Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment

WikiProject
The Beatles
General information
Main project page talk
Project log talk
Style talk
Tasks
To do list talk
Red links talk
Missing articles talk
Assessments talk
Outreach
Outreach talk
Newsletter talk
The Beatles history talk


Tools and info
COTM talk
Categories talk
Newsletter talk
Peer review talk
Handy infoboxes
Infobox musical artist talk
Infobox person talk
Infobox album talk
Infobox song talk
Project templates
Project banner talk
Invite user talk
Userbox talk
Userbox 2 talk
Article navbox talk
Singles navbox talk
Barnstar talk
edit · changes

The Beatles line-ups

Talk:The Beatles line-ups says to come here to discuss a rating if I disagree with it, which I do. So, it's assessment rating is "merge class". May I ask why? What could be the merge target? If it were merged into something else, would the resulting article be too big, that is, over the size limit of articles here at Wikipedia? Thanks. --luckymustard 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's got a lot bigger from when it was assessed (and I last saw it)... it's not even really correctly named any more! I'll think about it but will probably reassess it (if nobody else chips in in the meantime). --kingboyk 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --kingboyk 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to new template

It seems that with the conversion to the new template, a lot of my ratings are being removed to make way for the less important parameters. Can we please be more careful? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think so. Could you give me some examples? There's probably a reason for it, although given that this is an extremely tedious and dull job (which I've been doing full time for 3 days flat without thanks) I might well have made a mistake or 3 :) --kingboyk 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks you doth mean this: [1]. Yes, your Mid-importance got turned off, but if you check the bottom of the talk page you'll see it doesn't make any difference :) See Template talk:WPBeatles#Importance for the reason why and some links to some wonderful new by-subtopic lists Mathbot is making for us. --kingboyk 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it also happened here: [2] So, OK, it wasn't "a lot"; it was only two. But still, when it happens more than once, it's worth mentioning. Not that big of a deal, though. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you see any ratings you disagree with, please just change them. I'm rattling through as fast as I can so I'll make a mistake here or there for sure. Also, adding Comments would be really helpful. It's just not practical for me to do that too. (General invitation to all Project members). --kingboyk 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen a plea for migrating comments

if we have any older comments not yet migrated to the new scheme, here is a plea for people to migrate them over. See the archive and migrating, which explains how. Please? ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unassessed Beatles articles is empty!!!

I've done it!!! Off to have a glass of wine now. There's comments still to do, ratings to fix, and importance to decide, but I'VE CLEARED THE ASSESSMENTS!!! Hooray! --kingboyk 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One or two need reassessment. LuciferMorgan 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing gets past the 'steely-eyed missile man' LuciferMorgan. He is a brick. (A Roman term, BTW). andreasegde 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class articles

I've looked through the three Beatles-related A-Class articles (Eric Clapton, George Harrison, and John Lennon), and I believe that none of them meet the A-Class standard, particularly because there is a severe lack of references in all of them. Unless someone wants to go and thoroughly cite the articles, they should be removed from the A-Class. Teemu08 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The article provides a well-written and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a Great Article. It includes a well-written introduction to the topic, and an appropriate series of headings to break up the article. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" literature rather than websites. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems." I suppose George's article doesn't meet the references requirement, but other than that it's good. We'll get round to adding citations at some point (currently we're working on Paul McCartney). If you feel they must be downgraded to B go ahead. --kingboyk 11:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Smith

I up-graded it to a B article. I think it should really be an A, or GA. (I would think that, wouldn't I? :) andreasegde 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated Mimi Smith for GA. Anyone disagree? andreasegde 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Julia Lennon. andreasegde 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I took her out. She's not quite ready, and I want to see if Mimi gets hacked to pieces... andreasegde 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, she's back in again. In, out, in, out, shake it all about... andreasegde 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney

I have nominated it for FA, and it failed. andreasegde 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock 'n' Roll Music

I added headings this article as it required them. I also added notes at the top with links to both Rock Music and Rock 'n' Roll as I was searchign for these when I came across the article. I'm not exactly part of your project but I hope I helped. Revoranii 15:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenwood

The page for Kenwood now has pictures, headings, notes and references, but is still listed as start class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.33.81 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one raises any objections soon, I am going to upgrade it to B class. Comments? 81.155.153.185 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been up-graded to B class/Mid. Brownhouse1 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles (album)

I would very much like to get this up to FA status. Any help would be much appreciated. BYT (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Hard Day's Night (film)

Hey guys. I noticed that A Hard Day's Night (film) was assessed as a B-article because of the lack of references. I added some references from Time Magazine, Rotten Tomatoes, and other websites that may clarify the article. I just want to say that with a little bit more work, this can be a Good Article. I encourage more references on this article, as well as a bit of cleaning up. Thanks. Kodster (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Album

It's the Kodster again. Yeah, so why isn't The Beatles (album) a featured article? I think it's very good. There's no comments on the talk page. I just want to say, if you assess an article, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE leave comments. Just so regular editing guys like us can better improve on it. I'm not an admin (though I'd like to be one someday), so please leave comments after assessing. Thanks!Kodster (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Hard Day's Night (film)

Please reassess A hard day's night movie. I think it's a bit better now after adding references. Thanks. (Sorry for leaving so many posts).Kodster (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CONFLICT on date of mother's death

The article about Heswell says, in "Resident connections":

  • Paul McCartney bought his mum a house in heswall where

she lived until 1994, the house has since been sold


The article about Sir Paul's parents, "Jim and Mary McCartney", says his mother died October 31, 1956. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.117.38 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]