Wikipedia:Peer review/Maxwell's Silver Hammer/archive1

Maxwell's Silver Hammer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Hey, I'm working on this article. I made a FAC but it failed, so I made all the corrections and I'm here to look for any other issues it might have.

Thanks, BernaBotto (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!

I read through the article and it is a great article in my opinion, however I believe some more citations in the "Commentary by band members" could be used to improve and add more credibility to the article. Happy holidays! Sophisticatedevening (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophisticatedevening: Happy holidays! I made this request before my review been reversed, so the article is probably fine rn. BernaBotto (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things I immediately spotted in this article (some of which also pertaining to your GA nom of "Her Majesty"):

A lot of WP:OVERQUOTE: the "Retrospective assessments and legacy" section is almost entirely made up of quotes by other authors, with little prose connecting the three together. Same with the "contemporary reviews" section; see WP:RECEPTION for some tips on improving these sections
There is some information in the lead not included in the article's body, which goes against MOS:INTRO --- see WP:LEADDD
- Also check for WP:LEADCITE. Not a requirement, but generally one should be able to do away with citations in article leads altogether if the information there is truly a summary of the rest of the article
No composition or lyrics section, a must in any song article
- No release section, either. This is also a necessity, but I understand that a song like this may not warrant a dedicated section and could probably be merged into the background
As has been mentioned to you previously, the Beatles Bible is not a reliable source per WP:SPS
I also see some facts upon a quick Google search which are not included in the article: for instance, Rolling Stone reported on the auctioning of the song's original handwritten lyrics, something which may or may not be trivia; discretion is necessary, but it certainly shows that the article is not yet comprehensive

These are just some of the things you should pay attention to if you plan to continue working through this article. Good luck, and happy holidays! Leafy46 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

"The song is about a student named Maxwell Edison who commits murders with a hammer, with the dark lyrics disguised by an upbeat sound." - I would suggest a sentence split here, as this structure has been discouraged on some of my FACs. Try "The song is about a student named Maxwell Edison who commits murders with a hammer, and it uses an upbeat sound to disguise the dark lyrics."
"The song was initially rehearsed during the Get Back sessions in January 1969" - You could introduce what Get Back is, because I did assume this was an officially released album upon first reading this.
The alt text field for the cover should not be empty.
Most recent FAs use asterisks, not flatlist, to separate genres in the infobox. That has been preferable for the last few years.
Link Paul McCartney and mention the full name upon first occurrence in the article body.
It is a bit jarring that the Beatles are not mentioned at all in the Background section and the first mention in the article body happens in the Recording section. In any case, the first mention should be linked again.
You could add the release year for the self-titled album.
"This influence is reflected in the story and tone of "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", and also explains how McCartney came across Jarry's word "pataphysical", which occurs in the lyrics." - This should be attributed if McCartney himself has not stated he discovered the word in Jarry's work.
"Sixteen takes of the rhythm track were made" - Some type of wikilink should be included for "rhythm track" to explain the concept to unfamiliar readers.
The article cannot be an FA with citation needed and better source needed tags.
The big quote from Mendelsohn should be paraphrased.
There seems to be a lot of negative reviewing from critics, which currently isn't mentioned in the lead section. This is a weightage issue.
You want to avoid sentences like "Their version became a hit in Canada" in wikivoice, as this is subjective. There may be someone who does not consider it a hit, especially since an entry on the main Canadian chart does not seem to have happened? This is just a single version, so the section title should also not be plural.

I haven't gotten to check out the unsuccessful FAC, so apologies if the comments here are repeating anything. I do not believe this is ready to be nominated there again, but hopefully this review has been helpful.--N Ø 13:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]