Talk:Back to the Egg/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 05:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figure I should review something after GAN'ing something.

"before filming a series of promotional videos, in Lympne and elsewhere, for what became the Back to the Egg TV special." - don't think commas are needed, personally

Ah yes, I'd made "in Lympne and elsewhere" a parenthetical statement with commas simply to make for an easier read, as the sentence is quite long. For this reason, I've left in the second comma (before "for what became the Back to the Egg TV special") – is that okay, do you think? JG66 (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the background section, are those dollar totals USD? In what year's currency? Inflated?

Good point – thank you. You've helped me focus on what's really important in that statement – i.e., not how much the newcomers got relative to the others, necessarily, but the disparity. I've reworded ("a weekly sum equating to less than one-fifth of that paid to McCartney …"). JG66 (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"29 June 1978" - does this need a comma after the date? I'm not sure with British dating

That's fine as is, actually. The comma would only be needed if we said: "On 29 June 1978, the recording sessions for Back to the Egg began at Spirit of Ranachan Studios …" Is that what you meant, after "1978", or did you mean after the month? JG66 (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"During sessions lasting through to 29 September,[65] the band recorded "We're Open Tonight", "Love Awake", "After the Ball", "Million Miles", "Reception" and "The Broadcast".[23]" - I think the structure would work better as "Sessions lasted through 29 September, during which the band recorded…"

You could well be right – I can see I was trying to avoid mirroring the earlier "Sessions at Spirit of Ranachan lasted until 27 July, during which the band taped and added overdubs …" I'm always keen to vary the wording and structures as much as possible (hopefully it makes for a better read), so I'd like to keep it as is, if possible ... Your call! JG66 (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is really solid! These were the only things I could find, so I'd be happy to pass if these were addressed. :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Hurricanehink, especially as I was thinking this GAN would sit around gathering dust for months yet(!). Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Best, JG66 (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the quick replies, and for working on music articles :) Sir Paul McCartney should appreciate the work you're doing, heh. I'm happy to pass, and I'm honestly quite surprised for how good quality it was. For what it's worth, these comments I made here were borderline at best, that is I had to dig deep a bit to find anything remotely that could be changed. If you're going for FAC, it's well on its way, as the prose is good and so are the images/quote boxes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, and thank you again, Hurricanehink – particularly for your compliments. Yeah, not one of Macca's triumphs, but I find a bit of adversity makes for a much more interesting article to write, you know? By the way, on my talk, it seems the article failed! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For sure the failure makes it more interesting. If it were all glowing reviews, then that wouldn't make for a very interesting reception section :) And weird about the failure! I swear I passed it, hah. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]