, playing such concerts had become a charade so remote from the new directions they were pursing that not a single tune was attempted from the just-released Revolver LP, whose arrangements were for the most part impossible to reproduce with the limitations imposed by their two-guitars-bass-and-drums stage lineup anyway." Then on p. 60: "As the Beatles trotted from one continent to the next, going through the motions of performing a style of music they had decided to discard, they spoke excitedly at every opportunity of the music they really cared about - the songs that were about to be unveiled as Revolver. Gushed Paul: 'They are sounds that nobody else had done yet - I mean nobody ... ever.'". Not clear exactly when that quote from McCartney is from, but this should get across the idea. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the first bit to a note in Recording and added the first Schaffner quote as a note, but I don't see any value in the second Schaffner quote mentioned here; 1) its redundant and 2) the 'They are sounds that nobody else had done yet - I mean nobody ... ever.'" bit is not accurate or helpful, IMO. Its also too much detail about Macca's opinion of Revolver, which is off-topic here in an article about Sgt. Pepper. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cost of recording the whole album should be given, since it was considered very expensive (a later section gives the cost of the cover). Carr and Tyler 1975 p. 64, 67 give it as £40,000 and Schaffner 1977 gives it as $100,000, which essentially the same at the exchange rates back then.
Martin gives £25,000. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised the Hunter Davies bio isn't used as a source in this article, since he sat in on several of the songwriting and recording sessions for Sgt Pepper. To me, such contemporaneous accounts, written for a general audience, are often more valuable than the raft of books that came decades later and are written for hard-core Beatles fans.
I intend to work my way through the primary sources and first-hand accounts – such as Davies, Norman, Martin and Emerick – after everything else is about finished. I think its best to include stuff that the secondary and tertiary sources focus on before adding too much material from the primary sources and first-hand accounts. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, pp. 296-302 (of the 1968 paperback edition) give an account of a mid-March John and Paul songwriting session to work on "With a Little Help From My Friends". It shows they were still getting on at the time, which is worth noting given what soon happened. Indeed I've always had the impression that this might have been the last song they really wrote together.
Since this does not pertain to recording or production, I've Added the bit as a note in Music and lyrics. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And pp. 303-306 give an account of the recording of "It's Getting Better". It shows how exacting they were about the sound that they wanted and how long and tedious the sessions were. There's a good depiction of Ringo looking lost in the studio on his drum kit, and then later being ordered back in and then cancelled depending upon the production decisions of the other three - would fit in well with the 'playing chess' bit that you already have.
Added. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On p. 309 Davies gives his own impression of the overall process: "Listening to each stage of their recording, once they've done the first couple of tracks, it's often hard to see what they're still looking for, it sounds so complete. Often the final complicated, well-layered version seems to have drowned the initial simple melody. But they know it's not right, even if they can't put it into words. Their dedication is impressive, gnawing away at the same song for stretches of ten hours each." I think using some of this perspective would more perspective on the human aspects of the recording sessions.
Added. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like that side box, thanks. It captures the human element, in with all the musicologist perspectives. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • What you said about the Davies book above, hmm, I don't quite understand this. The Davies book is a secondary source just as much as any of those that came later. It just has the advantage that, for the portion of the book that covers the Sgt Pepper timeframe, he was present and around and doing interviews and witnessing events and so forth. Later authors have had to rely on participant memories and historical documents (just as he had to do for the earlier years).
I never said that Davies was a primary source like Martin and Emerick, but Davies is a first-hand account and not a very neutral one at that, IMO. His book was really an extended PR release that offers little to no critical commentary. Nonetheless, I'll work in any good bits I find. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start working my way through Davies' book today, but I assume that this is a good start: "According to the Beatles biographer Hunter Davies, 'the really serious experimentation' started in April 1966, with the closing track from Revolver – 'Tomorrow Never Knows'." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through Davies twice now and unless I missed something, I think that's all we need from him. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if you haven't finished going through all the sources and adding material to the article, which is what it sounds like, then maybe I should wait before making further comments, since several of the comments I was planning to make come from the Davies book.
My process for this article is to include the first-hand accounts and primary sources last, after I've included the relevant points that multiple secondary sources make. This article should not overly rely on Davies' contemporary book when we have Martin and Emerick writing about the same period, but with greater clarity and understanding. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through Davies twice now and I'll be going through Martin and Emerick early this week. I stand by the editorial choice to cull first from the more distant secondary and tertiary sources before using the primary and contemporaneous first-hand accounts to round it all off. There isn't much room left in this article, but if Martin or Emerick have anything crucial to add – I expect that they do – I'll certainly include their more salient points. Please let me know if I missed anything important from Davies. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one I want to put forward now anyway: In "Side two", you should indicate there is laughter heard between "Within You Without You" and "When I'm Sixty-Four". Davies writes (pp. 363-365 in 1968 paperback) that some critics didn't understand this and thought this was the other Beatles mocking George's seriousness, but that it was all George's idea, and quotes him: "Well, after all that long Indian stuff you want some light relief. It's a release after five minutes of sad music. You haven't got to take it all that seriously, you know. You were supposed to hear the audience anyway, as they listen to Sergeant Pepper's Show. That was the style of the album." Since, as one of your notes indicates, Harrison has kind of a minimal role on Sgt Pepper, this does show that his sense of perspective was still intact and that he contributed in this way to the album's schematic.
Great suggestion; added. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the "Sources" section itself, I see some books' titles are linked to their Google Books entry and some aren't. I've never seen the utility in doing this (unless the entire book is free there, which is unlikely for works of this era), nor if there was utility, why Google Books is preferred over Amazon or some other site. And the fact that all the articles in the Julien edited volume link to the same overall book page illustrates this is of little value.
This is not really the type of stuff I was hoping to get from this PR. Its not an actionable objection at FAC, so I'm not going to spend any time here dealing with housekeeping stuff that I'll fix per-FAC. The various chapters of the Julien book link to the same page because I cannot insert a url for each chapter, which links to the url provided for the book as a whole. You might not think that they are needed, but they certainly aren't errors that need correcting, which is what I wish you would focus on. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I focused on many content suggestions until this point. If you don't want certain types of comments, you should make that clear at the top of the PR. Normally authors are happy to get any kind of feedback, from the major to the minor. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate all of your comments and you're right that the stuff needed to be fixed. So thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some author names are linked but some aren't, even though they have articles (Davies, Everett, Harry, Lewisohn, Marcus, just to name some that jumped out at me). I think they all should be linked if they have articles, even if referred to earlier in article text, since this section is often viewed as a standalone.
Ibid, but done GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publishers are missing on a couple of entries - Cross and Martin & Pearson.
Ibid. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ordinal indication for editions is missing on some entries - "(1 ed.)", "(2 ed.)", "(2 ed.)" again, "(18 ed.)"
Ibid, but I don't include edition information unless there are more than one edition of a book. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bolded "1" for volume on Kastan is a journal citing convention, doesn't make sense for books.
Its part of a multi-volume work, so its important to note that this comes from the first volume or the pagination won't make sense. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Lewisohn CD booklet entry, "Apple/EMI Records" should not be italicised.
Fixed, but again, I was hoping for comments about the article's content, not formatting nitpicks that I intend to fix pre-FAC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure what value the "Further reading" section has in a case like this, since you're already using so many books. But I guess it does no harm. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping. Wasted, do you think that the importance of Revolver is now adequately represented in the article? Do you have any more suggestions and/or concerns? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

