Talk:I'll Still Love You

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]

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

Reviewer: Esprit15d (talk · contribs) 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Esprit15d, thanks for taking this (it's been up there a while!). Looking forward to your review. JG66 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Esprit15d: Sorry to hassle, but any chance you'll be reviewing this article sometime soon …? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, my apologies. I will get on this. You will hear from me in the next day or so.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


  • Do you think the picture of Shirley Bassey could me made larger?
  • Certainly could do, but if I compare the image with that of Cilla Black in a later section, it looks fine, imo. I suppose I'm mindful that the Bassey image is a head-and-shoulders shot (vs the Black portrait), so enlarging Bassey seems slightly odd, considering it's a close-up unlike Black. I guess we could increase them both, a touch. JG66 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've just increased them both. How's that? JG66 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • " Harrison wrote what became "When Every Song Is Sung" (and later "I'll Still Love You") as a possible song for her" -- This is grammatically correct, but very clunkily written. Do you think it could be re-written a little more fluently?
  • Okay. Can't say I had a problem when returning to this with a fresh pair of eyes (many months after writing and nominating the article, I mean), but I've reworked it into two sentences. Any good? JG66 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Much better.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 19:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "and so tried to redo it over 1974–75" - "redo it over" is redundant
  • reworded to "re-recorded it over 1974–75". Hope I understood your point – the "over" is part of the date info we're giving, not "over" as in again. JG66 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Now I get it. The re-wording is clearer.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 19:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

