Talk:I'm the Greatest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 21:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JG66. Another nice article. I'll review this one as well. Some comments:

I'm guessing this is not the only Beatles-related article to do so, but I noticed that it assumes the reader already knows Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr were originally in the Beatles. It's easy to take for granted that everyone knows this, but some younger readers, for example, may not. It might get too wordy to introduce each of them with "former Beatle", but another solution could simply be a sentence at the very beginning of Background saying that the Beatles broke up in 1970 and that its members were L, M, H, S.

Sure. You'll see I've added a fair bit more than that. I figured it might be an idea to also handle your fourth point up front, by giving some idea of just how big the Beatles phenomenon was and therefore what Lennon was addressing. Hopefully, the new opening paragraph also helps establish the context for the improved situation among the four Beatles in early 1973, and the reason that news of them working together again was such a big deal. What do you think – is there too much now, perhaps? JG66 (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The presence on the recording of bassist Klaus Voormann, as a supposed stand-in for Paul McCartney, created a line-up that the press had dubbed the Ladders since 1971." It might be helpful to clarify somewhere in the article how this nickname came about and to what extent the Ladders were a real group. You do say that since 1970 there had been no recordings including three ex-Beatles, so the reader can infer that the Ladders did not do any actual recording.

Well, the entire thing was nothing more than rumours, and no one's ever been able to explain where the name "the Ladders" came from (as far as I can see). Have reworked the mention under Recording … JG66 (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The song was produced by Richard Perry and also includes musical contributions from Billy Preston, a keyboard player who had long been associated with the Beatles." I believe this was from the Get Back/Let It Be sessions in 1969? I was going to suggest being more specific here in the lead, but I noticed no more detail is given in the main body. In any case, "long" is not very clear.

I've wimped out(!) by changing the Lead to mention Billy's Fifth Beatle status. He played quite a bit with the Beatles in 1969, of course (and most importantly, was actually credited alongside them), and he was among the best-known Apple artists, although with A&M by the time he really broke through and enjoyed commercial success, after the Concert for Bangladesh. As with Klaus Voormann, there's so much more one could say about him with regard to his association with the Beatles, and the individual ex-Beatles. So, I've removed the vague mention of "long" – do you think more is needed about Preston under Recording? JG66 (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Earlier that year, Lennon had undergone primal therapy with Arthur Janov, a process that unearthed in him long-suppressed feelings of resentment and inadequacy relating to his childhood.[4] For Lennon, according to author Peter Doggett, viewing the Beatles' film in this context, eight months after the group's break-up, "felt like a postcard from a previous century: there he was, acting out the role that had become his life".[5] He set about writing "I'm the Greatest" as a sarcastic comment on his past." The Composition section goes a little bit more into this, but I was wondering whether here it would be useful to spell out more clearly how the first two sentences relate to the third. Something like "Contrasting these feelings of inadequacy with the extreme popularity he had enjoyed in the Beatles, Lennon set about writing..." It's just an idea.

Hopefully, this is solved now without the need to explicitly mention the contrast? JG66 (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were Lennon and Starr also involved in the discussions in Los Angeles about the compilations 1962–1966 and 1967–1970? Or only Harrison? If so, why? Why wasn't McCartney there for the discussions too? Readers may wonder.

Ah, do you really think so? I feel there's so much to deal with in this article, and the two Apple compilations are pretty minor in comparison. I believe Lennon and Starr attended the meetings at Capitol also, although some sources mention only Harrison. He seems to have been the one who was most involved with the Red and Blue albums (as he was with Apple Records generally) – at least, according to comments made by Lennon shortly afterwards. McCartney had "boycotted" Apple (his term) since Klein's arrival in 1969, and his only involvement with the label tended to come through his in-laws/lawyers. So, although I can piece together a scenario that sort of explains the position, I can't add anything definitive about Harrison and the March 1973 meetings and these particular Apple compilations. But I guess I see other, more relevant areas that might invite further detail – e.g. Lennon's frame of mind in early '73, which affects how he reacts to Harrison & Preston urging to make the collaboration more permanent; and then how that contrasts with later in the year, when he's split with Ono, adrift, and appears to be fanning the reunion rumours in his comments to Melody Maker. But even before that, what also receives comment from a biographer or two is Lennon's residual anger at how Harrison had refused to let Ono perform at the Concert for Bangla Desh two years before. The position that Harrison was elevated to as a result of those concerts, particularly when compared to the scorn that Lennon's political radicalism had attracted over 1971–72, and not forgetting that Harrison (and by extension, Starr, Preston, Voormann et al.) had just received a Grammy for the Bangla Desh album – I mean, all that has some bearing on Lennon's mood at the session, at least it has invited speculation from a couple of Beatles biographers. But the point is, we're not drifting into that subject, and the Capitol meetings would seem to be much more tangential … Does any of this make sense? JG66 (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, don't worry too much about this one. It was just an idea. You're probably right that it is less relevant than other aspects. Moisejp (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments to the end of the Overdubs section. Moisejp (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JG66. Before passing the article, I'm just still going to do a quick ref check and see if you want to implement any of the suggestions above. Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Hello again, and thanks for taking the review. Sorry, I've been kinda busy preparing a new article – will get on to this as soon as possible! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no worries. I had one more comment: "Helped by the speculation surrounding Starr's collaborations with all his former bandmates, including McCartney,[84][85] and by the interest generated by the two Beatles compilations..." Around that time did he have a real (not "I'm the Greatest" but another project?) or just speculated collaboration with McCartney? I guessed the latter but wasn't sure. Moisejp (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. I've removed the vague allusion to a separate collaboration and instead added something about the session in London for McCartney's song, "Six O'Clock", under Recording. How's that? JG66 (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Hey, thanks again for your patience. Your first point is a darn good one … I'm just juggling around a few statements that will handle not just that issue, but your later concern regarding "the extreme popularity [Lennon] had enjoyed in the Beatles". It's occurred to me that adding a couple of sentences right at the start, before we arrive at the TV broadcast of A Hard Day's Night, could establish the context for a number of things in the article: the level of fame that Lennon addresses (as you suggest); the Allen Klein factor, and how and why the partial reunion received the attention it did; and therefore why the song continues to be seen as so important. JG66 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JG. I'll try to look at this over the weekend or ASAP. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Your changes addressed all of my concerns. Happy to promote it. Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Hey, thanks so much for the review. Nice to this article now up to GA – magic! JG66 (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I spot-checked a few references, and there seems to be no plagiarism or orignigianl research
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It all looks good.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No non-free content. The one WikiCommons image has a suitable caption.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: