Talk:Blue Jay Way/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The single cover image requires an alt description; please add one

Can you give some guidance perhaps? I believe I've followed the same style used in countless articles, and I have to say I've never had a problem with this; in fact, it's an approach I've adopted at the suggestion of other reviewers. That's not to dismiss your point, but after looking back at some of the other articles you've reviewed (trying to get some idea of what you might mean), I see you advocate having no caption at all for cover art, which is surprising. Here, are you thinking I should add mention that it's the Magical Mystery Tour EP – or something else?

Well since it is just a picture of the vinyl, it would probably be better to caption it instead. Carbrera (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carbrera, I still don't understand what it is you're wanting to see added or changed here. The image shows the face label from the EP for the side containing the song; and it is captioned – "1967 UK EP face label" – which corresponds with information given in the second sentence of the Lead, and with the second (EP) release date in the infobox. JG66 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I feel as if my mind has been so pre-occupied lately. I thought I didn't see a caption for the record, but there clearly is one. My bad. Carbrera (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's okay … I was feeling bad, thinking "What is it I'm not getting here?"! JG66 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rest is great, but please add the correct track listing to this article. If you are looking for an example, Rare (Gwen Stefani song) includes one

Ah, well, that approach (giving the tracks before and after) has been abandoned altogether for Beatles song articles. And in fact I've been one of the most vocal about removing them – I was all in favour of retaining the full track list templates, as we still have for, say, Dylan and Rolling Stones songs, because those full lists are informative. Someone did reinstate the before-and-after's in all the Beatles song articles, quite recently … and got blocked for their efforts! (A bit harsh, I thought.) I raised the matter at the time, regarding the grey area on this issue, having also discussed the episode with another editor. So, I'm not sure what to do here when, from all the song articles I view, the track listing you're recommending does not get used. I mean, do you really think it adds anything informative in the infobox, to know which tracks immediately precede and follow a song on its parent album? It's regrettable, imo, that no one raised this whole subject at WP:Songs years ago, because it seems to me we now have three different approaches encyclopaedia-wide (heck, maybe more than three): 1) to include the before-and-after tracks, as in Gwen's "Rare"; 2) to not include them, and instead let the foot-of-article album template be the sole (but complete) source of track chronology, as in all the Beatles articles; and 3) to include full track list templates in the infobox, as in all the Stones and Dylan articles. JG66 (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd rather see something than nothing. You can put the full track listing if that's your preference; I have nothing against it. Carbrera (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, I can't, because all the full track list templates for Beatles albums were deleted at TfD. Oh well – I've add that before & after thing, then. JG66 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66: If you don't feel it necessary in the article, I don't see the need to include it. Would you prefer it included or left out? Carbrera (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very good of you. I would rather lose it, yes. Just to add: I was all for the editors who were deleting the templates to instead start a discussion (at WP:Songs) to see if consensus could be reached for a single, standard approach on this. My thinking was, if they were putting the effort into nominating these and similar templates for deletion, individually or in groups by artist, then why not raise it instead as a project-wide issue so that everyone gets a say. That didn't happen, so we've got this mix of three styles, unfortunately. JG66 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Paragraph 1

Add "recorded" after "is a song" please

Yes, thanks – done. JG66 (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 3

"many others admire its..." --> "many others admired its…"

Reworded to "have admired", consistent with "have dismissed" earlier in the sentence. Must admit I think the present tense is okay in this context, but to say "many others admired" would not work with "some reviewers have dismissed". JG66 (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background and inspiration

Paragraph 3

I would remove "in California" in the opening line since you have already mentioned the location several times previously

Thanks. It's gone. JG66 (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

Music

Remove "instrument" after after "composed on a keyboard" please

Done. Slightly surprised, though, given that in the 21st century, "keyboard" would more likely suggest a computer or some other device, no? JG66 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"had only been heard previously in popular music in the Left Banke's "Pretty Ballerina", released in December 1966.[38]" --> "had only been heard previously in popular music in the Left Banke's 1966 single "Pretty Ballerina".[38]"

That's lovely – thanks! JG66 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the section's final statement: "Gould views it as the Beatles repeating the wordplay first used in the chorus of Lennon's 1963 song "It Won't Be Long".[52]": shouldn't it be "in the chorus of their 1963 song "It Won't Be Long".", instead of Lennon's, since he's technically not the only artist?

I see your point but I think it's okay. It's clear to readers that Lennon is also a member of the Beatles, and with this article focusing on Harrison's song and, more widely, on Harrison's songwriting and the influences he brings to the band, I believe it's equally important to identify the (main) composer of a Beatles song that's not one of his. Does that make sense? JG66 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production

You mention who placed the tambourine (Ringo Starr), but you don't mention who placed the cello; please add this in if the information is known and available

It's simply (and frustratingly) not available. I find this extraordinary when the same sources are able to name each and every member of the orchestra for other Beatles tracks. In the case of "Blue Jay Way", I imagine the cellist would have worked with Harrison and George Martin for hours trying to capture the requisite Indian inflections, yet no one caught his/her name … As you say below: "weird"! JG66 (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance in Magical Mystery Tour film

Just pointing this out: Harrison's suit looks orange and not red to me; is it actually red? LOL

Ha, I agree! "Burnt orange" perhaps … JG66 (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In its preview of Magical Mystery Tour in 1967," --> "In its review of the movie in 1967," (Did you mean "review", not "preview"?)

No, it is/was a preview, in fact. JG66 (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

"In America, where Capitol Records had combined the six EP tracks with five songs issued on the band's singles throughout the year," --> "In America, where Capitol Records had combined the six EP tracks with five of the band's singles throughout the year,"

The problem with that, though, is the band only released three singles in 1967. If it's the length of the sentence that's the problem for you (i.e. with the inclusion of that "issued on"), perhaps the solution might be to add a couple of dashes, and let the reader breathe: "In America – where Capitol Records had combined the six EP tracks with five songs issued on the band's singles throughout the year, creating a full album[81][82] – the release took place on 27 November." ? JG66 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective assessment

""possibly the most unnerving of all Beatles tracks"." --> ""possibly the most unnerving of all Beatles' tracks"."

Actually "of all Beatles tracks" is correct, because "Beatles" is being used adjectivally. JG66 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add another comma before "Indian Music and the West," please

Something weird about that, imo – in that the author could well have written more than one in 1997. The only reason for including the year of publication was to work with Farrell's mention of "nearly thirty years on", so what I've just done is add "(1997)" after the book title instead. JG66 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions and cultural references

Add a link to the album article for Buncha Hair That Long please

Ah thanks for that. I don't know how I missed it. JG66 (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

So the cello play is really unknown? Weird...

End of GA Review:

Considering the length of the article, I was hoping to give a lengthier review than this, but these are the only mistakes I found within the article; absolutely impeccable work! I will place the article on hold for seven days to allow for the very few changes I have either suggested or recommended. Sorry about the review delay, I've been incredibly busy lately. In my sincerest opinion, I would recommend nominating this article for FA status, as it is quite incredible. Definitely something to think about. Once again, great work and thanks! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Thanks for the review. And thank you so much for the compliments – really, that's very kind of you. I'll get down to addressing these points shortly. And please don't worry about the delay. I could see how busy you've been as a reviewer and nominator (prolific!). JG66 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66: I have replied to your two questions above. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I will be passing the article now. Thanks for your cooperation throughout! It was a pleasure working with you! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Thank you so much again, it's great to see the green symbol appear on this one! I'm pleased our paths have crossed at last, because I've seen your name attached to GA reviews and nominations so often this year. Good luck with the GA Cup – you're a tireless worker, and you make this process a very pleasant experience. Best, JG66 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]