These are my first comments. The article is actually very strong. I just have a few more things, and the article should be ready to pass. I will get back with you later tonight.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 17:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Esprit15d – keep 'em coming! Btw, can I ask why you've changed all instances of spaced-en dashes to unspaced ems? Either style is acceptable, per MOS:DASH, and in fact spaced ens are far more common in British English (eg, here). Best, JG66 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You are right. It is my custom to use the longer one, since I'm American, in most cases, the editor is using hyphens/ndashes/mdashes haphazardly. But feel free to change them as you see fit.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 04:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Esprit15d: Sorry to hassle (again!). Just worried that someone's going to see the lack of activity here and shut us down … JG66 (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Finishing it now.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "While he had traditionally been the most active among Starr's former bandmates in supporting the drummer after the Beatles' break-up," — I don't think "traditionally" is the right word there. Maybe, "generally considered". Also, since this is an opinion, can you attribute it to a source? Like "magazines of the day", "reports" or something like that.
  • I've ditched "traditionally". I'm sorta surprised you view the sentence as an opinion, because by saying "most active" the comparison reflects the regularity of Harrison's involvement – the sheer number of musical collaborations between the two. Anyway, I've just reworded it. What do you think now? JG66 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The re-wording is fantastic. Previously, the wording was more subjective. Calling Harrison a frequent collaborator sounds more objective than saying traditionally he was more supportive.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 18:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I see what you meant now. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you give too much weight to Nicholas Schaffner's opinion under reception. Can you shorten his opinion? Also, can you give a general summary of the reviews at the beginning of the paragraph like, "Critics generally found the record…"
  • Do you mean Ian Inglis' opinion, perhaps? (Doesn't seem as if we give that much from Schaffner, does it?) As far as a general comment goes, I'm afraid I can't, not without indulging in OR. JG66 (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Summarizing what will be substantiated in the paragraph is not OR. But the paragraph lacks a topic sentence, and I think it would benefit from one. If you look at other GA or even FA song articles, I think you'll see what I'm mean. Just a very brief lead in.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 18:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, it is in FACs or, say, when other editors come to an article I've taken to GA, that I've seen such editorial links contested, actually. Before then I would always put the reader first – meaning, I tended to agree with the sort of (helpful) link you're suggesting! How do you think it looks now, with the recent changes (most of which I have been able to source, in fact)? JG66 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it looks good, and is referenced beyond what is strictly necessary, which is fine.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Have gone ahead and cut much of Inglis' text. (I hope that's what you wanted!) JG66 (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I actually did mean Schaffer, but revisiting it, you know, it's not that egregious, and I definitely think trimming Inglis's critique was an improvement.
  • This part: "While Starr was often asked about Harrison, Lennon and McCartney's contributions" -- It's my understanding that possession in a series should each have an apostrophe+s ('s) on the terminal person if the item is shared. So "Mary, Tom, and Shirley's car" is one car they share. "Mary's, Tom's, and Shirley's cars" are three cars that belong to them respectively. I am going to assume that the former Beatle's members fall in the latter category--distinct contributions, which means you would have to add aprostophe+s to each Beatle. That is an option, although it sounds clumsy on my ears, so I would advocate for a re-word to avoid it, particularly since, this article is not using the Oxford comma, it sounds like "Lennon and McCartney's contributions to the album" is a separate clause in an already complex sentence.
  • You're absolutely right, thank you. Have reworded, avoiding the three surnames. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Beautiful!--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • To me, the third paragraph under "Release and reception" should become the second paragraph, as it is not related to the surrounding critical reception. Also, I don't see why the third and fourth paragraphs aren't consolidated. They both deal with recent, legacy reviews, correct?
  • Ended up taking ex-para 3 to the end of Recording, and set part of it as a note, with some additional text. I think it works better there; not only that, but I'm not convinced any formal legal action was taken. I think Keith Badman went from a late 1976 interview when Starr talks about Harrison threatening to sue and how "we've sorted it all out now, though – it's all okay". The 1988 Aspel joint interview is very well known and great fun; there, a clearly drunk Starr recounts the 1976 phone call as Harrison laughs in the background and tries to interject. But the issue's gained some traction as so many of these rock myths do, which is why I've included it.
  • Fair enough.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure whether by "third and fourth paragraphs" you meant the paras beginning "According to Keith Badman" and "Writing more recently, Robert Rodriguez describes", or the latter and "In Simon Leng's estimation"? If it's the second of these pairs, they do indeed cover the same subject from the same perspective. I'm not sure that they need to be consolidated because of this, though – one could say the shorter paragraphs improve readability, no? (At least, that's another point I seem to have picked up from reviewers in the past.) I'll join them up if you want; I'm not too bothered either way. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I mean the last two paragraphs in the "Release and reception" section. I still advocate that they be joined. Readibility only comes in when a paragraph is so huge, that if you wanted to go back to a certain part, it would be a Herculean task to find it. I don't think we've crossed that threshold.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I've now combined the two. JG66 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we have any more information about the music video? I may have missed something, but it seems like there was only a passing mention. Perhaps you can include reviews of it, a screenshot reviews of it.
  • Have added what little I could find – the clip's extremely rare. Certainly not enough critical commentary to merit a screenshot, the quality of which would be dreadful anyway, judging by what I've seen on YouTube. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood. I think what you've added expalains what would otherwise be a glaring oversight in the article.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For the reference The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, absolutely no editorial or author info exists?
  • Well, I've always treated the book in that way – since no author-editors appear on the cover or spine. Looking inside, I just noticed that Patricia Romanowski and Holly George-Warren are credited on the title page and in the CIP data, so I've changed all mentions in the article. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Great. They should be named according to norms. Also (I really wish I'd caught this earlier) what about Rolling Stone, Harrison? No editorial info for that reference either?--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The book title is Harrison and the "author" is The Editors of Rolling Stone; unlike in the Encyclopedia above, there are no individual editors named on the title page or in the CIP data. Credits do appear separately, listing editors, designers, researchers, business manager, etc. But to me, they read more like staff credits for a package book – it doesn't seem as if anyone is being singled out as the author-editor. This is an instance where perhaps the approach I took when starting the article (all Sources items separated by commas, years appearing towards the end of each entry, before ISBNs) comes undone. In that, if it were set in the Harvard style – which I'm not a fan of, but will use if it's the established style in an article – the entry under Sources would read: The Editors of Rolling Stone (2002). Harrison. New York, NY: Rolling Stone Press/Simon & Schuster … JG66 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For this reference: "Bob Woffinden, "Ringo Starr: Rotogravure", NME," is there any page info?
  • No nothing, I'm afraid, same with the Richard Cromelin piece from Creem. Both citations carry a link to the article on Rock's Backpages – I'd hope that's sufficient? I do make a point of looking out for missing details like page numbers when I've come across something as a subscriber to RBP (e.g. when a print source cites the same contemporary article or review), so something could well turn up. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay. This is good enough for a good article, but this might come up if you go for FA.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think is super close to being done.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 19:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Except for the couple of questions I have, when I hear back, I'm ready to pass this article!--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Esprit15d: Many thanks for the great review. I'm very happy the article's made GA! Best, JG66 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Congrats!--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 13:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I'll Still Love You. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)