  • the first rock LP - this implies that another rock recording had won the Grammy before. Is this implication correct?
In my mind, "the first rock LP to receive this honour" means that no rock LP had ever won this honour before, so I'm not sure if its confusing. Are you suggesting that I need to clarify if any rock singles had ever won best album, because that's neither logical nor possible. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single, but an album released as something other than an LP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't an album be released in more than one form? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, LP = long-playing record, so that precludes a single, but you are correct that sometimes EPs are called albums. I'm not sure how I could better clarify this, since there is only one format called LP. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term "LP" (long player) was coined in 1948 by the new 12" 33 1/3 RPM format, preceding the Grammy awards by a decade. Albums could be released on 78 RPM shellac albums, then later on they came out on cassette and even later CD, but from 1958 - 1967, an LP meant only one thing, substantially different from an EP. The price structure was different (singles were the mainstay, EPs were specials, LPs were deluxe items akin to today's box sets). So I don't think there's any ambiguity. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd tone down some of the POV words, such as "seminal". Yes, it's probably correct, but outside of a quote I don't think it's quite neutral.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the album is multigenre, why classify the Beatles as a rock band?
1) The classification of the Beatles as a rock band is based on all of their releases, not just the Sgt. Pepper album. 2) That's irrelevant here anyway, since the genre of the band is addressed at the dedicated topical article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I don't think the RSs italicize it. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the studio - haven't mentioned which studio yet
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it progressed to Japan the polite and restrained audience shocked the group – as the absence of screaming fans allowed them to hear how poor their live performances had become. - Two things: 1, I'm tempted to include a comma after "Japan", and 2) is the ndash necessary, or just for effect?
1) In deference to BritEng editors and WP:ENGVAR I've eschewed the use of commas after introductory clauses except in extenuating circumstances. I suppose the dash is not really needed, but it seems like a comma would be if I remove it, so I like the stylistic choice here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Embroiled - Is this an encyclopedic word in this context?
Yes. I think that it is, but I'm open to suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They subsequently - I'd go with "The band members" rather than "they", as the most recent plural subject was Beatles' concerts
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I view the footnotes list as a stand-alone section, but the links certainly aren't required. They aren't really an FAC issue either. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 1967, - I've seen an instance above which does not use a comma; please standardize
My instinct here is to use a comma when a date is juxtaposed with a proper noun, but removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first time that they had come together - the subject of this sentence was "sessions", so perhaps "they" should use "the band" or something else.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • multitrack or multi-track?
I believe its multitrack. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed several instances of "multi-track", in case you want all of them to be "multitrack". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the catch. I'll scan the article and make consistent. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • before ADT it had been necessary to record such vocal tracks twice; a task that was both tedious and exacting. - I think that semi-colon is best replaced by a comma, as "a task that was both tedious and exacting" is a dependent clause.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since stuff is still being moved around and added I'm not going to worry too much about linking until the article is ready for FAC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow... maybe tonight or tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, Crisco! I appreciate your taking the time to help; your comments are most useful! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is; fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In mid-March 1967, during a songwriting session at Lennon's home in St John's Wood, he and McCartney wrote "With a Little Help from My Friends" as a song for Starr. With Lennon on guitar and McCartney on piano, they traded lines back and forth, eventually settling on the call-and-response format of questions and answers." - Would this note work better after the mention of "call-and-response" in the text?
That's a fine suggestion; done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lennon adapted the lyric for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" - lyric or lyrics?
I think its lyric because it refers to the words as a whole. If it was referring to a line or two it would be lyrics, but I might be wrong about this. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He characterises the song as a synthesis of ragtime and pop and notes - can we avoid and ... and?
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will fuck you like superman - capital s or miniscule?
I'm not sure because the cited source uses miniscule, but I think that capital is more appropriate so I've changed it per your suggestion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider moving the track listing to right above #Music and lyrics. That you are arranging the paragraphs in accordance with the order of songs on the album may not be clear to some readers. Mind you, this doesn't seem to be the common layout in FAs, so if you disagree I'd understand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine, but I also think that most editors expect to see the track listing at the end and right before the personnel section. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this copyedit? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • acetate - perhaps link somewhere?
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim Riley - My curiosity has been awakened... (no action needed)
  • None of the album's songs were issued as singles. - since you often mention that such-and-such was a first in the industry, perhaps a footnote as to whether this was uncommon at the time?
Martin felt like it was unfair to the public to sell the songs as a single and then also include them on the album, which would have fans paying twice for the same songs. I'll dig-up his statements and add a note to that affect. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goldstein is first mentioned in "Music and Lyrics", during the discussion of "She's Leaving Home". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first rock album to receive this honour. - since you've just been through a list of X Grammys, might be worth rephrasing so that it's clear you mean Album of the Year
Clarified. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a fairly large order dumped on me, so I can't get to Legacy quite yet. Tomorrow though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks much for your comments thus far; they have been quite helpful and I look forward to the rest! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and citing Moore's 1997 book The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" - is this really necessary for the running text?
Not its not; good point. Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 1970s, glam rock acts co-opted the use of alter ego personas and in 1977 it won Best British Album at the first Brit Awards. - the "it" here is unclear. St. Pepper? It doesn't really mesh with the first part of the sentence if that's true.
Nice catch. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The central theme of Goldstein's 1967 critique of Sgt. Pepper involves his complaints about substance overwhelming style, or in his words: "tone overtakes meaning". ff - didn't we already get an overview of the review? If so, is this really necessary?
Well, the review is quoted previously, but the overview is not that detailed. I felt like this was a good place to add a note summarising Goldstein's objections as they relate to Christgau, Marcus and Bangs' later critiques, which draw on the point that Goldstein's opinion – largely a minority view in 1967 – had gained some traction by the late 1970s and early 80s. This would seem out of sequence in reception, as its a point that deals directly with Sgt. Pepper's legacy. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Down Beat magazine published an unfavourable contemporary review - when?
Clarifed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RIAA. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2006 it was chosen by Time as one of the 100 best albums of all time. - why is this relegated to a footnote?
I thought that it was a bit anti-climactic to go from being ranked number one by Rolling Stone to one in a hundred by Time, but I've now restored the point in-line. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • undercoded, - What's with the italics? I believe quotes would work better here, since this is not a word as a word. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Evanh2008[edit]

Lead/infobox:

  • I'm no longer capable of caring about this, but should "the Beatles chronology" be capped? Looks like it's starting a sentence, anyway, and other articles seem to cap it.
Well, if we cap it then it introduces one mid-sentence. One should be capped and one not, but the template doesn't allow for that. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I'm not sure how that's mid-sentence, though. It's not even part of a sentence, just the first word of a new line. We capitalize "Rock" since it's the first entry under the "Genre" line, even though that isn't part of a sentence. Shouldn't we do the same here? Evan (talk|contribs) 23:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that if we cap it, then: "Studio album by the Beatles" would yield: "Studio album by The Beatles". Its six on one hand and half-a-dozen on the other, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I was just talking about capping "The" in "the Beatles chronology," though, not after "Studio album." We cap the one because it starts a line, and leave the other lowercase precisely because it doesn't start a line or a sentence. But, like I said, not a big deal. Evan (talk|contribs) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there is only one place to enter the artist name, so that both mentions will have the same case. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooookay, I see that now. Sorry for the confusion. Evan (talk|contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "early example of a concept album" could just be "early concept album" - This sort of trimming for brevity perennially comes up in FAC.
Nice; done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "liberal application signal processing" should be "liberal application of signal processing" (I think?)
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • "following which they permanently retired from touring" is redundant with the preceding clause.
Good point; done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and inspiration:

  • "Edwardian era" should be hyphenated.
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* You can safely lose the comma after "bassist and producer".

