::I have concerns with the thoroughness of this GA review and am unsure why the review wasn't put "on hold" for seven days, as outlined at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, rather than just "failed" outright. This is the process that really should have been followed as per GA guidelines, since the faults with this article are relatively minor. Furthermore, I would ask why the proper GA review template found at Template:GAList has not been used?
I will attempt to source a new inline reference in the next few days to replace this dead one.
Have removed this sentence because it's not a widely accepted "fact" and also I couldn't find a replacement reference.
References should not be used in the lead. The genres should be stated somewhere in the article.
This is incorrect. Nowhere on the lead section (manual of style) page or the GA criteria page does it say this. Whether or not to have references in the lead section is entirely down to the discretion of editors contributing to a page. Indeed, every single article I have ever had a hand in getting up to GA standard has had references in the lead section. Please could you explain why you have cited this as a problem when it is, in fact, a non issue?
Excuse me if i'm stalking here, but as a reviewer of the drive i've got into this by job. Actually, the guideline does recomend to avoid the use of references on the lead unless some of the contents on the lead are highly controversial. SO it is a requirement that references on the lead that are already covered on the article body to be removed from the former. Remember that the lead is a summary of the article content, ans thus, all information (with exceptions) on the lead must be on the article body. If otherwise, the article fails 1a. Regards. —Hahc2102:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Hahc21, but this is simply untrue. The introduction to the lead section MOS states that leads should "be carefully sourced as appropriate". The guideline goes on to say that "there is not an exception to citation requirements specific to leads" and also suggest that "the necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." So, it is quite wrong for you to say that "the guideline does recomend to avoid the use of references." Furthermore, I personally like to see references included in the lead because it's the only bit of an article that a lot of people will ever read. Having clear references showing the source of certain statements in the lead is both helpful and discourages well-intentioned—but ultimately mistaken—editing, particularly of contentious information.
Mostly all of the references are missing a publisher. Authors are also missing.
This is simply incorrect. The vast majority of references, both online and offline, have a publisher and an author listed. As far as I can see, there is only one inline reference not citing a publisher (the Fifth Dimension CD liner notes one) and only the online references lacking an author. I will atempt to rectify this problem in the next few days.
Allmusic, for example, is missing both a publisher and an author. The publisher being Rovi Corporation and the author being the one who wrote the review.
Ah, I see. I had the publisher in those refs listed as "Allmusic". I will change that and add an author too.
Done.
IMDB is a user edited website, it is not to be used for a source.
I did not know this. I will attempt to source alternative supporting refs over the next few days.
Checking the Wikipedia:Citing IMDb page, I see that using that website's soundtrack listings for references is not considered an inappropriate use, only "disputed". So, it would seem that this is down to your discretion or perhaps consensus between an editor and reviewer. Let me know your thoughts.
Prose
Music sample should be somewhere in the article, not stuck on the infobox.
This is entirely a matter of choice and personal taste, not actually a problem for a GA review per se. I am more than happy to relocate the audio sample if you require it, but nowhere does it specify that this is a reason to fail a GA review.
I have done this and added a caption explaining what the audio sample shows.
Some sentences are a bit too long and should be chopped into two.
Could you provide examples? Part of your job as GA reviewer should be to provide solutions to problems, as outlined here.
The article is lacking several important sections: critical reception and chart performance section, as well as a charts table.
Again, this is incorrect. The "Influence and reception" section clearly provides details of both contemporary critical reception and modern reception. Chart performance is detailed in both the "Release and legacy" section and the article lead. A charts table is not a GA requirement and, in this particular case, would be overkill, since "Eight Miles High" only charted in two countries: America and the UK.
The information in the article is good, but this article is not complete. At this time, I am sorry, but I am going to have to fail it. If you would like me to address any specific concerns, please leave me a message on my talk page and I would be happy to help.
I would like to say that I am utterly dismayed that this article has been failed outright, when none of the problems or concerns with its content (even those that you are clearly wrong about) are listed amongst the 6 "quick fail" criteria at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I am not impressed with your grasp of the GA review process and I'm not convinced that you have even read the article very closely. I would urge you to reconsider failing this article and think about reviewing it again, once I have had time to address the few legitimate points you've raised. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize for the complete lapse of judgement earlier. I will thoroughly go through the article and state any legitimate issues that there may be.
Thank you, Status...I appreciate it. Please allow me a day or two to rectify the issues with the inline refs, the dead link and the IMDB citations. I'll relocate the audio sample too and add a descriptive caption for it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Seeing as how the third paragraph is only one sentence long, I do not see a reason why it should be on its own.
I've now added a second sentence, outlining and reinforcing the song's "psychedelic rock" credentials (see your point below). My feeling is that this now constitutes a short third paragraph and shouldn't be added to the end of the second, since it covers an entirely different subject. What do you think?
