Talk:Dark Horse (George Harrison song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Dark Horse (George Harrison song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 1, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject The Beatles (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This George Harrison-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.

Fair use rationale for Image:64600dh.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:64600dh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dark Horse (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs) 12:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to take this one on. I'll read through it in the next few days then check it against the review checklist. As ever I'll request a second opinion for images and punctuation. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 12:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah that's great news. Thanks, Paul MacDermott. JG66 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial read through

On a first pass this looks like great work; well-written and well-referenced, and I suspect it would have a very good chance at FAC. The only point I would make is about the reasons for Harrison writing the song. You say "Harrison wrote "Dark Horse" in 1973, apparently as a rebuttal to critics of Living in the Material World, or as a message of defiance to Boyd, or both." Is it possible to be more specific about who put forward these theories?

Checklist criteria

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Note that I haven't been able to check for punctuation.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. As far as I can tell, but require a second opinion here.
*Seems fine after feedback.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There's one which seems fine.
7. Overall assessment. Pass. Congratulations.

Comments Overall I think this is a well-written and sourced article. Because I read it through text-to-speech software I'd like a second opinion on things such as punctuation and images just to check that they're ok, but as long as there's no problem then I'll pass this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Paul MacDermott. Yes, I'd been re-reading the article recently and, like you, semi-stumbled over the mention of "Harrison wrote "Dark Horse" in 1973, apparently as a rebuttal ... or ... or both" – I'll definitely revisit that point in the text very soon. Big, big thanks once again. JG66 (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. All done now, I believe. JG66 (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Took a look through per above and don't see any issues punctuation wise. Wizardman 05:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, Wizardman, I'll close this up then. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic. Thanks so much, Paul – and to you Wizardman, for stepping in there. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)