Talk:Back to the Egg/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll give this a go. Lympne Castle is just down the road from me and I've gigged there.

Lead

• Once you've mentioned Abbey Road Studios once, I think subsequent references to "Abbey Road" should suffice.

• Prior to the release of the album in their homeland, "Old Siam Sir" was released as a single in the UK" would sit better as "Prior to the release of the album in the UK, "Old Siam Sir" was released as a single."

Background

• Might it just be worth qualifying Paul McCartney's role in the band. Just something like "band leader" would do. Or is that really stating the blindingly obvious?

• "working behind the scenes" - can you reword this? It took me a minute to work out what the connection was between Denny Laine, The David Essex Show and Laurence Juber.

• "MPL Communications" - as above, qualify what this is (McCartney's management company)

• "He was also told" - who was, Juber or Laine?

• "as Juber recalled" - Juber is already mentioned in this sentence, "he" will suffice

Music and lyrics

• In general, we need some consistency between names. Since I would expect Paul and Linda to both be mentioned at various points in the article, per WP:LASTNAME I would use their first names. I think it's reasonably well documented that incidents that have Paul but not Linda are pretty rare, and so things like "McCartney was staying in Scotland" should probably be "the McCartneys were staying in Scotland".

• Again and Again and Again is a circular reference back to that.

• "before being finished by McCartney and Laine later on" - later on is redundant

• "The guitar solo, played by Juber...." this whole sentence is a bit clunky and might sit better as two instead.

• "The lyrics of "After the Ball"" - the previous sentence talks about this song, so "Its lyrics" will do here

• "Harry 2002" and "Miles; Badman 2001" are missing page numbers. I have an earlier print of Badman and if you think I'm trawling through all of it to verify a particular claim, think again! ;-)

• "It features readings by Harold Margary of the books" - "It features Harold Margary reading" sounds better

• "As a result, the McCartney demo" - don't need "McCartney" here as we know from the context that it's his demo

Recording

• The quotation is a bit long and a borderline copyvio - can you chop it down a bit?

• "On 29 June 1978, Wings settled into" - would "arrived at" be better than "settled into"

• Do we know anything about why the band recorded at Port Lympne?

• "Tracks record were" - should be "Tracks recorded were"

• "Overdubs for the were laid down in November " - what does this sentence mean?

• MPL Communications is already wikilinked once earlier

• "The latter song was recorded as a demo for the Mills Brothers, but as they turned down to record the song without being paid, Wings released their version." - this sentence is a repeat of information in the previous section

Release and legacy

• "The single reached number 5 in the US and UK" - "in both countries" would be simpler

• "On 5 June, filming changed location to the inside of an aircraft hangar where the videos for "Spin It On" and "Getting Closer" were filmed" - could we reword one of "filming"/"filmed"? It sounds a bit redundant (this issue appears elsewhere in the paragraph about videos)

• MPL Communications overlinked again

• "The album cover, which was created by Hipgnosis, involves Wings" - suggest "The album cover was created by Hipgnosis and shows Wings" would be better

• "with the results becoming McCartney II (1980)" - do we normally put years in brackets like this? Suggest "with the results being released on McCartney II the following year"

• "On 14 August, the second single in the US was" - this doesn't scan right - how about "The second single in the US was "Arrow Through Me", backed with "Old Siam Sir", released on 14 August"

• "However, the tour ended..." this sentence needs reworking. How about "However, the tour ended after the group entered Japan on 16 January 1980 when airport staff discovered 7.7 ounces of cannabis in Paul's luggage and arrested him."

• "In October 1985, McCartney had left Columbia" - "had" is grammatically incorrect, and how is this sentence relevant?"

Personnel

" A comma is missing between "guitar" and "keyboard" for Paul McCartney's credits

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just minor issues to resolve, so I'm putting this on hold pending resolution of those. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. Quick question, only because I ran it by Yeepsi a while back, but I think it coincided with him taking a lengthy (and well-deserved) break, so he probably missed it on his return. Do you not think the Reception section should have a reviewer ratings box? The article certainly carried one back in November. Personally, I think the box adds something to an article, visually; and as I said to Yeepsi, it conveys the extent of the negativity critics had/have for the album better perhaps than the quotes selected in the text. Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A reviewer box would certainly be consistent with most album articles, but the presence or absence of one is not part of the GA criteria, so I didn't bring it up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333: sorry, this has taken me forever, and problems with the server haven't helped. I know you said "Just minor issues to resolve", but … As you'll see, I've ended up reworking the whole piece, addressing the issues you raised but also coming across others to do with the focus of the article. In some cases, I found info belonged in other articles: I've added plenty to Back to the Egg (TV special), a line or two to Laurence Juber, and intend to add details to Wings (band), about the unusually casual recruitment process in 1978 and particulars of the CBS/Columbia deal; other stuff I've cut would sit very well in Steve Holly, Rockestra Theme or Goodnight Tonight, or in song articles that don't currently exist (but should do). At the same time, some important points were missing to do with the context in which Egg was made, and particularly the album's so-called "working band" concept. Hopefully my comments with each edit provide more in the way of explanation.

I'm always a bit wary of taking on another editor's article (because I invariably seem to turn the thing upside down), especially in this case, because these weren't changes that came up in the GAR. Anyway, see what you think, Ritchie – I'll probably give it a quick read-through myself over the next day or so, and perform some minor c/e in places. Perhaps we're well outside the accepted "hold" period by now? No probs if so; a renom awaits. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll fail this for inactivity, and you can renominate it as the article went through an entire rewrite while on GAN and the original GA nominator seems to be on wikibreak if that what you wanted. Thanks Secret ^account 04:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)