I have no access to the source, so I can not confirm this or not, but it is stated that the song "was influential in developing the musical styles of psychedelic rock, raga rock and psychedelic pop". How exactly does that mean that those are the genres of the song? From what I understand from how it was written, the song helped develop the genres, which would apply they didn't exist prior to the release of the song. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're quite right that the genres didn't really exist prior to the release of the song, but "Eight Miles High" provided the first fully formed template for these genres. So, it was influential on those genres because it was the first record that could be accurately labeled as psychedelic rock, raga rock or psychedelic pop and therefore it is an example of those genres. To strike a Beatles analogy, Sgt Pepper was influential on establishing the template for rock concept albums, but it is also widely regarded as being the first rock concept album, so it is clearly a concept album itself, even though such a thing didn't really exist prior to its release. I have actually added some extra information to the "influence and reception" sub-section, outlining that "Eight Miles High" is widely regarded as the first genuine example of psychedelic pop music.
Impresionistic is a better adjectives that "obscure", but since this is touched upon in the "influence and reception" section, I have decided to remove the word "obscure".
Colons should be used before stating the line of the song.
OK, done in some instances, although clearly the use of colons would be grammatically incorrect in some of the sentences. Colons are used to introduce an idea, concept or (in this case) quotation. However, if the quotation falls in the middle of a sentence, a comma would perhaps be better.
Clark then showed the song to McGuinn and Crosby, with the former suggesting that they arrange it to incorporate the influence of John Coltrane. --> Clark then showed the song to McGuinn and Crosby, with the former suggesting that the song be arranged to incorporate the influence of John Coltrane.
Noted and done.
Since Clark's death, however, McGuinn has contended that it was he who conceived the initial idea of writing a song about an airplane ride and that he and Crosby both contributed lyrics to Clark's unfinished draft. --> After Clark's death
I think "since" works better grammatically, because in this context the word means "continuously or intermittently from", which makes more sense given that we're talking about McGuinn's version of events having changed following Clark's death. The word "after" in this context would mean "following that time", which is less accurate and specific.
John Coltrane --> Coltrane, as you've already mentioned his name
Done.
One question I have is about the Husker Due infobox. My feeling is that where it is it looks untidy, since it encroaches on the list of references at the foot of the article. But I'm at a loss of how to remedy this (short of deleting it). I can't reposition it below The Byrds infobox because it will encroach on the audio sample caption and if I move it up slightly from where it is now, it'll be part of the Byrds article, which it clearly shouldn't be. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I say to just delete it. If there isn't enough information on the cover of the song in the first place to cover the whole infobox (which I assume is what you are talking about) then I don't see a reason for it to be there. Statυs (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The master recording of "Eight Miles High" was committed to tape on January 24 and 25, 1966, at Columbia Studios in Hollywood, with record producer Allen Stanton guiding the band through the recording process. --> What exactly does "committed to tape" refer to? I'm not entirely familiar with the process of recording music back then, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't entirely make sense to me. What I gather is, the song was basically just recorded on those dates?
"commited to tape" just means recorded onto magnetic, multi-track audio tape in the manner that all music was in the 1960s. If it's not clear, I should probably just change it to "recorded". The only reason I used the phrase "commited to tape" was because I'd already used the word "recording" earlier in the same sentence. I'll change it!
In a 1966 promotional interview, which was added to the expanded CD reissue of the Fifth Dimension album, Crosby said that the song's ending made him "feel like a plane landing." --> Unsourced. Maybe cite the expanded re-issue of Fifth Dimension as the source?
Does it really need a source? It's one of the few sentences in the artcle lacking a reference and is hardly controversial. I could source the CD I suppose, or else just delete that sentence. I'm not sure how relevant it is anyway. What do you think?
I guess it's alright, since it does specify where said information comes from.
original RCA version --> RCA really isn't a version, it was where the song was recorded. "Original version" works fine.
"Eight Miles High" was issued on March 14, 1966 in the U.S. and May 29, 1966 in the UK, reaching #14 on the Billboard Hot 100, and #24 on the UK Singles Chart. --> I assume you mean issued to radio, correct? Should specify that. Additionally, you are supposed to spell out the word and not use "#". I think a "respectively" should also be added to the end of the sentence.
No, I mean issued to the general public. These are the dates that the single was released. I'll change "issued" for "released" for clarity. As for the #'s, yeah...I new that, but forgot. Done.
Any numbers less than ten should be spelled out. Make sure of this throughout the article and using "number" instead of the actual number sign.
There are some publishers missing. For example, ref 4 the work should be Allmusic, while the publisher is Rovi Corporation. Amazon.com is the publisher of Internet Movie Database.
ref 4 is lacking the "work" parameter...as are all the refs used in this article. I'll add these were needed.
BTW, I take it you'll add the Good Article icon to the top of the page and also list it at wikiproject songs at a later time, yes? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the article and although I am not familiar with the Review format would like to say that I found it to be a very complete article, lots of references, relevant pictures and an informative and engaging text. Definitely a good article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
