Talk:Mona Best

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mona Best has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 8, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.		This Beatles-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.	Mid This article has been rated as Mid importance on the importance scale.
		Suggested article edit guidelines: New additions to articles should be attributed to reliable and verifiable sources, using inline citations per the Project's style guide. The system is very easy to use so please do try to help by following this guideline. Most articles should be written in British English. Some terms may be different from - or non-existent in - American English, and some spellings may differ. For more information, see American and British English differences. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment. This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Biography's Arts and Entertainment work group, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to people on Wikipedia.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!: Open tasks for WikiProject The Beatles. Edit or discuss these tasks. To Expand: Apple Records See also: Adopt an article To Clean up: Apple Records discography (wikify). The Beatles' 1965 USA Tour. Italian Cover Versions of Beatles' songs To Merge: To Create: Phil McDonald (engineer). Lennon/McCartney songs: I'll Keep You Satisfied (produced by George Martin), From A Window. George Martin produced Billy J. Kramer song: Magic Carpet (song). Bag o'Nails, where Paul met Linda. Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles tours). The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Full list & instructions. Lists to complete: Wanted Pics/Graphics: Jimmy Nicol, Alistair Taylor, Ivan Vaughan, Tittenhurst Park, Tony Barrow. Project Discussions: The Beatles history, Individual songs vs longer album articles, Beatle wives, Merge/split proposals Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

[edit] Casbah

The link to the Casbah is incorrect (links to the San Diego club), but I don't know how to find the correct Casbah.

There isn't one (yet).LessHeard vanU 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd advocate moving this and using it as the basis of a Casbah article. It's the club that's notable, not Mona Best. --kingboyk 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mona is now cited in Pete Best, as is the club.--andreasegde 12:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

This is now up for a GA. --andreasegde (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I realise that there is not a lot of information about Mona, but this article is dedicated to her business exploits in the early 1960s. --andreasegde (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA quick fail

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. Per GA criteria, stub articles cannot attain GA status. Please feel free to renominate the article once it has been expanded, however. Happy editing! Frickative (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You might look at a few of the other GA-class articles and compare length. This one is certainly of sufficient length to be reviewed. When the criteria speaks of unreviewable stubs, they're talking about tiny ones without any sections. Please reconsider the quick-fail. Thank you, VanTucky ^talk 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously in light of that I would be happy to withdraw the quick fail, however feel that the GA criteria needs rewording to indicate your explanation. I understood that the GA backlog was such that new reviewers were strongly encouraged, yet such ambiguity in what is seemingly clear cut criteria (no lists, portals, images, stubs or disambig pages) makes me very weary of continuing to review, lest I breech any further protocol which evidently should be and yet is not obvious. Frickative (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Breaching the protocol" i.e. making a perfectly easy mistake, is not something unusual for new reviewers (I can think of a few infinitely worse blunders I've performed myself). Besides, the system is intentionally less bureaucratic than FA. If you change your mind within a reasonable amount of time, then just change the templates. You're the reviewer :) As to the issue, yes you're absolutely correct. It is pretty vague. I'll bring it up (with this example) at the proper discussion page. VanTucky ^talk 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the heads-up, at any rate. I've reversed the templates and added the article back at WP:GAN with its original nomination date :) Frickative (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks people. I am to blame for not spotting the wrong category at the bottom of the page. Sorry. --andreasegde (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porky Pies

It seems the story about Mona winning a 33-1 bet and using the winnings to buy the house which later had the Casbah is true, but the dates are wrong. The race was in 1954, and she bought the house in 1957, which is not how the Bests tell it: Rory saw house, Mona put on bet and won, Mona bought house. A good story, but not true. --andreasegde (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review (on hold)

GA review (see here for criteria)

I've reviewed the article and noticed a few things that don't allow the article to pass the criteria (linked to above). They are mostly minor and with a few fixes I believe the article can be promoted.

1. In general, per WP:MOSLINKS all full dates (month and day) should be linked, including the "accessdate" links in the references. Most of the rest of the dates are fine though.

Y Done Fixed them. --andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I believe that reference #4 is pointing to the wrong page, but if it points to "Pete's biog" as I believe it is supposed to, I'm not sure that it supports the first sentence that it follows.

Y Done I couldn't get it to go the right page, so I took it out, as it was not really needed anyway. --andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. References #44 and 56 and #'s 46 and 58 are the same. I understand they are referring to different parts of the article, but according to WP:Citing sources, the full article title needs to be included in a reference. If {{cite web}} is used there is a parameter to add a quote from the article, or if not, then I'm not sure why it uses the extra reference.

Y Done I took 44 out, and I merged the two cnn.com references together. 37 has also been merged. --andreasegde (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The images included in the article don't have source information (I believe that is part of the Fair Use Rationale, if I'm wrong sorry and disregard this point).

Y Done I've never had a problem with that before. Maybe it's only when it's from a webpage? --andreasegde (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The fair use rationale for Image:Mona Best.jpg says it is for the Pete Best article and doesn't mention this article.

Y Done I put her on Pete's page, and then started this, but forgot to change it. Ouch! --andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Once these are fixed just leave a note here or on my talk page and I'll look again and most likely pass it. Also, though it says that an article should only be "On Hold" for seven days, if someone is working on it and the time expires I'll be very lenient on the time. If someone disagrees with my assessments please leave a note here or on my talk page and I can look it over again or even ask for a second opinion. Phydend (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Everything seems to be fine now. The article is obviously neutral and stable, thorough in coverage of her and doesn't go too deep into coverage of Pete or even the Casbah, the references are all fine now, and it seems well written to me. Everything was explained and fixed, so I'm passing it. Good job. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Phydend (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I thank thee kindly, good Sir. I would second you to be a member of my club anyday, don't you know.. :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Any edit made without a verifiable reference will be deleted, including edits that are slipped into referenced sentences, BTW. --andreasegde (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)