# Talk:Bill Harry

There is some biographical information about Bill Harry at http://triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/about/founders-story.shtml , if it's helpful to someone interested in editing this article.
Harry was also hired as Led Zeppelin's PR man by their manager Peter Grant and shares some of his memories on this era in Uncut magazine issue 63 (July 2002).
I might work on this profile later on if no one else does.
(I'm not very experienced at html writing so my apologies if the link above causes trouble) JustPassingThru 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a bit more to this page.--andreasegde (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's coming along nicely.--andreasegde (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It's up for a GA.--andreasegde (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The main photo has gone, even though I voiced my objections. No comment on here or my page, either. The photo police really are a law unto themselves.--andreasegde (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bill Harry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found found when checking against quick fail criteria, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Early years: He attended the Catholic St. Vincent's Institute, but had to get used to the priests dispensing corporal punishment on a regular basis. But? wrong word to use here, perhaps ...where he had to get used to...
What a total misunderstanding of the English language. It was a place that was respected, but was not friendly, in any sense. Using the phrase ...where he had to get used to... would mean that it was accepted that boys would have the stuffing knocked out of them on a daily basis. --andreasegde (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)  

Liverpool College of Art: ..he worked on a demolition site, taking part in demolishing a flour mill in Birkenhead. redundancy - suggest just he worked on a demolition site.
Doing what, exactly? Isn't the fact enough?--andreasegde (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

...and in the top floor Jacaranda club (run by Williams, who later managed The Beatles). Who is Williams, this is the first mention.
Williams is mentioned in the lead. Didn't you read that?--andreasegde (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mersey Beat: Virginia's parents helped the paper during this time, as they paid for classified ads, and arranged for Harry and his future wife's first photographs together. The photographs bit - does this refer to pictures of Harry and fiancée?  If so this is unnecessary information.
"arranged for Harry and his future wife's first photographs together". Good grief, isn't that clear enough?--andreasegde (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Although, because of the employment situation in Liverpool at the time, The Daily Worker newspaper announced: "The Mersey Sound is the sound of 30,000 people on the dole." How is this relevant to the article subject.
Because it wasn't how other people saw The Mersey Sound.

P.R. and present: there is some repetition in this section of information in the previous section; Note: Mersey Beat will return to publication in August 2009 with a 24-page special issue to celebrate the Liverpool International Beatle Week in Liverpool.[ Rewrite to update as it is now end of August.  The list of books is fine, but there is no mention of his writing them in the article.
Of course there is. Read the quote underneath the list of books.--andreasegde (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead does not fully summarise the article.
Overall, I would suggest a complete rewrite, copy-editing for style, omitting unnecessary detail, possibly splitting out the detail on Mersey Beat to a separate article.
You really want to stick the knife in. I wonder why? --andreasegde (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): ; b (citations to reliable sources):  ; c (OR): 
The article is adequately referenced, but a large number of key references are primary sources, eg merseybeat.com and triumphplc.com. Many other references, e.g. #34 [1]; #33 [2]; #36 [3]; #38 [4]; #20 [5].  When viewd as a whole ther are very few reliable secondary sources here.

It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):  ; b (focused): 
Possibly rather too broad.  Too much detail about Mersey Beat, there shoudl eb more on his subsequent career.
Mersey Beat was his career, and still is part of his career.--andreasegde (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): 