Comma lost. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speaker in the sentence beginning "He added" is McCartney, right? Since Lennon is the last person mentioned (although not quoted), I would merge this sentence with the one preceding it, so something like: "to 'escape the influence' (ref), and added, "It's very cleverly done..." etc.
Great suggestion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its very cleverly done" should be "It's very cleverly done".
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production:

  • "dominate" ---> "dominant"
Wehwalt caught that one. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instruments such as flutes, strings or choirs" - Is a choir an instrument? Not sure if there's a better word you could use here.
Good point; fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • >I have a very minor quibble with nota bene 11. Namely, I think it's a bit weird and slightly confusing to list Revolver and Sgt. Pepper in reverse chronological order, and to refer to Pepper as the former. I would swap them (and call Pepper "the former," obviously).
I agree; fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but wasn't "When I'm Sixty-Four" in its entirety raised by a semitone? The present text seems to imply that it was just McCartney's vocals. I could be mistaken on this.
Clarified. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a general comment, I noticed a few what are really non-restrictive clauses constructed as restrictive clauses. For example (non-restrictive clauses italicised): "Acquired by Lennon who also arranged for its delivery to Abbey Road" and "In November 1966, during a return flight to London from Kenya where he had been on holiday with Beatles' tour manager Mal Evans". It's not incorrect per se, but best style is to have a comma after "Lennon" and "Kenya." You can see non-restrictive clauses treated appropriately in sentences like the ones beginning "Inspired by the traffic warden", and here: "During the recording sessions for Revolver in 1966, ADT was invented especially for the Beatles by Townsend, who disliked tracking sessions and regularly expressed a desire for a technical solution to the problem." (comma after "Townsend")

Thanks for the reminder; I'll keep an eye out. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the article is very well written as a whole and as thorough as anyone could expect, and your participles are all in order. Very nice work!

Hope this helps! More tomorrow! Evan (talk|contribs) 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Evan! I think I've resolved the first batch. Its nice to see you around, but its even better to have access to such great advice. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! More in a bit. Evan (talk|contribs) 22:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics
  • I have no huge problem with the text as it now stands, but maybe "Sgt. Pepper is a multigenre album that is a work of rock and pop" could be "Sgt. Pepper is a multigenre work of rock and pop"? Just thinking of brevity here, but I'm not sure that's any better.
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My memory is fuzzy, but didn't Paul say that "Found my way upstairs and had a smoke/ And somebody smoke and I went into a dream" was a direct reference to cannabis? Or maybe that was George Martin's interpetation. I know one of them definitely talked about that. If it was Paul I would mention it, since he was the writer of the line, but if it was Martin I wouldn't worry about it.
There are several other supposed drug references that I think are more appropriate for the song articles, as adding them all here would get overly listy. Let me know if you find a good source for "and somebody spoke and I went into a dream". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must be remembering something from the Anthology documentary, as a quick check via Google Books doesn't seem to be turning anything up. On second thought, it would probably be too much detail. Striking this one. I think it was Martin, though. Evan (talk|contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure where it would fit in well, but maybe it's worth mentioning Mal Evans' role in the composition of "Fixing a Hole?" Actually, I see now that this is no longer mentioned, either at Evans' article or the song's. Any thoughts on that?
That's for the song article, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Point taken. Evan (talk|contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leary wasn't your run-of-the-mill psychologist, of course. I would mention his role as an advocate of psychedelic drugs and counterculture figurehead.
Good point. Clarified. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "warming-up" should be hyphenated.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "illusion of the album as a live performance" - It might be my incurable pedantry flaring up again, but maybe "conceit" would read better than "illusion?" Feel free to ignore this point if you disagree.
I prefer "illusion" and that's the word that Martin uses. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "communal and personal ... [its] touchingly rendered" - I'm not quite sure what the "[its]" is doing here.
I agree. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what is Lennon's response to McCartney's "It's getting better all the time?" It's quoted here as "couldn't get much worse." "Getting Better" has it as "can't get no worse." I hear "It can't get no worse" myself, but go with whatever the sources say, obviously.
Womack has "couldn't get much worse", but – as you pointed out – that's not right for every verse. The trouble is finding a good source that actually quotes the verse accurately. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, gotcha. Womack is good enough, though, and it's close enough for the article's purposes. Evan (talk|contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "Scottish farmhouse" mentioned here the Scottish farmhouse (i.e., the one Paul ran off to with Linda in the second half of '69)? Not sure it should be mentioned; I'm more curious than anything else.
I'm not sure, but I assumed that it is the same. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to suggest you wikilink Urtext, but that's a dab page and neither of the articles linked there looks particularly useful. There is another term that should have an associated article that could be linked in its place. I will remember it shortly...
I was thinking of vorlage, but at a second look it seems that's a technical term used primarily with regard to translations from one language to another. Feel free to ignore this one, or link it if you think it's a good idea; I have no strong feelings one way or another. You could also link the appropriate Wiktionary entry, but the definition there doesn't seem particularly amenable to the way in which Womack uses the term. Evan (talk|contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mixed-in" - extraneous hyphen
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was a paragraph about 4000 holes..." - That's a really weird line, and I guess Lennon doesn't explain what the "holes" were? I seem to remember reading that they were potholes in the road, but I could be wrong. If you can find a source, you probably should clarify.
Clarified. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Nice fixes. Evan (talk|contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cover artwork

looks good.

I'll try to get the rest of the article read later tonight, but definitely by tomorrow night. Evan (talk|contribs) 23:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Evan! I appreciate your excellent suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • I would change "After having finished Sgt. Pepper, but prior to its commercial release" to "After finishing Sgt. Pepper, but prior to the album's commercial release" - Simplifies the grammatical structure and removes any possible confusion as to what object "its" refers.
Great suggestion. Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the opinion of the musicologist Tim Riley" ---> "In the musicologist Tim Riley's opinion" - less wordy
Another fine suggestion. Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reception

looks fine also.

