# Talk:Phillips' Sound Recording Services

I put an infobox in and fixed the refs. I will now upload a photo of Percy.

I have done a lot on it, and have added a second photo.--andreasegde (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am putting this up for a GA review.--andreasegde (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phillips' Sound Recording Services/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. After I read through it again, I will be adding comments. Please feel free to make comments or ask questions.  —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Percy Francis Phillips - I don't think this should be bolded, as only the article name is to be bolded.
"38 Kensington" - was Kensington a Street, Avenue, Lane?
"After a decline for batteries..." - after a decline in demand for batteries? or alternative wording.
"...and many others." - I would remove this as unnecessary.
"He then started selling and recharging batteries,..." - "then" is almost always an unnecessary word
"...where local people would meet" - and local people would meet there - or some alternative wording
"whilst" - while
"Vortexion portable) an MSS (Master Sound Systems) disc cutting machine, an amplifier, a 4-track mixer, three microphones: a Reslo, an HMV ribbon microphone, and an AKG," - could some of these terms be wikilinked to an explanation? Also other recording terms in the article? Also "skiffle", since you wikilink "doowop".
"demo discs" - were they called "discs" in 1955?
"Phillips' first recording was himself..." - of himself
"and a few days later recorded..." - he recorded
"Play with a light-weight pick-up" - what does this mean?
I think the lead is a little short for the article per WP:LEAD. Perhaps you could add a few more summary statements.
You have three Fair use photos, but they do seem all to be justified. The referencing looks complete and consistently formatted.
All in all, a very interesting article.  —Mattisse (Talk) 14:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I will put this on hold to give you time to address these issues, as I know you are traveling for two weeks. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have gone through all the points, and I believe I have corrected them all.--andreasegde (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"A CD of Phillips' recordings is to be released in the near future." - could you give a time frame for this? e.g. As of 2008, a CD of Phillips' recordings was planned to be released soon.  - or some other wording you like, since the article will be read for years into the future, way after 2008.   —Mattisse (Talk) 18:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have taken out the sentence, but will put it back in when the CD is released.--andreasegde (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Further comments

I am concerned that some of the references do not meet WP:RS.
For example, http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2&_800040 appears to be a trivial link. 

Trivial? It's ancestry.co.uk...--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And the links to Spencer Leigh, e.g. http://www.spencerleigh.demon.co.uk/Fabs_Outofthecaverns.htm. Is he a reliable authority?

Yes, he is, as he has written numerous books about various subjects.--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, the Beatles source - http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/1950s/58.07.14%20phillips/58.07.14phillips.html Is this a reliable source?

Yes it is. It's very comprehensive, and detailed. I have personally checked the facts on it. The huge amount of personal photos give it credence.--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Some of the fan sites are O.K. if they reference fan-type information, or the Billy Fury site if you rely on it for factual information that is generally available. Or his personal opinion, stated as such.  —Mattisse (Talk) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but for such a short article, are we being too intense here? It's not an FA candidate, and never will be.--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Just trying to cover the bases and avoid and instant delisting. I think the article is very interesting and well-written. The fact that it focuses on a relatively little-known aspect of music history makes it all the more valuable.  —Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): The prose is of good quality and flows well.  b (MoS): There are no obvious MoS issues. 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): It is well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): The references are relevant to the material cited.  c (OR): There is no OR 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Broad enough to provide context.  b (focused): Focuses on the issues of relevance and interest. 

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

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): Three fair use images, properly tagged, that are relevant to the material in the article; the image subjects are discussed in the text. 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thank thee most kindly for your hard work.--andreasegde (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The link for the Google map does not match the photo labeled as being a current photo.  It also seems that "38 Kensington" isn't enough of an address to locate it by since Google will make several suggestions but not go directly to any of them.