Talk:I'd Have You Anytime

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I'd Have You Anytime/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 06:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi JG66. I'll be reviewing this. I've already gone ahead and addressed lots of small points by being bold and editing the article directly. I'll try to finish this review in the next few days or so. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Moisejp, great to see it's you picking up this GAR. (After that info on cover versions you passed my way last year, I made sure to thank you when working on the article ;) You picked up some great things in those edits you made recently – thank you. Not sure about the comma placement changes (rightly or wrongly, I always think a comma added inside quoted text when it's followed by a carrier expression is okay); no big deal. You'll see I've just made a few minor changes myself, mostly correcting wording in a couple of quotes. Will come back soon and address those points you've raised below. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Just to say, having replied to the comments below, I've also added to the article's lead section, to ensure it's more representative of the full discussion. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2013 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written. No problems with MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have some concerns about a few of the sources. See below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   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):

   No images or sound-clips.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1. I'm concerned about a few sources. What makes these reliable sources? [1] (blog), [2] (who edits this? accountability?), [3].
   1. Well, I have to say, I've had no problems with any of those three in GANs in the past – in the very recent past, in the case of a pretty demanding GAR (and welcomely so) for All Things Must Pass. (I'm sorry, when I say that, I'm not trying to belittle your concerns here.) [#1]: Contra Band Music is a blog, yes – very well put together, imo, with almost all points supported by primary sources such as interview downloads and video clips. I like to add a CBM piece as a ref quite often in order to give readers access to those resources also, not necessarily to act as a source for a point made in a wikipedia article. But in this case it was serving the latter role, yes, so I've just added a ref, stating the same point, from Elliot Huntley's Harrison biography. JG66 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
   2. With Beatles Bible, it's being used as a second example to support a statement I always feel the need to put before list of personnel in songs from All Things Must Pass: "The musicians who performed on ... are believed to be as follows ..." There's still a fair bit of debate about who plays what on which ATMP tracks: I'll (try to) keep it short here. Basically, Simon Leng (2003/2006) is the one who's come up with a semi-definitive list of contributors song-by-song; Bruce Spizer (2005) lists the musicians also, but in most cases he's merely parroted some claims put forward by Madinger & Easter in 2000 (importantly, before the 30th anniversary reissue and subsequent research by Leng); mentions – ie not a list of credits – in Robert Rodriguez (2010) also follow the Madinger & Easter line, partly, while acknowledging how impossible it is to be sure either way, especially now. Unlike those authors, and any others, Leng consulted the musicians where possible – ATMP regulars Klaus Voormann, John Barham, Gary Wright, Joey Molland – and his findings, in my opinion (and for the likes of Elliot Huntley and others who appear to adhere to Leng's listings without actually offering credits by song), are without doubt the most reliable. (Plus, one only has to have an ear for Jim Gordon's drumming style and Voormann's bass, say, to know that some of Spizer's contentions can't be right.) So, simply to support the idea that Leng's version has had a fair bit of influence, I think it's important to include Beatles Bible. I suppose what I'm concerned about is a contributor sometime in the future adding misinformation based on the Madinger & Easter and Spizer books – hopefully, a web link to a page on the song will lessen the likelihood of that happening, if it can be seen there and then that Leng's musician credits have some mileage. JG66 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• If there is debate about the personnel, I would mention the different possibilities. That's the safest thing to do: "Writers including Spizer and Madinger & Easter say such-and-such, while Leng says such-and-such." Or list the musicians everyone agrees on, and then mention that there is some debate about the remaining musicians. I haven't read any of them and am not as familiar as you with the background, but calling Leng "semi-definitive" doesn't sound very convincing to me as a reason to discount everyone else. As Rodriguez says, it's impossible to be sure. If you indicate that there is some debate, you're not saying that Spritzer et al are necessarily correct, it's more like you're saying "This is the current state of how different writers have described this." I don't think it is up to us as Wikipedia editors to let our interpretation of musicians' musical styles (e.g., Gordon's and Voorman's) to affect our choice of references. (But on the other hand, if you say, "Spizer et al. says such-and-such, while Leng cites his interviewing of Harrison's backing band, and his analysis of the musical styles of the members, to give the following personnel list..." that is fine (if Leng does in fact talk about the musical styles). If it's helpful, see what I did here: Santa-Fe_(Bob_Dylan_song)#Personnel.

