Talk:The Best of George Harrison/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: NapHit (talk · contribs) 23:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will start review tomorrow. NapHit (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Lead is nowhere near big enough for an article of this size, I would expect least three decent size paragraphs. The lead is supposed to summarise the content of the article, yet there is no mention of the reception the article received, nothing about cover art either. see WP:LEAD, for help.

Background

"having made millions of pounds" this is not exactly encyclopaedic, would prefer a more exact figure
"and so generate"
"severely embarrassed" don't think you need the severely, embarrassed is enough
"From January '76, when all the former Beatles' contracts with EMI/Capitol expired, and with only Paul McCartney choosing to re-sign with Capitol,[7] the two record companies were free to license releases featuring songs from the band's back catalogue and the individual members' solo work, without the need for artist's approval." very long sentence, takes a while to basically say that once their contracts expired the record companies were free to license previous material, try and trim it down
Have January '76 and June 1976, be consistent, use full year very time
"Along with accompanying singles, the double album Rock 'n' Roll Music was Capitol's first venture under this new arrangement, in June 1976, containing 28 previously released tracks from throughout The Beatles' career." second part of this sentence does not make sense, what happened in June 1976? was the album released? its not explicit which it should be
"...particularly Capitol's choice of packaging." would elaborate on this, what was it about the packaging they did not like
"Nevertheless, after what the record company had promised would be "the largest selling campaign in the history of the music business",[9] the recycled product was a major commercial success." too many redundant words are used in this sentence seems to be a problem throughout. Change to "After the record company had promised "the largest selling campaign in the history of the music business", the album was a commercial success."
"Late the previous year..." I have no idea what you mean here, what year is previous year? you have to be specific otherwise the reader will get confused.
There does seem to be a lot of sensationalist writing, such as spectacularly and severely. Try and avoid this, this an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, the article is supposed to be impartial.
"however, due to the long delays" why where there long delays? not clear from the article
"post-breakup triumph" again sensationalist writing, without a reference that is POV
"Predictably, the artist immediately disavowed the venture[13][24] − he being the least attached to the Beatles legacy of all his former bandmates[25] − and it was a concept that would never be repeated for further Beatle-related releases." quite a few issues here, you can't start the sentence saying predictably, when we are only made aware of him being the least attached to the legacy of the Beatles late on in the sentence. Also the end of the sentence needs a ref

Song selection

"As with the unimaginative album title, a risk-free approach prevailed..." again this needs to be flipped, start the sentence off with the risk-free approach, then lead into the album name
"with which he had helped revolutionise Western culture" its a bit POV to say he revolutionised Western culture, certainly ref 27 does not say anything like that, just states he was influential in introducing the music to a generation, in light of this, it needs rewriting
ref should come after punctuation, ref 13 and 30 are examples where this is not the case
"In this way, "landmark" songs[30] such as "Within You, Without You" and "The Inner Light" were overlooked." This is confusing, due those three songs feature Indian songs, for a reader who is not aware of Harrison's work, this sentence is baffling. You're assuming the reader has prior knowledge of Harrison's work, which is not always the case.
"The sixth solo offering..." song would be better than offering
"Aside from the obvious commercial value of repackaging Beatles-era selections" -> Apart from the commercial value of repackaging Beatles-era songs
lackluster should be lacklustre
"he'd been reluctant to issue any 45..." abbreviations should be spelled, what is a 45, the link really does not help, its a single so again, I'm confused as to what you mean
"which only scraped" more journalistic type writing
"the underachieving "Ding Dong" I'm sorry but how can a song be underachieving, needs rephrasing

Release and reception

"Some sources give the UK date as 14 January 1977, however, implying that the Harrison compilation was delayed there to make way for the release of The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour − an album cobbled together by Capitol in 1967 but a consistent seller overseas on import ever since." Too many WP:WEASELWORDS here, cut the chase, convey the information as quickly as possible
"Harrison on the campaign trail" what does this mean, campaigning for what? President? without specifying what he was campaigning for its ambiguous
"it had earned a gold disc..." I think the phrase is certified gold
"and no doubt not helped by the much-hyped competing Beatles release" number of things wrong with this, firstly without a reference this is POV, secondly what Beatles release make it explicit.
"failed to place ~~at all~~
"25 December" what year?
"since the overall effect obviously diminished the significance of Harrison's solo career." overall effect of what? its not so obvious at all, this is too ambiguous for the layman to understood
"appeared to sum up" well they either summed it up or they didn't no need for appeared
"Sometime Village Voice..." would prefer Occasional instead of Sometime
"observed a couple of minor positives, however:" however is redundant
"Regarding the controversial choice of tracks, but rather missing the issue of what had passed as a hit song on Lennon's best-of compilation and the additions permitted on Starr's..." this sentence reads as if it should be part of an essay, this should not be the case in an encyclopaedia, there is no argument to be made, just present what is said
"To Huntley," again feels like it should be in an essay change to Huntley States

Cover art

"very different" different on its own suffices

References

This is the part of the article that is of the biggest concern, none of the book references have the ISBN's these need to be added
I see the same book written out constantly when referenced more than once, you should move the books into a Bibliography section, and then use for example "Badman (2002), p.191 as the reference
ref 35 needs a note saying subscription required

Unfortunately, there are too many issues for me to pass this or even put it on hold. There are issues with the prose, it appears to be written as more of an essay than an encyclopaedic article, as a result i'm not convoked the article has a neutral point of view. I would recommend the article receives a copyedit by an experienced editor to resolve this. The referencing needs addressing as well, instead of listing the same book fully each time, use a shorthand and list the book in a bibliography section. Fix these issues and I'm sure the article will pass, cheers. NapHit (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Thanks for your comments, NapHit. Will reply more fully on your talk page perhaps. PS: "kissing the same book"?! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]