Legacy
  • "In the opinion of the musicologist Terence O'Grady" - same fix as above.
I'll scan the article for that construction now and apply. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an MOS reason there are parenthetical dates following "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver"? Looks like this is the only place in the article where that's done. If you're trying to clarify chronology, you could just say "the Beatles' two most recent albums, Rubber Soul and Revolver."
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through its focus on self-conscious lyrics..." could be "through its self-conscious lyrics..."
Much better; thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same sentence, I would place an "its" before "studio experimentation", to preserve the sentence's parallel structure.
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first art rock albums and Julien" ---> "first art rock albums, and Julien" - Comma. Fanboys and all that.
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "album era" could be capped. The article title is, anyway.
Good idea. Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For several years following its release" ---> "For several years following the album's release" (or Pepper's release or something) - to clarify the subject, since "straightforward rock and roll" is the next subject mentioned.
I agree. Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and his engineer's creative" ---> 'and his engineers' creative" - since multiple engineers worked on the album.
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting counterpoint to Lewisohn's point about the album displaying "cohesion" would be the fact that Pepper was, as Ringo said, the album he "learned to play chess on." You have the bit by Emerick immediately following the Lewisohn sentence, but maybe some firsthand observations would be more illuminating? I'm not sure they ought to be in the "Legacy" section, but it's probably worth noting that Pepper was a thrilling and artistically expansive experience for, at most, two of the Beatles. George said some similar stuff to Ringo' comment, but no quotes are springing immediately to mind.
That Ringo point can be found in Recording and production. If you remember a source for a good Harrison quote I'll try to work it in. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great summary of the concept album debate, by the way. Everything else looks good. Evan (talk|contribs) 22:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this detailed and insightful review, Evan. I'm glad to see you around and happy to take your sage advice. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Lede
  • The laundry list of style borrowings at the end of the second paragraph seems to me to be overlong.
That its long is kind of the point, but I see what you mean. It demonstrates the album's diversity. I had recently removed all the styles and another editor complained that they were important. I'll wait to see what others have to say. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided that I agree with you, so I've trimmed it down a bit; hopefully that's enough. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the ensuing three-month break from Abbey Road Studios" can this be phrased more clearly? Additionally, the entire sentence seems to cover too much ground, with the half after the above phrased having but slight connection with the first half.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede would end more strongly with the Kastan quote, if you can find a way.
Great suggestion. Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "proved to be the group's last, following which they permanently retired from touring." You are saying the same thing twice.
Good point; fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concept etc.
  • "tour manager" should be linked. I know what it is, thousands don't.
Linked. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the McCartney and Martin quote that follows appear to be basically saying the same thing. Can one or the other be deleted or shortened?
Good point; I've shortened the Macca quote to avoid the redundancy. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Beach Boys paragraph seems to wander far afield before being tied back in as "inspiration". Perhaps you could lead the paragraph with some statement of why the rest of it is important.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with this one. Pet Sounds was the single biggest influence, so one paragraph discussing it does not seem excessive to me. The connection is made clear by the graph's fourth sentence, but if I can think of a way to introduce it with a good topic sentence I'll do that. It seems like the three sentences of background are needed, but maybe not. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recording
  • "who also arranged for its delivery to Abbey Road" I would cut, I"m not sure what this adds
I agree; removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strawberry Fields Forever" using the flute setting.[37] "Strawberry Fields Forever" Can the usages be combined?
There were several models with varied abilities, but that's for the dedicated article so I've made this mention slightly less specific. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " With the release the childhood concept was abandoned in favour of Sgt. Pepper" I'm uncertain that the reader will understand that what is meant is the fictional band motif.
Isn't this explained in Concept and inspiration? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " took the opportunity to suggest" suggested
I've gone with "speculated" - they might well have just wanted to create a Beatles backlash to sell papers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1967 all of the Sgt. Pepper tracks could be recorded at Abbey Road using mono, stereo and four-track recorders." This sentence seems a bit confusing. Can you rephrase?
I've had a go at this, and trimmed it down. Really it's only the four-track stuff that sources highlight. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Side two
  • "and points out that Goldstein notes the track as one of the album's highlights" awkward, centering around "Goldstein notes"
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Johann Strauss II" I doubt many people use the II. I would shorten to "Johann Strauss" or perhaps just "Strauss".
  • "Lennon considers" The present tense is unjustified. You do this at least twice. Please check your references to Lennon.
I've had a look through these. I think one, which describes Lennon's recorded performance (not a living thing in itself) is still okay to keep in the present tense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forty musicians culled" perhaps "selected" for "culled"
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs)
  • "Together on cue" This reads oddly
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs)
  • "assistant Mal Evans" You have described him as tour manager, and someone else as an assistant. I have no doubt he had multiple functions, I'm being picky here.
Per WP:LASTNAME this can just be "Evans" - he's the only one in the entire article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ritchie; it should be just Evans at this point. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "repressed" should this be "re-pressed"?
Hyphenated; fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recording
  • "and that would have completely disappeared" "and that completely disappeared"
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is probably a need to source the rest of "Personnel" as you source part of it.
Will do. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat taken aback by the sheer number of footnotes. Are all of them truly necessary? The Heritage Auctions one?
Well, each one contains information that is useful, but difficult to fit in the article without causing bloat. I'll look through them and identify any that can be dropped or integrated into the text. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it. Very nice job.Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt; your comments were most helpful! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I think one of the problems we might have with the article as it stands today at FAC is a distinct lack of illustrative images. I've put one in for the 4-track that was used to record the album to address the balance. It wonder if it's possible to take this Daily Mail extract as "fair use", which illustrates where a verse from "A Day in the Life" came from. I suppose a stock Geograph image of the Albert Hall could be combined with this and given a suitable caption. I'm not sure what else I could add other than fairly bland photos of studio equipment. Any other ideas? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, we now have four images, including two of the Beatles, which is pretty good, IMO. Its too bad there isn't a PD image of the group circa 1967, but I doubt that one exists. This is a decent PD image: File:Abbey Rd Studios.jpg, but there isn't anymore room in the Recording section. Maybe we should move the Studer image to the recording paragraph of Legacy and add the Abbey Road image where the Studer one is now. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That picture of the Studer goes quite well with File:Abbeyroadtomswain.jpg. Nice work! I've also added File:Abbey road studios.jpg to the recording section of Legacy. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we need more images to avoid a wall o'text which is offputting, especially when it's supposed to be the best quality work on Wikipedia. Also the Live 8 shot I found might raise doubts as to whether the inner gatefold is appropriate fair use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Never sandwich text between images. 2) There is in-depth critical commentary regarding the meaning and purpose of the inner gatefold image, so its infinitely more appropriate than the Live 8 one. 3) There are plenty of images currently in the article (six is enough); its not intended as a picture book. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think whether it's "sandwiched" would depend on your monitor resolution, and the mobile version of the Wikipedia app never sandwiches, full stop. As for the other two points, well you can disagree but other FAC reviewers might have a contrary view to yours too, so worth thinking about. I think one or two well placed images will help enormously with making the text flow. Joel Spolsky's guide to functional specs, which is designed to "trick" people into reading them, mentions this, stating that professional magazines will add a quoted paragraph, if nothing else, just to break up the flow of text and make it more readable. Remember, when you've written or copyedited large parts of an article, your brain will naturally pick out stuff far easier than somebody new to it. It's the same with programming. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on a 20 inch monitor, which is arguably the most common sized screen for someone at a desktop CPU, so if its sandwiched for me then its sandwiched for many others. The gatefold FUR is tight as can be; since both McCartney and Inglis critically discuss its meaning and purpose – its the object of sourced critical commentary – there is no fair-use issue; my experience tells me that, but there is someone to disagree with almost anything if you ask enough people. I'm not opposed to adding an appropriate image or two; the ADT machine was nice if it didn't crowd the section. 6 images in 12 sub-sections means that there is an image in every other section plus two quote boxes. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things: sandwiching is related to number of pixels, not physical monitor size, and sandwiching gets worse as you increase the resolution (more text has to fill the same number of lines to avoid leaving white space). On my wife's 1024x800 (or something) netbook, there are screens of text in between some images, such as in #Side 1. My own laptop (13**x10**) has less whitespace, but still no sandwiching.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492, the sandwiching of which I spoke was caused by having one too many images in the Recording section, but its no longer an issue in the article. FWIW, including the lead there are 13 sections of prose that are illustrated with 6 images; so about every other section has an image. Side one has an image, so I assume that you meant side two, which doesn't have an image, but it does have two ogg files. I'd be happy to consider any appropriate PD images that are relevant to the article, but few are available. I'll keep looking. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm counting drop quotes (or whatever those boxes are called; sorry, I just woke up) as "images" for the purposes of sandwiching, since they can also cause it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, there are four quote boxes in addition to the six images. I think ogg files can also cause sandwiching and there are four of those as well. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. Anyways, that was just a quick comment. The current layout is okay. (TBH I'm not quite comfortable with the amount of fair-use audio/visual material, but I can see the argument for including it all. I probably won't do an image review at FAC owing to my conflicting opinions on the matter). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music FAs are practically required to have two or three ogg files; I don't think four is excessive, but I wouldn't add another. The front cover is also practically required, so at the most there is an extra ogg or two and an extra image, which all have solid FURs. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's common, and pretty well supported by the text (even the extra image). I'm just worried that my distaste for that many fair-use images may influence my review. How about I take a look at the free media only? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate any advice that you are willing to give me. I'm curious though, would you remove the inside image and all the oggs, or just one or two? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'll take a look at the free images. Personally, if I were writing this, I'd avoid "The beginning of the first verse of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"" (commentary is regarding lyrics, which can be reproduced as text; said text would still be fair use, to be sure, but more minimal) and I'd have to think about the inner gatefold. The other two OGGs are impossible to represent through text (free or otherwise), and illustrate two kinds of sound on the album, so I'd probably use them if I were writing the article. That being said, I don't expect issues at FAC with the fair use images. BRB with an image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that its best to remove for now, as blurred images are not the best, but I'll think about the other option so thanks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If its not too much trouble, maybe you would go ahead and blur the copyvio. If it looks okay we'll include the image. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Abbeyroadtomswain.jpg - This is setting off some alarm bells (Only upload, no EXIF data, technically rather sound) but I can't find anything predating the Wikipedia upload. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's your best advice? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
George Martin includes a picture of the original poster in his Pepper book, and as far as I can tell the one we are using is identical. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco, when you get a chance, please take another look at the FUR for File:"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by the Beatles 1967.ogg. Is it solid enough now, IYO? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The FUR is fine. Contextual significance is determined by use in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audio[edit]

