Talk:Sunshine Life for Me (Sail Away Raymond)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 10:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be review your GA nomiation. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Use flatlist in the genre field.

Actually, that's not necessary. Although Template:Infobox song offers little, there is an instruction to refer to Template:Infobox single for further guidelines. There (in the note under Genre), it allows for commas when the list has only two or three items. JG66 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Folk rock" → You should switch this for "folk" since Ringo never stated "folk rock" in the translated quote, if there is another review stating such then you can leave it.

Not sure what you mean by "the translated quote", nor any quote attributed to Starr. But yes, under Release & Reception, Ian Inglis does use the term folk rock. JG66 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that quote since its "folk-rock" and not "folk rock", but it's good. I'm sorry. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Lead

"song by English musician Ringo Starr from his 1973 solo album Ringo." → song recorded by English musician Ringo Starr for his 1973 solo album Ringo.

Well, "a song by … from his/their album …" is the wording I've been advised to use by one or two reviewers in the past. The rationale being, it outlines the context for the subject of the article in unambiguous terms – in other words (and surely, this is most important in the very first sentence of the Lead section), it avoids the possibility that Ringo Starr might have recorded the song for Ringo but not included the track on the album. JG66 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is cristal clear that he recorded the song to include in the album. "Harrison offered "Sunshine Life for Me" to Starr for inclusion on the latter's first rock solo album, Ringo." What you are saying its true, but this is just not the case. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to "… that appears on his 1973 solo album Ringo". How's that?

"his former bandmate in the Beatles" → Ringo's former bandmate in the Beatles.

Done (but "Starr" rather than Ringo). JG66 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"espouses an escape from modern" → espouses an escape from the modern.

I'm sorry but I believe that would be incorrect. "The modern life" just reads like poor English. JG66 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

music critics → link to music journalism.

Done. JG66 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More recently → It should be a more concise period of time. ex: "More recently, in the early 2000's,..."

Have just reworded the point. I think it's better to just refer to retrospective reviews instead. JG66 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Author Simon Leng" → see below.

Done

Background and inspiration

"In his discussion of the song in his autobiography" → While discussion the song in his autobiography (too many his, sentence looked weird).

Yes, thanks – much better. JG66 (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{spaced ndash}}.

Done, and throughout the article also. (What a lot of fun that was!) JG66 (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Composition

Link "E" and "E major"

I've linked E as the song's key but I don't believe there's anything I can link to for the chord. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same chord, so it's fine.

"Author Simon Leng" → Author of what? Who is he? Did he reviewed the song? A biographer? Just a little bit more information regarding him.

I have to disagree (and for all other examples you raise below). I can't find the link I want, but I know I've read a guideline saying we should avoid such details and stick with "author", and that readers can follow the citation to its source, and see there whether, say, the book is a biography or a more general work. WP:INTEXT says "It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal". That's not the guideline I'm thinking of, admittedly, and it's related to a slightly different issue, but it does touch on what I've read elsewhere. Not only that but I've seen so many FAs and GAs where "author" appears throughout. (Take Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, starting at the Concept and inspiration section.) My concern is that the inclusion each time of "Harrison/Beatles biographer" or "author of a book on the former Beatles as solo artists" will just clutter up the text and make for some unduly long sentences. It would certainly lead to some further rewording, to avoid so many extra mentions of Harrison, Starr, Beatles, etc. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to mention it once in the article, not every time, for instance "Author of one the Beatles biography, Simon Leng, describes it as..." in the others you can just say "Author Simon Leng..." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, throughout. JG66 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"over November–December 1968" → in the last two months of 1968.

Have just simplified it to "late 1968". JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"following the completion of the Beatles' White Album, the Band's focus on traditional song..." → these two sentences don't flow very well.

Okay, I've reworded it, but may well revisit the sentence … JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it right now it's fine the amendment you made. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Authors" seems to much of a generalist term. Biographers perhaps?
"Another Harrison biographer, Dale Allison" → So is Leng also biographer? If so should be stated earlier.

Have reworded to say "theologian". JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Recording

"and his" → and in his

Done. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"through to July 1973" → when they started? It's missing something there.

Yes, I see what you mean. I've added the start date. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the "to", it's doing nothing in there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "through" instead.

Done

Release and reception

Among more recent critiques → as mentioned in the lead.

Again, I've gone for "retrospective". I really don't think anything else is needed, it'll just clutter up the sentence in both cases. All that's important, I believe, is for us to differentiate between contemporary reviews and retrospective critiques. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authors such as Michael Frontani, Chip Madinger and Mark Easter need more information about what and to whom they are writing. This issued has appeared before.
Use {{spaced ndash}}.

Done

Personnel

Use {{spaced ndash}}.
Use two columns.

There's no MoS style guide for songs per se, of course, so we use the Album Style Guide where applicable. But the instruction there (at MOS:ALBUM#Personnel) is to divide into columns if the Personnel list comprises over twenty items. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Notes

re-form → re-group

From my understanding of the two words, that would be incorrect. To re-form means to get back together or form again, whereas re-group implies withdrawal and some sort of strategic assembling of people. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helm → Levon Helm

Done. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

References

Change the name of this section to "Footnotes" and make this a sub section in which you also include the notes below. Call the main section "References".

But why? I'm really sorry to be disagreeing with you again. I enjoy working with reviewers, and as you can probably tell, I've honed my approach based on what I've learned from others here, as much as from what I've seen applied across the encyclopaedia. But WP:FNNR doesn't make any sort of requirements with regard to structure (sections vs subsections) and headings. To me, they're "References" and "Sources". [I know that Sgt. Pepper article I referred to has the latter section as "Bibliography" but I find that term can be inaccurate – say, if the section includes a documentary film, or there are multiple citations from a CD booklet or a magazine feature (meaning that the booklet or magazine article then has to be included under Sources, rather than having each ref repeat the full publications details).] JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a suggestion. It's not incorrect, I would rather see the way I said you to change to. But it's fine. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 92 is death, according to dispenser, fix that.

Are you sure – the Rolling Stone review? Bit slow at first because of the archived link, but it works fine for me. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what's going on, you only used the archived url, you didn't use the original link. Do it as it is here: Help:Using the Wayback Machine. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ditched the link entirely. The problem with that Wayback template, like so many others, is that it only allows for one citation style (author name followed by date in parenthesis; all elements separated by a full stop, etc.), but the style I've used throughout, from back when I started this article in 2013 or thereabouts, is different. I'm sure the Ringo review will be back at rollingstone.com sometime soon – I notice a couple of Harrison album reviews have reappeared there, for instance – in which case I'll add the direct link. JG66 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Sources

Fine.

Done

Overall GA review

Please do not make any changes until I say so. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the song was never performed live or even sung in a tour?

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I don't believe it ever has been, but I don't have a source that explicitly says as much. As a reader, I'd just assume that no mention of a live performance of the song means there hasn't been one, or certainly not a performance that's particularly notable. JG66 (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic job! On hold for seven days. Ping me when you are done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JG66: I left you some notes in some sections. In order to make it easier the ones with Done don't need to be addressed only the others. I also left you a question here that you haven't answered, yet. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Thanks very much for the review, and your patience. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]