Jump to content

Talk:His Band and the Street Choir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHis Band and the Street Choir 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
April 30, 2010Good article nomineeListed
May 19, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 7, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
June 22, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 7, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 28, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Album article class reviews

[edit]

Individuals who contribute substantially to this article should not assess it themselves for the Wikiproject album, but may as appropriate request reassessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment. This is important to ensure that fresh, uninvolved eyes have an opportunity to point out issues that contributors may have missed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 27 reassessment notes

[edit]

Sourcing is much improved, although I have added another "fact" tag. Who says that Morrison was a consistent hit-maker? A statement of this sort needs attribution and citation. At this point, the lead section needs revision. A lead section is meant to summarize the contents of the article. It should be a concise snapshot of the contents that will follow. Most of the material currently in the lead could probably be dispersed into the article body. For example, "Morrison's then wife, Janet (Planet) Rigsbee, sang on the album." should be stated perhaps in the "recording" section. Its significance might also be expanded. So did Ellen Schroer. Why is it important enough that Janet Planet sang on the album to deserve separate mention? Is it the fact that Morrison was then married to her that makes her worthy of singling out, or is there something more? The text should make that clear since readers unfamiliar with Morrison (like this one) might not see why this signifies. If it is very significant, then it may be bear specific mention in the summary, but as it is it feels like "trivia", and it may represent undue weight on this one fact. (It may not; context would make that clear.)

Similarly, there is a quote from the Rolling Stone reviewer in the lead. Lacking context, this also could represent "undue" weight. More appropriate might be a "Critical response" section that summarizes a larger representative sample of locatable reviews.

There are additional opportunities for expansion and clarity within the text. For instance, the article says, "In America the album was initially as well received as Moondance". Then what? That "initially" hints at more to the story, which the article does not provide.

I've watchlisted the article for now in case contributors to this would like clarification on these points and suggestions. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are doing nice work here. :) As somebody who works on less common album articles (mostly old jazz stuff), I might suggest you take a look at google books to find more reference material. It can be very useful. If you aren't familiar with it, just head over to this link and look for the ones that boast a "limited preview." For instance, there's a little bit about the album in this book. To get citation information, you click on "more about this book", and it gives you all you need to fill in the citation template. I could use that one, for example, to talk more about Janet Planet and her importance here. I might say "Music journalist M. Mark suggested in Stranded that Morrison's marriage to Janet Planet played a major influence on this album and its follow-up, Tupelo Honey, noting that they are "his rendition of Dylan's family-man music."[1] (Source: Mark, M (2007). "Its too late to stop now". In Marcus Griel and Robert Christgau (ed.). Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island. Da Capo Press. pp. 11–28. ISBN 030681532X. Retrieved 2008-08-28.) (Note that this is by way of illustration only. I'm not suggesting as am article reviewer that this is an essential fact for the article or anything.)
Anyway, you may already be well familiar with google books and how to mine it for Wikipedia articles, but I know I was delighted when I stumbled upon it, so I won't presume. Forgive me if I'm pointing out the obvious. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Moonriddengirl. I'm not familiar with google books, I don't know about Agadant though. I'm sure the info you've given us will be very helpful. Thanks again. Kitchen roll (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I can't read any of it at the moment - I've lost my glasses! Kitchen roll (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mark, 16.

Punctuation, etc.

[edit]

I spent hours working on this article today; it may not be perfect but I hope someone will discuss changes to what I've revised today, before changing it. I applied the American and British English differences. Perhaps more clear is the statement in this article: Michael Quinton writes on International English from a British viewpoint.

Moreover, formal British English practice requires a closing full stop to be put inside the quotation marks if the quoted item is a complete sentence that ends where the main sentence ends:

She had told me, "I still love you."
The sign said, "Keep off the grass."

