Talk:Run of the Mill/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: JG66

I will begin this review shortly. – Quadell (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, thanks so much for taking this one on. I'm just taking a look at it myself now, in fact – it's been gathering dust, you might say, on the nominations page. I look forward to your comments. JG66 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is quite strong. It's admirably complete and well-sourced. However, I have identified a few issues.

I'm concerned about the amount of the song's lyrics that are quoted in the article. By my count, 19 of the song's 27 lines are reproduced in the article, and I don't think that's acceptable. Wikipedia:SONG#LYRICS and Wikipedia:LONGQUOTE are rather vague about what fraction of a song's lyrics can safely be quoted, but I think it will have to be reduced. I know that will be difficult, given how much of the article is based on interpretations of those very lyrics, but I'm sure you can find a way to reduce it.

  • Yes absolutely. I've cut down the number of quoted lines considerably. As you say, this section of the article does reflect how much interpretation and comment the lyrics have received. This issue was one of the things I was intending to address literally the moment you happened to take the review (there's a discussion here about the amount of lyrics reproduced in song articles, incidentally, one of many, I'm sure.) What do you think now? I think it's down to about 12 lines. JG66 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You have deftly resolved the problem. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the organization of the article, but there is one problem. The second half of the first paragraph of "Release and reception" (beginning "In December 1970") is not about the release and reception of the song. It might go better in the "background" section (despite occurring after the song was written), on the prose might work better in an altogether different article.

  • Another area I'd flagged for some attention. I have reworked the text there, trying to streamline the discussion rather than looking for a new home under Background (or elsewhere). What I think is important, given the self-referential/"Beatles' soap opera" aspect of the lyrics, is the context in which the song was viewed on release. As biographers and album reviewers observe/d, there are a number of tracks on All Things Must Pass that are obviously Beatles-related, but in Doggett's words, Run of the Mill was "the most compelling testimony". I'm hoping that the addition of "Against this backdrop ..." resolves the point quite clearly ...? JG66 (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The rewording is impressive. The current prose is clearly relevant in its section. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The prose is generally quite good. There are nonetheless a few places where the text could use rewording to benefit the reader. I point out a number of places below; not all of these suggestions are strictly necessary for GA status, but I do believe that all would improve the article.

  • When you say "inspired two new Harrison songs in 'I Me Mine' and 'Wah-Wah'", it sounds off to me. (They're not songs in those songs.)
  • Rephrased now. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "background" says that Harrison had begun a new creative phase, and then mentions offhand about changes "since his month in upstate New York with Bob Dylan and the Band", which had not been mentioned before. I think the narrative would be clearer if the text mentioned early on that Harrison had spent a month in upstate New York with Bob Dylan and the Band, rather than at this point.
  • Yes, thank you. Those opening sentences had long been sitting in the proverbial "too-hard basket", awaiting some attention. I've clarified the situation now, I believe. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Perfect. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the narrative states "McCartney sought to appoint New York lawyers Lee and John Eastman as the band's business advisors", but then later in an offhand way refers to "McCartney's in-laws, the Eastmans". It would feel like a more direct narrative if they were described as his in-laws at the first mention.
  • A case of me (wrongly) expecting that readers will already be aware of the familial connection. Fixed now. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's unclear what "trappings" means in the "background" section.
  • That was horrible, wasn't it?! I've cut down the sentence to conclude with mention of "urging financial restraint". JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The "composition" section says Harrison "remained committed to running Apple Records until its winding down in 1973", but the "background" section doesn't indicate that Harrison ran Apple Records.
  • I've added that he was active as a director of the record label (more so than the others in fact), and just as importantly, I think, that para now sits in the Background section. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a better solution than I had though of. Well done. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of "Recording" could use rewording. "led to him indirectly announcing" is particularly awkward.
  • Have rephrased and also removed the detail about Spector's production of Let It Be. Tricky situation, that issue of whether McCartney actually announced the Beatles' break-up – hence "indirectly announcing" – because the break-up came about through the UK press' interpretation of him saying that he had effectively left the Beatles. (The whole thing backfired on him, many authors have noted.) Fixed now, I hope. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • In the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of "Recording", a number of sentences are phrased in a somewhat clunky way, with too many commas. Some rewordings here would be welcome improvements to the article's style. In particular, note carefully the first two sentences of paragraph 2, the first sentence of paragraph 3, the comma after "although", and the clause "both ex-Delaney & Bonnie and soon to begin working with the Rolling Stones".
  • You're right, and thanks for the specific examples. I've reworked much of the prose, in waves over the last couple of days. What do you think now? JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent, fluid prose. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It takes a minute to parse "Sequenced after the cacophonous, 'big production' 'Let It Down',". A rewording could make this smoother.
  • Clumsy, wasn't it ... Much better now, I hope. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Please reword "the Beatles' passing", since no one died. That entire sentence could be reworded. Might I suggest breaking it up this way? (Just a suggestion.)
    At a time when the Beatles were in the process of breaking up, reviewers noted the the self-referential nature of Harrison's lyrics. Peter Doggett called the song "the most compelling testimony to the recent past", on an album that offered listeners "a teasing glimpse into an intimate world that had previously been off limits to the public".
  • Good suggestion. This sentence is part of the wider issue you identified in "Release and reception", of course, so I've dealt with it within that context. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Your wording is better. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I would break up the second sentence of "Alternative version", and I would remove the "has" from the following sentence.
  • Both done. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Late addition: Image captions that are complete sentences (like the Band image) need ending punctuation, per WP:CAPTION. Also, consider linking The Band: many skimmers look through images and captions before the article itself, and "the Band" could seem ambiguous to those who are not familiar with the group. (WP:CAPTION advises linking everything that could help identify the picture, and WP:OVERLINK specifically allows for linking in captions as well as article-space.) This is not a requirement for GA status; it's just my view of the best way to present the information.
  • Ah, thanks for that. Another of those issues where one gets conflicting advice – in the past, I've found contribs removing links and end punctuation that I'd put in infobox & pic captions ... JG66 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of confusion about caption punctuation. A caption that is a complete sentence needs a full-stop, but a caption that is a sentence fragment (usually a noun phrase) should not have one. Since the current caption is a noun phrase, it (appropriately) does not have a full-stop. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Although the lengthy notes are somewhat unusual, I rather like them. But it is not immediately clear how note 1 is relevant to its context. Did Harrison dictate that they not perform live?

