Talk:The Best of George Harrison/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs) 15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to take this one on, but give me a few days to read through it thoroughly and I'll give it a full review. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's make a start on this. I'm mindful of the comments that were made in GA1, so I'll be looking to see if those have been addressed, as well as checking for prose, etc. On a general note there are no deadlinks or disambiguation links here, so all that seems to be fine. Many of the references are offline sources, so I'll accept those in good faith. I'll do a quick spotcheck from those I can access.

Lead

• The lead should be a snapshot of the overall article, which is now the case, although it does skip lightly over some subjects. On reception for example including brief mention of a couple of critics would enhance it further. Also, you mention the cover art, but a little more detail would make it more informative.

Background

• We have January 1976, then June '76. Years should be consistent, unless you're directly quoting something. You'll want to check these are consistent throughout.
• "Along with accompanying singles, the double album Rock 'n' Roll Music was Capitol's first venture under this new arrangement; released in June '76, it contained 28 previously released tracks from throughout The Beatles' career." This sentence is over long. You could break it up into two, substituting the semicolon for a full stop after arrangement.
• "Why did Lennon and Starr object particularly to the packaging? What other concerns did they raise? You should elaborate here.
• Is there any information on the nature of the "long delays"?

Song selection"

• As mentioned previously in GA1, the sentence beginning "In this way, "landmark" songs such as "Within You, Without You" and "The Inner Light" were overlooked while "Taxman" received its second album release in six months (having been issued on Rock 'n' Roll Music)" is a bit confusing. You might want to rework that slightly to make it more reader friendly.
• Change "which only scraped inside the top 40 in the main markets of America and Britain" to something else. Maybe you could say "which reached relatively low chart positions in the top 40 ..."
• "The underachieving Ding-Dong" needs to be rephrased. Perhaps say "Dong Done, which did not perform as well as expected," (if that is what you mean)

Release and Reception

• "Some sources give the UK date as 14 January 1977, however, implying that the Harrison compilation was delayed there to allow for the release of The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour (a part-compilation album issued in North America by Capitol in 1967, but a consistent seller on import in the years since then)." This is a confusing sentence. Can you break it up somehow?
• "Although the album was generally well received, its content drew criticism from fans, since the overall effect obviously diminished the significance of Harrison's solo career." You might want to change this as this statement may not be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with Harrison. Suggested change: "Although the album was generally well received, its content drew criticism from fans, who felt the overall effect diminished the significance of Harrison's solo career."

Overall comments

On hold

Progress has been made since GA1, but there are still several outstanding issues which haven't been addressed. This is an interesting and in-depth article which is well on the road to GA, but with a few teething problems. I'm going to pop this on hold in the hope these can be fixed. I hate failing GAs, so I'll leave it open for a few weeks and add the article to my watchlist. Many of the above points could be addressed through a copyedit, so you might like to do that. Best of luck, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need any help. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Paul MacDermott. I think I've fixed all the issues you've raised (I will just give it another quick read-through, to make sure). Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. That's looking fine now. I tend to agree with you about the review in the lead. It does look kind of odd, so if you want to remove that then go ahead. I won't let that hold up this being passed though. The article is fairly well written, quite broad and interesting, and the sources I've checked are fairly reliable. There's a couple of images too which seem ok. Therefore, I'll award this a pass Congratulations on another good article. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great news – thank you so much. As you'll see, I have removed that review quote. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)