This kind of follows on from above. I think it would be worth having a think about what the best audio samples we can use, which in my view would be things most difficult to describe in words. Two obvious candidates are the outro to Mr Kite, with all the cut up fairground noises, and the orchestral build up in A Day in the Life. Gabe, if you've got the 2009 CD, you'd probably be best place to do these - I only have a 1970s reissue LP and a 1987 CD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made the ogg files and I think that my choices were excellent. "A Day in the Life" and "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" are far more notable than "Mr. Kite". The "Sgt. Pepper" track is almost as obligatory as the Lennon oggs, and the "64" file demonstrates well the album's diversity of styles. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a "Mr. Kite" ogg – we already have the reproduction image of the poster, which takes up two paragraphs worth of margin, leaving no room for an ogg file that would create an unsightly sandwich if added. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I think that my choices were excellent." I don't! They're not bad, but it's not a question of what songs are notable (of course A Day in the Life and Lucy in the Sky are better known), but what bits of audio would be the hardest to explain in prose. Also better known tracks are more likely to be familiar to the reader, meaning the audio is harder to justify. Remember you're adding copyrighted material to a free encyclopedia, so you really should go out of your way to explain why a prose substitute is impossible.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ogg files are absolutely justified based on the article's in-line critical commentary of the audio material – I.e., the audio samples are the objects of critical commentary, or in other words, I know what I'm doing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not agree that these audio samples are essential. Remember, we are serving a reader who wants to learn about this album, and via this PR and FAC, we are trying to get it in a place that can take on every other published source that introduces the topic and beat them. You could write "Sgt Pepper (the track) has taped applause and a brass band" and people would have a reasonably good chance of understanding what you were talking about. You can't do that with the orchestral build up in A Day in a Life. Wikipedia is free content - pillar number three. Therefore you need to tread extremely carefully with audio samples. Improving an article to FA is not carte blanche to include copyrighted content because you feel like you can get away with it. I don't want to give a regretful oppose at FAC for a weak adherence to criteria #3, because that'll open a drama-fest, but if it's the only option..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on my 15-20 FACs, BTW, but go ahead and oppose based on media files, Ritchie. The article will pass FAC anyway. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are taking this too personally. Calm down, and read through everything else I said carefully, not the end sentence which is the least important part of the argument. I'd rather we worked together on this and at least understood each other's points of view. Digging your heels in won't win you any friends. I've got no problem with people writing FA quality prose as a personal exercise to better themselves as writers, and to show that it's possible to take on commercial authors and beat them at their own game, but most people in the world don't know, much less care, what an FA is, and it's worth putting that in perspective. Chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You threatened to oppose because I don't agree with your ogg suggestions and you're telling me to chill? I'm not taking it personally, Ritchie, but I'm also not at all interested in your FAC advice. BTW, I'm double-checking the sourcing now, and I've already found two false cites that you recently added. Would you care to explain why you've introduced false sourcing to the article? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Nikkimaria, if you have the time, will you please consider doing a pre-FAC media file review here at this PR, so that when I nom the article at FAC I'll be better prepared? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do that, but I don't know enough about the album to weigh in on the argument above. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but don't worry about that. Just take a look at the audio files and let me know if you think their use is justified based on your knowledge of fair-use. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be better able to address some of Ritchie's concerns by saying something beyond "Audio conveys different information than prose" to explain why the samples aren't replaceable with text. You've got content in the purpose section for all of the files that could be better suited to such an explanation.
  • I think that the existing prose and relevant FURs do exactly that. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another potential issue to consider is that three of the four songs represented by samples here have (different) samples in their own specific articles. This will affect consideration of minimal usage.
  • 1) File:Beatles sgt pepper.ogg is 30 seconds long, which – per WP:SAMPLE – is more than twice the acceptable length for a song that's barley two minutes long, and 2) If that were an obstacle then any album that also had song articles with sound files couldn't have sound files and vice-versa. Remember that these are significantly degraded audio samples that do not in any way compete with the copyright holder's commercial interests. I mean, who's gonna pay for a 22050Hz and 64Kbps sample of less than 10% of a song with fades in and out? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of style, I would prefer the content supporting the use of the samples to be more integrated into the actual article text rather than the current huge captions, particularly for the first sample. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An arbitrary choice, IMO; six on one hand, but if you look closer you'll see both in-line and caption commentary regarding the ogg files. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to invite J Milburn and Masem to comment on the article's current usage of non-free files. I'm specifically interested in their opinions regarding the strength of the FURs and the number of fair-use files. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments on media[edit]

  • As I said above, I think it shouldn't have much issue. I'm not familiar enough with the album to select the best clippings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick comment on the audio: as each song is notable, and (though I haven't check) probably has sufficient commentary to support their own sample, I would focus on audio samples that specifically demonstrate the importance to this album, and letting song commentary on the special songs to be on the song pages (though obvious you are summarizing the ebb and flow of the audio as the album goes along, that's needed). So the intro to the main theme seems good since it presents the album with the injection technique as well as the concert feel to it. I don't know immediately on the other samples used but on my first read, some seem too narrow on the critical commentary about the song and not so much the album's flow/importance. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good advice, thanks! I'll make some copyedits to that affect, but in the meantime do you see any issues with having four ogg files in the article? I've never really heard what the consensus was on a "limit" for an album article, but the audio samples are barely a minute in total with fades and significantly reduced non-commercial quality. What do you think about the inner-gatefold image? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if 4 is right or wrong, and there's no hard consensus. Clearly, SPLHCB has had a lot of critical review, both as an album (back when albums were composed to actually tell some type of story) and as individual songs. My point is to consider what sound samples are more about individual tracks which would be better on the song article itself, and target for inclusion those that are noted to speak to the broader's album composition. Whether that thats 1, 2, 3, 4, or whatever, I don't know. I would think that you would have no issue with 3-4 carefully chosen samples as long as they fall in discussion of the album and not individual songs. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great advice, Masem. I completely agree and I've already improved a couple of the FURs so that, as you suggest, the sample demonstrates a relevance to the album as a whole, which is not at all difficult to accomplish with the samples currently in the article; its just a matter of adjusting the emphasis. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, do me a favour and take another look. I think that I've improved the FURs as you've suggested above, and I'd like to know if you feel that the critical commentary relating to the oggs is currently sufficient in that regard. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're in good shape here. You're far enough past the bare minimum of NFCC to be good, and I think the samples used present a good cross section of the album in discussion of its influence and direction. At worst, it will be an intelligent discussion at FAC as to whether there could be improvements. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your advice was most helpful, so thanks much. What do you think about the inner-gatefold FUR, in cover art? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine since you've got commentary on the iconic nautre of that picture + some more. (Just as a note for the legacy section, and not to force this in, this album is only one of three that were fully included (between the game and downloadable content) in The Beatles: Rock Band - dunno if that's important enough to include or not but just a random thought here). --MASEM (t) 23:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice to include; it speaks to the work expanding into modern media. Can you provide me with a WP:RS? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NYTimes prior to release, and Rolling Stone at the DLC album release. (RSs outside of video gaming). I'd add that, per what you should get out of the NYTimes article, the game includes visuals to match that of the album art with some of the songs in their "Dreamscapes" for this album. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

  • "Regarded as an early concept album": Regarded by who, and perhaps more importantly, when?
Do you mean the earliest that someone called it that? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead has the word "rock" in several places, part of several genres. It gets a little repetitive, but I'm not sure there is a way around it.
I managed to remove one two, but I'm not sure the other three can be removed. Rock and roll could go from the styles list I suppose, but I could see others objecting to that. Any suggestions? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the Beatles' August 1966 retirement from touring and the ensuing three-month break from Abbey Road Studios, their work improved upon the production quality of their prior releases.": "Work" is slightly ambiguous here: their work on this album, or in general?
"their work improved upon" → "they endeavored to improve upon"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth adding anything to the lead on the album's immediate reception (other than chart position)?
Does "it was an immediate commercial and critical success" suffice? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group had grown extremely cross with their manager": Is extremely cross encyclopaedic enough? Perhaps just "unhappy" is more neutral, but I'd lose the adverb at the very least.
Good point. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When George Harrison was asked about their long-term plans after having returned to London he replied": Not keen on "after having returned", as it's a bit clunky. Would "...plans after returning to London" work better? Or even "When, having returned to London, George Harrison was asked about their long-term plans, he replied..."
Thanks for the suggestions; I went with the second example. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band subsequently took a nearly two-month holiday,": nearly two-month is also a bit clunky. Maybe a number of weeks would be cleaner prose?
"nearly two-month" → "seven-week"
  • "It also led him to develop a melodically-focused style of bass guitar playing": This seems a little vague! Not sure that much can be done, though.
Nice catch! I'll think about that one. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCartney wanted to model portions of an album after the Beach Boys' approach": "model on" would sound more natural to me, but not a big deal and I'm pretty sure the current version is more than fine.
  • "Sgt. Pepper marks the beginning of McCartney's ascendancy as the Beatles' dominant creative force. He wrote more than half of the album's material while asserting increasing control over the recording of his compositions. He would from this point on provide the artistic direction for the group's releases.": This is doubtless true, but reads quite strongly in WIkipedia's voice. Maybe attribute it: "According to [the author?] Walter Everett, Sgt. Pepper marks..."
I agree. Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the end of "Side one" so far; some of the musical technical stuff loses me a bit, but this is a pleasure to read so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Sarastro! I appreciate your helpful comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with critics characterising the music as lacking "harmonic interest"" and "with Goldstein including the track as one of the album's highlights": "with [noun] [verb]ing" construction is best avoided.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Moore's opinion, the recording's reliance on melody in favour of harmony is entirely appropriate for the genre": "in favour" does not really make sense used with "reliance" like this.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sgt. Pepper continued the artistic maturation seen on the Beatles' albums Rubber Soul (1965) and Revolver (1966), aiding the development of progressive rock through its focus on self-conscious lyrics, studio experimentation, and its efforts to expand the barriers of conventional three-minute tracks.": This is quite strong and opinionated for WPs voice, and should perhaps be attributed in-text to an author.
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been described as one of the first art rock albums and a "masterpiece of British psychedelia", and credited with marking the beginning of the album era": This always begs the question: by who?
Attributed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph of "Legacy": We use "best-selling" three times in a short space; also, two are hyphenated, one is not.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the legacy section is in the best order. It looks like we are doing a summary of the changing views of the album, but interrupt this with album sales at the start of para 3. Otherwise, it seems strange to list the reservations of critics, give the sales, then say how great critics think it is in all the greatest album lists.
Well, for one the section is roughly chronological; the last date in the first paragraph is 1977 and the first date in the second is 1979. The last date in the second paragraph is 1981 and the first date in the last paragraph is 1987. Also, I think its helpful to organize it this way because it demonstrates that the initial praise had faded a bit by the late-1970s, but that the legacy "rebounded" from 1987 to today. I could group the two "positive" paragraphs together, but that doesn't seem like an improvement, IMO. I think its good to go from positive to negative and back to end on a positive as it roughly mirrors the legacy timeline and it doesn't give the false impression that the legacy went bad and stayed bad. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else jumps out, and this looks good to me, with the qualification that I am no music (or Beatles) expert, and that the music terminology loses me slightly. My only other query is do we need all 48 notes? Not a problem as such, it just seems quite a big number. Prose-wise and in terms of comprehensiveness, I can see no major issues. Let me know when this reaches FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO – because the notes are optional to the reader – including them causes no harm, but removing them reduces the total amount of information available. If someone said that they were cluttering up the prose I might reconsider, but I've never seen any FAC protests against having two citations following a sentence, which is all the space that the additional notes use. Before I nom at FAC I'll take a good look through and combine any I can and remove ones that aren't that helpful. IMO, there are so many tangential points that are notable and important to the overall comprehensiveness of the article that this is a superior solution to bloating the article up to 12,000 words or more. Thanks much for your excellent review, Sarastro1! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

  • "Released in June 1967, it was an immediate commercial and critical success, spending 22 weeks at the top of the UK Albums Chart and 15 weeks at number one on the US Billboard 200." would read better as something like "The album was released on 1 June 1967. It was an instant commercial and critical success, spending 22 weeks at the top of the UK Album Chart and 15 weeks at number one on the US Billboard 200."
I disagree; that would make two short and choppy sentences to start the paragraph, which I think flows pretty well as it is. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, include the exact release date (which was June 1st) in opening paragraph. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1966 the Beatles had grown weary of live performance"..... go into how/why they had become so after this sentence.
I moved the Lennon quote up to follow the topic sentence. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the musicologist Walter Everett" → "Walter Everett wrote that"
I'll maybe substitute that phrase elsewhere, but I'm not a fan of it for this example. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sgt. Pepper is a multigenre album that is a work of rock and pop"..... if this is suggesting that the album is primarily pop and rock, state that more explicitly.
Moore states only that it is a work of pop and rock; he does not go into which genres are primary and which are secondary. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reasons why both sound samples are aligned to the right in the "side one" section and both for "side two" section? I recommend having one to the left and one to the right (you can choose which to align where). As a general note, try alternating the alignments throughout articles.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, user reviews from Sputnikmusic shouldn't be used. From what I can see in the ref used, this is a user review.
Nice catch; thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After these points are addressed, you shouldn't have much problem getting this to FA! I'm sure you'll make all Four of The Beatles quite proud. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I was asked to comment on this review. Having seen the wealth of informed comment already provided, I don't feel I can add much of significance, but may I suggest a few tweaks to the lead? By all means ignore these if you think they are unnecessary:

  • "Released in June 1967, it was ..." A similar prose formulation occurs also at the beginning of the second paragraph: "Regarded by musicologists as an early concept album, Sgt. Pepper continued...", and also later within that paragraph: "An important work of British psychedelia, the multigenre album incorporates..." While entirely grammatical, this form can clunk a bit when used repeatedly, and three times in half a dozen lines is a bit heavy. I recommend that you reword at least one of them.
That's a good point; thanks. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence: "The group adopted an experimental approach to composition and the producer George Martin's innovative recording of the album's tracks, such as "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life", included the liberal application of signal processing and the use of a forty-piece orchestra" is overcomplicated (three "ands") and perhaps under-punctuated. Recommend split.
That's also good advice. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album cover was designed by the English pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth from a sketch by Paul McCartney that depicted ." This might be clearer if reworded as: "The album cover, depicting the band posing in front of a collage of celebrities and historical figures, was designed by the English pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth from a sketch by Paul McCartney."
I've adopted the suggested language; thanks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final lead sentence: This seems superfluous; the success and standing of the album is fully established by the earlier two sentences.
I disagree here; its important that we avoid making such a bold claim without a direct quote, but I'll think about it and maybe change my mind. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'll consider these minor changes, but no great harm if you decide against them. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments (down to end of "Music and Lyrics")

