Talk:We're Only in It for the Money

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:We're Only in It for the Money/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 22:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am a slow reviewer, so if there is a desire to have the review done soon, then let me know and I'll withdraw now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements rather than make long lists, though sometimes I will make a general comment, especially if there is a lot of work needed. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, so the likelihood of a response is quite low. Just letting you know as you do this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Failed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Pass

• Reference section. There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Stable. No edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sources. Statements are supported by cites to appropriate sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• No indications of original research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• No indications of bias. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Images OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

*Image. File:ForTheMoney.jpg - can the use of this image be checked as appropriate for this article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

*Focus. In what manner is Kellgren's opinion of Zappa important to this article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• The prose is possibly acceptable as meaning is conveyed; however it doesn't flow well, with the feeling that the information has been assembled in pieces. There are some short paragraphs. Some of the information is scattered and could be tighter organised. The first two paragraphs of Release are about the cover art, then a paragraph about the censoring, then a mixed paragraph starting with the album's placing in the charts, Zappa's dissatisfaction with the quality of the album, and a quote from Zappa regarding the censorship. But we don't get the release date. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reception. Allmusic's and Christgau's comments are part of the legacy, as they are not reviews contemporary with the release, while the Legacy section is mainly about re-releases rather than the impact, importance and considered critical opinion of the album. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Reorganised. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Coverage. Some material on the importance of the album would be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hold

On hold for seven days to allow major contributors to address the concerns above. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fail

There's been no response to the review. Having looked closely at the article today, there is more work needed doing than I am willing to do myself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Flower Punk and punk subculture?

The "lyrical themes" section seems to imply that the title of the song "Flower Punk" refers to a punk in the punk rock subculture sense of the word. This isn't even possible since no such culture existed in 1968, and even if you could argue that something similar did, it would not have been referred to as "punk" as that term didn't emerge until the mid-70s. I think this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.47.127 (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A Few Words About Packaging

I'm not exactly sure how you would word it , or add it to the main body of the article , so , I'll leave these observances HERE , and the powers that be , can use or abuse this information to their hearts content … or not.

The original issue - like Sgt. Pepper - also came with an insert sheet of cut outs. ( Frank's beard , mustache , and a strand of long hair , a Mothers group photo "standee" , two badges ( a nipple and a photo of one of the record company executives. ) , and a distorted dollar bill featuring Billy's belly in place of a president.

Of interest , is the interior notes , even after the mandated change , the notes still refer to the now "outer sleeve" as the gatefold , and the now "gatefold" as the front cover!

It should also be noted , it's not just the front of Sgt.Pepper that got parodied … the band against a yellow background parodies Pepper's gatefold ( Roy Estrada is even cradling his legs like Paul McCartney. ) , and the band against a red background with one member facing the opposite way - the back cover of Pepper - is also parodied. "Motorhead" is the forward facing Mother - in the McCartney position - holding a blank piece of paper. And , whereas as the Mothers hands do not spell out anything - The Beatles hands spell out "love" - Frank is making a hand gesture , which is either "peace" or "up yours" depending on your country of origin. 75.104.174.177 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is depicted?

A list of the people depicted in the Sgt Pepper parody group photo would be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But only if the list is available in some reliable source. Otherwise it would be wp:original research, alas. Do we have such a source? Hope we do. - DVdm (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)