Talk:The Beatles in Hamburg/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. SilkTork *^YES! 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

This is a new to mainspace article, having been started on May 13. The article has been written entirely by User:Andreasegde. Impressive. The topic is not likely to provoke edit wars, however I'd like to see it hang around for at least 7 days before deciding on the GA status just to ensure it is stable. SilkTork *^YES! 09:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence should establish the notability of the topic. Example: "The Beatles' residency in Hamburg, during which they were the house band at the Kaiserkeller, tightened their performance skills, formed their image and attitude, established their reputation, and led to the recording of their first record which brought them to the attention of Brian Epstein who would become their manager."

The second paragraph of the lead is a bit muddled. The lead should be an overview of the main points rather than precise detail.

Just looking at the content list I can see that the lead doesn't reflect the contents. The lead doesn't mention the styling of The Beatles by Kirchherr and Voormann. There's no mention of Sutcliffe's death.

The lead needs a complete rewrite.

The background section should be called Background. "A manager and a drummer" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia as it doesn't describe what the section is about. The section could be tightened to give more focus to the actual developments before Hamburg. Currently it is bits of information and the reader is expected to do a lot of work to establish what is happening. It reads like information has been found and placed in there without much regard to shaping it for meaning.

There is hardly anything on the performances. The performances and critical and expert reflection on the performances on the importance of this Hamburg period on The Beatles needs to be a section by itself.

I think there is a fair bit of stuff to do. I'll put this review on hold to the end of May to allow the issues to be discussed and addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 11:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Will do.--andreasegde (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

An impressive amount of material has been gathered in a short space of time. This article is much needed, and is very promising. It does need some attention given to the structure though with possible new sections, and the Lead needs a complete rewrite. Putting the review on hold until the end of May to allow these issues to be discussed and addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 11:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas about what to do in detail?--andreasegde (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Beatles in Hamburg/GA1. SilkTork *^YES! 07:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started looking at the Lead and article structure. I could make some changes to these today along the lines suggested unless this clashes with something someone's already started. PL290 (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, PL290. In fact, nicer than nice, and very, very nice, and if I may say so, nice. :)--andreasegde (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it! Your addition of the then-current band member names is a stroke of genius and the icing on the cake.

While I was studying the article to create the summary, I made a list of various tweaks which I've today started applying. I see you're still working on the article too, so I'll try not to cause you too many edit conflicts (mine can wait). I'll continue, on and off, but let me know if it drives you crazy at any point and I'll stop and come back to it later. PL290 (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to it. I'm off for today and the whole of tomorrow.--andreasegde (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know, I know. Now I'm really OFF... :))--andreasegde (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very impressed at the improvements. I'll drop in later to look at them more closely, but that's very, very encouraging! SilkTork *^YES! 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

This article has really taken off. It's such an important article to have, and I'm so pleased to see the way it has developed and is continuing to develop. There is still work to be done on the lead, and on fine-tuning the sections and their contents, but the article meets the GA criteria so I've passed it. Push on and this should be a candidate for Featured Article. Good luck! SilkTork *^YES! 18:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]