Talk:The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Harrisong improved by JG66 is always a pleasure to read, so hopefully this will be no exception!

Lead

"an overly didactic message" - just wondering if another word than "didactic" should be used, maybe "dictatorial" or "patronising"?

I think "didactic"'s perfect actually. This definition comes up on google: "in the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to appear patronizing." So the word definitely has the negative connotations you're referring to, per critiques from Carr & Tyler, Ingham, etc. JG66 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"his song "The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord)" - "the song" should probably suffice here, we know which song the article's talking about by definition.

Well, I've just cut down the wordiness a bit by removing the "his song" bit – so it now reads: "the influence for 'The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord)'". (Okay, I know it's not the wordiness that you're referring to.) I think the subject of the article does need to be named at the very start (independent of the Lead, of course); that's based on what I've gathered from GARs in the past anyway, and looking in at FACs – that the main body has to work entirely independent of the Lead. I mean, I do see plenty of examples of what you're saying (just "the song"), but usually in articles that are severely under-developed. I think in an article that's more substantial, something's missing if we don't have the subject named/introduced at the start. To me, the opening section of "Imagine" works well: the title appears in the first sentence, after which there's a good mix of "the song", "the composition", "Imagine" – i.e., no one description gets overused. What do you think? JG66 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worth mentioning how Harrison and the Prabhupada followers managed to meet up in 1968, the article kind of gives the impression they just bumped into each other in the street!

Had to laugh at your comment – as if the Krishnas would just accost someone out in the street … ;-) Added the parenthetical phrase: ", at the Beatles' Apple headquarters,". How's that? JG66 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hang on. Had a rethink, and the text now reads: "Harrison's association with ISKCON began in December 1968, when he befriended a small group of devotees that Prabhupada had sent to London …" JG66 (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He then met Prabhupada in England in September 1969," - don't need the comma

Gone now. JG66 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and was impressed by the 73-year-old's declaration" - is there any particular relevance to Prabhupada's age here?

It was ages ago when I worked on this in earnest. From memory, I put in his age to sort of pave the way for the fact that we soon read about Prabhupada's death, within a few years of the period being discussed. In other words, to let people know from the start that he was elderly. A bit unnecessary maybe? I've just reworded to "the acharya" – maybe that's created another problem, though?! JG66 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

Be careful when listing entire verses - they do attract criticism for quoting too much. I might investigate if you can rework these as quotations in prose. Indeed, Dale Allison's summaries might be sufficient, and I see you have done exactly what I just suggested later on in this section.

I've had quite a bit of advice on this issue in the past. I'll try to link to the relevant GAR(s) and other talk pages if I can, but basically what we've agreed on in the past is that there needs to be a significant amount of commentary and interpretation to support the inclusion of a portion of a verse/chorus (or even the entire verse/chorus). It's also been dependent on how many lines are being reproduced relative to the entire song lyrics. As mentioned a few days back, though, I'd definitely gone overboard with this song article – I'm not trying to deny that for a minute. I've reworded and paraphrased to avoid the verse-one block quote, and I think I'll reduce the verse-two quotes even more – perhaps avoid them altogether. I'll see how that goes …

I think it's quite important to show Harrison's use of third-person plural when he's singing about the world's failings – eg, "We're all making out like we own this whole world" and "We all fool around … our reputations signed". As he says about the song, in I Me Mine, some critics tended to interpret his statements as being directed at others and not himself. Which just wasn't the case at all. (Critics and commentators with a little more … imagination(?), view the whole album as Harrison's personal journey; it's his struggle to stay on the path himself.) Just thought I'd mention that – the third-person plural thing – because it has a bearing on which particular lyrics are needed most. (In other words, I'm thinking aloud really with this long reply, because I can't make up my mind about whether to ditch the chorus lyrics in favour of a few lines from the verses!) JG66 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy reworking the first part of the section since writing the above. It's getting better now, I think, certainly fewer portions of song lyrics appearing. Just found one of the GARs I was referring to: Talk:Run of the Mill/GA1. You'll also see a link there (close to the start, in one of my replies) to a relevant discussion at Talk:Lyrics and poetry. Can't say I've looked to see how that discussion concluded, but I guess I'm hoping with "The Lord Loves …" that there's enough commentary referring to the chorus lyrics (directly from Allison, Inglis, Leng, Harrison himself; more vaguely from Carr & Tyler and Ingham) to allow for the full four lines being quoted … JG66 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"acting like big girls" is a more pragmatic, Liverpudlian colloquialism" - it is a colloquialism, but I don't think it's Liverpool specific (eg: [1])

I've reworded now to introduce it as an observation made by an author. So it's true/accurate per the source – how's that? (I agree about "big girl's blouse" being non-regional, but for some reason I'm thinking "like big girls" is a much more Liverpudlian saying, no?) JG66 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1982 quotation is a bit long

Yep. Okay now, do you think? I've cut it down to about two-thirds compared with before. JG66 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release

"Apple released Living in the Material World in May 1973 (June 1973 in Britain)" - does this mean the May 1973 release was for the US, the rest of the world except the UK, or something else

"in May 1973 in the United States (June 1973 in Britain)" – okay? JG66 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"with "The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord)" sequenced as the first track on side two in the original, LP format" - would be simpler to say "with "The Lord Loves the One" as the first track on side two. Without wishing to sound like an old fart, surely even kids today are aware that a vinyl LP has two sides :-/

Reworded slightly, but I think we need to say it's the LP – an LP side? Also, because in this instance the cassette order was different (certainly the UK cassette, as we go on to discuss), and more generally, Billboard had just changed the name of its albums chart to Top LP's and Tape to acknowledge the popularity of 8-track and cassette. What do you think now, with the minor rewording? JG66 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much else I can think of to say on this. Definitely a thorough assessment of an interesting song, whose message sometimes reminds me of this place ("We don't WP:OWN the articles, so just read them and edit them as you see fit"). I'll put the review on hold pending changes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie333. Thanks for the review, I'm so glad you could take it on. As you'll have noticed, the song's a sort of "Awaiting on You All" part II (or "the grumpy version"?). So, since you reviewed that other song article recently, it's fitting somehow that you're doing the same now.

You're quite right – too greedy with the song lyrics. I'll have to go back to Allison's book and rework the 1st half of the Comp section. Won't be too difficult, and it'll actually improve the discussion anyway, by removing the repetition/overstatement that exists between the reproduced lyrics and the Allison quotes. I'll have to put this to one side, though, for a few days, before I can give it a dedicated effort. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, no rush. I see you've popped in on Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, one of my favourite albums ever, and one I really would like to see at GA at least (it's #117 on WP:ALBUMS/500). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66: - any progress on this? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ritchie333. Got distracted adding reviewer ratings I'd come across in recent issues of Mojo and other other mags. (Might have had something to do with that Rolling Stone 500 Albums list … All Things Must Pass rated 400-something, loads of questionable entries above it – Imagine at number 80 … What the ?#$!)

Got some RL, then I'll jump on this in a few hours. JG66 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's alright, I found another bunch of "deconstructed" Beatles tracks, and reassembled them in GarageBand, so now I can play The End with my own guitar solos ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me started on guitars – I'll never get this GAN finished in time! I'm on it now at last … JG66 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've checked everything and I'm happy with where we are now, so I'll pass the review now. Well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ritchie333, I appreciate it. This one's been a long time coming – I just noticed I nom-ed it back in June … Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]