Talk:Flaming Pie/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thanks for taking it - I was starting to lose hope in this one. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

This looks solid to me on first pass, and ripe for promotion. I've listed some concerns below and directly made a few changes of my own. If you feel I've over-stepped myself on any of these points, let me know or feel free to just revert. Thanks for your continued work on Beatles topics, it's much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The background section could use slightly more context on the Beatles Anthology: filling in the obvious context that McCartney used to be a Beatle, and perhaps a sentence explaining what the Anthology project was.

Will do last with lead. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the language in the "Recording and structure" section for neutrality. "Keen sense" and "indulging" seem like slightly editorializing terms. Let me know if this is okay.
I also broke up some sentences that had 4-5 clauses for readability purposes.

These are alright with me. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The commercial reaction was everything McCartney could have hoped for. " -- this seems a bit editorializing, speculating on what McCartney "could have hoped for" -- it's also a bit vague compared to the specific commercial achievements that follow. Could this sentence simply be cut?

Done removed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"was the best new entry of the week" -- perhaps "was the most commercially successful new entry"? "Best" could imply a broader judgement.

Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reception of the album was relatively weaker" -- was the reception commercially or critically weaker in other countries?

I think it was a bit of both - compare Flaming Pie#Reception (the review template specifically) and Flaming Pie#Charts and certifications to Off the Ground#Release and reception (template) and Off the Ground#Charts, for example. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a source explicitly comparing them? Without a source making the same point, it might be a small bit of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done couldn't find anything, so I've removed it. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Some consider Flaming Pie to be one of McCartney's finest solo outings." -- this opinion doesn't have a clear source; see WP:WEASEL

Done removed, can't find a source at present (I'll probably stumble across it by accident months later, though). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"is a reference to a humorous story" -- can you explain the story in a sentence or two here? I assume you're talking about "It came in a vision--a man appeared in a flaming pie and said unto them "From this day on you are Beatles with an A."" You might just include this as a quotation or a block quotation; it's relevant and funny.
The lead needs to be expanded a bit to better summarize the text. For example, no mention is made of the album's critical and commercial reception. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do/check above two, with background point, tomorrow, and then that should be all the issues fixed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks--I'll check back again tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done quote. Just doing lead, and then it's good (no pun intended). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done lead. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I made a few more tweaks to the lead. Feel free to revert any to which you object. Will do the final checklist in a second. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~Is [1] a reliable source?~~
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~Infobox image technically needs caption ("Flaming Pie album cover") would do fine, I think~~
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

A few last minor points above. I've also marked a dead link, but this isn't an issue for GA. Let me know your thoughts and then I think this is good to go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the Japanese link before in other solo-Beatles articles, but I'm not sure whether you can class it as a RS or not (I didn't add it to FP, it was already here). I'll have a look for an alternate Norway link at some point later. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a query to WP:RS/N regarding the Japanese link. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at this again, I feel a little silly posting to RS/N about this; this really looks like an individual's website without the editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking that makes something a RS. It's probably best to replace it with a reliable source with the same information, or simply remove this sales figure from the article. What do you think? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went to a RS site for Japanese chart positions ([2]) which I hoped might also had sales, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it, even when using Google translator translate the whole page, so I'll just remove it. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done removed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it, then, except to say thanks again for your work to bring this up to GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]