Talk:The Day the World Gets 'Round/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 23:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: JG66

I will begin this review tomorrow. – Quadell (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Quadell. I'm delighted to be getting some repeat reviewers since we last spoke! Thanks so much for taking this one on. I'll give it a read-through today, because I know there are issues you raised last time ("pp." and the amount of quoted lyrics instantly come to mind) that I've yet to fix here. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you're also busy with another song article up for GAN. I'll be patient, and if you'd like to give the article a last run-through before I start analyzing it, I can wait a few days. Your call. – Quadell (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I haven't even got around to giving that other article the attention it needs(!). Thanks for holding off – ready now, if it suits you to begin the review.
I don't mind admitting I've still got some reservations about the length, things I was hoping to sort out by now but I've yet to experience the requisite lightbulb moment – the last thing I want is for particulars about this song to be lost in a discussion covering background and its context within Harrison's work. (On the other hand, commentators link The Day the World Gets 'Round to such important facets of Harrison the man/the humanitarian, and contextually it's a career highpoint.) I considered parting with the Concert for Bangladesh album image, for instance – here – and in that way, doing away with a portion of the Background text ... A possibility maybe.
Anyway, I'm firmly in second-guessing territory now. What this article needs is a fresh pair of eyes, and I really look forward to your comments. Perhaps I'm worrying too much – more likely, I just need a formal to-do list! Best, JG66 (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the non-free cover image has gone, along with some of the detail in both the live album sub-section and the one covering legal/tax issues. Also brought in a couple more free images. JG66 (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate: Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number. Comments that are not actionable requirements are not prepended.

  • This is quite a strong article. The prose is excellent throughout. I can find almost nothing to critique in terms of grammar, clarity, or style.
That's great to hear – thank you. JG66 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background section is well-written and very interesting. I understand your concern that it's a little long. It's possible that some of the subsections could be shortened, so long as all the material is present (with the same excellent prose) at The Concert for Bangladesh or The Concert for Bangladesh (album). But honestly, I can't say for sure that it's necessary; it does give a lot of interesting, useful background to the song's creation. So far as GA status is concerned, I don't think any change is needed.
I feel much better about it now, in fact. As soon as the non-free image went, and with it 1000+ characters of text, the focus improved no end. I'm pleased to see you don't feel any change is necessary right now. I think this Background section is something I could well end up coming back to in the weeks or months ahead – having recently added a whole lot of free images in the concert article, I've noticed that the text there could use some polish (eg applying lessons learnt from GARs since then). So, I imagine any required cuts here will be as clear as day once I'm doing that. Also, user:LuciferMorgan has been very encouraging about going for a GA Topic ("Bangla Desh" song; concert article; album article; film article; "The Day the World Gets 'Round"), which will present another opportunity – because I'll need to bring the film article up to scratch. JG66 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 At the same time, for those who know almost nothing about the history of Bangladesh, it's unclear who "the Bangladeshis' military oppressors" were, and the term is probably a NPOV concern anyway. I would reword this sentence to make clear who the U.S. was funding. Also, the grammatical structure suggests that Yahya Khan's troops actually were "Pakistani Hitlers", as Harrison called them. That isn't NPOV, so a rewording could make clear that this was Harrison's analysis, not Wikipedia's.
Ah yes. Now there's the downside of having worked on all these related articles – because in "Bangla Desh (song)", for example, there's text discussing a June 1971 exposé of the atrocities being committed by Khan's troops, and also how the US Consulate in Dacca had accused its own government of "moral bankruptcy" in ignoring the "genocide" being committed by the Pakistani army. So I come to this article and figure "Enough said" on the subject. Not the case at all, of course – will fix. JG66 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I believe. JG66 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) In general, the articles on Wikipedia about that period of Bangladeshi history are not in good shape. (East Pakistan is in a pretty sad state, for instance, and on Commons it appears that Bangladesh is an exclusively 21st-century phenomenon.) But that kind makes Harrison's point, I guess.
By the way, don't be afraid to cut-and-paste info from one Harrison article to another. It sometimes feels like cheating, but honestly, it's frequently the most appropriate way to present background info in several articles that need it. – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine now. – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. I've removed the link. JG66 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was important. With the album ad, by the way, the same rationale supports the Band image appearing in articles such as "Run of the Mill", same for the "Imagine" ad in "Imagine (song)" and John Lennon (both FAs). I'm confident it's okay, but I admit I'm simply going on those and a number of other precedents – "Imagine" FAC had a dedicated image check, for instance. I recently got on to user:Viniciusmc – so grateful for their upload to wikiCommons of images such as the Band, Delaney & Bonnie, Derek and the Dominos – and they've kindly offered to upload more ads from past issues of Billboard ... Just thought I'd flag that here, because if there is a problem, the last thing I want to do is add to it. JG66 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine to me. I don't think the Dylan image adds much to the article, honestly. – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b The Material World Charitable Foundation has its own article (though it's rather paltry and could use some love). Anyway, it should be linked. Also, consider whether this section would go best after the "Release and reception" section.
