Wikipedia:Peer review/The Beatles (album)/archive2

The Beatles (album)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The Beatles, or if you prefer, "the White Album", is a roller coaster ride of watching the Beatles go from a group in harmony to four solo artists at loggerheads with each other. Or is it a demonstration of increased creativity of the band? Or is it a single album padded out to be a double to keep everyone quiet? If George Harrison was "not guilty", was Yoko Ono? Was Paul McCartney a nice guy trying to keep the group together or an ego-maniac who threw his toys out of the pram when Ringo wouldn't play the drums just so? Whatever the case, the article passed GAN in mid-2014 and has seen regular attention and traffic since to check the balance of neutrality and comprehensiveness is kept in check.

@Dr. Blofeld: thinks the article is a worthy candidate to take to FAC, and has bluntly told me to "grow a pair" and take it there, and that's why this PR is open. He recommends pinging @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton:, @SchroCat: and @Wehwalt: for views, and I think @JG66: is as committed to keeping the quality of this article in check as I am.

Up-front, I think it's worth declaring my POV - there are more Beatles sources than you can shake a badger at, but my favourites are Mark Lewisohn's Sessions and Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, though the latter has a serious POV (I think he doesn't like "Helter Skelter"), you can spot it a mile off. Of course, my favourites may not be yours!

Discuss. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)...don't forget me! Cassianto ^Talk 18:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, I think you have a number of articles, including this, The Who and Keith Moon articles which are approaching FA standard and you need an injection of confidence or "cajones" into your own abilities that it's achievable. Didn't mean to be blunt, but just to try to get you to see that there is no such thing as perfection.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more likely, cojones. Boxes won't help. - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah Cajones, balls of steel crates ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

I'll work through slowly if that's OK; my time on here is limited, so these comments will be sporadic. It would only seem right that I comment here, in memory of our former Beatles expert, GabeMc. I will adjust minor fixes as I go, but please feel free to alter or revert as you see fit. Cassianto ^Talk 18:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I tend to do when people are having creative bursts of copyediting is leave them to it, and when they've finished, re-read anything and change whatever jars or looks odd. Provided your quality of prose is better than what one might read on /b/ in 4chan, I'm easy. I miss GabeMc :-( Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the songs for The Beatles..." -- I can't quite remember the format for this, but the capital "T" looks odd in mid-sentence. Rothorpe, could you remind me? -- Ah, I just saw that this was the album and not "the Beatles, which I think is correct when talking about the group.

Blood, sweat and tears was poured over the RfC that concluded, once and for all, that the group had a lower "T". I don't think we got consensus on the album though, and I've tried to avoid it where possible, but sometimes you've got repetition to avoid, so it's got to be used. This is one of those questions that I try and change the subject and talk about the weather :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Beatles author Ian MacDonald said Sgt Pepper was "shaped by LSD"," -- Do we know if he knew that for a fact, or was it his thinking? If the latter, "said" is too strong an assertion here.

I have the source in question here. MacDonald is summing up recording sessions, and the full sentence is "While half these claims [BBC bans and criticism about promoting drugs] were spurious, it would be silly to pretend that Sgt. Pepper wasn't fundamentally shaped by LSD. " Which makes the "clean living" environment of India nine months later more of a contrast. As for knowing it, well this is a transcript of an interview referring to a Life Magazine piece on 16 June 1967 in which McCartney was the first musician to "come out" as using LSD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 259–264 are the same and will need combining. Cassianto ^Talk 23:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They've got the same text but the links are different (they are all links to AllMusic to confirm a particular year of reissue and its serial number). I've disambiguated them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Style question: Hi Cassianto. I notice you're been adding a definite article before "musicologist Walter Everett", "author Mark Lewisohn" and the like, even though all such examples (I think I'm right in saying) didn't carry one here previously. I realise there are two schools of thought on this false title issue. Personally, I find the constant mentions of "the musicologist …", "the producer …", "the sound engineer …", "the music critic …" etc. in music articles really jarring; it's more formal, but I'd say overly formal. (I remember a couple of editors queried the same point as, or just after, Sgt. Pepper made FA. One even started removing each "the", only to then give up and self-revert once they'd seen just how many examples there were in the article.) So, are you really wedded to the idea of avoiding these false titles? It's not incorrect to say "when sound engineer Ken Scott played back the tape", as I understand it – simply a case of personal preference, no? JG66 (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not personal preference: it's good (British) English, and yes, unless you're American or a journalist, or speaking informally, it's wrong to say "when sound engineer Ken Scott..." – SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am wedded to the idea, yes. It's good common English and is taught at all English universities. Are you an American by any chance? I only ask as it's mainly the yanks who think it's a style thing. Omitting the definite article makes the introducer sound like it's coming out of red top newspaper or celebrity magazine. I won't patronise you by reminding you that this is neither. Cassianto ^Talk 08:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure in Miles' book there's a bit during recording the album where Paul gets fed up with Yoko saying "Beatles do this", "Beatles do that" and bluntly saying "er, it's The (sorry, the) Beatles, love". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

Generally comprehensive and reads well, but a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation is capitalised, as it is in the linked article, but I can't see why. It's no more a proper noun than yoga. I think it should be lc

I think it is a specific course or set of ideals set up by one individual rather than a general concept. I think other, similar, examples are Jivamukti Yoga, Six Sigma and Belbin Team Inventory.

as he could not stomach the Indian food — perhaps lose "the"?

