Contents

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment

The Beatles WikiProject manages over 5,000 articles related to the Beatles, with a broad and nested hierarchy of categories covering them. This section is an attempt to categorise some of the main ones as to quality level and address which ones need work the most.

This is an ongoing task and your help would be appreciated. Have a read of some of the existing classifications so you know what this about, and please do read the instructions before starting, as there are a few tweaks and other jobs we can do at the same time as classifying with minimal extra effort and good returns!

The Beatles articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 6 3 2 3 14 FL 1 3 1 5 GA 8 29 25 85 147 B 8 27 27 98 160 C 11 49 67 286 2 415 Start 1 18 86 700 1 2 808 Stub 6 246 1 253 List 5 2 9 6 1 23 Category 328 328 Disambig 19 19 File 803 803 Project 55 55 Redirect 3 3 7 18 1,838 1,869 Template 79 79 NA 1 1 2 Other 6 6 Assessed 42 132 232 1,444 3,132 4 4,986 Total 42 132 232 1,444 3,132 4 4,986 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 7,992 Ω = 4.45	John Lennon pages by quality Quality Total FA 3 FL 1 GA 17 B 11 C 48 Start 122 Stub 27 List 2 Category 20 Disambig 2 File 71 Project 4 Redirect 287 Template 11 NA 1 Assessed 627 Total 627 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,031 Ω = 4.52	Paul McCartney pages by quality Quality Total FA 4 FL 1 GA 13 B 15 C 66 Start 181 Stub 56 List 3 Category 32 Disambig 4 File 126 Project 6 Redirect 506 Template 10 NA 1 Assessed 1,024 Total 1,024 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,576 Ω = 4.70
George Harrison pages by quality Quality Total FA 3 FL 1 GA 70 B 65 C 40 Start 61 Stub 18 List 1 Category 27 Disambig 1 File 96 Project 4 Redirect 302 Template 8 Assessed 697 Total 697 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 908 Ω = 3.53	Ringo Starr pages by quality Quality Total FA 2 FL 1 GA 11 B 12 C 25 Start 65 Stub 18 List 2 Category 13 File 60 Project 3 Redirect 223 Template 3 Assessed 438 Total 438 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 591 Ω = 4.44	Apple Corps and Apple Records pages by quality Quality Total FA 8 FL 2 GA 45 B 36 C 91 Start 97 Stub 14 List 1 Category 10 Disambig 2 File 145 Project 3 Redirect 193 Template 4 Assessed 651 Total 651 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,131 Ω = 3.89
George Martin pages by quality Quality Total FA 7 GA 33 B 37 C 110 Start 100 Stub 8 Category 6 Disambig 4 File 3 Project 3 Redirect 32 Assessed 343 Total 343 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,165 Ω = 3.95	Brian Epstein pages by quality Quality Total FA 1 GA 2 B 3 C 5 Start 11 Stub 1 File 6 Project 3 Redirect 5 Assessed 37 Total 37 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 94 Ω = 4.09	Yoko Ono pages by quality Quality Total FA 1 GA 2 B 3 C 17 Start 63 Stub 9 Category 10 File 63 Project 1 Redirect 223 Template 3 NA 2 Assessed 397 Total 397 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 450 Ω = 4.74

Welcome to WikiProject The Beatles' Article Assessment Department.

• The Beatles (Index · Statistics · Log)
• John Lennon (Index · Statistics · Log
• Paul McCartney (Index · Statistics · Log)
• George Harrison (Index · Statistics · Log)
• Ringo Starr (Index · Statistics · Log)
• Apple Corps and Apple Records (Index · Statistics · Log)
• George Martin (Index · Statistics · Log)
• Brian Epstein (Index · Statistics · Log)
• Yoko Ono (Index · Statistics · Log)

• Locate ungraded Beatles related articles which are within the scope of the project. Those we know about reside in Category:Unassessed The Beatles articles and Category:Unknown-importance The Beatles articles
• Grade the article using the grading and importance scheme below.
• Once graded, the {{WPBeatles}} template needs to be included (not subst'd) on the Talk page with the correct parameters. (most articles will have it already, but with no parameters).
• Edit the talk page to add comments about why you rated the article the way you did. Please sign and date your comment with ~~~~ as usual.
• Apply small fixes on the spot (or big fixes if you have the time and inclination).
• While you are there, check that the article is in at least one (and usually only one) Beatles category.
• If the article is graded better than a stub but it has a stub template, remove the stub template(s) from the article.
• * If the article in serious need of some 'tender loving care', add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Adopt_an_article
• Add stubs to the "articles to expand" section of the To Do list, add cleanup candidates to that list too.
• If the article needs a photo, put a {{Reqphoto}} template onto the article's talk page and add it to the "photos needed" list on the To do page
• If an article might be in need of either merging or splitting, please note the article first and, for merge proposals, any articles you would suggest merging the article into. update this

Examples[edit]

Place some examples of the template usage/grading procedure here.

• For example, change {{WPBeatles}} to {{WPBeatles|class=B|importance=Low}} if you think it's a low importance B class article... then explain why on the comments subpage which you can get to by clicking on the edit link in the WPBeatles box.

Codes and meanings[edit]

Article progress grading scheme[edit]

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: Afeatured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarismortoo-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.	Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	John Lennon (as of December 2022)
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	List of songs recorded by George Harrison (as of December 2022)
A	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help.	n/a
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria Agood article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.	Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	The Beatles (album) (as of December 2022)
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Rubber Soul (as of December 2022)
C	The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.	Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.	Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.	Please Please Me (as of March 2014)
Start	An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following: A useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.	Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.	The Beatles Anthology (TV series) (as of December 2022)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.	Compilation Deluxe (as of August 2016)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone listorset index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.	There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.	Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.	List of people who performed on Beatles recordings (as of July 2013)

Article importance grading scheme[edit]

• See WikiProject The Beatles/doc for further information.

