Wikipedia:Peer review/The Beatles timeline/archive1

The Beatles timeline[edit]

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review, with the intention of eventually raising it to FL status, because it is a long, complex, process to create it, so I thought I'd better get input before I move on too far with it. I would like to know whether the list is formatted correctly, what I could add to the prose, and whether the coverage is of the right depth.

I have looked at FL-rated timelines, such as Timeline of Jane Austen, and they compare the subject's works with current affairs of the time. I do not believe that would be faesable, due to the extreme detail and accuracy of this article. However, if you believe this is the only way it could become featured, I will happily re-format it to matc that style.

I would be very grateful for any input anyone can provide, even if it is a one sentence telling me the timeline is totally useless.

Thanks, Dendodge _T\^C 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

The article is obviously at a quite early stage in its development. The approach taken seems to be to record individually every appearance made by the Beatles over the six or so years they operated as a group – the "extreme detail" approach. This will make for a very long timeline - it's already pretty lengthy, and it only goes to 1963 at the moment. Are you absolutely sure that this is the best approach?
The active years of the Beatles as a performing/recording group, roughly encompassing the 1960s, were pivotal in popular culture – the "swinging sixties" – and it would in my view be a great shame not to be showing anything else that was going on in the world of music, alongside the Beatles' years of fame. Likewise, the outside world was pretty tumultuous during those years, and it would be beneficial to have some of this information in parallel to the timeline: the Profumo affair and the fall of Macmillan; the Kennedy assassinations; Vietnam; the Prague Spring and the student protests of 1968, etc., etc. – these were the background to the Beatles. Surely worth acknowledging?
So, if it were up to me, I think I would reduce the detail in the main timeline, by summarising routine appearances as "on tour" without exhaustively listing them, restrict the main timeline to events that were truly significant, and I would include columns, as per the Jane Austen timeline, that would enable me to illustrate parallel musical and other events. That is the way I would do it, but you are of course entitled to do it your way.
A minor point: can you tell me what the little sporadic blocks of colour on the right of the list are for? They don't seem related to your colours key.

Sorry if this isn't much help to you, but it may give you some alternative ideas on how to proceed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input—that's exactly the kind of thing I was after.

The colours down the right hand side refer to location, and are mentioned in the key.

We have discussed splitting this into 2 articles, one of which uses the 3-column approach and the other of which is the completed version of the timeline as it is now. How does that sound to you? Dendodge _T\^C 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]