  • The wording was ambiguous before – I've clarified the point. Also cut down text in note #5, discussing Lennon and Harrison's relationship. JG66 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Both excellent choices. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Are there any free images that would be relevant?

  • After discussing the inappropriate use of Apple's official logo (since removed) with J Milburn – well, I waffled and he patiently indulged me – I started taking a look at free images for these song articles. So yes, Apple HQ and Band picture now added. JG66 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Finally, there are some ways that the formatting of the citations could be improved. I am quite willing to help with these, if you like. (I've found that many editors dislike dealing with citation formatting issues, but I actually enjoy it.)

  • The abbreviation "pp" needs a period after.
  • Fixed all examples. (Another thing I'm starting to address in other articles also – I'm not sure where I picked up that habit of omitting the full stops.) JG66 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It would be more standard to refer to "Doggett (2003), p. xyz" or "Doggett (2011), p. xyz", rather than spelling out the title each time. (Incidentally, you seem to have left out the spaces in one instance.)
  • I know what you mean, but that's not going to be useful to readers, because under Sources there's: Peter Doggett, "Fight to the Finish" and Peter Doggett, You Never Give Me Your Money ... In keeping with CITEVAR, that's my preferred method of wording the full references – to separate items within each listing with a comma (rather than Harvard-style full stop) and group all pub details together at the end. It's unfortunate, I think, that while CITEVAR allows for different styles of citation, as long as one style is applied consistently throughout an article, the only available template adopts the Harvard method – which, I have to say, I can't stand, it's so brutally scientific-looking(!). So the current wording is something I'd like to retain. I couldn't see that non-spaced example you mentioned, by the way – is it still there? JG66 (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I phrased that as "would be more standard", which is true... but the GA requirements only insist that the citations be clear and internally consistent, which these are. Your preference for a non-Harvard method is totally valid. By the way, I was referring to citation 78, though I see now it's a reference to Doggett's blog "You Never Give Me Your Money", not his book "You Never Give Me Your Money". Still, I'm not sure why it has the spaces omitted. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for those comments, Quadell. It's amazing – in about 80–90 per cent of the points you've raised, they're exactly what I'd been planning to address in the article, or had recognised yesterday as needing to address somehow. Quite uncanny, really! Will start addressing them now. JG66 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Final assessment[edit]

This article passes all our GA criteria with flying colors, and I'm glad to promote it to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fantastic. Thank you, Quadell, you've brought so much to this article, it's been an absolute pleasure dealing with the issues you raised. (PS, I'm just fixing that Doggett ref now, by the way.) Thanks again! JG66 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)