Talk:Instant Karma!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject The Beatles (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This Apple Records/Apple Corps-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-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.
 
Note icon
This article was the project collaboration on at least one previous occasion.


Music video[edit]

Does anyone know why in the video clip to this song there is a person with a bandage over their eyes singing along on stage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.7.137 (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's Yoko Ono knitting while blindfolded, for some unknown and probably unknowable reason.... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Recording date[edit]

The article says it was recorded in one day and released 10 days later, and lists the release date as Feb 10 1970. The infobox, however, says release year "1970" and recording year "1969". Which one's correct? -- 201.78.236.243 12:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Information repeated[edit]

It says that the B-side was "Who has seen the wind" twice.


Duran Duran?[edit]

I've been looking for the Duran Duran cover (or the album that is was on) with no success. Maybe you are thinking of the Toad and the Wet Sprocket version from 95 on the Working Class Hero: A Tribute?Zzz345zzz

Isn't Toad and the Wet Sprocket... Is Toad the Wet Sprocket 200.62.17.130

UK Chart[edit]

In the body of the article it mentions a peak UK position of five, in the side bar it is #4, which is it? Zzz345zzZ 02:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from Bare Bones about link b/w Shining & Instant Karma![edit]

p. 125 "Q: What was the origin of the phrase 'the shining' as a description of psychic power? KING: The origin of that was a song by John Lennon and the Plastic Ono Band called 'Instant Karma.' The refrain went 'We all shine on'."

p. 190 "...embarrassing in a way, because The Shining was a title that I originally turned down. When I turned the manuscript in, it was The Shine. The contract had been issued that way. And one day we were sitting around talking about it, and the sub rights guy at Doubleday said, "are you sure you want this book to go out under this title, with a Black cook in it?"

---some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Title of the article[edit]

If the song is called, "Instant Karma! (We All Shine On)", shouldn't that be the name of the article?

Just as an example, the article for the song You Know My Name (Look Up The Number) is called exactly like that, including the parenthesis words. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 16:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Instant Karma!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial coments[edit]

This looks like a strong article on first pass, meeting or close to meeting most of the GA criteria. Thanks for your hard work on it, it's much appreciated.

I have a few suggestions to add clarity and context below. The biggest suggestion I'd make is to expand on the description of the song itself, to describe it to a reader who might not be familiar with it. (It makes me sad to think of such people, but apparently they're out there.) Structure/lyrics/themes seems worth its own section, like the "Composition and lyrics" section of Good Article Lithium (Nirvana song). Sources about the lyrics, themes, and composition appear readily available through a Google Books search, and I've noted some below. If you disagree with these suggestions, though, I'm glad to discuss.

I also made some minor copyedits for style and grammar as I went. Please take a look to be sure I didn't inadvertently introduce any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • The sleeve in the infobox is described as "depicting different artist name"--clarify different from what?
Yes check.svg Done Clarified. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 02:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The single is described in the infobox as from the "Plastic Ono Band", but this isn't mentioned in the text. Can you clarify the relationship between the recording and the POB?
Yes check.svg Done I think I've clarified it. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead could use expansion to properly summarize the article--perhaps a one-sentence description of the song, a mention that it was written, recorded, and released in such a short time, etc.
Yes check.svg Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Despite Spector's "wall of sound technique being used on the Beatles' Get Back/Let It Be tapes" -- Where does the quotation that starts at wall of sound close?
Yes check.svg Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 02:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • " The song was later included on the Rykodisc reissue" -- Does this refer to "Instant Karma!" or "Who Has Seen the Wind?"
Yes check.svg Done "Who Has Seen the Wind?" was included. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 02:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Minor context would help this article work as a stand-alone piece (I've added a bit of this already). Consider clearing up basic connections that may seem very obvious to you and me, but wouldn't necessarily be to a high schooler clicking on this article: John Lennon was a Beatle, Yoko Ono is his wife, George Harrison was a Beatle, etc.
Yes check.svg Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 14:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The article has very little description of the actual song. Do any of these sources address the lyrics? If not, I'd suggest adding a sentence or two attempting to describe the song's subject/lyrics. This source might give you a start: [1]. Here's some more discussion by him of the song's origins: [2]
Yes check.svg Done I can't add a source for the second book as no preview is available. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The given source appears to list different tracks as added to the non-Holland CD release: "Bless You, Mother" and "Oh My Love" instead of "Bless You" and "Mother". Is this a case of alternate titles, or just a mix-up? [3]
As the song titles are in italics in the source it's not really that clear, but it's "Bless You" and "Mother". Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 02:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Some discussion of critical response would also be a useful addition for completeness. For example, this source says that "many considered it his finest achievement since leaving the Beatles"--though that muddies the waters a bit if this song was released before the break-up.[4] This source also appears to have analysis, though I can't open it here.[5] Is it possible for any more to be added about this?
Added former source. The latter is more or less in one of Blaney's other books, John Lennon: Listen to This Book (which I'm trying to find, along with other sources). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 18:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
Yes check.svg Done changed to the regular album cover rationale. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 02:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for taking this one (rather quickly!). If you don't mind, I'd like to start work on fixing the issues tomorrow, if that's okay? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That'd be fine--no rush at all. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to check in on this one--there's one more point above I'd like your thoughts on when you get a chance. Keep me posted, Khazar2 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing these! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing review[edit]

