Talk:Be Here Now (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject The Beatles (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Be Here Now (song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Beatleswhobeachboys (talk · contribs) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again JG66! As a fellow Beatles / George Harrison fan, I figured I'd give this one a go. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Beatleswhobeachboys, thanks for taking this on. I'm especially grateful because the nom's sat around for months – must be half a year since I first nominated the article (with a previous reviewer bowing out midway through that period!). I'll start addressing the issues you raise very soon. JG66 (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


  • The "Background" section is pretty short: I would suggest either expanding it or combining it with the "Composition" section (as "Background and composition")
  • Hmm, I'm surprised you say that – I was just looking at the article we were discussing a month or two back, "Band on the Run" (and sorry, btw, that I never did get 'round to adding anything there after all). Seems to me that Background in "Be Here Now" was about the same length as your Recording section is currently in BOTR …? Anyway, I've combined the two sections as you suggested, but I'm not convinced it was necessary. JG66 (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for combining them: admittedly the background on BOTR was about this length, but the other sections in that article didn't really pertain to the info. Background and Composition are pretty intertwined in this one, though.Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Harrison's inspiration for the lyrics were what he terms a "funny story", titled "The Transformation: Dr. Richard Alpert, PhD. into Baba Ram Dass". The latter was the first of four sections in Ram Dass's book Be Here Now, a popular introductory text to Hindu spirituality. - awkwardly phrased
  • Reworked the two sentences now. Better now, I think. JG66 (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The lyrics of the middle eight are somewhat awkwardly placed in the center of the page: try putting them in a quote box instead
  • I've reworded the introductory text so that discussion flows more naturally into the quote, but it strikes me now that I misunderstood – you're referring to the placing/treatment as awkward, of course. I can't see the problem: the lyrics are given block quote treatment because they're part of the point being made in the main text (and they're introduced by a colon). But putting them in a box quote would effectively remove them from the discussion. (Have to say, I've used the block-quote approach in dozens of song GAs without anyone raising this issue.)
  • Aside from that, I'm thinking that the now-combined Background & composition section (with the pic of Dass and friend moved up the page) probably solves the problem you mentioned. In other words: was the awkward placement something to do with how, before, this pic forced the paragraphs of main text across the page, leaving the block quote somewhat stranded below? JG66 (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep. With the combination, the text isn't as awkwardly placed on the screen. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The part about Harrison's involvement in Ringo isn't really related to "Be Here Now." I would cut that part.
  • I disagree – I think it's important to the context of the song, and it's immediately relevant to the discussion under Background and composition. Harrison's inspiration for the song was "The Transformation", which tells of a Western man's change of self-identity into an Eastern yogi. The link's then been made that, like Alpert/Dass, Harrison's path to Hinduism came via experimentation with LSD, and that his change (his "present") involved a self-perception far removed from the public's view of him as a Beatle. Perhaps, when mentioning Dale Allison's interpretation, the point also needs to be made that Harrison viewed the Beatles as maya/illusion – I don't know. But I would hope it's clear enough in a sentence like "Leng writes of Harrison yearning to escape 'a Fab Four prehistory that so obsessed the media and his fans'" and in Leng's comparison between his predicament and that of the Python character. So, come the time he completes recording on this and two other songs that signal his wish to "escape his Beatles past", a session in Los Angeles suddenly reignites speculation that the Beatles are going to re-form – I think it's an important detail. And it gets a mention in the Lead section (2nd paragraph) as a result.
  • As a suggestion, maybe the text covering the Ringo session could be moved down to Release & reception, so that it provides more on how the song would have been received on release, given the rumours at the time. (I've got the original Melody Maker review, and I remember Michael Watts goes into some detail about how decidedly un-Beatle the message is on tracks like "Be Here Now".) Personally, I think that what's appeared under Background & comp allows for the mention that's currently under Recording …
  • Anyway, that's enough from me – does any of this change how you view the issue? JG66 (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes - now I see the connection. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Apple Records released Living in the Material World midway through 1973, with "Be Here Now" appearing as the second track on side two of the original LP format,[74] following what Rodriguez describes as the "funky uptempo" "The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord)". - awkward phrasing: split into two sentences
  • Sure – done. JG66 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In his 2006 album review, for Mojo, Mat Snow considered it a "wonderful song" that "blends two of George's Beatle peaks, Blue Jay Way and Long, Long, Long, to movingly transcendental effect". - put the two songs ("Blue Jay Way" and "Long, Long, Long") in quotation marks
  • Done. (Reluctantly, though! UK publications like Mojo, Uncut and Record Collector never use quote marks for songs, and I can't see that their omission causes any confusion when text's reproduced on Wikipedia.) JG66 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The song continues to receive attention following the 2014 Apple Years Harrison reissues. In Mojo, Tom Doyle writes of Living in the Material World "spot[lighting] the spirituality and the dreaminess" in Harrison's songwriting, through "the gentle, non-preachy The Light That Has Lighted The World and Be Here Now, both great works of look-around-you wonder". - same as above
  • Ditto. JG66 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The song was performed by Cult vocalist Ian Astbury, whose reading a reviewer from No Depression magazine deemed "my favorite part of the night". - rephrase
  • Okay, fixed now. JG66 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Personnel" section needs a direct citation. I know it is separately cited in the "Recording" section, but it still should be referenced here.
  • Okay. (But then, you might want to revisit this! Some other unsourced points in the text there also. Sorry, I'm probably coming across as combative – I don't mean to. Somewhat surprised at a few of the issues you're raised here, I admit, but I happened to notice the missing refs at that other article when looking there at the start of this GAR.) JG66 (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Can't argue with that: I should have put references for BOTR's personnel: I've tried to remedy that in other GA nominations I've worked on, though. I figured, though, since you clearly had the information on hand, it would help verify the info without looking through the rest of the text.Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • An external link to the lyrics would be appreciated.
  • I totally agree, but since the page for the song on MetroLyrics doesn't carry the LF symbol (= "LyricFind"), they're in violation of copyright – so I've been told in the past. From memory, used to list the lyrics of all his songs. That's not the case these days, though, unfortunately. I don't think there's anything else we can use, is there? JG66 (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like it. Strange that copyright-viable song lyrics are so hard to find. Thanks for looking. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Aside from these issues, I think the article is good to go. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

All the rephrasing is good: I don't see any other issues. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers all the points.
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
Thanks for your efforts! The article was an interesting read and a well-written piece. Probably would make a good DYK nomination as well. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, @Beatleswhobeachboys: It's great to get this one through after its long, long period spent on the nominations pile! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.