I've removed "Indian" instead, we already know the group are in India, and food served in India is not necessarily the same as Indian food served abroad, which might invite confusion.

group financially with a series of financially unsuccessful projects— inelegant repetition

second one removed

had become fed up (x2)—"disenchanted" or similar might be more encyclopaedic

I've gone with "disillusioned with the sessions", "disliked" and "had lost interest with" respectively

Снова в СССР. Redirected linked article has second word capitalised in the title but lc in the text. Is your version definitely right?

This took a while to research, but from what I can tell, the title is in all-caps on the (Russian) cover, but a small footnote on the original sleeve (snapshot here) suggests "в" (ie: "in the") should be in lower case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Commercial performance" is very Anglophone, with only the the US and UK mentioned. I know you tabulate success elsewhere lower in your article, but at least a passing mention of its success in other countries would not come amiss in this section

JG66 has done a lot of work in this area and pretty much redone the whole thing from the ground up - perhaps he would care to comment? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I don't understand your comment above. All I'm suggesting is that some passing mention is made in that section of success other than in the US and UK. I'm not clear why that involves or has involved "a lot of work", one sentence will do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that JG66 should add this onto his "todo" list while he's working on "Commercial performance" and "Critical reception". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning to do anything to the "Commercial performance" section (all I'd suggest is that it should sit above Critical reception). It's only "Critical reception" and "Cultural responses" that we've been discussing on the talk page and that, yes, I've rewritten in a sandbox, hoping for more comments on the album's talk page. JG66 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll have a look. Given the influence from India and Japan on the album, documenting commercial performance in those countries definitely has merit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref223 appears to be faulty

I don't really understand how Template:Certification Table Entry is supposed to work. I wonder if anyone else does? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Sagaciousphil[edit]

Just a quick drive-by: ref # 223 used twice in the Certifications table (Music Canada) is throwing up a ref error as having differing content. Sorry, but I have no idea how to fix it myself in the tables set up like that ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a note on the template's talk page. I fear I am repeating a question asked further up the page, but hopefully somebody will explain what's going on. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promissory note from Tim riley[edit]

The review is getting plenty of trade at the moment, and I'll look in again in a few days' time. Tim riley talk 17:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Interesting stuff and very high quality. I've made a couple of minor tweaks here and there that you can see in the history. A few other points:

Personal issues

The sentence "On 22 August, during the session for "Back in the U.S.S.R.", Starr abruptly left the studio, feeling that his role in the group was peripheral compared to the other members, and was upset at McCartney's constant criticism of his drumming on the track." is a little cumbersome. Perhaps a semi-colon in the middle to make it "On 22 August, during the session for "Back in the U.S.S.R.", Starr abruptly left the studio,[43] feeling that his role in the group was peripheral compared to the other members; he was also upset at McCartney's constant criticism of his drumming on the track."?

Songs

"Musical hall"? Do you mean "music hall"?

Fixed (just out of interest, how long has this been in the article, an automatic spell checker wouldn't spot it but a proof-read might)? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side two

"calling him a "stupid get"": git, surely (Most of the lyrics I've seen of the song on a quick websearch show it as git)?

See Talk:The Beatles (album)/Archive 2#"Stupid git" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to the start of the Release section and I'll pick up the remainder soon. – SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Packaging

"themselves become iconic": iconic, like seminal, is a bit of a red flag unless cited (preferably with a name in the text)

Critical reception

You link pastiche to the wikitionary here, but you should probably have it earlier – under Side one, "a pastiche of ska music"

Cultural responses

I'd move all the references to Charles Manson out from the song-by-song breakdown, and down into this bit. Firstly it's a repetition as it stands, and secondly it's probably best to leave the song-by-song version as being about the songs themselves, rather than how they were misinterpreted by a nutter

An excellent read and worth strongly considering a run at FAC, of you can get Tim riley and/or Brianboulton to join in the fun. Drop me a line when you get there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

"The Beatles has led to the work being recognised as "popular music's first postmodern album" That is a hefty, hefty claim. Just one quote by one person ain't gonna hack it, especially when the quote doesn't mentioned who recognized them in this way. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...were misinterpreted with messages he did not intend." If he didn't mean it, then why did he sing it? Chronology of two versions irrelevant. If Lennon wanted to walk away from his lyrics, give a direct quote of him saying that, or don't put words in his mouth. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, I agree – a lazy, holding statement on my part. I've just rewritten that text: [1]. As mentioned on the article's talk page, I intend to paste in replacement Critical Reception and Cultural Responses sections, which I've been working on in a sandbox. Thanks for that, JG66 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article says Clapton's gave Harrison the guitar later named "Lucy" after recording the song; Lucy article says otherwise. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of Manson or in/out in the lede; WP:LEDE says mention controversies. Probably wanna re-check the whole lede anyhow. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at later sections and read related articles via JSTOR, the more work I think those sections need. Forex, the whole "postmodern" issue... you open a large door when you say the White Album is postmodern, which it kinda... isn't, not really, though it's a reasonable misunderstanding. The Cultural responses section in particular needs to be considered carefully. And so on. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed reference styles. Why are full references to books included in the citations section? These need to be moved down to Sources. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a harv error in the very last reference [Womack, Kenneth; Davis, Todd (2012)]. I am not sure whether it should just be deleted, or perhaps a cite to Womack 2009 was given the wrong year... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]