Talk:Back Off Boogaloo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 18:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: JG66

I will begin this review shortly. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is another solid article about a song George Harrison was involved with. I've made a couple of minor changes (which you should feel free to revert and discuss if you like), and I have some rather minor suggestions below.

Regarding the lyrics, the "Background and composition" section describes Starr's explanation for some word use (that the word "Boogaloo" comes from Bolan, and "tasty" from Hill), and then given others' speculation that Starr was referring to McCartney. It doesn't sound like Starr is denying writing about McCartney, but just that he didn't confirm it either. But then the article says "While acknowledging Starr's denial of such an interpretation of the song, Rodriguez notes..." Did Starr deny such an interpretation? Do any sources describe his saying the song is not about McCartney?

Sorted, I think, with addition of "an interpretation that Starr has denied ... instead 'claiming that the song was inspired by Bolan and nothing more'". I've also added a bit more on this from Rodriguez: that Starr "would have had his reasons not to reinforce any ongoing negativity" towards McCartney. JG66 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear now. (You might consider breaking the sentence up, if you can figure out how to artfully do so.) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the assertion that the "Paul is Dead" hoax "circulated while McCartney hid away on his Scottish farm during September and October of that year [1969], in reaction to John Lennon telling him and Starr that he wanted a 'divorce' from the Beatles." It sounds like the rumor is related to McCartney's isolation, or that it was a reaction to Lennon's statement, but those are just things that happened around the same time. (I don't have access to the Sounes source, though here is McCartney's interview with Life is November of 1969.) I think it's noteworthy that some commentators claim the lyric relates to the Paul is Dead hoax, but the added statement about other things going on at the same time simply confuses the reader without giving any more insight into the lyric's meaning.

Yes, I knew what you meant – and it was reading your comment that led me to avoiding the article for a few days! It wasn't as hard to fix as I'd thought in fact; simply a case of bringing the mention of Sept–Oct 1969 forward in the sentence, and rewording the point about McCartney's reaction to the Lennon bombshell. Do you think that solves the problem now? JG66 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's fine now. A reader could still be confused, thinking that the rumor indicated Paul died in 1969 rather than 1966... but there's a link to the article if they want to know more. For the purpose of this article, you have fully explained everything that could help understand the lyrics (or someone's interpretation of the lyrics). – Quadell ^(talk) 12:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In "Recording", the article says "with Harrison again producing". But it isn't mentioned that Harrison produced before, so it could be confusing.

Okay, clarified now. JG66 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Starr's embracing of glam rock" sounds odd, but "Starr's embrace of glam rock" doesn't sound right either. Could you reword that somehow? ("Starr's experimentation with glam rock" sounds better, but might not be correct; you're probably more qualified to find an accurate wording than I am.)

I've gone with "the influence of glam rock on Starr". Only thing is, that wording rather underplays the situation. I suppose "Starr's adoption of" might be closer to what writers like Clayson and Rodriguez describe, but maybe that term would get us in the same difficulties as "embracing/embrace of" … (Maybe your "experimentation with" is the next best thing, not sure.) I suppose underplaying is better than overstating, and it's certainly preferable to odd or confusing phrasing. I'm okay with it as the text reads now – how about you? JG66 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Starr's adoption of glam rock" be too strong? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You never give a release year for Blindman, but you do for the other films mentioned. I'm not sure release years are needed, but it's best to be consistent.

I normally include them when they're outside the year under discussion. Not vital, I know, but I've added 1971 here – as you say, it was noticeable that no year appeared for that particular film. JG66 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you say "Alan Clayson writes of reviewers criticising 'Back Off Boogaloo' for being repetitious", that sounds like yet another case where the sources describe criticism from unnamed reviewers, but no one wants to own up. There's nothing you can do about that, of course, and I'd say your wording is about as good as it can be under the circumstances.

True, but in this case Clayson's point does follow up on an earlier quote from Madinger & Easter. JG66 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the "Stop and Smell the Roses" version is fascinating! It's like a mash-up before mash-ups were a thing. I wouldn't really want to listen to it twice, but I'm glad to have heard it once.

Ditto those sentiments. It was all down to the great Harry Nilsson, I'd say, although long past his best by 1980 … His vocal arrangements on the 1972 album Nilsson Schmilsson (the only album I've heard of his anyway) are just extraordinary. Thanks for all your comments, by the way. And apologies for the delay in addressing them. I've been immersed in Shankar/Krishna-land, ever since your mention of the Material World Charitable Foundation article needing some attention (quite right too) – a bit hard to pull myself back to Bolan/Boogaloo territory! JG66 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all the issues I can find to mention. I look forward to your responses. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, these reviews are coming around so quickly these days(!). Thanks for picking this one up too. I'll just familiarise myself with the article again, and then address your concerns in a day or so. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really great article. Comprehensive, clear, eloquent, and well-organized, I'm very glad to promote it. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Quadell. This and other Ringo song articles are way easier to pull together than Harrison ones – nowhere near as interesting, I think, but boy, so much simpler. I was still tinkering away with the text as you passed the article (I hadn't noticed you here!) – I see your point about 1966 vs 1969 in the "Paul Is Dead" rumour, may well return to that one. You're right: "adoption of glam rock" would be an overstatement ... Thanks again, I really trust your judgement when it comes to the concerns you raise. Best, JG66 (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]