  • "they had decided to break-up" – no hyphen in this phrasing.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the instruction of" → "under the instruction of"
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "timpani" is a plural noun; "timpanis" does not exist
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later claimed..." Not really a "claim" here, rather an expression of opinion. Why not "He thought that his constant playing..." etc
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Acquired by Lennon, the Mellotron's keys triggered one of three tape loops for flutes, strings or choirs, enabling its user to play in those three voices." The first three words render the sentence into a non sequitur. I would incorporate these words into the previous sentence, thus: "The first session saw the introduction of a new keyboard instrument called the Mellotron, acquired by Lennon. The Mellotron's keys..." etc
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can wikilink flanging. Also, it should not be in italics, since it's not a foreign word
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "called-off" – another unrequired hyphen
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlong, overcomplicated sentence: "For the album's title track, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", the recording of Starr's drum kit was enhanced by the use of damping and close-miking, which at the time were new recording techniques that MacDonald credits with creating a "three-dimensional" sound that – along with other Beatles innovations – engineers in the US would soon adopt as standard practice.". Needs subdividing.
  • Maybe clarify that the production cost of Please, Please Me was £400
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any point in the updated value of £25,000, especially with the entirely spurious accuracy represented by "£304,202".
Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source of confusion is that the album and the first track have the same name. Thus, when you say: "McCartney acts as the master of ceremonies near the end of 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' ", there is a moment of muddle. Perhaps; "...near the end of the 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' track...",
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that was comprised of" → "that comprised"
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MacDonald describes the track as an "ambitious essay in cross-cultural fusion and meditative philosophy" that most commentators dismiss as boring..." The phrase "that most commentators dismiss as boring" is thus directly connected to MacDonald's comment; did he say that most commentators dismiss the track as boring, or is this a separate observation?
MacDonald states that "most commentators dismiss the track as boring". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inspired by a television commercial for Kellogg's Corn Flakes, from which Lennon adapted a jingle as the song's refrain, "Good Morning Good Morning" utilises the bluesy mixolydian mode in A, which Everett credits with "perfectly express[ing] Lennon's grievance against complacency." A very difficult sentence to get one's head round. Part of the problems is the relapse into the prose formulation on which I commented on the lead. I think the sentence needs to be turned around and simplified.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the last chord of the "Sgt. Pepper" reprise plays an acoustic guitar strumming offbeat quavers begins,..." – there must be some punctuation missing, somewhere, e.g. a comma after "plays"?
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "faded-out" – that hyphen again
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As "A Day in the Life" ends a 15-kilohertz high-frequency tone is heard..." Definitely a comma needed after "ends"
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Lennon wish to "annoy dogs"?
I'm not sure that any of the sources explain why. I don't think it was anything against dogs; I think he just found it interesting. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and complete my reading tonight or tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Brian. Your comments are invaluable! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My final comments
  • "a postcard-sized portrait of Sgt. Pepper based on the statue from Lennon's house..." – what statue was this? In any case, shouldn't it be "a statue"?
Fixed.
  • Sonny Liston an athlete? I don't think so. I'd describe him as a boxer, and Stubbins as a footballer. And I don't think "author" is an accurate label for Dylan Thomas
Good points. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the line: "Adolf Hitler and Jesus Christ were requested by Lennon, but ultimately rejected." Only in Wikipedia...
Indeed! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • £46,104 – another rather pointless calculation that should be ditched along with the other.
Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it be "the Jimi Hendrix Experience" or "The Jimi Hendrix Experience"? It depends on whether "The" is part of the band's name (which I believe it is)
I learn new things all the time on Wikipedia, but this much I know for certain: its a lower-cased definite article mid-sentence. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sgt. Pepper was widely perceived by listeners as the soundtrack to the Summer of Love". I'd put "Summer of Love" in quotes (it was not an official designation). Odd, though, that the linked WP article makes no mention of the album, or of the Beatles.
This is not at all a minority view amongst the RSs. I think its omission from the SoL wiki article is a reflection of the quality of the SoL article, not the accuracy of the statement. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sgt. Pepper's initial commercial success exceeded all previous Beatles albums, selling 2.5 million copies within three months of its release." Needs redrafting – not grammatical in its present form. A suggestion: "With 2.5 million copies within three months of its release, Sgt. Pepper's initial commercial success exceeded that of all previous Beatles albums."
A fine suggestion. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Most contemporary reviews were positive..." is a mite cautious. You only quote one negative review, and that was apparently answered with volleys of further praise. The table on the right rather suggests that "The vast majority of contemporary reviews were positive", and I recommend you reword accordingly.
Yeah, I think that's what I used to have there until someone changed it. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For several years following its release, straightforward rock and roll would be supplanted..." → "For several years following its release, straightforward rock and roll was supplanted..."
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly the second paragraph in the "Legacy" section should be a subsection on its own, entitled "Reappraisal" as this, rather than "legacy", is the subject of the text.
I see the negative appraisal and continued debate as part of the legacy. I also think it would be a big mistake to end on that paragraph. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Reappraisal section seems to work nicely after Reception. Thanks for the great idea! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With its release, album sleeves were no longer..." etc → "After its release, album sleeves were no longer..." etc
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that, as a rule, we show conversions from one major currency to another (in this case, euros→dollars)
Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I not sure I understand the title "Concept revisited", nor why this piece of commentary appears at the end of the article rather than with the other "Reception" comments.
The text in reception is contemporary to the album, whereas this is largely reflective hindsight that belongs near or at the end. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to a sub-section of Reappraisal. Thanks again for the suggestions! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That ends my comments. A very thorough and informative article, important enough to deserve the extensive review attention it's had. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review, Brian. Your insightful comments have helped elevate the prose to new levels. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get a chance to take another look at the lead? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your decisions concerning the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is a formidable article, and in truth I am scratching round to find anything to quibble at, but I'll manage. First comments, to the end of "Music and lyrics":

