Wikipedia:Peer review/The Beatles/archive2

The Beatles

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 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a Vital Article and it's about one of the most important bands of all time, blah blah blah (just kidding).

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I did the previous peer review and note that, while there are numerous improvements, there are still several points from the previous PR that have not been fixed, so here they are again first:

I think for such a long and detailed article, the lead needs to be expanded. My rule of thumb is that if it is a section header it should be in the lead. See WP:LEAD
- Done although there may be some repetition - I'll fix it when (and if) I notice it. Could maybe do with some formatting...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, someone reverted it...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) also recommends not using the article title in headers (although if the album The Beatles were a heading that would be OK). So "1960–70: The Beatles " could just be "1960–70"
- New: I note "1970–present: After The Beatles" would also apparently violate this
  - done both...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one problem this has is relative weight for the various topics. ~~For example, there is still no mention of the films A Hard Day's Night or Help in the "1960–70: The Beatles" section.~~ The Hamburg section also seems relatively large. See WP:WEIGHT
- This is an ongoing problem. Whenever WP:WEIGHT is brought up with this article (esp. in the case of detracting info), hardcore Beatles fans point to criterion 1 (b), comprehensive. They say that the article should have just about every fact imaginable about the Beatles. This is going to be a hard one to work out. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several one or two sentence paragraphs that should be expanded or merged into other paragraphs
- done, they were better merged into other paragraphs, so I did. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Musical evolution" seems to focus just on 1965 to 1967, but as the article is on their whole career I think it should start from the beginning (covers etc) and go all the way to the end.
Achievements section seems like it would go better at the end. At FAC there might be some who call it a Trivia section, which is a no no. This is still two bullet points,
- done but not by me. Someone removed it and we're trying to incorporate it into the text...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would put the more text-y things like Song catalogue before more list-y things
- done Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A model article is often useful - there are several FAs on musical groups that would be helpful.

Now for the new stuff:

Article needs more references, for example CD releases and Song catalogue have ZERO refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
Ref 33 is just "null"
- Partly done I have removed the ref and intend to add a working one when I get home...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My home internet's down, and this computer won't let me on any websites besides Wikipedia, BBC and Google, so someone else'll have to find a ref I'm afraid...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - done looked at the history to find that I erased the ref by accident. :( Sorry. Anyway, I got it back. But it still needs the page # so that we can put the citation in the "References" section and use the abbreviated ref there. I don't have the book, so if anyone does, please look it up. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 13:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The book is The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn, but I don't have the book, so I don't know the page number. Google Books doesn't have a preview, so if someone has the book or could get it, it would help.
      - done Thank you, Johnwz. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has several one or two sentence paragraphs that break up the flow and should be combined or perhaps expanded.
- done Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 13:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images should be set to thumb per WP:MOS#Images to allow user preferences to take over.
- done I don't know who did it, but they are all thumbs now...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Studio years covers three years and some of the most amazing and influential albums in rock in only seven paragraphs, the first three of which are only two sentences each. Surely this could be expanded.
Shouldn't there be some sort of Crtical reception section?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll start off by saying I wrote R.E.M. (a Feature Article promoted in January) to be a model for all future band articles. When in doubt, compare the Beatles article to that one to see what you need to do next. Everything this article is missing is addressed in that article: a comprehensive lead, a musical style section, a secton about the band's legacy, the use of relevant soundclips for educational commentary, and so on. In some respects, working on the Beatles is easier. For example, both bands have about the same amount of albums, but the Beatles were around for only ten years or so, while R.E.M. has been together for over 25 years, the history section for this article should be shorter (in theory). Now:

I don't think an entire section needs to be devoted to a backlash against the group in 1966. While a lot of crazy stuff happened that year, there have been Beatles detractors and faux pas by the group at other times as well. In deference to creating a neutral POV throughout the article, approach the band history section as straight history, addressing controversies as they occured instead of devoting an entire section to them.
There's too much detail about the origins of the group's breakthrough success in the US.
Conversely, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper are glossed over in two sentences. The post-1966 years need definite expansion. For starters, I know Sgt. Pepper won the Grammu for Album of the Year, so find a cite for that and mention it in the prose.
Try and tighten the "post-breakup" section
some points to keep in mind when creating the musical style section: John and Paul often said one would start a song and the other would finish; describe their individual instrument styles; talk about their in-studio experiments; and probably most importantly, mention their oft-discussed use of three-part harmonies. Also, I have a Guitar World article where George Harrison said that the Beatles' sound was a result of playing the Hamburg clubs: having to play a wide array of cover material from rock songs to pop hits, they learned a lot of unusual chords, which would later crop up in their song-writing.

Those are some starter tips. If you need any further help, feel free to contact me directly on my talk page. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]