Talk:World of Stone/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sufur222 (talk · contribs) 07:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Best way to clear the backlog is probably to review the oldest article left. Let's have a look-see.
- I feel that this meets all of the main GA criteria in general – it's excellently written and extensive in coverage, neutral, superbly referenced (the sheer number of book sources means that linkrot won't be much of an issue), stable and uses images appropriately. This being the case, I'll list some more specific points to improve the article just that little more.
General
- Are you sure this is actually a single? I've been under the impression that, on vinyl singles, the A-side is the actual single but that the B-side is just an accompanying track that doesn't have proper single status. Only if a disc is a double A-side would two songs be credited as the single (i.e. in the manner of "Ghetto Musick / Prototype"). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- It's interesting that you raise this, because it's an issue I've been wondering about for some time – the criteria for using the single infobox. From what I've seen – which is pretty limited admittedly, because I rarely work on any other song articles besides Harrison ones – other editors use the single infobox whenever the song in question has appeared on a single associated with its parent album. Personally, I think that's excessive, because it could mean that up to 6 or 7 songs from a 10-track album are treated in this way, if a string of singles happened to be released from an album, perhaps over a period of almost a year. My thinking is that, just as a non-album B-side receives the single-infobox treatment on wikipedia, then a song that was first released as a B-side to a lead single (ahead of the album) should as well; the initial release for "World of Stone" was a week or two before Extra Texture was issued, for instance. Plus, one of the reviewers/commentators quoted in the article, Bruce Spizer, does comment on the song as a single B-side rather than an album track.
- On the other hand, my approach here could well be over-influenced by seeing how other editors appear to favour the single infobox – i.e., perhaps it's a case of me trying to find a middle ground. So I'd welcome something definitive on this, to be honest! Working chronologically through Harrison's albums and singles, as I have been, the only other example I've come across is "Learning How to Love You" from 1976, as all B-sides to his lead singles before "You"/"World of Stone" were non-album tracks. You'll see that the "Learning ..." song article currently uses an album infobox, which I've been thinking of changing to make consistent with "World of Stone". Happy to get some guidance on this; as you can probably tell, I'm not totally sold on the idea of using the single infobox here myself. I'm just keen to ensure that whichever approach is used, it can be applied across the board. (Sorry to go on so long about this!) JG66 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, you've addressed the issue quite well. In any case, this would be better debated at Template:Infobox single or Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs: for now, seeing as there isn't a clear consensus yet, I think it would be best to leave it as it is until something can be concluded at one of those places. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Understood, and I might well take it up there soon. JG66 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, you've addressed the issue quite well. In any case, this would be better debated at Template:Infobox single or Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs: for now, seeing as there isn't a clear consensus yet, I think it would be best to leave it as it is until something can be concluded at one of those places. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Lead
- "on his final album for Apple Records, Extra Texture (Read All About It)" → "on Extra Texture (Read All About It), his final album for Apple Records." This order reads a little better, and seems more logical.
- Yes – thank you. I've changed the wording. JG66 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- "a request for them not to judge." → judge who?
- I know what you mean. I've removed the mention. JG66 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Background
- "while also completing his new album, Dark Horse." → since you've mentioned Dark Horse in the previous paragraph, this seems a little repetitive. "while also completing Dark Horse" is all that needs to be there.
- Done. I think I'd figured that something else might be needed, other than just the album name, because of mention of Dark Horse Records. JG66 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- The italics surrounding the album name should act as an appropriate distinction. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's great. It often takes a second opinion in these situations ... JG66 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- The italics surrounding the album name should act as an appropriate distinction. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I think I'd figured that something else might be needed, other than just the album name, because of mention of Dark Horse Records. JG66 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Release and reception
- "estime" → "esteem", surely?
- Ouch, yes ... JG66 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
References
- Mostly fine, but a couple of points: Rolling Stone is published by Wenner Media (which should be part of a piped link to Jann Wenner (like this → Wenner Media). Also, it would be better if you formatted the Fong-Torres interview directly to the original magazine (i.e. using something like the cite journal template, although the link used can still be included in the "url" section of the template).