This method of quotation also follows the style used by the biographers quoted, who were British and Irish, not American. (although I'm not sure about Clinton Heylin.) Agadant (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Domino" release date

[edit]

Infobox says 14/10/70. "Domino" article says 14/11/70. Both can't be right. Cloonmore (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the old and usually accurate Van Morrison Website (Michael Hayward's) the charting date says 11/14/1970 (Weeks on Charts = 12). That website gives only 1970 as the release date. Seems a little odd that it would have charted exactly a month from release (Especially since October has 31 days. Shouldn't it have been 4 weeks if accurate or 30 days later - as the charts are today?) That's why after Cloonmore pointed out the discrepency, I decided it would be best to only use the year as a release date. I don't think it serves a purpose to give an exact date unless it is undisputed. Agadant (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Blue Money" release date

[edit]

Same issue. Infobox says 13/1/71. "Blue Money" article says May 71.Cloonmore (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hinton, Celtic Crossroads lists May 1971 as the date and Ritchie Yorke, Into the Music lists January 13, 1971. So the date depends on where it is sourced from. Agadant (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could one date be for when it was released and the other when it charted? I'm inclined to believe Richie Yorke, because he would have collected the info at the time of its release. Also he's very accurate to list the exact day it was released on, compared to Hinton who just lists the month released. Also Yorke's book is generally more accurate than Hinton's. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All just an opinion on your part, Kitchen roll. Agadant (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, KR. Makes sense to me.Cloonmore (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Haywards old website gave 1971 as a release date and 02/06/1971 as a chart date. (Weeks on chart = 12). So, it doesn't matter to me, I just think under the circumstances the year alone is the most accurate for certaintly. Agadant (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator will be away for a week, March 31 to April 7

[edit]

... according to this note left at WT:Good article nominations. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:His Band and the Street Choir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

{{inuse}}

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.[reply]

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times.

The only time I can say I'll deffinately have a lot of time to edit would be Friday after 4:00 pm (British time), Saturday after 3pm and all of Sunday. Although I happen to be very busy atm so will struggle to edit other than those times this week. (I shouldn't realy be editing now infact but I'll try to keep on top of things) Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]

(comment) A skim through looks OK at high level. I may have comments about specific sections later, when I reviews sections in detail. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

IMO this looks very odd and does not flow well. I'm suggesting a structure that I've used in articles and recommended in GA for films, books, singles and game reviews. However, that means big changes to His Band and the Street Choir, and in your position I'll find this daunting. A few times I've made a copy of the article in a sub-page, e.g. User:Kitchen roll/His Band and the Street Choir and use that to experiment. --Philcha (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, although the dates of when the songs were first recorded predate the dates mentioned in the recording section, the recording section gives more on the background of the album which has to be mentioned first for the reader to understand how the album was recorded. If anything the composition section goes into more detail about the recording of the album. Kitchen roll (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect that composition would be earlier or at least at the same time as recording. For songs first recorded in previously albums, Morrison apparently re-worked music and lyrics before recorded. Or have I missed something? --Philcha (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morrison reworked the music whilst he was in the recording studio, as all of his music is improvised around the basic chord patterns of his songs, so it's more because of the different musicians used from the other recordings of the songs that makes them vary. Also the recording section explains the street choir and their significance in the album, which is later used in the composition section. It wouldn't make sense if this came first. Also I've never seen the composition section of a good album article come before the recording section. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow your approach for now, but leave this item open until I see how it looks. --Philcha (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kitchen roll (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen the personnel section in an article come before the main prose, which in my opinion would look out of place. Kitchen roll (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the role of these "Personnel" is restricted to production. --Philcha (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Wikiproject albums: "A personnel section should be included under a primary heading "Personnel". Kitchen roll (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this item open until I see how it looks. --Philcha (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kitchen roll (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we agree in making all the sub-sections heading under e.g. "Production", please make sure there's no duplication between the sub-sections. --Philcha (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In section "Influence and appearances in popular media":
As Costello isn't a music critic, but a musician, he is stating in the website that the album has influenced him rather than being critical of it (see http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/vanmorrison/biography). Kitchen roll (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In some articles I've used a "Legacy" sub-section under "Reception", and include comments like Costello's and also important covers. You seem to have a low opinion of music critics :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Costello's comment under the critical response section temporarily until I seek out some of the GA articles with legacy sections. Kitchen roll (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infact I think the comment is fine in the critical response section. Kitchen roll (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done The rest of "Influence and appearances in popular media" is about specific songs, not about the album, i.e. it's irrelevant to the article about the album.
removed section. Kitchen roll (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to start a new article on the basis that only three somewhat notable facts can be included. The article would never exceed stub class IMO. Changed my mind I think I will create the article, after much thought. Kitchen roll (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Created "I'll Be Your Lover, Too" article. Kitchen roll (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what info. I can move to the song articles from this album. Kitchen roll (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed section with info about movies the song was featured in. Kitchen roll (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what info. I can move to the song articles from this album. Kitchen roll (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed section with info about covers and movies the song was featured in. Kitchen roll (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO "Chart performance (Album)" should be a sub-section of "Reception", as the sales of books and video games and box office of films are usually in "Reception" of their articles. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO "Chart performance (Single)" should be in the articles about the singles - except "Chart performance (Album)" should note the effect of Domino. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it's important for the single chart info for "Blue Money" and "Call Me Up in Dreamland" stay in the article because this is the first Morrison album that shows he can make consecutive hits. Kitchen roll (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I'll look again either when the structure is stable or when I'm reviewing specific sections. --Philcha (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