I know, that must've been a fairly recent addition – I only noticed it in the last few weeks. I've added links. I take your point about possibly repositioning this short section. I'm wondering whether the answer might be to remove mention of proceeds from the 1974 tour going to charitable causes, and that way cut to the relevant points: the IRS were holding back the US proceeds from Bangladesh even in late 1974, and Harrison approached the president directly. Another reason to keep it where it is that reference to the foundation follows, under Release and Reception. Also, a solution I'm considering to the issue you raise below this one involves a more direct mention of the foundation. I'll makes the cuts I'm suggesting here – see what you think then. JG66 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded/deleted that text as planned. JG66 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well, any of those solutions would work. I suppose my own preference would be to make sure all of that info (including the image) is moved into the Material World Charitable Foundation article, and have the most relevant remainder as either a brief section, or simply folded into the "Release and reception" section without its own heading. But you have a better understanding of the context than I do, so organize it however you think best. – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 In the "Release and reception" section, you quote a number of favorable reviews. You mention that "other reviewers bristled at the apparently preachy tone", but you don't quote them. It might help add balance if one or more of these reviews gets a quote.
Oh boy – this has been a source of frustration to me for ages. One reads generalised statements that the Material World album attracted criticism at the time for being preachy/sanctimonious, which is why I think it's correct to include mention of that in the song articles; but I've tried to track down specific reviews from organisations like Rock's Back Pages (without any success) and I've yet to read a bad 1973 review for the album. So I find myself adding this point each time, but it's never very convincing.
There's Christgau, renowned for being a Harrison hater, but as a result I find his CGs on Harrison rarely offer anything of use – they tell you more about Christgau than about the albums. I've read that the NME was one of the publications who objected to the "holiness" of Material World (a review I've been unable to get hold of), yet I'm pretty sure the journalist was Bob Woffinden, who's very complimentary about the album in his 1981 book The Beatles Apart.
Strangely enough, the easiest way to fix the apparent lack of balance is to simply do away with this forever-vague mention of Living in the Material World attracting such criticism(!). I'll take a look at Woffinden's book – his comment that detractors "missed the fine music" might be accompanied by something relevant to this, I can't remember offhand. Could expand on Kot's 2002 Rolling Stone verdict also perhaps; Carr & Tyler's The Beatles: An Illustrated Record would definitely be a place to look, thinking about it. Alan Clayson's Harrison bio ... Still, I think Ian Inglis's disapproval comes through loud and clear (through the Composition section and then in this one), same with Kot's opinion?
Anyway, how about I pipe down and actually do something about it ... JG66 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut Woffinden's mention of "fine music" and reinstated Clayson's "naive" (wasn't sure Clayson was necessarily talking about the song, but re-reading now, it's clear he is); also quoted Kot in full, and added the general point from Doggett. Hopefully, this achieves some balance? Can't say I'm too happy with it – I appreciate the reason, of course, but this portion of text does read like a ring-in to me. Because Clayson, Woffinden and Doggett are talking generally about the album (even if it's obvious they might be referring to some tracks more than others). JG66 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I think reviewers and magazines actively try to hide their harsh reviews of works that have gained in popularity over time. All the negative reviews of early Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin albums, for instance, are difficult to find. All the reviews that called 2001: A Space Odyssey "boring and pointless" or Reservoir Dogs "amateurish" have generally been replaced by later retrospective reviews by the same people. Anyway, the changes you have made here, combined with your explanations about the sources, have alleviated my concerns. – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, this might prove a useful tool: {{-}}
I noticed you'd replaced those (desperately amateurish) hard returns of mine – thanks for that! And thanks for all these comments, great stuff. JG66 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, 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):
  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:
    This article is well-organized, fully sourced, and brilliantly written. I'm happy to promote it to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you so much – and again, for your time. That's an interesting point you make: "I think reviewers and magazines actively try to hide their harsh reviews of works that have gained in popularity over time ..." I've seen signs of that also, with Rolling Stone online. I'll drop you a line on your talk page. PS: The Dylan image. Yeah, I'd thought it a bit excessive when I added it, then went to remove it; but reading the text, with comparisons to both his protest period and his Christian phase, it did strike me that maybe it was a keeper after all. Now you've mentioned it, I'll look at it again in a few days ... Thanks again! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Day_the_World_Gets_%27Round/GA1&oldid=577283355"