Wikipedia:Peer review/Strawberry Fields Forever/archive2

Strawberry Fields Forever edit

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is now a Good Article, and I would like to make it Featured.

Thanks, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
  - http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/HEADER/editorial.shtml
    - Firstly, you have the wrong web address. The reference used is a reliable source written by Alan W. Pollack (note the wikilink, showing that he does in fact have a Wikipedia article and has established notability). The address is "http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/shtml". Thanks, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://oldies.about.com/od/thebeatlessongs/a/strawberryfield.htm
  - http://www.beatlesbible.com/ (And a couple of the refs to this are lacking publisher information)
  - http://www.norwegianwood.org/beatles/disko/uklp/blue.htm
    - Replaced.
  - https://www.nostalgiafamilyvideo.com/browse2.asp?MOVE=NEXT&cat=23&CurrentPage=17 and does this site have the right to host this as far as copyright?
    - Removed
- This link returns nothing.
  - Replaced.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is good, but it needs a lot of polish to get through FAC problem free. Here are some suggestions - it is also a good idea to look at some recent FAs on songs and check that this follows them on MOS issues, and to watch FAC and see what articles are getting dinged for. Here are some specific suggestions:

Image captions need punctuation if they are complete sentences, so add a full stop to the Strawberry Fields gate image caption and check all the others (no full stop if not a sentnece either)
- I don't believe that the caption is a full sentence. It says, "The gatepost to Strawberry Field, which is now a popular tourist attraction in Liverpool". If it said "The gatepost to Strawberry Field is now a popular tourist..." (which eliminates the which and makes the caption a complete sentence), then it would need a period. But now, it doesn't. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be three paragraphs for an article of this length. I also think the lead needs to flow better - right now the first paragraph jumps around in topics.
Needs a copyedit - professional prose is a FA requirement, see WP:WIAFA but again a sentence from the lead Lennon wrote the song as a reflection of his childhood, and is named after a Salvation Army house, where Lennon used to play in the wooded garden as a child. The subject is Lennon, so the second clause means Lennon is named for a Slavation Army house. Watch tense too - he wrote the song (past) but it is named (present), and he used to play (past again). How about using "he" instead of Lennon a second time in one sentence? See WP:PRV for copyeditors
- I fixed that example (that was very awkward, so I changed the wording), and I'll get a CE in too.
Make sure to provide context to the reader - I would identify Liverpool as the site of the original Strawberry Fields in the leaqd (just as New York City is identified for Central Park and its Strawberry Fields).
- done
Look carefully at the organization of the article - the last paragraph of Background is about the Composition of the song, so shouldn't it be in the Composition section? Or the same paragraph has a sentence ending with "the song was now complete." - this seems like it shiuld be the end of the paragraph, but it is followed by an explanation of nothing to get hung about.
- That's what I was thinking! The sections used to be called "Background and composition" and "Musical structure", respectively. Someone changed it (it might have been me, but I doubt it) to the current names, which make less sense. I'll do what you say and change them back, because it simply makes more sense.
  - done
I would also pick a consistent way of refering to verses of the final version of the song - make clear which verse the first one he wrote became for example.
- done

There's a start for you. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]