Recording

[edit]
  • The 2nd para of "Recording" and the sub-sections "Musicians" and "The Street Choir" in "Personnel" have massive duplication. If you need a top-level "Personnel", I suggest:
the duplications are to reference the personnel section and also to give the reader the band and the choir's background and how they got involved in the album. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
moved. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shows who the choir were in relation to the band. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If these members were poor singers, Morrison would have chosen better singers even if these were not related to band members. IMO that makes the relationship irrelevant. --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not how relevant "The rest of the choir, Dahaud Shaar, Larry Goldsmith and Andrew Robinson, were friends of Morrison's that were living around the Woodstock area" is. --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shows the background to the choir and why they were chosen to sing on the album. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If these members were poor singers, Morrison would have chosen better singers even if these were not Morrison's friends. IMO that makes the relationship irrelevant. --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is important to include because it shows Morrison has selected only people who he knows to play on his album, and that they all know each other, which then ties into the sleeve photographs, as all the band members and their wives are pictured there. Emphasising the relaxed atmosphere that the album was recorded to the reader. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were used for the recording of the album, so should therefore stay in the same section. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I suggest making " "It was originally a concept ... But it didn't turn out" more concise. How would you think of something like "Street Choir was going to be an a cappella group ... so that I could cut a lot of songs with just maybe one guitar. But it didn't turn out"? --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mind if I help out? I cut down on the quote, per your suggestion. - I.M.S. (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morrison was unhappy with the songs cut with the Street Choir, as he wanted to use the group for a different effect: " can be cut to 2 words to introduce "Street Choir was going to be an a cappella group ...". --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

