Talk:L.A. Woman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my favourite Doors album by a wide margin, and I used to do a cover of the title track in a band years ago (though I used a Wurlitzer on it). I'll read through the article and then assess where we are. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article so soon after I nominated it. I have expanded it over the course of several months and hope it has been improved. I understand it will not be perfect right away, but I am prepared to work with you to fix any concerns. Thanks again!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

When I've improved album articles to GA, I usually start with a brief summary of the band's career. Nothing more than a sentence, just the Doors being together for 5 years and releasing 5 (?) hit albums should be enough.
What makes thedoorsguide.com a reliable source?
"In November 1970, shortly after the conclusion of Morrison's controversial trial for indecent exposure" - what was the result of the trial? Was he bailed, were the charges dropped?
The citation to John Densmore's autobiography needs a page number
"It was released without the band's input, and featured a larger-than-life image of a younger Morrison" - what does "larger than life" mean in this instance?
What makes archives.waiting-forthe-sun.net a reliable source?

Response - I replaced the doorsguide source with others. The second comment is actually answered at the beginning of the background section. As for the autobiography, I have a question: If a book (I used Googlebooks for this reference) does not have page numbers on the actual page, how do I find it? My "larger-than-life" description is used because Morrison was upset that he was made out to be more important, almost God-like, in comparison to his bandmates, but it can be tweaked. I thought the last source is reliable since it is an interview with Botnick. Do you recommend it be changed?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Google Books, there is a clever way of getting the page number - click on the "link" icon, scroll across the URL generated in the "Paste in email or IM", look for a section starting &pg=PT123# .... the "123" there is your page number. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

Do we know anything more about why Marc Benno was chosen to play on the album?
It looks like Curly Turkey has gone ahead and fixed a number of things I was going to comment on.

Music

"Despite its troubled beginnings, L.A. Woman contains some of the Doors' most mystical and ethereal music" - this sounds too POV to go in the main text, perhaps it should belong in the "Release and reception" section?
"Artistically, L.A. Woman took the musical experimentation of the original band to the farthest logical extreme, mixing blues, psychedelia, and jazz, often within a single song" - as above
"Combining Morrison's wistful imagery with hypnotic double-tracked spoken word" - as above, "wistful imagery" sounds too POV for an encyclopedia article

Live performances

What makes liveforlivemusic.com a reliable source?

Release and reception

For citing the original sleeve, I find it's best to use {{cite AV media notes}}, and using the original serial number (if you've got the LP, it'll be easily identifiable on the jacket).
"although he lamented "Been Down So Long" and "L'America" - what does "lamented" mean in this context?

Personnel

As above, if you're citing the 2007 Rhino CD, provide the specific serial number. The credits don't correlate with the original LP (which credits Manzerek simply as "piano/organ").
"Been Down So Long" has two guitars (lead on the left, slide on the right) - are they both Krieger? This slightly contradicts the prose which claims everything was live bar keyboard overdubs

Summary

I've trimmed down the prose so it's a bit more readable. Of the unresolved issues above, I think we can sort these out fairly quickly, so I'll put the review on hold for now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Ritchie333 I have addressed some of the concerns. I moved the booklets and liner notes to the appropriate format and changed the source in the live performance section. I changed the wording in the reception section as well. If it is okay with you, I wish to further discuss the music POV issues. Personally, I do not agree with the statements word for word, but the sources I read generally relate to what I wrote. If I added more sources to those sections could they stay? I just think the music itself needs to be described, but in many ways how it is described is an opinion. However, that is unavoidable in this case. I will alter or remove it if it comes to that because I want to reach GA, but I want your viewpoint before I proceed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues of sourcing have not been addressed - these need to be fixed before the article can meet the GA criteria. Also the suggestions for adding a brief sentence as an intro for those who don't know much about the Doors, and adding why Mark Benno was at the sections haven't been addressed. I find it's better to address each point individually rather than just summarising, as it's too easy for issues to be missed out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I addressed the sources, sorry, I did not realize I used the doorsguide as many times as I did. I also included a sentence about the Doors' five hit studio albums, and found out Benno was involved because of his work with Leon Russell.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done some more copyedits based on comments here and on talk. We could probably do a bit more "spit and polish" on the article, but for now I think it meets the GA criteria, so I'll pass the review now. Well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]