- Think I've done as you've suggested with the second point, about citing the actual article. Although, as much as I'd like to use a template, it's formatted to read as Harvard-style ref only (with full stop between each item), which is unfortunate – because it's not as if that style is the only acceptable option according to MoS/CITEVAR, yet there's no template allowing for the comma-ed alternative that I prefer. (Something I've long been meaning to take up on one project talk page or another.) As far as including Wenna Media, I've not included publisher for likes of Melody Maker, Billboard or NME, either here or in previous GA/GANs. From what I've gathered from other GARs, one needn't add publishers for websites, such as Allmusic, national chart compilers, etc – it's a case of either including for all, or not including at all – so isn't it the same for magazine and newspaper publishers? I'd rather not add them if possible. More than anything, it's a question of accuracy: I'd be surprised if "Wenner Media" was the name used by the pre-corporate-era publishers of Rolling Stone, just as it might be difficult to find out the publisher for MM and NME in 1974 – something that's not an issue with books, obviously, where it's quite easy to discover publishing details for a particular edition/reprint. JG66 (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine. I agree that it's simpler to forgo those details in this instance. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Think I've done as you've suggested with the second point, about citing the actual article. Although, as much as I'd like to use a template, it's formatted to read as Harvard-style ref only (with full stop between each item), which is unfortunate – because it's not as if that style is the only acceptable option according to MoS/CITEVAR, yet there's no template allowing for the comma-ed alternative that I prefer. (Something I've long been meaning to take up on one project talk page or another.) As far as including Wenna Media, I've not included publisher for likes of Melody Maker, Billboard or NME, either here or in previous GA/GANs. From what I've gathered from other GARs, one needn't add publishers for websites, such as Allmusic, national chart compilers, etc – it's a case of either including for all, or not including at all – so isn't it the same for magazine and newspaper publishers? I'd rather not add them if possible. More than anything, it's a question of accuracy: I'd be surprised if "Wenner Media" was the name used by the pre-corporate-era publishers of Rolling Stone, just as it might be difficult to find out the publisher for MM and NME in 1974 – something that's not an issue with books, obviously, where it's quite easy to discover publishing details for a particular edition/reprint. JG66 (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Notes
- These are very lengthy notes. Could the information they convey not be incorporated into the main prose?
- I didn't think they were excessive actually – again, based on past experience. That's not to say your comments didn't make me look at them again, and you'll see I've cut down three out of four. I do think all of these notes are making points that merit parenthetical/"aside" treatment. What do you think about the situation now? JG66 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- They seem okay now, as the facts in them are merely supplementary to the facts in the body. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't think they were excessive actually – again, based on past experience. That's not to say your comments didn't make me look at them again, and you'll see I've cut down three out of four. I do think all of these notes are making points that merit parenthetical/"aside" treatment. What do you think about the situation now? JG66 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
That's all I can find right now; I'll put other points if I find any more. Overall, though, this is very good, and I'll put the review on hold to let you address or question any of my points. Nice work! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Sufur222, thanks for your comments. I'm grateful to you for taking this on – it was getting a little embarrassing, watching this nom gather dust for months! I'll start addressing your comments now ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's everything, and I see no more faults. I will therefore delight you and finally pass the article. An excellent piece of writing, and I hope you write many more (perhaps even beyond George Harrison, as I'm quite a general Beatles enthusiast). Well done! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's great, thank you so much, Sufur/I Am Rufus. I'll certainly keep writing more of these articles – with the sort of encouragement you and some others are kind enough to give! (I might even get around to some non-Harrison Beatles ones. It's just that I'm always drawn to Harrison's story over theirs, to be honest ...) Thanks for your contribution, Sufur, in taking on this and other GANs. Best, JG66 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's everything, and I see no more faults. I will therefore delight you and finally pass the article. An excellent piece of writing, and I hope you write many more (perhaps even beyond George Harrison, as I'm quite a general Beatles enthusiast). Well done! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)