[edit]
See the links given at Talk:Astral Weeks#Reviews. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied for the purpose of this review, but I've noticed that Wikiprojects on "entertainment" topics are most rigid about the RS policy, e.g. WP:VG. Here's the most recent history entry for oocities.com, to avoid searching when Talk:Astral Weeks#Reviews is archived. --Philcha (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject to that, I'd expect "The songs on the album have a free, relaxed sound to them,[7] whilst the simple lyrics lack the level of poetry expected in Morrison's songs[8]" to be in "Reception" rather than "Composition". --Philcha (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that as the composition section is about the music and lyrics, the music and lyrics I feel should be summarised in the opening paragraph of the section, which is what this sentence offers. The sentence is backed up by much of what's said later on in the section about the individual songs. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused.com. It seems Van Morrison is very unusual - with most songwriters the music and lyrics are stable, and even the arrangements are minor tweaks (e.g. the covers by Elton John, David Bowie and and George Michael in Queen: Greatest Hits III; or Queen's stadium versions, which drop most/all of the high notes but include opportunities for the headbangers); but with Van Morrison only the title is (???) stable. I have to leave this one open for now. --Philcha (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morrison has said something like "I never play songs the same way twice", that refers to in the studio and in concert, so his work is very much improvised.Kitchen roll (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Morrison had previously recorded some of the songs featured on His Band and the Street Choir for the albums Astral Weeks and Moondance" might be clearer in passive voice, e.g. "Some of the songs featured on His Band and the Street Choir had previously recorded for the albums Astral Weeks and Moondance". --Philcha (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
changed wording. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See next comment.
  •  Done "During recording sessions from 1968 to 1969 versions of "I've Been Working", "Domino", "Virgo Clowns" and "If I Ever Needed Someone" from this album had been recorded.[6]" looks redundant, as the paras about "I've Been Working" seem to have the same info in greater detail. --Philcha (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For that sentence I was aiming for a sort of summary of the next four paragraphs, so the reader knows how they'll be structured. Would this sound better: "During recording sessions from 1968 to 1969 versions of four songs from this album had been recorded." Kitchen roll (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I preferred this just before the GA review, but then I'd rephrase ""Morrison had previously recorded ... albums Astral Weeks and Moondance" and remove "During recording sessions from 1968 to 1969 versions of "I've Been Working", "Domino", "Virgo Clowns" and "If I Ever Needed Someone" from this album had been recorded.[6]". --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe I've fixed the problem. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I think the "I've Been Working" could be more concise, e.g. ""I've Been Working", the first recording of a song that would feature on His Band and the Street Choir, was an outtake from Astral Weeks from 1968 and from Moondance in 1969. --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reworded. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In the para about "Domino", does "A flute part was originally written for the song, but was dropped because it was considered too complex.[10]" refer to one of the earlier recordings or to His Band and the Street Choir? I think you'll need to make it clearer, which may entail re-structuring the para. If so, you'll then need to rephrase, as concisely as possibly. --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully makes more sense now. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much clearer. But now "A flute part was originally written for a different version of the song, but was later abandoned because it was considered too complex.[10]" looks irrelevant, dropped on the cutting room floor and WP doesn't do director's cuts. --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I think I've got a bit confused with what Hinton means (which isn't for the first time). He is infact talking about a recording from the His Band and the Street Choir sessions. So I'll change it. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The para about "If I Ever Needed Someone" has a similar problem - to what does "Musically the song is blues influenced and is about convincing a girl to come out for the night.[14]" refer to do?
    Reworded Kitchen roll (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "According to Brian Hinton the song "is sweet and mournful, with Van wringing real need out of the simple words."[10]" looks more like a review, which I'd expect to see in "Reception". --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In "In "Virgo Clowns" Morrison and John Platania duet on acoustic guitars. The drummer, Dahaud Shaar, doubles up on bass clarinet.[10] Laughter is also dubbed onto the end of the track, performed by the Street Choir.":
    •  Done No citation for "Laughter is also dubbed onto the end of the track, performed by the Street Choir." - AFAIK the first time this has happened, you're usually very good. --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although statement is true, was originally used in the article to help make another sentence make sense. I can't find a ref. for it so I removed it. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done "In "Virgo Clowns" Morrison and John Platania duet on acoustic guitars. The drummer, Dahaud Shaar, doubles up on bass clarinet.[10] Laughter is also dubbed onto the end of the track, performed by the Street Choir," "In "Virgo Clowns"" is duplication. --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may have sorted this, but I'm not interely sure what you mean. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You done it. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have no idea how to make sentences more concise without changing the meaning of the sentence. I've changed the wording slightly, does it seem right now? Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reworded. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In "The song's arrangement is written in the irregular time signature 8/4 ...", "The song's arrangement " could refer to "Crazy Face" or "Going Around with Jesse James" - please clarify. --Philcha (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Give Me a Kiss" has the "innocence of the early Beatles set to a rolling beat."[10] - looks more like a reviewer's comment, and I'd expect that to be in "Reception". --Philcha (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally reworded section. I think I've adressed all the issues highlighted here. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "The song is widely believed to have been inspired by Curtis Mayfield and The Impressions, with the song "Gypsy Woman".[6][14][16][19]":