b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
File:Threepence 1943.jpg is not neccessary, the cover price is not mentioned in the artcile and a picture of a threpenny piece is not needed.
"Splitting the price of the newspaper (threepence) with retailers". Blind again.--andreasegde (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I do not believe that this article is at Good Article standard at present.  I suggest working to make this an artciel about Bill Harry.  Obviously the Mersey Beat era is important, but there should be coverage of his career since then.  There is probably neough material to have a separate Mersey Beat article.  referencing needs to be radically improved with less reliance on primary sources. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the best yet: "I suggest working to make this an artciel [sic] about Bill Harry." It's called BILL HARRY, or did you not notice that?--andreasegde (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bill Harry/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
MoS issues
The lead needs a little improvement. I recommend the following:
Shortening the lead to two larger paragraphs instead of three smaller ones.
That first sentence needs to be split up into smaller sentences. One-sentence paragraphs are generally avoided.
The lead may need to be expanded just a little to provide a more broad overview of the article.
I am working on it now.--andreasegde (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Prose issues
In the "Liverpool College of Art" subsection: The title was suggested by the owner, Frank Hesselberg, as a play on his own comments, and being truthful, but was abandoned after a few issues. → I'm not exactly understanding the middle of that sentence in particular. Can you rewrite that to make it a little more clear?
I don't know where that came from, but it's gone now.--andreasegde (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the same subsection: Despite this, he maintained that students at art college should be bohemians in their thoughts and actions and not like the "dilettantes and dabblers", as Harry called conformist fellow students, who wore duffle coats and turtle neck sweaters. → It also is a little wordy and hard to understand. Did Harry call his "conformist" fellow students "dilettantes and dabblers" who "worse duffle coats and turtle neck sweaters", if I'm reading correctly? If so, just slightly reword that so it makes more sense and flows better.
"in their thoughts and actions and not like the "dilettantes and dabblers", whom Harry disapproved of for wearing duffle coats and turtle neck sweaters."--andreasegde (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the same subsection: At the time, artist and teacher Arthur Ballard thought that Harry and Sutcliffe both overshadowed Lennon at college, stating they were both "extremely well educated, and very eager for information." → I'm assuming you're referring to Stuart Sutcliffe here (and obviously John Lennon), which is the first time in the body of the article in which he is mentioned, which normally means you give the full name and provide a wikilink. Were Sutcliffe and Lennon fellow students of Barry's? If so, that should be mentioned in there.
They are both mentioned in the lead, but I will add something in there about them being student friends. (I see that someone has already put their full names in the article...)--andreasegde (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the next paragraph: Meeting Lennon had been a shock for Harry, as Lennon often dressed like a Teddy boy and was a disruptive influence at the college, but Harry introduced Lennon to Sutcliffe. → It doesn't flow quite correctly when I read it. You're going from the shock of meeting Lennon to "but he introduced Lennon..." That should probably be rewritten. I recommend two separate sentences there: one for the shock of meeting Lennon, and one for introducting Lennon to Sutcliffe.
"Despite his misgivings about Lennon's attitude, Harry introduced him to Sutcliffe, who was a small, soft-spoken and shy student."--andreasegde (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In "The First Issue" subsection, I agree with the previous GA review in that the image of the threepenny image is not really needed in this article. It really doesn't contribute anything more to the article, unlike the other pictures, which do.
Gone.--andreasegde (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That last sentence in "The First Issue" subsection (regarding The Daily Worker) doesn't make logical sense there. Wouldn't it be a better idea to have that in the previous paragraph?
I took Harry's quote tags out and put the sentence directly after it, with a slight change: "The Daily Worker newspaper denounced the enthusiasm of younger people in Liverpool by saying "The 'Mersey Sound' is the sound of 30,000 people on the dole".--andreasegde (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the first sentence in "The Liverpool Groups" subsection: Between 1958 and 1964, the Merseyside area had about 500 different bands, forming and breaking up, with an average of 350. → How it's written doesn't make sense. First, you're saying 500 and then 350. I'm not sure if the fact of bands quickly forming and breaking up created that average or not; it's not clear according to how it's written. Can you clarify that a little better, please?
"500 different groups, which were constantly forming and breaking up, with an average of about 350 groups that were playing concerts on a regular basis"--andreasegde (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Coverage issues
In "The Liverpool Groups" subsection, I don't think displaying the complete results of the Mersey Beat poll is necessary and goes past the focus on Bill Harry. I think that paragraph should be nixed and reduced to a mention of The Beatles on top with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes being fourth. The following (3rd) paragraph can also be cut down and made more concise and within the context of Harry and Astrid Kirchherr arranging for that photo of The Beatles to be taken. Remember this the article is more about Bill Harry as opposed to Mersey Beat.
I totally agree. I will cut it and add it to the the Mersey Beat article.--andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Done.--andreasegde (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Things to remember (for future reference)
Commas do not always precede coordinating conjunctions such as "and", "but", or "or". A comma is normally used when the second half of the sentence following the comma could technically stand alone as a sentence of its own.
In Wikipedia, "smart quotations" are used. That is, the end-quotation precedes the end-punctuation (i.e. a comma or full stop) unless that quotation is a full sentence itself.
Stay consistent with your prepositions. You seemed to have alternated from "in the Ye Cracke Pub" to "at the Ye Cracke Pub" (even though "at" is preferable here).
Focus on writing longer, fuller paragraphs as opposed to shorter, choppy paragraph. Fuller paragraphs makes the writing look more professional to readers.
Avoid certain words to avoid such as "although" and "supposedly" whenever you can, because more times than not, they serve to editorialize (i.e. not maintaining NPOV) rather than state.
Stay consistent with abbreviations. You had "P.R." with full stops, and then you had "PR" without them. Stick with one (though the former should be the right form in this case).
Don't forget to wikilink those important terms, but also be wary of overlinking.
You will need alt text in the images (though not a GA requirement). Please see WP:ALT for more details.
Conclusions
GA nomination placed  on hold pending improvements to the issues above (except the "things to remember" section; that is not part of it but for your own reference). MuZemike 00:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I will work on this tonight.--andreasegde (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, but I will have to work on this over the next few days. (Job pressure and all that, y'know...)--andreasegde (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, please take your time. First things first, anyways. MuZemike 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I still have to rework the lead, and change those P.R. things and at/in.--andreasegde (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that's about it... (?)--andreasegde (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 Passed. Good work on the improvements. MuZemike 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I thank thee kindly, and very much as well. :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Bill Harry. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.merseybeatabd.co.uk/bill_harry.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Harry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408101139/http://www.freewebs.com/merseybeat/billharry.htm to http://www.freewebs.com/merseybeat/billharry.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505082202/http://www.sixtiescity.com/Mbeat/mb1A.htm to http://www.sixtiescity.com/Mbeat/mb1A.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101234537/http://www.frankcarlyle.co.uk/archive.html to http://www.frankcarlyle.co.uk/archive.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Harry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210172914/http://www.beatlefolks.com/bharry3.shtml to http://www.beatlefolks.com/bharry3.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217184607/http://www.beatlefolks.com/bharry4.shtml to http://www.beatlefolks.com/bharry4.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:BEATLES#Craig Cross.  Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC) —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)