Talk:Heart Full of Soul/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sunshineisles2 (talk · contribs) 01:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm going to have a look at this article. I'll review it now and if I can make an immediate decision, I will, but any further discussion I won't be able to get back to until sometime next week most likely.

Thanks, Sunshineisles2. Your schedule works for me. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

  • A "single chronology" addition would be helpful, as it contextualizes a song in the artist/group's full catalogue (see the one at the bottom of the infobox for the previous Yardbirds single, "For Your Love").

Lead[edit]

  • it is one of the first popular songs to incorporate Indian musical influences. — This needs specification, and a citation.
  • Music critics have acknowledged his contribution as groundbreaking. — This phrase, particularly the word "acknowledged", seems non-neutral.
  • Live recordings include those with Beck and after guitarist Jimmy Page replaced him. — It feels like something is missing here. Maybe "There are a number of live recordings, the earliest of which feature Beck, while later ones feature guitarist Jimmy Page.

Background[edit]

  • The Yardbirds' former guitarist Eric Clapton left the band in March 1965, — It's redundant to say "former" and then "left". Try something like "Guitarist Eric Clapton left The Yardbirds in March 1965..."
  • The arrangement gave the song an exotic sound for popular music of the time, which was becoming more adventurous. — This sentence could do with some rearranging ("At the time, popular music at large was seen as becoming more experimental, and Gouldman's arrangement was perceived as creating an exotic sound".)

Composition and recording[edit]

  • Beck spent some time after borrowing Page's prototype fuzz box — Spent some time doing what?
  • they recognised it as a perfect fit — Saying they "recognised" it as a perfect fit gives the sentence a non-neutral flavor.
  • Unterberger pointed out, however — Once again, not neutral. Perhaps "However, Unterberger has commented" or something like that.
  • provide contrasting melancholic and upbeat sections — This is original research, or is at least phrased like it.
    • This is from Unterberger. Since it continues from the previous sentence, used "He added ..." —Ojorojo (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Releases[edit]

  • In a ironic twist — This is a small grammatical error, but it should be fixed.
  • Epic released the group's next single, "I'm a Man" without a picture sleeve — Throw in another comma after "I'm a Man".
  • Columbia did not use images for their 45s — Citation needed
  • The paragraph about the B-side seems a bit unnecessary. This is an article about "Heart Full of Soul", not the entire 45.
    • Trimmed to single sentence. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast and concert performances[edit]

  • The recording later appeared on the album Yardbirds ... On Air (1991, re-released in 1999 as BBC Sessions). — Citation needed

Chart performance and influence[edit]

  • in 1987 and included — "...in 1987 and was included" reads better.
  • Quoting the critical reception of the Isaak or Rush cover is not needed, and detracts from the focus of the article.

GA review (see here for criteria)[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: (after editing)

Final thoughts[edit]

@Ojorojo: I know it looks like I made a lot of notes, but most of these are easily fixable. Removing the short passages which are unsourced or non-neutral, rephrasing some awkwardly worded sentences, and removing superfluous text which strays away from the immediate focus of the article (i.e. long passages about the B-side or cover versions) should streamline it to satisfaction. Let me know when you can have a look, and make some changes. Then I'll run through the article again and we might be able to promote it to GA then.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunshineisles2: I'll work on this over the next couple of days. I'll let you know when it's ready for another look. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunshineisles2: Made several changes to address your concerns. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: Hey, just letting you know I didn't forget about this. I'll be able to have another look at your changes within the next day or two. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: I did one quick edit myself. I think the article is tilting in a better direction now, but I'm going to call for a second opinion just to be safe. –Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunshineisles2: Just curious about your edit which removed the referenced brief descriptions of the subsequent versions – WP:SONGCOVER advises:

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies: the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song [or] the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

Just listing the other renditions without any discussion might fail this requirement. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for second opinion: This assessment was listed for second opinion on the nomination page mostly it appears to check the narrative continuity of the article's prose sections. I have made a set of very minor copy edits, which both of the editors can decide to keep or revert as they find is best. Both editors have also shown a good amount of give-and-take to improve this article. Hope this moves things forward. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fountains-of-Paris: Thanks for your comments. A couple of notes about your edits:
  • Five days after the single was released, and they taped it – Not sure why "and" was added.
  • British rock group – The Yardbirds are identified as an "English rock band" in their WP article as well as several Category:The Yardbirds songs and Category:The Yardbirds albums articles. This is commonly used for groups from England (The Beatles FA, etc.)
  • the group was – Is this also preferred in Brit Eng? MOS:PLURALS and an Oxford blog[1] seem to allow both (the O.E.D. identifies "group" as either singular or plural).
  • instrumental passages – Passage (music) more commonly refers to a section of a musical piece, while figure (music) is usually a short repeated series of notes. Beck is later quoted: "Look, is this the figure?".
—Ojorojo (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to get back. I'm fine with your restoring the text to the version you are more comfortable with since both the nominator and reviewer have made good progress. Just a small comment on the convention of groups, it has been my experience that the phrases most commonly applied are either "The group was a big success", or, "The members of the group were a big success." These are just examples, and either one I think works well for you to decide which version suits the article best. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ojorojo: and @Fountains-of-Paris: -- Thanks for going forward and continuing to work on the article. I've had a look at the changes and I think it has improved even more. I think I'm ready to pass the article as GA, but I thought I'd seek one last round of comments, if if necessary.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your contributions. As discussed above, I've made a few tweaks to reflect current practices. Change if needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listed.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heart_Full_of_Soul/GA1&oldid=736633962"