 Done Reworded and moved to show the significance of "Gypsy Woman" on "Caravan" as well as "Gypsy Queen". I can add some info. on how Morrison was influenced by Mayfield and the Impressions as well if you see it as necessary. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In ""Blue Money" is pun-filled, and refers to both time and money.[24] The song, according to Brian Hinton, is about "a top shelf magazine model", perhaps Janet Planet,[10] who had worked as a model before His Band and the Street Choir was released.[25":
  •  Done In "The rest of the compositions on the album were taken from the recording sessions that took place in the summer of 1970", there's an easy way to make "taken from the recording sessions that took place" more concise. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reworded Kitchen roll (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "Call Me Up in Dreamland" is a catchy gospel style composition. The Street Choir are used prominently in the song as Brooks notes, "it is this track that reminds the listener that this album was originally intended to be recorded a-cappella".[1] The lyrics refer to life on the road,[2] as Morrison was in the process of touring whilst he was recording the album.[3]
The whole point of mentioning the street choir at this point is to show that "Call Me Up in Dreamland" still shows the album's original concept to the listener. This is all relevent to the composition section. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "I'll Be Your Lover, Too", in "The song is a moderate tempoed acoustic ballad in 4/4 time, with one 5/8 bar before the vocal comes in", I've never seen "tempoed". How about e.g. "This acoustic ballad has a moderate tempo and 4/4 time, with one 5/8 bar before the vocal comes in"
tempoed is a word, google it, although I've changed sentence anyway Kitchen roll (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Sweet Jannie", after "Give Me a Kiss" is the second twelve bar blues on the album" is clumsy - and easily fixed. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "The song is about young love and is another song on the album to have been speculated to be about Planet.[4] Although with the lyrics: "I've been in love with you baby/Ever since you were in Sunday school" it is more likely that the song was written about memories from Morrison's childhood, attending Sunday school at the Brethren Gospel Hall in Belfast,[5] whilst Janet was brought up in San Francisco.[6]
    • The Sunday school at the Brethren Gospel Hall seems to refuted the "and is another song on the album to have been speculated to be about Planet", and I'd remove "and is another song on the album to have been speculated to be about Planet". --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      If removed would make the rest of the section about "Sweet Jannie" redundant. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The article can't claim both that "Sweet Jannie" is about Planet and that it's about attending Sunday school at the Brethren Gospel Hall in Belfast - that's a contradiction. --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The article only says reviewers have claimed that there is speculation that the song's about Planet, not that it is about Planet, therefore there is no contradiction. Both facts are published so is not original research either. Kitchen roll (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right, there's no OR. However, there are only 2 citations (for now) and they contradict. I'd name them. I'd also summarise "was written about memories from Morrison's childhood, attending Sunday school at the Brethren Gospel Hall" as Heylin provides evidence, while Laundau does not. But I'd omit "Janet was brought up in San Francisco" as: it's at best indirect evidence, i.e. I think it's WP:SYN; the Independent actually says "a Californian-raised Texan". --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Changed article reference to Heylin 127, which I missed. Would this work now? Also DeWitt supports Landau's claim so would this back up the statement? Kitchen roll (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I still think using "a Californian-raised Texan" would be WP:SYN. As this would be the only use of McWeeney, I'd store it in a section "sources" in Talk:His_Band_and_the_Street_Choir - "my" articles have libraries in the Talk pages :-)
      Reworded sentence
      Now 3 we have 3 sources for the "been speculated to be about Planet" and 1 source for "that the song was written about memories from Morrison's childhood, attending Sunday school". I think you must re-phrase be very neutral, and to note that the majority go for "been speculated to be about Planet". --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I count only two for about Planet. I'm a bit confuzed with this. Rogan p18 supports Heylin, so I'm not sure how to do this, as Heylin/Rogan have evidence, but the others don't. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      With Heylin saying both "Planet is a Californian-raised Texan" and "the song was written about memories from Morrison's childhood, attending Sunday school", WP:SYN is probably not a problem. But many readers may get confused with the details. I might summarise the main text, e.g. "While the song is about young love, some authors thought its inspiration was Planet, while others thought it was at the song was written about memories from Morrison's childhood, attending Sunday school in Belfast". Then I'd added a ref with the details, including the citations. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this'd make less sense to the reader, because there's no mention that Sunday School is referred to in the song so the "attending Sunday school" wouldn't make sense, and also it doesn't mention the contradiction of Planet living in America, which leads Rogan/Heylin to the conclusion that the song's about Morrison's childhood, which wouldn't make sense if not included. I think having the Heylin ref instead of the Independent one now makes the info on "Sweet Jannie" clear. Kitchen roll (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Jon Landau believes the song is an excellent way to end the album, whilst calling it one of the two or three best songs of Morrison's career at that point, due to its musical and poetic energy" looks better as a reviewer comment in "Reception" --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    moved to reception Kitchen roll (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Packaging

