Talk:A Day in the Life/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] MOS edit

I went through the article and fixed a bunch of MOS items, like punctuation, quote mark/apostrophe style (not supposed to be "curly"), etc. - may have missed some, so should go through it again. Also did some rewording. Still needs citation work. Hope this helps. Tvoz |talk 07:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts (Realist2)

Im just going to add some more ideas for Kodster.

  • The quotes should be made smaller, those are quite possibly copyvios.
    • Y Done
  • Is the alternative section needed, firstly its the most boring part of the article, its quite nice reading through, but that section is completely dull, oh and unsourced. Trim it down, and add it to another section as it will then be small.
    • I was just going to ask you: Is this section really needed? I don't think so.
    • I would get rid of it.
  • By now the original name for the song had been abandoned in favour of the eventual final title.[citation needed] - that needs rewording
    • Y Done
  • The layout of the song is the intro, three verses, the orchestral bridge, the middle section, the final verse, and the orchestral outro. - remove all those "the" and dont say "intro".
    • Y Done
  • Each verse follows the same basic plan - is "plan" the right word?, might be someother way of saying it.
    • Y Done
  • Only use sir names, some times you say Paul other times McCartney. Stick to the latter and do the same for other people.
    • Y Done
  • Starr's drumming makes this verse seem faster than the others, even though every verse has the same tempo. - this is clearly a point of view?
    • Y Done
  • I see even more cases of the word "intro", that is a no-no.
    • Y Done
  • The fade-out of the chord is extremely long, - extremely? i was expecting to hear 15 minutes not 1. Adjust.
    • Y Done
  • studio chatter - bad choice of words.
    • Y Done
  • complemented McCartney's piece very well - no need for the word very, could lead to pov concerns.
    • Y Done
  • For all the chaos of the recording session, the results were a brilliant success; in the final edit of the song the orchestral crescendo is reprised, in even more cacophonous fashion, at the conclusion of the song. - POV, change wording
    • Y Done
  • (mostly conservative, middle-aged professional musicians) - who cares?
    • It's saying that these are conservative people, classically trained people who are wearing this weird clothing. That's all.
  • Immediately following the dying moments of the crashing piano chord is an extremely high-pitched tone—too high-pitched for some to hear, especially adults, but audible to dogs and other animals and most younger listeners.[22] - minor pov concern, but more importantly, i just think it needs a slight rewording.
    • Y Done
  • I see that "studio chatter" thing again, really dont like that wording.
    • Y Done
  • The song became notorious - pov issue, why not just say controversal
    • Y Done
  • To much quoting in drug section, quotes are no replacement for continues prose. Something i only just found out myself.
    • Y Done
  • I added a few citation tags but i imagine you can use the same sources over, (i always do it).
    • Y Done

All the comments added are by Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) OK, im done, the article is good, much better than when i first saw it, most things are minor, once you do those things, and because of the backlog, you might want to consider putting it back up for GA. Realist2 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Just a point - the idea that continuous prose is always better than quotes is not universally agreed to here. Just saying. Tvoz |talk 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you wouldn't want the whole article to be quotes, would you? I mean, they already have a website for that! I believe that a decent helping of quotes and prose will make a successful article. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't want any whole article to be quotes, but when I read this one last night I actually didn't think it was so far in that direction... but it's ok. As long as you retained the flavor that those quotes gave, I'm ok with it. I'll look at your edit, and most likely I won't disagree with your choices. Just was making a larger point about quotes. Tvoz |talk 22:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Lol, global warming isn't globally agreed, but you still need sectioning if you dispute it. IMO that is. :-) Realist2 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good well done. Realist2 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I added an image (here's the link) that I think is beneficent to the article. It is fair-use, but could someone please check it out? Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

I rearranged the section to flow better, and reinstated the Lennon quote as part of the prose (it didn't need to be set off in quote template anyway). My reasoning is that this quote provides a good insight into what Lennon thought about McCartney's role in the song - there has long been a lot of discussion about the nature of their collaboration overall, especially in the later years, and this song is a particularly clear illustration of what each brought to the table. What Lennon thought of it - he who was sometimes scornful of McCartney's writing - is notable for inclusion. Tvoz |talk 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Realist2 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)