Jump to content

Talk:Purple Haze/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 04:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Recent edits

[edit]
Resolved
  • An editor has recently introduced several unintentional errors into the article. This includes changing "We" to "e" in the "Background and recording" section and introducing a period after a comma and citation in the lead.[1] Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo:, you missed the "We" to "e" error in the quote. It still says, "e got it on the third take as I recall" instead of "We got it on the third take..." Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
e got it this time. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]
Resolved
I thought the psychedelic rock article describes it better (more in Lead discussion). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I thought the history article did a better job describing analog (tape) 8-track and includes a mention of its introduction to the UK in 1968. However, I added a bit with a link to multitrack to make it clearer, which makes a second link unneeded. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • effects unit describes an effects pedal in the context of the Octavia effects unit. Considering the wide usage of the redirect[2] wouldn't a redirect work better in this context?
Since Octavia already links to effects pedal, I left out the additional link. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Fuzz Face links to effects unit and distortion, so I left out the extra link. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
Resolved

Images

[edit]
Resolved
I have been thinking about adding an image of Hendrix's handwritten early draft lyrics,[3] but can't tell if they are copyrighted (since they are completely different, the song's copyright wouldn't apply). The R&R Hall of Fame credits "Design Photography Inc."[4], along with many of the other "Spotlight Artifacts" images. Janie Hendrix's lyric book has a photography credit for "Jan Blom/Authentic Hendrix LLC" (the sellers of the postcards). It's not essential, but may break up some text in "Lyrics and interpretation". —Ojorojo (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's copyrighted. You could upload it as fair use to illustrate the critical commentary. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
Resolved
  • Because of ambiguities in the lyrics, it has been often interpreted as referring to a psychedelic experience, although Hendrix described it as a love song.
Done, more direct. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was also a regular concert feature and live recordings by each of Hendrix's group configurations have been issued
As above. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song has been inducted into the Grammy and the Rock and Roll Halls of Fame. It is also included on lists of the greatest guitar songs, including at number two by Rolling Stone and number one by Q magazine.
    • Are songs actually inducted or just listed? I thought only performers and groups were inducted. The source goes to a museum exhibit that lists "500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll By Song". Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I didn't want to add the "500 Songs..." to the lead. I think the Grammy is the more significant. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hendrix described it as a love song, but it has acquired a reputation as "one of the archetypical psychedelic drug songs of the sixties"
Practice noted, but I left the link in because it handles the drug-music connection without overemphasizing it and places it in context. Drmies changed the order, but I think it works. I expanded it in the Lyrics section. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording

[edit]
Resolved
  • The group had recorded several demos of original material
Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, producer Chas Chandler was pushing for Hendrix to write a song based on a guitar riff that he was toying with around the middle of December: "I heard him playing it at the flat and was knocked out. I told him to keep working on that, saying, 'That's the next single!'"
    • This would work much better as a paraphrase and partial quote, setting the context and narrative. The use of passive voice slows the reader down. "In the middle of December, Chandler heard Hendrix toying around with a new guitar riff. "I heard him playing it at the flat and was knocked out. I told him to keep working on that, saying, 'That's the next single!'" You see how the quote adequately explains it? You don't have to say all that "however...pushing for Hendrix" bit. The quotes says it. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much cleaner. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this was accomplished using multitrack recording, the technology allowed for additional parts to be recorded and added to complete the final master.
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the basic track was finished, Chandler explained that he and Hendrix continued to develop the song
    • "After they finished the basic track, Chandler and Hendrix developed the song".. No need for "was" or "continued to", that just slows the reader down. The subsequent quote explains how they continued to work on it. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed,. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recording for the previous songs by the Experience had used conventional techniques, but Chandler decided to try out some new effects and sounds for "Purple Haze".
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unit doubles the frequency of the sound it is fed, essentially adding an upper octave, and was developed by Roger Mayer, an acoustical and electronics engineer, with Hendrix's input.
    • This version of the current text lacks readability. Please consider rewriting it. Something like this might work: "The unit, which was developed with Hendrix's input by acoustical and electronics engineer Roger Mayer, doubles the frequency of the sound it is fed, essentially adding an upper octave." Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I liked it better as two sentences, without the "it is fed": "The unit doubles an audio frequency, thereby essentially adding an upper octave.[ref] It was developed by Roger Mayer, an acoustical and electronics engineer, with Hendrix's input."[ref][5] —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purple Haze" also saw the introduction of the Octavia guitar effects unit, which was used on the guitar solo. The unit, which was developed with Hendrix's input by acoustical and electronics engineer Roger Mayer, doubles the frequency of the sound it is fed, essentially adding an upper octave.
    • "The guitar solo features the first use of the Octavia guitar effects unit. Acoustical and electronics engineer Roger Mayer developed the unit with input from Hendrix. The Octavia doubles the frequency of the sound it is fed, essentially adding an upper octave." Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better still. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics and interpretation