Index - The Beatles[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Beatles articles by quality

Index - John[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/John Lennon articles by quality

Index - Paul[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Paul McCartney articles by quality

Index - George[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/George Harrison articles by quality

Index - Ringo[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ringo Starr articles by quality

Index - Apple[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Apple Corps and Apple Records articles by quality

Index - George Martin[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/George Martin articles by quality

Index - Brian Epstein[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Brian Epstein articles by quality

Index - Yoko Ono[edit]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yoko Ono articles by quality log

Articles not yet in any category[edit]

• Billy J. Kramer - Within scope I would have thought. I'm thinking maybe we should have a Brian Epstein/NEMS category? --kingboyk 23:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Let It Be (disambiguation) - A dab page, should remain uncategorised
• A Cellarful of Noise - Epstein autobiography, good for the above proposed Epstein category. --El Slameron 01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Category:Brian Epstein, although I wonder if it should be Category:Brian Epstein/NEMS or have a subcategory Category:Artists managed by Brian Epstein. Anyway, the category is in place and contains Mr Epstein's bio, his book, and some of the artists he managed. --kingboyk 08:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposals:[edit]

• The Beatles' influence on popular culture --> article about Beatles phenomena
  • Leave a redirect. What would the overall article be called, and what other articles would get merged in? I sort of favour leaving this one as is (It already has Mop Top redirecting to it I think)... not strongly though. ++Lar: t/c
  • Of course my merge suggestion was just that: a suggestion. But I think the article is quite short and plain. There are other fashion and culture influences the Beatles have contributed to or been responsible for. I would prefer though, to refrain from suggesting a new article name until the bulk of the work on Beatles articles has been carried out - then we can see what shorter articles and stubs remain and possible be better able to come up with an article at that point (if one is deemed necessary). For that reason, for the meantime, I'd say leave it as it is and discuss it later. --Mal 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nod. It's a long and winding road from where we are now to "done". Keep suggesting stuff, the more we have a handle on what should go where, the better off we will be. Besides if we can find a few more items to merge in (the suits they wore on Ed Sullivan started a trend among bands, for instance) to "Beatles style" (or "Beatles stylistic influences" if you prefer) we have a winner... knowing what we want to call it doesn't mean we have to do the work first! whenever is soon enough. (that's a bit eventualist I realise... ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• List of The Beatles' record sales --> Beatles trivia

• It's not really trivia. It really needs a {{wikify}}. Beyond that, my 'vote' would be leave as is or see if it could be merged into The Beatles discography. It would need to be a slow and painful merge so as not to spoil that nice discography, alas. --kingboyk 05:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think merging it in with discography might be a good idea... ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article is a bit too black and white... its not 'sexy' enough, if you get me. It needs to be formatted properly so that the (wealth of) information included there is easy for the poor wee human brain to put into context. As it stands, it would make your head spin a bit. Looking back at your comment Kingboy, I think that's probably what you mean by "wikify". Though even then, I'd consider the article to probably be a bit stark. I agree with developing it though, and see how it ends up looking - a decision can better be made after that. --Mal 05:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Decca audition --> History of The Beatles

• Not sure. It's a long article. If we believe that such detail is necessary, Keep. Otherwise merge as Mal suggested. If we're merging into History of The Beatles it will have to wait. I have serious reservations vis a vis History of The Beatles and its relationship to the flagship article. History of The Beatles as a fork just has not worked. --kingboyk 05:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's wait and see what comes up in the Albums section. There may be a Decca Sessions album article which we can merge to.

• Logically speaking, the Decca audition is part of the Beatles history (and also trivia information). Man I which I could remember the rules I was taught at uni regarding databases! The concepts and methodology would definately apply here! --Mal 05:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Exy

I'm not sure if this should stand alone, or if the Beatles in Hamburg should have a larger more comprehensive article (which couold be quite spiffing if we can get photos). --kingboyk 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strawberry Field --> Strawberry Fields Forever
• [[The Early Tapes of The Beatles --> The Beatles' First Steelbeard1 19:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The big ones[edit]

• The Beatles (overview). List all articles which are about the general history of The Beatles here (Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history - a new project page created specifically to discuss this issue).
• Bootlegs

• The Beatles bootleg recordings

Split proposals:[edit]

• Abbey_Road_Studios#Film_scores
• Rarities (The Beatles album) (US release, different tracklisting and sleeve) --> e.g. Rarities (The Beatles American album) (But I'm not sure about the name). --kingboyk 15:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Beatlemania-->Beatlemania (musical), if notable

Already merged[edit]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Log#Page_merges

Worklist categories[edit]

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Beatles articles by quality log
• Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Article Classification/Archive 1 - abandoned manual assessment system

July 15, 2024[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

• The Analogues (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-ClasstoStart-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-ClasstoLow-Class. (rev · t)

July 12, 2024[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

• Revolver: Special Edition (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-ClasstoC-Class. (rev · t)

There were no logs for this project from July 8, 2024 - July 15, 2024.

There were no logs for this project from July 8, 2024 - July 15, 2024.

There were no logs for this project from July 8, 2024 - July 15, 2024.

There were no logs for this project from July 8, 2024 - July 15, 2024.

There were no logs for this project from July 8, 2024 - July 15, 2024.

There were no logs for this project from July 8, 2024 - July 15, 2024.

There were no logs for this project from July 8, 2024 - July 15, 2024.

There were no logs for this project from July 8, 2024 - July 15, 2024.