Talk:Daydream (The Lovin' Spoonful song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daydream (The Lovin' Spoonful song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Daydream (The Lovin' Spoonful song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 24, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Authorship

Some of the lyrics websites attribute Daydream to Burt Bacharach and Hal David. Don't know how to go about confirming or refuting this. Insights? Suggestions? Lyn (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daydream (The Lovin' Spoonful song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. SilkTork (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Daydream (The Lovin' Spoonful song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 17:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer (the GA Bot doesn't notify nominators when I start a review because of this) - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting an independent copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.

Nominators and interested users are free to response however they wish - inserting responses directly under each point I make is probably the best way, but please do whatever suits you. The thing that can get problematic is if someone other than me ticks off my query points as done and/or crosses out my text. If you have done something, please say so under my query, but allow me to check and make the decision as to if it is done or not - that way I know what I have checked and what I haven't. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

</noinclude>

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

Is it well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?
A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Stable. SilkTork (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has a reference section. SilkTork (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is on topic and not excessive. SilkTork (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence of copyvio. SilkTork (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is neutral. SilkTork (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is richly cited, and spot checks are secure. SilkTork (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No original research detected while checking sources and doing general background reading. SilkTork (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS requirements met, including Lead, which is nearly always a problem! Well done. SilkTork (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

There are three images used. The main image is appropriate. Queries on the remaining two images: Is the image of The Supremes relevant? The advert for the single does not have an appropriate license for several territories - wouldn't a non-free license be appropriate? I assume a non-free license could be used in addition to a US Public Domain license; if not, then a non-free license could replace it if the image is only to be used in this article. SilkTork (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I included the Supremes images to have a nice illustration, but now that you point it out I see that it does not increase readers' understanding (WP:IMGCONTENT).
Is it necessary to have a non-free license for other territories? The Commons' servers are based in the US, so I believe it is the only tag needed. Featured Articles like the Beatles and Sgt. Pepper include images with only US PD tags similar to this one; e.g. 1, 2 and 3.

Article covers the main points, providing a concise and satisfactory over view of the song, its composition and influence. My very minor quibble is regarding not mentioning the writers of the songs mentioned as being influential on the composition. SilkTork (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the songwriter mention below.

Fail

General comments

I've just glanced over, but the article looks well written, appropriately organised, and richly cited with an impressive range of reliable sources. There'll be quibbles, but I don't envisage problems with this becoming a Good Article. SilkTork (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork: Thank you for taking the time to review this article, I appreciate it. My responses are below. Tkbrett (✉) 20:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"initially inspired"/"initially sought"/"initially hoped" - why is there such a focus on Sebastian "initially" composing the song in the style of the Supremes? Did Sebastian change his mind during composition, and take it in a different direction? And on this point, it might be useful to mention Holland–Dozier–Holland who wrote and produced the songs that influenced Sebastian. SilkTork (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to convey to the reader that "Daydream" began as a rewrite of two songs which sound nothing at all like the Lovin' Spoonful's final recording. I myself did not really understand it until I found a documentary clip where John Sebastian explains it with his acoustic guitar, seen here (8:00 – 9:30).
I am not sure if it is really worth mentioning Holland–Dozier–Holland. They wrote the melody and lyrics of those songs, but as Sebastian explains in that little documentary bit, it was the arrangement of "Baby Love" and "Where Did Our Love Go" from which "Daydream" sprung, something he credits to "[the] great musicians on those original Motown [recordings]", an allusion to the Funk Brothers.

Looking into the source for the statement "Sebastian initially hoped to compose a song like the Supremes' 1964 singles "Baby Love" and "Where Did Our Love Go", both of which he thought had a "straight eighth feel"." The source is given as the liner notes for the album. Which release is this? It doesn't appear to be the original release as I've checked the back cover and that has a fan letter. SilkTork (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diken, Dennis (2002). Daydream (Liner notes). The Lovin' Spoonful. Buddha, BMG Heritage. 74465 99731 2. This refers to the 2002 CD remaster. If you input that serial number on Discogs, you will find a preview with a low resolution scan of the liner notes here.

"and they soon abandoned the song to work on other compositions. Jacobsen instead spliced..." There is something of a jar here, as we go away from "Daydream", but are then brought back to it without clarity - Jacobsen could be working on a different song, and it's only though inference that we understand that he is still working on "Daydream". Perhaps: "and they temporarily abandoned the song to work on other compositions, returning to it when Jacobsen spliced..." SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I went with your suggested wording.

There is an online copy of the NME for April 1, 1966: [1]. I was going to place it as a link in the cite to Derek Johnson's review, then wondered if that site is a copyright violation. Shame if it is, because that's a useful resource - they appear to have a full collection of the NME from 1946 to 1990: [2]. SilkTork (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still use WorldRadioHistory to research but I have stopped linking it in articles after another editor raised an objection in another GAN. It seems that WorldRadioHistory does not ensure it has permission to post a scan of a particular magazine but instead waits to see if a publisher objects, as was the case with DownBeat (see this page).

Pass/Hold/Fail

Pass. Points accepted re media and the Supremes. Personally, I feel a little more acknowledgement of the musicians, writers, and producers as the influence, perhaps by using "Motown" in place of "Supremes" where appropriate, would be welcome, though I see how that would be hard to make happen with the sources available. Anyway, good work, and an easy review. SilkTork (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.