Jump to content

Talk:So Sad

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

Req move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as a technical request. History from the redirect at So Sad merged after the move -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


So Sad (George Harrison song) → So Sad – No other article called "So Sad". yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So Sad (Fade) is also a song, and the bracketed word is not a disambiguator. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that song is called "So Sad (Fade)". Whereas the Harrison song is just called So Sad. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:So Sad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 16:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JG66, I'll review this. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo, thanks for taking this one on. I'll start addressing the points you raise now. JG66 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox – Interesting, I can see a couple different ways to go. The Lee/LeFevre release came first, although Harrison obviously published it first. Maybe add the date to "published" to help clarify the chronology. Or put Lee's first. I'll leave it up to you.
  • Thanks. Yeah, it's an odd one. I guess I'm guided by the fact that it's such a personal song for Harrison, and that's affected the structure of the whole article (i.e. almost in spite of the Lee-LeFevre release having come first). I've gone for option 1, for now anyway. JG66 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the time I was splitting up with Pattie [Boyd] – Since this is already in the quote box, adding it here seems redundant (also quotes should not contain links). Maybe "Harrison was breaking up with his first wife, Pattie Boyd" at the time, although the couple …"
  • I don't really agree that taking a single phrase from the quote box is redundant, necessarily, but I've reworded along the lines of what you suggest. Okay now? JG66 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harrison and Boyd met ... – This sentence gets a bit long. Maybe split it up.
  • Unable to conceive ... – Likewise.
  • I'm mindful of not dragging out this backstory too much, which I feel increasing the number of sentences might do. I've split up the example above, and the "He considers …" one below – would you be okay with leaving this as it is, given that it no longer follows a super-long sentence, after that first change? JG66 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everly Bros.' "So Sad" – Is there anything to this?[1]
  • Ah, interesting. That's a new one on me. I've got limited interest/knowledge when it comes to the Beatles pre '63–64 but I just took a look in Mark Lewisohn's Tune In, which should be the definitive word on that era. He discusses songs covered by the Beatles in 1960, mentions the Everlys of course, but there's nothing on "So Sad (To Watch Good Love Go Bad)". I will keep looking, though. JG66 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dark Horse would include – Maybe just "included".
  • He considers ... – Also consider splitting up.

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verses – There's a G/G maj7/Em/F/C/D progression in there. "Freebird" came out around the same time, I don't suppose …
  • … that Allen Collins and Ronnie Van Zant must've heard George playing the song in his New York hotel in winter '72, or got a listen to mixes from the Material World sessions, and lifted the chord sequence for FB? Yes, yes!! I jest, of course (I have a feeling that's not what you were implying!). JG66 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew it! Probably when their wives weren't looking.
  • Lee Infobox:
    • Released – original single release only (US), unless there is a reason. Also, Template:Start date is recommended (Harrison box too).
  • Well, I always think that if a single appeared in one of the two major markets at the time (UK or US) a month or two later – signifying, in this instance, that it was the album's second single in the UK but the lead single in the US – it's important enough to give a second release date. That's probably because I spend too much time here working on songs and albums from a certain period and by artists whose main commercial focus was always the UK and US. (Put it another way, pretty much all the sources I have always give the two release dates, so it's hard to shake the habit.) Anyway, the April '74 date's gone now. JG66 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the problems with Infobox:Single – the focus should be on the song and the significant or noteworthy details about it, which may include release info in the song's two biggest markets. But the way it's structured now (and the guideline) limits its use.
    • Format – " should not be used for inches: 7-inch single or 7-inch 45 rpm record.
  • I changed it to 7-inch vinyl. Is that okay? I've been told elsewhere to avoid redundancy introduced by such wording – say, when the infobox already defines the release as a "single". (Similarly for Charts sections, where it's obvious that a single would have placed on a singles chart, so the word ("singles") is not needed in a "Weekly charts" subheading.) JG66 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but to me "vinyl" seems like slang ("45" was the common designation; there are some 7-inch 33 rpm). Good point about the redundancy aspect.
    • Genre - Billboard listed it under "Pop recommended" (not in the Country section). Perhaps country rock (for 1973).
  • Ah, well spotted … It's certainly country rock to my ears. But I don't know what we can do – Simon Leng clearly identifies it as country, and I've not come across any source describing it as country rock. JG66 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaargh. I've got conflicting information on this. According to the Castleman & Podrazik discography book, the length on the standard UK & US single was 4:37. (I imagine I've gone with 4:34 only because that's what appears on the 2003 Freedom CD. Actually, more likely, because 4:34 was already there in the album article and I confirmed the length by digging out the CD.) The 45cat entry is a US promo-only disc, of course; the 2003 CD includes a "single version" [=edit], as a bonus track, with the length given as 3:00. I appreciate that Billboard's reviewer obviously received the 2:54 version, but does that necessarily make it the same as the official single, whether, by the latter term, we're going with C & P or the '03 CD booklet? JG66 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unlikely that a record company would prepare a special "Promo" edit that wasn't intended for radio. In the US, the many of the singles (and albums) that were played on radio stations were marked "Promo" to prevent resale (maybe cheaper than separate "DJ Copy" and "Press Copy" label printing) and were the same as those sold. Of course, only RS should be used. Also, single is already defined.
    • Label – BB & single shows Columbia.
  • the oldest song written – This sounds odd to me. Perhaps "earliest" or "is the first".
  • I don't know, I can't see "earliest" or "first" working. I've reworded to "'So Sad' was the oldest of the songs written by Harrison …", trying to give more space to the phrase – is that any better? JG66 (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • adulterous intrigue – Amusing, but seems out of place in with the recording details. It's up to you.
  • A bit quaint, I know. I think it is important to provide this context for late 1973, though, because Harrison & Boyd's domestic situation had obviously moved on significantly from the '71–72 period covered under Background/inspiration. Also because of the soap-opera aspect of Dark Horse, mentioned under Release, given that these, er … rock star antics were relevant to the song's release. JG66 (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voormann also participated – Since he's only mentioned once a few paragraphs back, maybe add "on bass" (following Hopkins, et al.)
  • Willie Weeks, however, whom – Seems an awkward construction. Maybe "WW later overdubbed the bass part. He and GH first met …"
  • Personnel – I think "Personnel" sections are better for album articles. When there are multiple song versions, it doesn't work well and this info is already in the body. Again, it's up to you.
  • Thanks, I would like to keep them – I guess I'm so used to seeing a list in song articles, it's difficult to live without them. I agree with what you're saying when it comes to a simple cover version, even for a version that was a big hit. JG66 (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes & References – Template:Reflist now recommends Reflist|30em (not Reflist|2 or Reflist|3) – something to do with mobile browsers.
  • I went for 20em, which I've also seen used. I favour the more narrow columns because, with many of the citations consisting of just author surname + page number, it seems slightly pointless to encourage the list to travel so far down the page rather than filling the white space available across. JG66 (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—Ojorojo (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

::*A PD image and/or quote box may help break up the text. (This was copied.)

  2. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

It's an interesting, well researched article. Tells me a lot about the song. Good job. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo, a couple of comments added above, but thank you so much for the review. Great to work with you again. I'm especially pleased about this one making GA because I started it from scratch, years ago. Best, JG66 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:So_Sad&oldid=1212975175"