[edit]

Chart performance

[edit]

Critical response

[edit]

Morrison and the musician's responses

[edit]
  •  Done In "Despite the album getting positive reviews upon its release Morrison commented on it in 1973, saying that "I really don't think that album was saying much ... that album is like a kick in the head or something."":
  •  Done "This could be the reason that lead Morrison to have reservations about the album because after its release he complained that ..." can be much more concise. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    reworded Kitchen roll (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the structure is poor and there's a lot of duplication:
    I've restructured the section, how does it look now? Kitchen roll (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Still has from quotes from Yorke 1975 at both start and end ("I really don't think that album was saying much ... that album is like a kick in the head or something" and "I'd rather not think about that album ... the album didn't sell very well and I'm glad"). Why do we need both? If we use only 1, I prefer "A couple of songs on it were hit singles but the album didn't sell very well and I'm glad" as it's sharper. --Philcha (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re structure, I suggest: M didn't like the album; sources say the reason was the renamed the album from Virgo's Fool; Shaar's "positive vibe"; Clinton Heylin's "save on Morrison's brow". --Philcha (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest the duplication could be reduced by:
      • M didn't like the album: "A couple of songs on it were hit singles but the album didn't sell very well and I'm glad"
      • Rename: "The name of the album was changed before its release, having previously been called Virgo's Fool" and then "although I had final approval on things, they just went ahead and did the wrong thing. They told the record company it was one thing and it wasn't. So the whole thing went wrong."
    • Finally the comments from Shaar and Heylin. --Philcha (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I think the article should say who renamed the album from Virgo's Fool to His Band and the Street Choir, as this seems to make Morrison's attitude to the album poor. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't a direct source claiming the title was changed by a specific person, but Mary Martin was incharge of his business at the time. The biographies I've read also claim it was Martin that got incontrol of the album. Also Morrison is probably refering to Martin in the quote afterwards, but I don't believe he's mentioning her directly because she was described as a "miracle manager" and did a lot to promote him and bring in money, so I don't think he wanted to stab her in the back as it were. The latter is just my opinion for why Morrison hasn't mentioned her in the quote, but it gives you more insight into the situation and what info is available to reference this point. Kitchen roll (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case we don't want WP:OR or WP:SYN - I'd drop who renamed the album and the mention of Mary Martin. --Philcha (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    removed the first couple of sentences in that section. I'm thinking that the Virgo's Fool bit should be moved to packaging maybe? Kitchen roll (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But would we want the Virgo's Fool bit to be on both "packaging" and "Morrison and the musician's responses"? I suggest "Morrison and the musician's responses" is the more striking and significant. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right it stays as it is :) Kitchen roll (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

[edit]
Not necessary, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

[edit]

Charts

[edit]
  • This duplicates "Chart performance", and I'd remove the talbes. The alternative would be to move the tables to "Chart performance", and remove the numbers from the text, so that the text has only non-table text. --Philcha (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not applicable, see London Calling. Also please read the wikipedia:wikiproject albums page on how to write an album article. You'll find that a lot of what you've told me to do is not within the criteria of writing an album article. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - Nominator to check test of article - - - - -
In theory articles should be 100% done before the GA review. That implies that all the checking and improving should have been before the review. It is the nominator to identify and make further checking and improvement in the rest of the article:

I absolutely understand what you're saying but I had the article peer reviewed before it was reviewed for GA and I adressed all the issues arrased in that review. Also there are few if not no current GAs with a similar structure and format to this one, so it's very hard to compare this article to them and get ideas on how to improve it. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article has a very unusual structure, because of Morisson's methods
But I was referring to the prose in the article, and how often I've had to give hints or outright phrasing. Remember that an article nominated for GA review should be already 100% as far as the nominator can see and at least 95% in the reviewer's opinion. So far this article is a long way from that, and I think you need to improve your writing skills. Fortunately there's a simple remedy - keeping working it at; and occasionally re-visit phrases you've already improved, as that will show your progess. PRs and other types of help can show you examples, but you need to use them in your own efforts. I know I'm better than I was a year, just by working at it. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do the excercises in part 1 of User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a - part 1 is about cutting reduntant prose.--Philcha (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominated the article I thought it was 100% done. The info in the composition section all seemed to be ok for the review, but most of it turned out to have to be replaced and either deleted or moved to the reception section. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - At the end - - - - -

[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

[edit]

 Done The checker found:

See User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died on how to resurrect dead links - most of the time. If you can't resurrect a source, you'll need to find another source(s) - or remove the content, which might be painful. --Philcha (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had URLs dead during GA review before, it's a pain. But a least you can fix it now (we hope), rather than seeing someone add on of those maintenance tags later.</rant> --Philcha (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've referenced the publications, but this seems to have gone slightly wrong with harvnb referencing. I think I need a little help making the refs link correctly. Any ideas? Kitchen roll (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link checker shows only 1 dead now, but it's Landau, IIRC the most important that was found dead earlier. I don't know whether the checker can be misled by a problem with harbnb, but I'd try Internet Archive again.
If you suspect harbvnb, I'm not the person to ask - I tried harbnv in my sandbox a while ago, and IMO there are simplest ways to get the same benefits for readers and editors. If you can find whoever convert the article to using harv, that might help. Or just use the basic ref tag for this source, there's no rule against mixing basic ref and harv. --Philcha (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I originally converted the sources to harvnb, but it's become problematic now, because both Lester Bangs and Greil Marcus wrote the Moondance Rolling Stone review, and the template given at Wikipedia:Citation templates doesn't seem to work for giving both names in the reference. Kitchen roll (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right I've sorted it. What an achievement! Kitchen roll (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just the link checker again, and it says nothing at all at the Landau page. If you are relying an online version of this source, you need to must that there an operation URL. Alternate if you rely on a print of the source, you need date, volume and/or page, publisher, ... Or you find other source(s), ... --Philcha (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the issue number and date. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But for readers it would much better to add the backup from the Internet Archive. Ditto for the other dead rollingstone pages? For Laundau, its here
You go to Internet Archive and enter the original (dead) URL in the "Wayback Machine" form. For Landau's review, the output shows only 1 option. Open that and you see the review.
You should have this have gone this as soon as there was a problem as soon, instead of removing the URL from the articles. I found the URL by going back through the article's history until I found a version that still had the URL, and entered the URL into the "Wayback Machine" form. In this case it took me 30 secs from start, it can case a minute if WP or Internet Archive is slow.
Ditto for the other rollingstone pages.
You'll need to add 2 params in the cite for each resurrected page, see User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died. --Philcha (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added links and thanks for the tips - that's an extremely useful website. Kitchen roll (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. --Philcha (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Done (to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) The DAB checker found none. --Philcha (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

[edit]

 Done (to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) 2 images, both have Non-free media use rationales. --Philcha (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

1 issue:

Hints

[edit]

What happens next

[edit]

According to WP:GAN the article goes "on hold" for a week, and any issues / improvements should be dealt with that time. However, reviewers can extend that a little if good progress is made. Additionally, please let me know of real-life delays - you never know when a review is about to start, so it's reasonable for reviewers to allow some flexibility in the other way.

Pass

[edit]

I'm pleased to say that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images. Many thanks for the work you've put into this. --Philcha (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pilcha. A great review and I have learnt much working with you on this :) Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Please place non-review comments below this line - - - - - - - - - - - -

Many references just don't check out

[edit]

Since I have several of the books that are used as referencing sources on this article and as I have had particular problems with this editor and his referencing methods for over 2 years now: some examples here I took as much time as I could spare to go over this article and check the sources that I had access to for accuracy. There are many liberties taken and I'm not even saying that the information is in itself wrong in all instances, just that some of the specific references cited do not bear out what the information says. I find this very difficult to write but after much consideration and as it has been put up for FA, I feel it is my responsibility to bring it up as not many editors have the books to check out the sources. I could have gone in and changed the material according to the references used but after many unproductive and contentious battles with this editor, I'm not up to it anymore. Agadant (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some post-FAC comments

[edit]

As promised I have checked out the article and my comments are given below. I have also done a little copyediting to improve the flow of the prose.

