Talk:Sour Milk Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject The Beatles (Rated GA-class, Low-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.
 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.
 


Recent changes reverted[edit]

@IndianBio: I reverted your recent changes, [1] and [2]. I've nominated this song article for GA and I'm confused about why you felt the need to make those changes. The referencing style you tagged as unclear is the same one I've used for, at a guess, the vast majority of 40+ GAs I've written or rewritten. When I first work on an article, I'll always go with an established style – if it exists. In the case of "Sour Milk Sea", the only reference in the whole piece before I made my first edit, back in October 2012, was a bare URL. I therefore felt confident in applying a style I was familiar with and already by then had used in GAs.

Speaking of bare URLs, I couldn't see any justification for the tag you added on that issue. We define the term as "a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just the text out of the URL bar of your browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between the ref tags or simply provided as an external link, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation." Are there any examples of such a reference?

Regarding some of the changes you made in that first edit. The Rolling Stone citation is to the website – rollingstone.com – as I don't believe the piece appeared in the print magazine. (Put it this way, it's pure assumption to think it did; we're not providing a page number and a date for the magazine's publication – the source is an online piece, dated when the article was posted.) And there is no requirement to insert a full stop/period and then capitalise "retrieved" for access dates. The style throughout the article is to have items separated by commas or semicolons, thereby minimising capitalisation. You linked to Help:Citation Style 1 in that edit. Well, to quote from that page: "Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style." I'm no fan of the Harvard referencing system, and I don't believe any US system (i.e. the choices available in Wikipedia templates) should be imposed on an article that's BritEng style. On the other hand (to repeat), I will follow whatever's been imposed previously in an article – but, again, that's not relevant here, given the inadequate referencing when I began expanding the article nearly three years ago. JG66 (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sour Milk Sea/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be happy to take this up. Perhaps the connection with India appeals to me. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Many things have been sorted out in the previous review itself, and the article is almost ready for promotion. I just add a few comments:

Lead
  • The song's recording was the first...three members of the band This line should perhaps be swapped with the next, as the next one clarifies who all were behind the scenes.
  • You know, I agreed with you at first but I just tried the swap and I don't think it works, in terms of sense. My feeling is that we have to go to Harrison first (after mentioning that he wrote the song). Not only that, but surely, after we've said "three members of the band", we then give "Harrison, Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney" separate from the other two musicians. So, I'd hope it's self-explanatory: even if a reader wonders momentarily about the "three members of the band", the answer follows immediately. I don't mean to dismiss your point – I appreciate the fresh pair of eyes. If none of this satisfies your concerns, maybe we could reword to "… since it features contributions from three members of the group. Along with Harrison and his bandmates Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney, the musicians on the track were Eric Clapton and session pianist Nicky Hopkins." ? JG66 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, no problems. You see, I am a complete nitpicker! ;) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey, much appreciated! JG66 (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • An upbeat rock track Is the word "upbeat" quoted from a source? You can't describe the song yourself, of course, so if it comes from a source, put it in inverted commas.
  • You're quite right but I thought "upbeat rock track" was a good paraphrasing of how the track's described in the article. There's Lomax saying the performance was "on fire", and under Critical reception & Legacy, we have comments such as "a really dynamic rock song", "an early prototype of heavy metal … [a] relentless sequence of musical climaxes", "a brilliantly excitable recording", a "get-off-your-ass rocker". So to me, "upbeat rock" seems fairly accurate, and neutral (in the way that "downbeat" doesn't necessarily mean something's bad). What do you think, given those examples? JG66 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand, but this is often condemned as WP:OR or WP:SYN. I see this is sensible, but I remember one editor who was told sharply (it went on to a dreadful editor review), after "not-in-source-just-guessing-stuff" added by them was seen by some editors, to quote only the source. If you have done some such generalization in other articles, better remove it before it pops up in someone's eyes. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised about that, and I've had many reviewers okaying the opposite (and seen it elsewhere). Personally, I just think it's important to be responsible and balanced in the Lead. I appreciate what you're saying, of course – I'd be interested in seeing the episode you mention. Anyway, sermon over … I've removed "upbeat rock track" as part of my reworking of the next point. JG66 (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Has the song not received negative reviews? I think they should be mentioned as a counterview in the third para. How about the "accusatory tone" one critic notes?
  • Thanks, good point. It has received mostly favourable reviews, but I've just added mention of the lyrics' "sermonising quality", which is consistent with comments from Unterberger and Quantick make. Any good? JG66 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, per my above comment, your choice is good but try to quote their exact words and not generalize. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Had a change of plan. Ditched the all-positive Erlewine quote and replaced with Eccleston's. JG66 (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Background and inspiration
  • a picture titled Kalladadi Samudra Where does this picture come from?
  • Ah, I wish I knew! I remember having a long search on WP, hoping to be able to link the title, if nothing else. Happy to keep trying. JG66 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Appears vague in the article but, well, we don't know this stuff. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Composition
  • As with his other songs from Rishikesh "from Rishikesh" sounds a bit improper, how about "after his Indian sojourn/stay at Rishikesh"?
  • Funnily enough, I remember thinking that before nominating the article (but then ignored the thought, obviously!). Have reworded now. JG66 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we really need a link for "dandruff"?
  • Okay, it's gone now. JG66 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikilink "acoustics"
  • Well, that is against the approach that's advocated for album and song articles, re avoiding links for obvious terms. (I'll add a link here to the relevant guideline or project page when I find it.) Which, in the case of a rock/pop song, would include acoustic guitar, and it's not as if we've linked piano, bass, drums, etc. (Hammond organ's different because it's so specific). JG66 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The Beatles' demo
  • Is "White Album" linked anywhere?
  • It is under its official title, The Beatles, albeit under the paraphrased "self-titled double album". JG66 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The rest looks good to me. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Sainsf. From a quick skim through, I can see you've raised some good points there … Will start addressing them shortly. Best, JG66 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Great, all fixed, we can have this promoted. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you once again, Sainsf. Great stuff, and some good advice. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)