Talk:I Me Mine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 14:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'll review this article. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• "the intrusive presence of Lennon's girlfriend, Japanese artist Yoko Ono": May I suggest "the perceived intrusive presence [or perceived intrusion] of Lennon's girlfriend, artist Yoko Ono" for WP:BLP and because her ethnic origin should not be important. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi JG66, sorry this has been slow. Will try to finish off the review soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, Moisejp. JG66 (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi JG66. I'm almost done the review. Thanks for changing the bit about Yoko Ono. What you have now is definitely better than before, but I wonder whether it is still too negative. By contrasting "constant presence" with "creative freedom and camaraderie he had recently enjoyed" this implies that her presence was "objectively negative". If you would consider my suggestion ""the perceived intrusive presence [or perceived intrusion]" this clarifies that it was Harrison's (and perhaps McCartney's and Starr's) take on her presence. If it had been other people in the studio with her, it's very conceivable that not all of them would have had the same reaction. In any case, it is safer to keep it more neutral. Moisejp (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

But don't you think that "For Harrison" makes it clear that we're merely reporting what he felt, rather than judging Ono in Wikipedia's voice? Plus it follows Harrison's recollection that "There was a lot of trivia and games being played", which invites some elaboration and flags it for the reader that the picture is likely to be less than rosy. I'm actually quite a fan of Yoko, FWIW, but even if I wasn't, I still recognise the need to not brand her (or Allen Klein, Phil Spector, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc) as a villain in the Beatles' story, even if almost every reliable source does. I'm struggling to see a problem; take away the introductory "For Harrison", then sure, that would be a problem. But I appreciate something doesn't sit right for you.

Reading it again (and again), what strikes me is an awkwardness in the phrasing – what it needs is possibly a mention of the two issues "creating" something rather than in themselves "contrasting sharply with" anything. Maybe something like: "For Harrison, the power struggle between John Lennon and Paul McCartney, and the constant presence of Lennon's girlfriend, avant-garde artist Yoko Ono,[7] created an atmosphere that contrasted sharply with the camaraderie and artistic freedom he had recently enjoyed with Bob Dylan and the Band in upstate New York." I wonder if that happens to lessen your concerns also? Because, Yoko herself is no longer being compared directly with the positive, liberating elements; instead her presence is part of an atmosphere that, for Harrison, contrasts so unfavourably with his recent experiences in update NY. Any good? JG66 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

JG66, you make a convincing argument, and I think your suggestion probably helps. Let's go with it. Happy to pass this GA nomination. Moisejp (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Moisejp, great to hear. And thank you so much for helping see another song article through to GA. Best, JG66 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, and no MOS issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources all seem reliable. Spot-checked for no OR or copyvio.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It is broad in its coverage, is focused, and covers all the major aspects.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No stability issues.

6. 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):

   One image has appropriate FUR; all others are appropriately licensed. All images are appropriately captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: