Talk:Strawberry Fields Forever/GA1

GA Review

Lead

• "It was written as a reflection of Lennon's childhood, and is named after a Salvation Army house, as Lennon used to play in the wooded garden as a child." Should this be "... where Lennon used to ..."?
  • done

Recording

• "it took forty-five hours," I'd prefer 45 hours per WP:MOSNUM.
  • done
• "The last verse, "Always, no sometimes...", was a 3-part harmony," Conversely three-part harmony.
  • done
• "Take 1" and "take 7" one capitalised the other not. Also as above, it would be better in text.
  • done
• I think all instruments should be wikilinked first time they are mentioned.
  • done Though the swarmandel doesn't have a Wiki article

General

• I realised this may have been written in Am Eng. Is there any specific reason for this? It would be much better in Br Eng since the Beatles were British.
  • It's because I wrote a lot of it, and I use Am Eng. I'll gladly change it. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Others

• Some more images would benefit the article, even if it was something just like a picture of Lennon or McCartney to break up the text and improve the look of the article.

I recommend including a screencap from the music video. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing something like that, but no one brought it up, so I thought it would not have been fair use.

• Reading some of the talk above, a "Covers" section may be a good idea. However, I think that's something to decide on in the future and not during the GA process. Particularly if you head for FAC, I would suggest some thought / discussion about the benefit of such a section. And has been noted, it would be much better as a prose section, not a list.

It's only essential if there's some really notable covers. I wouldn't suggest adding a covers section at this point, but when this gets closer to FAC range, I suggest Kodster take a look at the covers section in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for an example of how to create such a section. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold for the above points to be addressed or corrected. Secondly I note a peer review process is undergoing, although potentially towards the end of the process. I'll leave it on hold until that is closed, unless it is apparent nothing much else is going to change. Peanut4 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I closed the Peer Review. Besides the Covers section, which will be dealt with later on as the article slowly makes its way to Featured Article Candidacy (hopefully), every improvement has been dealt with. You may take the appropriate action now. Again, thank you for reviewing this article. :-) Cheers! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've worked very hard on this, and I'll make the improvements that you and WesleyDodds have suggested. Cheers! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes, but I have just gone through this article, and have improved/cleaned a lot of text. Sorry if I have confused the review. :(--andreasegde (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just put a photo in of the piano and the paint, and one of Kenwood, as both are mentioned in the article.. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good work. All the best with working this up to FAC. And with that in mind, I've just spotted a slight MOS error in the references - not enough to stop me passing it but something that will need addressing before FAC. p642 etc should be p. 642. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!! Thank you so much! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)