  • Recording and production
    • First quote box – double quotes wanted, I think
      I always used to include them, but Ssilvers recently told me that they should not be included. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Are we at cross purposes here? I don't mean the big decorative quotes that are optional for quote boxes – I'm referring to the single quotes round Paul's 'You just wait'. Wouldn't we normally use double quotes there? Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. Tim riley talk 21:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ahh, I see; you are correct, as usual! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "basslines that complimented the song's final arrangement" – complemented, I imagine
      Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "(ADT), a system that uses tape recorders to create a simultaneous doubling" – I was surprised to see a link to "tape recorders" here, though it does no harm, I suppose
      Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music and lyrics
    • First quote box – double quotes wanted here too, I think
      Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The BBC used this as justification for banning the track from British radio" – A bit of top-spin there! A more neutral phrasing might be, "On those grounds the BBC banned the track from British radio".
      Great suggestion. Language adopted. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "banned by the BBC because of the lyric that mentions "Henry the Horse"" – this is really a describing ("non restrictive") rather than a defining clause, and should, I think be "banned by the BBC because of the lyric, which mentions "Henry the Horse".
      Nice! Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side one
    • ""Sgt. Pepper" was the first Beatles track that benefitted from the production technique" – does MacDonald really misspell "benefited"?
      Nope. That's my bad! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pablo Fanque's Circus Royal poster – a brilliant inclusion!
      Thanks. I wish I could take the credit, but alas it was already there before I came along. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side two
    • First para – excellent balance here with the differing critical views impartially set out.
      Thanks; this one I can take credit for! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More soonest. Tim riley talk 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to help out, Tim. I always appreciate your astute insights! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second and concluding lot of comments from Tim
  • Release
    • "In the opinion of the musicologist Tim Riley" – Hold everything! Who is this impostor?
      Do you remember that I asked you if you were him about 4 years ago? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, but then I am old and forgetful. Anyway, I'm not him and he ain't me. Incidentally (and no reflection on my namesake) Sir Thomas Beecham defined a musicologist as "A man who can read music but can't hear it." Tim riley talk 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a good one! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception
    • The Times's Kenneth Tynan described it as "a decisive moment in the history of Western civilisation" – I can find five different sources confirming this phrase as Tynan's but I boggle at the idea he wrote it in The Times. None of the sources say where he wrote it, but Tynan, theatre critic of The Observer, did not write for The Times (except as a co-signatory of occasional letters to the editor about political matters). I have checked The Times archive and there is no trace of his writing this in any 1967 or later issue. I think it would be safer to call him "The critic Kenneth Tynan" and leave it at that.
      Well, both MacDonald and Moore say it was in The Times, and a google search of a bit more text reveals a few sources that agree, but I'll take your word for it at this point, as its probably a mistake that keeps getting re-printed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2005 Rolling Stone placed it at number one in their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, describing it as "the pinnacle of the Beatles' eight years as recording artists"" – I don't know if your source says 2005, but I have access to the Rolling Stone online archive (courtesy of Westminster City Library) and that phrase was used of the album in an unsigned article "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time: 1 – 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band': The Beatles" in the Rolling Stone issue of 11 December 2003, p. 85. The URL is password protected but I can send you a copy of the text if you'd be interested.
      I use 2005 because the print source of the book that I cite to is copyrighted to 2005, but you are correct that this list was first published in 2003. Do you still think that I should use 2003? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think so. As a statement of pure fact, Rolling Stone published the article in 2003, and that's what I think you should say.
      Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recording and cover
    • "Although early analog synthesizers were available" – I'm not sure if the general British convention of adopting US spelling for computer matters (e.g. computer program rather than computer programme) extends to the hardware, but I think I'd have piped this as analogue synthesiser. I do not press this point, being unsure of my facts.
      I don't see any harm in piping like that. Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The idea was gradually forming of a record being a performance in its own right and not just a reproduction of a live performance" – sound of harrumphing from elderly classical buff: John Culshaw had this concept for Decca Records years before this. (Just making a point here – I don't seek to alter your text.)
      Very true, but I think Parsons is referring only to pop and rock here, though its admittedly a bit vague without the proper context. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Its lasting commercial success and critical impact is due in large part to Martin and his engineer's creative use" – we have heard of several engineers at various points in the article: should this be "his engineers' creative use"? Afterthought: and shouldn't "is due" be "are due" as we are talking of two factors?
      Great suggestion. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concept revisited
    • "In a May 1967 review published by The Times, the music critic William Mann" – if you agree with my suggestion, above, about Tynan, you'll want a blue link to The Times here instead.
      Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nonetheless, the author Martina Elicker asserts" – you use the word "assert" nine times in the article, and – see WP:SAY – it occasionally strikes a very slightly sceptical note. Perhaps worth another look.
      Yeah, it gets a bit difficult when you are presenting so many opinions of critics and musicologists, but I think asserts is correct here, as many do have doubts about the albums designation as a concept album. Having said that, I'm certainly open to suggestions for alternatives, if nothing else to avoid repetition. Also, how do you count the number of occurrences of a word in an article? Is there yet another helpful script/tool that I am unaware of? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Depending which web browser you use, the generic "find" box (press Ctrl-F) while you're looking at a WP page will either show all the incidences of a word or phrase or will even obligingly tell you how many hits it has found. I was using Firefox, and just typed in "assert" and tapped through till I got to the beginning again, after nine taps. I have to say, however, that when reviewing I often copy and paste from the article page (not the edit page, which has too much code) into Word as unformatted text, and then run the spell check. You'd be surprised how often this throws up errors one has missed with the naked eye. Tim riley talk 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the useful tip! Once again you've empowered me to become a better editor. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can offer. This is a fine article, hugely readable and informative. Please let me know when it gets to FAC. – Tim riley talk 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim. I appreciate your taking the time to provide these most helpful comments and suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

I will spend tomorrow reading through this and post shortly. Sorry for the delay. Cassiantotalk 19:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, Cassianto. Thanks! Don't worry about the wait; patience is a virtue! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background

Looks ok.

Concept and inspiration

Looks ok

Recording and production

Looks ok

Music and lyrics
  • "BBC banned the track from British radio" – surely they cannot ban it from all radio stations, or was it just those managed by BBC?
Didn't the BBC enjoy a total radio and TV monopoly in the UK, in 1967? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to report that I wasn't around then ;) I think you maybe right. Cassiantotalk 18:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Side one
  • Looks ok
Side two
  • "After it was decided that "Only a Northern Song" was not good enough for inclusion on Sgt. Pepper..." – who decided this, Harrison, the Beatles or the label?
Clarified. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Formby are you linking to? Formby Sr. was firmly within the music hall era and was a huge name, where as Fomby Jr. post-dated music hall by about 20 years. Also, McGill was never a performer in music hall, which one can easily assume by the current wording. How exactly did the illustrator McGill influence the style?
The Wikipedia article, Music hall, has it lasting until 1960, but maybe that's not accurate. Which Formby has an annual convention of ukulele players in his honour? MacDonald claims the song reminds people of McGill's "seaside postcards". Good catch, though; I'll clarify the point. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is most certainly in honour of Formby Jr. . Music hall became unpopular during WWI and evolved into variety theatre with the latter often, and inaccurately, being referred to as the former. Cassiantotalk 21:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, we are linked to the right Formby, but you object to his description as a music hall performer? Even Alan F. Moore PhD calls him that. It looks like my sources treat this as a distinction without a difference. What do you suggest? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's happened here is that the musicologists are referring to Sr., which I'm conflating with the Beatles' well-known admiration for Jr. The link is wrong, because Moore is referring to 1920s music hall, which must be Sr. Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suspected they were referring to Formby the elder. I doubt whether the Fab Four had even heard of Formby's old man. Yes, it does annoy me when Formby Jr, Gracie Fields, Stanley Holloway, Will Hay, Flanagan and Allen, Max Miller etc.. get referred to as "music hall artists" when it was impossible for them to be owing to the fact that they all post-date the era. They were, if anything, all from the variety era. Cassiantotalk 23:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cover artwork
  • We call them "cutouts" then later, "cut-outs" with a hyphen. Which is correct?
I think its cut-outs, but I profess no expertise regarding hyphens. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think hyphen too. Ping Rothorpe, what's the answer? Cassiantotalk 17:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • "Beatles' press agent Derek Taylor..." – "The Beatles' press agent Derek Taylor..."?
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reception

Looks ok.

Concept
  • "Further, he suggested that indeed..." – redundancy of "indeed". Would this sentence work without it? I think it would.
Removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the rules with quotes, but does using a capital to start it with, mid sentence, constitute a grammatical no, no? I'm thinking here: "and "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!"
This isn't a quote; its a song title. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "It is regarded as having influenced the development of the counterculture of the 1960s." – by who?
Clarified. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is one of the most commercially successful albums in the US..." – Sgt. Pepper right, and not Queen's album?
Clarified. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AmEng revolutionized →the BrEng revolutionised
I think we retain the Engvar of the quoted sources, versus adapting it to our style. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recording and cover

Looks ok.

Tables

All look ok.

I see no other issues Gabe, this look like a an extremely watertight article and one which I have struggled to find much wrong with. This is easily the best album article on Wikipedia, if not the web and in keeping with the wonderful Beatles articles. Please let me know when you arrive at FAC! Cassiantotalk 17:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words and helpful suggestions! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band/archive3&oldid=1138565428"