[edit]
Resolved
  • Lyrically, "Purple Haze" draws on several sources and Hendrix often gave different accounts of its composition.
    • I'm having trouble getting past this introduction. Trying to discuss lyricism, sourcing, and compositional accounts in one sentence is tough, especially when it isn't specific. How do you feel about splitting this into two sentences, mentioning exactly what the "several sources" are in the first sentence, and then summarizing the different accounts in the second sentence? Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was an attempt to paraphrase "Biographer Harry Shapiro commented that "Every time he [Hendrix] was asked..." I gave it another try. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I thought that placing it after the single release was noteworthy. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographer Harry Shapiro commented that "Every time he [Hendrix] was asked about this song, he gave a different answer. The likelihood was even he couldn't be positive about the initial inspiration ... 'Purple Haze' was almost certainly a pot-pourri of ideas neatly parcelled up into one song
    • This is the kind of quote that can easily be paraphrased and briefly quoted. if you're going to keep what you have, the rule of thumb is to use the blockquote when it approaches three lines. I think what you've got is fine for now, but it's something to keep in mind. When I read this, I think, "this is probably better off as a paraphrase". YMMV. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrased. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed typo. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the ambiguities in the lyrics, "'Purple Haze' has become known as one of the archetypal psychedelic drug songs of the sixties"
Rewrote. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With lines such as "purple haze all in my brain" and "'scuse me while I kiss the sky", many fans and the press have interpreted the song as referring to a psychedelic experience
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

[edit]
Resolved
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do His bidding. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hendrix chord is linked twice in this section, three times if you count the link to the dominant seventh sharp ninth chord in the same section. Since you link to the E7♯9 article three times, is it necessary to link in the caption? If so, then no need to link Hendrix chord in the body. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just linked Hendrix chord in the body. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linked in lead and Composition infographic. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "almost sound[ing] likes he's playing a blues raga. He starts out playing in the Mixolydian mode and then he goes right into the blues side. The Octavia has the effect of a sitar, kind of like Ravi Shankar meets B.B. King."
Certain words I link out of habit – genres, artists, musical terms, etc. The key word is Mixolydian, which I think is OK to link, but dropped the rest. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Releases and charts

[edit]
Resolved
  • Live recordings of "Purple Haze" as performed by each of the different Hendrix lineups have been released[57] – the Experience: Live at Monterey; Gypsy Sun and Rainbows: Live at Woodstock; the Band of Gypsys: Live at the Fillmore East; and the Cry of Love touring group: Live at Berkeley.
Changed. The first reference doesn't include the newer albums, so I split it into two sentences for readability. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one of Hendrix's most popular songs, "Purple Haze" has appeared on numerous compilation albums over the years.
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition and influence

[edit]
Resolved
  • I have an issue with citation 61, but I'll bring it up in the final comments at the end of the review. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I brought it up in the review criteria section first. The point is, you shouldn't add content based on a search result, but on reliable secondary sources picking the content. So instead of listing the bands in the search, it is preferable to have a list of the most notable versions highlighted by a respected authority. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite earlier reservations, I trimmed it to charting singles/songs and those mentioned as "popular" (instead of a mere inclusion). We'll see how others respond to it. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
Resolved
Footnotes
  • The Track single release date is listed as March 17, 1967 by Shapiro[1] and the Jimi Hendrix Encyclopedia;[2] McDermott[3] uses March 1, 1967.
  • The Reprise single release date is listed as June 19, 1967 by Shapiro[50] and Shadwick;[51] McDermott[52] uses August 16, 1967, one week before the American release of Are You Experienced.

Which are the correct dates? Do you know? If you do, indicate them in the footnotes. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified (hopefully). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of speculation in previous revisions and I think this helps address it without overemphasizing it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
That's why ref=harv didn't work before (multiple authors not included in cites). Found a couple more. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]
Resolved
As per WP:SONGS#Categories #5: Category:Songs by artist should go in Category:Songs by genre (and apparently not individual songs). —Ojorojo (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most convoluted project guideline I've ever seen. I have to say, I don't agree with it. Categorizing an entire band by song genre makes no sense. Only individual songs should be categorized. According to that ridiculous scheme, all Red Hot Chili Peppers songs‎ are "rap" songs and all Jane's Addiction songs are "funk". That makes no sense. However, that is for another discussion page. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100%. All Led Zeppelin songs are categorized as heavy metal and folk rock, plus a couple others. Looking through Category:British folk songs, you find Category:Led Zeppelin songs, but that category includes all LZ songs without further qualification/categorization. Since it is not apparent which really are British folk songs, each must be checked individually to find out (a brief search didn't show any, so although LZ's songs are categorized as British folk, none of their actual songs are). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Citation 61 is a search result pointing to random recordings of the song. While this is OK for the moment, this kind of citation can be easily abused. In the future, please only link to reliable secondary sources that pick and choose the notable versions of the song.
Changed (see Recognition and influence comment). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    I wanted to know more about the unique riff. I can't think of anything else like it in the history of psychedelic rock.
I went through all the sources again and couldn't find any good material. From the sheet music/tab (and listening), it uses the simplest blues scale. Although the syncopation is different, comparable riffs with different orders have been used in blues and R&B for a long time. Hendrix's guitar tone really sets it apart. The combination with the Fuzz Face emphasizes certain harmonics, which gives it a unique sound, that some describe as "Eastern". Of course, this (as it applies to PH) is OR or SYN. I'll look for psychedelic rock riff/song comparisons. Also I added a request for an audio sample; 30 sec would cover the tritone, the riff, and the chord progression. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: Could you add some of that to the lead? I realize you've already touched upon some of it. No worries if you can't. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stable.
  4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Valid fair use rationales.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Relevant; captions OK
  5. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Minor issues. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestions for improvement listed above in criteria section. Thanks for your good work. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Purple_Haze/GA1&oldid=849389615"