Hi Yeepsi, thanks for your work so far. Unfortunately, I still see a number of issues in the article following the expansion. I've listed a few individual ones I couldn't fix myself below, but I'm concerned by the number of new and remaining errors,[6] including an incorrect quotation.[7] I'm therefore going to close the review at this time. I think this article's getting close to Good Article status, but still needs some close attention to copyediting and detail, and it's better for that take place outside of the time pressure of a GA review. I'll fill out the table below in just a moment to address the criteria in more detail.

I do really appreciate your work to bring the article this far--it's improved a lot! Keep up the good work, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • ""Who Has Seen the Wind?", which Lennon has no part in the performance,[8] was later included on the Rykodisc reissue of the couple's Wedding Album.[24]" -- the phrase "which Lennon has no part in the performance" needs to be rewritten, both to change to past tense and to make it fit grammatically. Maybe ""Who Has Seen the Wind?", on which Lennon did not perform,"?
  • "Independent Music Publishing - Time-Bomb Songs: They Lie Dormat, Then Blow Up Big"" -- is it correct for this to read "dormat" and not "dormant"?
  • "The song's theme of karma was brought about in a conversation by Melinde Kendall, between Beatle John Lennon, his wife Yoko Ono, Ono's ex-husband, Anthony Cox, and his wife, Kendall." --this sentence confuses me--is the "Kendall" at the end of this sentence also Melinde Kendall? Would it be accurate to rewrite this as something like "Melinde Kendall mentioned karma, which would become the song's theme, in a conversation with Beatle John Lennon, his wife Yoko Ono, and Kendall's husband (and Ono's ex-husband) Anthony Cox?"
  • "The main musicians at the recording, Harrison, Klaus Voormann, and Alan White, were dubbed as a different variety of the Plastic Ono Band." -- The "different variety" is an odd phrase to use here. It would help first to give a moment's context of what the Plastic Ono Band was. Then it could be better clarified as what's meant by "different variety" here, and also to make it clear who dubbed them this.
  • The "Recording" section appears to contradict itself. The first paragraph says that Lennon was surprised that Spector used his "wall of sound" technique, while the second paragraph says that Lennon had wanted this. Can this be more logically organized and reconciled?
  • " Organe Coast Magazine" -- I'm guessing this should be "Orange Coast"? (Maybe "Organ Coast"?)
  • "minimalist [...] but far more relaxed and humorous."" -- this quotation appears to need a little more context-- "more relaxed and humorous" than what?
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Article contains numerous spelling and grammatical issues.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Article still needs work on lead to address sections like critical response, and composition and lyrics.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. Quotations should be checked for accuracy.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Article has improved a lot in this area and now covers all main aspects.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Not listing at this time

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Instant Karma!/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll do this one, longest unreviewed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

  • Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
  • Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose (Symbol comment.png) 1b. MoS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2a. ref layout (Symbol support vote.svg) 2b. cites WP:RS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2c. no WP:OR (Symbol support vote.svg) 3a. broadness (Symbol support vote.svg)
3b. focus (Symbol support vote.svg) 4. neutral (Symbol support vote.svg) 5. stable (Symbol support vote.svg) 6a. free or tagged images (Symbol support vote.svg) 6b. pics relevant (Symbol support vote.svg)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked Symbol comment.png are unassessed


  • Disambig links: No issues
  • Reference check: No issues found

Comments: This article is pretty well-written and it was an enjoyable read. Some minor prose questions and other things jump out at me which I'd like to ask a question on for clarification, to also question any omission or such.

  • "Lennon and Ono promoted the single with a rare appearance on Britain's Top of the Pops." - is "rare" important here?
* Well, the TOTP appearance is much more significant than "rare", being their only performance together (semi-live or otherwise) on UK television. But that's not a point made in the article, of course, so you're right – I've removed the mention of "rare". JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "in the evening of 27 January." - I believe it is "on the evening of 27 January."
* Quite right – thank you. Reworded to "on the evening …" JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "EMI mainstay" - Please use the full name and not the acronym.
* This one's really got me, actually – because I've never once seen "EMI" spelt out. (As an example, although I've known the acronym my whole life, I couldn't even hazard a guess at what the three letters stood for … I had to consult the Wikipedia article just now.) In light of this, can I ask, are you insisting the original company name be spelt out? I don't want to push it; just seems an unusual change to make, imo. JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "with take 10 being selected for" - Wording and possibly a MOS:NUMBER issue on "take 10"
* Reworded to avoid the problem(s), I believe. JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "sung occapella by Ono," - is it the song or is it supposed to be "a cappella"?
* Embarrassing – thanks for being so tactful(!) "A cappella", it is. JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have this so short, I really could find much fault with the actual article! It definitely covers the main aspects and the more detailed parts of the history, it is neutral and stable, the one image does have its proper rational. The amount of work put into this and the fact there were no issues with the references shows that a fair amount of maintenance probably was needed to keep it that way. Fix these very small issues and it will pass. Going to place this on a symbolic hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi ChrisG. I did a bit of work on the article after Yeepsi nominated it this time around (checking with him before I did so, of course). I notice he's been out of commission since mid December, so I was thinking I might step in here and help get the GAN through in his absence. That is, I believe it's okay for another contributor to do that (would you happen to know for sure?).
Quick question on images. Yeepsi and I had discussed adding a screenshot or still from Lennon and Ono's TOTP appearance – to show Ono blindfolded and holding up a sign. Do you think there's enough relevant commentary in the article to support that non-free image? I had been hoping to add comments interpreting Ono's appearance and actions as having a feminist message; I know I've read a couple of authors making that observation, but I just can't find the quotes now … Cheers, glad you picked this one up, JG66 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It's perfectly okay, I've done it before myself. I don't know about the image to be fair. Since its a bit of a tangent to the actual topic of the song. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah great, I'll intervene with a clear conscience then!
With the proposed extra image, I thought we might be safe with the commentary that's currently there, on both the actual TOTP performance and interpretation of the song lyrics (earlier in the article). Having said that, it's been a long while since I last read the piece. If I do happen to dig up those comments about Ono on TOTP – which refer to the freedom-of-speech message in the song, not just feminism, thinking about it – I'll raise the issue again. JG66 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It is borderline, but I see no reason that it would cause an issue with the criteria in this case since a good faith reason behind it has been given. Just let me know when you want to have it checked again before passing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, ChrisGualtieri. Sorry for the delay. I've addressed the queries at last. With that possible second non-free image, I think let's wait till Yeepsi's back, and one of us will get in touch with you to check you're okay with its inclusion. My thinking is it's not worth holding up the GAR, and besides, perhaps I'll end up finding that interpretation I mentioned, somewhere down the line. I think that's what you were saying anyway, pretty much (Just let me know when you want to have it checked again …)? Best, JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)