Talk:Songs by George Harrison

GA1 Review

I'm not sure why the 11 January review does not appear here, linked or otherwise. Having just re-nominated the article, I imagine that it's going to be useful to be able to access it: Talk:Songs by George Harrison/GA1 JG66 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I figured it out – {{Talk:Article name/GA1}} needed to be added. Yeepsi (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha – genius, as always! Thanks, Y. JG66 (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Songs by George Harrison/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this isn't ready for GA. The "Track listing" and "personnel" sections are entirely unreferenced. Multiple completely unreferenced sections/subsections is an automatic fail. Additionally, two reviews from critics doesn't seem like very much, especially with a "legacy" section in place. Sales (or at least some indicator of commercial performance) are also missing from the article. Please expand and thoroughly source the article before renominating. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I simply can't believe you've failed this. You know as well as I do that in this case the "multiple completely unreferenced sections/subsections" amounts to just two missing references, given that the sections are lists (Track listing and Personnel). Not only that but I've seen you prepared to give nominations a heckuva lot of work in the past (eg at Genesis). I dare say I might be able to find another review or two, but the whole point about this work's legacy is how rare it is – hence its high ranking on Record Collector's Most Valuable Records list. Sales? Well, only 2500 copies were released, available only through Genesis Publication direct; so yes, what's missing is a statement to say they all sold out.

All in all, it's about 5 minutes of work needed to turn this around – why would you fail the nomination? JG66 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I failed because uncited sections are verifiability concerns, and breadth didn't look up to par (at least compared to other articles on books and/or music). I would've said the same for any article with multiple entirely unreferenced sections (unless one of them was a plot section). Sorry if I misjudged how much info would be available, though. It just felt incomplete. Regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the reply. Would you mind transcluding the review to the talk page (or whatever it is that needs to happen)? Reason being, I've yet to receive notification on my talk page that the nomination failed, so I assume it can't be renominated until then. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You actually do not need to recieve that notification before renominating. Editors are free to renominate an article that failed at GAN as soon as review comments are addressed. The only exception is if the article is currently unstable and/or failed for stability concerns, where the article would need to settle in such cases, especially if there's a content dispute and/or ongoing massive updates. This article is perfectly stable as far as I can tell. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Songs by George Harrison/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 03:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, fluid prose. No spelling or grammar problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The reference section is properly formatted, and all of the sources are reliable. I checked all of the online sources, and found no plagiarism. I corrected one or two minor discrepancies with the sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article satisfyingly covers the major aspects, and does not ramble.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems with biases.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable with no edit wars.

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):

   The one image (cover of the book) has a fair use rationale, and a caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi JG66, me again. I'll take on this one as well. It looks quite interesting and (also important for busy me right now!) doesn't look like it will take too long to review. I see that it was not passed recently but that you have since done more work on the article, which makes it a fair candidate for a new review.

Excellent, Moisejp! Always pleased to see your name on a review page … JG66 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Background:

• The inset makes references to "the anger at Warner Brothers about George's antics had dissipated to apathy". I was expecting to see more specifics about that in the main body of the article. So, did Harrison's "antics" amount to him trying to include purportedly uncommercial songs on Gone Troppo? And is the Clayson quote meant to imply that Warner Brothers may not have allowed release of the three songs on the EP if their anger had not changed to apathy? I wanted to read more details about that. Moisejp (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, good point. I'm thinking of rewording to: "By letting their contractual option on one more album lapse [after Harrison had refused to promote Gone Troppo], any anger at Warners about George's antics had dissipated to apathy …" That would address the first issue you raise, I think. And, by giving something specific there re Warner's position, I would hope it might also go some way to answering the second question. (But this could just be wishful thinking on my part!)
• Alan Clayson does take a fair bit of licence with the facts, it has to be said. For instance, I think it's pure assumption that Harrison had fallen out with Mo Ostin and others at Warner Bros. Records. They (Ostin & co.) were facing a very poor final quarter for 1980, financially, and were just as much at sea in the new commercial climate as some of their artists. As some authors tell it, the decision to reject the first version of Somewhere came about after the Warner chiefs heard Lennon's comeback album (which they were going to distribute in some territories, for Geffen Records). The Lennon album was so poppy and commercial that Mo felt Harrison's album would just be buried … If that addition I suggested above doesn't solve the problem, I wonder if it's best to remove the box quote altogether? That way, we're not raising questions without answering them. JG66 (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was also wondering whether it would be better to remove the Clayson quote, if it raises more questions than can be satisfactorily answered. But are there any more interesting details about his possible falling out with Warners that would benefit the article (that you could add to the main body of the article)? If not, or if they would feel forced or not relevant, no worries, it was just an idea. The Clayson quote is kind of intriguing, so it whetted my appetite for more, but only the additional details would benefit the article. I'll let you decide what works, since you know the sources, not me. Moisejp (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, I've ditched the quote. Apart from the reasons we've discussed, it's laden with the author's POV and (imo) penchant for exaggeration ("any anger at Warners", "Harrison had started thinking aloud to anyone listening"). In Rough Guides' book on the Beatles, Clayson's four Beatles biographies are described as "Beatles-flavoured teabags in a cup full of Clayson" – which is pretty accurate, I'd say. His book on Harrison has proved useful in this article, of course: he is good on GH's projects with Genesis Publications, Monty Python, HandMade, etc. But here I think he's joining up dots without any apparent evidence, and adding his usual cynicism. I'm hoping there's enough background here to explain how the three 1980-recorded tracks came to be available in 1985, when Harrison and West started on the book – that's the important thing. JG66 (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Reception and legacy:

• "While a live version of the instrumental "Hari's on Tour (Express)" appeared on the Songs by George Harrison 2 EP, "For You Blue" remains the only vocal track from Harrison's 1974 tour to receive an official release." → May I suggest for clarity "While a live version of the instrumental "Hari's on Tour (Express)" from Harrison's 1974 tour appeared on the Songs by George Harrison 2 EP, "For You Blue" remains the only vocal track from that tour to receive an official release." Moisejp (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes – thanks. Have now reworded the sentence. JG66 (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Production:

• "As he had in I Me Mine, Harrison provided text commenting on the story behind each song, along with facsimiles of his original lyric sheets." It could possibly be worthwhile to provide minor clarification here: Was there overlap between the songs he provided commentary for in I, Me, Mine and Songs by George Harrison? I found myself wondering that as I read the passage. Moisejp (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there most definitely was, but it's not as if the source says as much. I've cut the mention there of I Me Mine – another case of removing text where it provides more questions than answers! JG66 (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Great, I am passing this article. It's all good. One thing you may want to consider is the SNAP Galleries source might take down their info on the book if they happen to sell their copy. You might consider looking for an alternate source for that info, or trying to archive the page on Wayback Machine or something. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Moisejp, that's great news. Thanks also for that last suggestion – and particularly for your time here, because I know you're busy elsewhere. Much appreciated. Just a final thing: the book was definitely hand-bound, as with all Genesis deluxe titles. You were quite right to question & remove the mention in the text, of course – I'll dig up a source to support the point (I've just found it in Clayson, in fact). Best, JG66 (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)