In any case, I would get rid of the Beatles Bible. I really don't think it adds more credibility to Leng. Have you read Wikipedia: Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources? The Beatles Bible is run by a single person. "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." It also says: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." I'm not saying the personnel listing for the song is an "extraordinary claim" but with the amount of dispute present about who played on "I'd Have You Anytime", I certainly wouldn't call the Beatle Bible's version a "lightweight claim". Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• In the case of "I'd Have You Anytime", the situation re lineup of musicians is actually quite straightforward, in that Leng and Spizer are in agreement. (Above, I was just giving you the rationale behind all the other All Things Must Pass GAs, where the personnel situation can be a bit more confused.) I've removed the Beatle Bible ref therefore and added Spizer. JG66 (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

1. 1. Bootleg Zone is the best bootleg database I've come across, and I'd only use it for that purpose: to acknowledge the existence of a bootleg containing a song. I'd really hope all these can stay, partly because they seem to have been welcome in all past GAs I've been involved in, also because I think they add something to the article in the ways described. JG66 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I agree that this is representative of a "lightweight claim" (made in the Bootleg Zone about the existence of this bootleg) and may be an acceptable source. Moisejp (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• About the Contra Band source, since you already have another source now for the statement, do you need to keep the Contra Band? What do we know about this blogger DinsdaleP who runs this blog? I don't think it is what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Moisejp (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's gone now. JG66 (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

1. "is widely considered an effective album opener"; may be OK, but it's unclear that your sources support "widely". Also, I'm not sure what "effective" means here.
   1. Yes, good point about "widely". Can't find other sources that comment directly on the song's success in that particular role so I've reworded to say that this opinion is held among Beatles and Harrison authors. As far as "effective" goes, I'd think that the meaning's fairly clear (no?), particularly with the two specific comments that follow. If not, maybe "successful"? To me, "effective" reads better. JG66 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK. For me, "widely" was a bigger issue than "effective". I think it is OK now. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure that Thomas Ward's review of "To Be Alone With You" supports the statement that "... Nashville Skyline (1969) showed a more complex musical structure than before, a departure from his usual three-chord compositions." Ward calls the song "simple" and "traditional". But let me know if you disagree.
   1. Well, he calls the bridge traditional, it's the song/statement that he describes as simple, and the bridge is very untypical of Dylan pre 1969, I'd say. Anyway, I can see why the comment might've appeared unsupported by Ward's words, so I've just deleted mention of that song. Bit unfortunate perhaps, because I think the Allmusic reviewer (and his colleague on the album page) missed a great opportunity, if he wanted to comment on the compositions musically. From memory, there are some incredible/bold chord and key changes in NS tracks like "Tonight I'll Be Staying With You" and "Country Pie" also – unheard of, I think, in Dylan's work until that time (save for that dramatic first chord in "Just Like a Woman"'s middle eight); but neither Ward nor Erlewine comment on those. I used to have a Dylan book, some play on the title Whiter Shade of Pale(?), that might've been a big help here – never mind! I'm not trying to say that this development was all down to hanging out with George by any means, just that it's obvious Bob was on the look for some new tools, so to speak. JG66 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

1. It may not be clear enough how the Barry Feinstein quote in the Background section is relevant to the article. Moisejp (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
   1. Have added to text following the quote – does that do it, do you think? Personally, I see the Feinstein quote as complementing Bob Johnston's point about the 1966 meet; in fact, it probably adds some clarity to Johnston's point. It's a quote I'd love to keep, I have to say. JG66 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's a good addition. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It all looks good! Happy to pass this article. Moisejp (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah fabulous. Thanks Moisejp! Best, JG66 (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)