  • Lead: there is lack of clarity in the second and third paragraphs. The statement "Morrison was dissatisfied with the addition of female vocalists, and the album's songs featuring the Street Choir were given instrumental backing" doesn't seem an accurate summary of what I read in the article. In the third paragraph I don't see the point of "as well as Morrison's previous album Moondance"; it should be made clear that "domino" became the first song on the album rather than just describing it as a "sampler single"; a yar should be added for the hit song "Brown Eyed Girl"; "As of 2010, it remains..." should read "As of 2010, "Domino" remains..."; add "from the album" to "Warner Bros. released two other singles..."
  • Recording
    • Three paragraphs begin "Morrison..." Need to vary the prose. I have reorded the opening of the second paragraph, and have reworked the third paragraph to read more smoothly.
    • Fourth para. What concept did Morrison abandon? I find it quite hard to follow this paragraph. The quote beginning ""Street Choir was going to be an a cappella group..." merely tells us what we already know. Am I right in thinking that Morrison dropped the "choir" songs recorded in June, and replaced them with what was recorded in April? If this is so, it needs to be stated more clearly.
    • Morrison recorded six songs in the second session in June with the choir. instead of recording them a cappella (which was what he planned) he included his backing band in these songs as well. He then added the songs from the first recording session in April, which weren't planned for release.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition
    • The statements: "The songs on the album borrow from various music genres and have a free, relaxed sound;[10] the simple lyrics lack the level of poetry popularly expected from Morrison's work.[11]" need to be attributed in the text, as well as cited, so that we know whose opinions we are reading. Check the rest of the text for similar cases.
    • reoccuring": In this context, "recurring" might be better
    • Use of nickname in the sentence "Morrison wrote "Give me a Kiss" about either Planet or his newly born baby girl Shana" is unencyclopedic (and also confusing - I'd long forgotten who "Planet" was. No need to name the daughter, either. Check other uses of "Planet"
    • More repetitive phrasing towards the end: "led biographer Clinton Heylin to believe" closely followed by "Clinton Heylin is led to believe".
    • Repetitive prose: "many times" occurs twice in first line of third paragraph
  • Chart performance: The focus of this section, after the opening sentence, seems to be the chart performances of "Domino" and other singles, rather than on the album's performance.
  • Critical response: "In later years" is vague. When did Rogan make these comments?
  • Morrison's response: It is not clear to me, after reading the article, how Morrison "lost control". We learn from the lead that the album was originally titled Virgo's Fool, and was renamed by Warner Bros against Morrison's wishes, but there's no real information in the text that amounts to Morrison's "losing control". Whatever dispute there was between him and Warner Bros is not revealed in the article. I think this needs to be clarified, since it seems to have a bearing on Morrison's attitude to the album.
    • I think how he lost control is summarised in this quote: "Somebody else got control of it and got the cover and all that shit while I was on the West Coast. I knew what was happening to it, but it was like I couldn't stop it. I'd given my business thing over to someone else and although I had final approval on things, they just went ahead and did the wrong thing. They told the record company it was one thing and it wasn't. So the whole thing went wrong." Should it be expanded on in other sections of the article?  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 09:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you work on these over the next week or so. When you are satisfied that you have dealt with everything, you could ask Sandy if you may renominate. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC most of Brianboulton's comments are very similar to those I posted at Talk:His_Band and the Street Choir/GA1.
However I'd keep "Planet" as the name appeared all over the citations and in fact I've forgotten her real name. But I'd removed their baby girl as superfluous and excessive. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a user a while ago to copyedit the article. They did a great job, but because of lack of knowledge of the subject I think the meaning of some of the sentences were changed, which was a lot of what you found in your review. I've adressed most of the issues, but I've added replies below the comments that I'm uncertain how to fix at the moment. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 09:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:His Band and the Street Choir/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
* Green tickY All the C class criteria
  • Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
  • Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
  • Green tickY No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
  • Green tickY No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow

Kitchen roll (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the more rigorous criteria of the revised B class, this article needs improved sourcing to help readers verify the accuracy of information. Where can readers fine that Rolling Stone information? What's the issue #? "In September, it was reported"--by whom? Where? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "talk" for comments on why this remains a C-class article and suggestions for raising it to B. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 17:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on His Band and the Street Choir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Brooks 1999, p. 56
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hinton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rogan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Landau, Jon (1971-02-04). "His Band and the Street Choir Music Review". Rolling Stone Magazine. Retrieved 2008-09-02.
  5. ^ Heylin 2003, p. 9
  6. ^ McWeeney, Myles (2005-05-08). "A portrait of Van the real man, at last". independent.ie. Retrieved 2009-12-29.
  7. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference allmusic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:His_Band_and_the_Street_Choir&oldid=1211200850"