Talk:Younger Than Yesterday/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review; sorry you've had to wait so long for one. I should have comments up in the next day or two. Thanks in advance for your work here-- Khazar2 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, glad to be getting this article GA reviewed at last. Many thanks for doing this and I look forward to working with you to get through this process. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, my initial impression is that this looks good. The prose is strong, the sourcing thorough, and best of all, the discussion of the album is actually interesting and nuanced, drawing on a variety of different voices. Thanks again for your work to bring it to this point.

The only small issue I see with the article so far is a few points where critical evaluations are presented in Wikipedia's voice, which seem to me to raise minor WP:NPOV issues. Almost all of these could be solved with simply attributing points more clearly in-text, or by cutting a word or two. The only part where I see a minor source issue so far is with the remixing discussion at the bottom of the article. Anyway, let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Producer Gary Usher's love of studio experimentation served The Byrds' well during the making of the album." -- this judgement in the caption probably needs in-text attribution to a critic/critics for NPOV.

Well, the caption is essentially paraphrasing what Johnny Rogan is stating in the accompanying text -- specifically, "Usher's wealth of production experience and love of innovative studio experimentation would prove invaluable as the group entered their most creatively adventurous phase." This statement is, of course, supported with an inline citation, so I'm not sure I agree that the adjacent caption box needs greater attribution.

The problem is simply that the caption moves the assertion from Johnny Rogan's "voice" to Wikipedia's, and not all readers will read the full article to correlate the two. The two options here would be to either mention that this is Rogan's opinion in the caption, or to rewrite the caption to something more neutral like "Younger Than Yesterday producer Gary Usher was known for his love of studio experimentation", which avoids opining on his success. Would either of those options be ok with you? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Done - OK, I've reworded it to attribute the opinion to Rogan.

• " while Michael Clarke continued to mature into a competent and, at times, impressive drummer." -- as critical judgement, needs in-text attribution

Done - I've always had a problem with this statement (it wasn't written by me), so I've decided to remove it altogether. It's only vaguely supported by the inline ref anyway, whereas the statement about McGuinn and Crosby honing their songwriting to compensate for Clark's departure is 100% supported.

• "The Byrds successfully expanding their musical style into several different directions" -- suggest cutting "successfully" here; the album's critical success is noted earlier and later, but it's best that that judgement not appear in Wikipedia's voice

Done - I could definitely stand to loose the word "successfully " from this sentence.

• "However, "So You Want to Be a Rock 'n' Roll Star" also suggested certain ironies due to pre-fabricated aspects of The Byrds' own origin" -- another moment that would be best attributed to a critic(s)

Done - I've attributed this to Tim Connors.

• "Crosby's songwriting skills had also developed rapidly, with "Renaissance Fair" (co-written with McGuinn) being an example of his increasingly wistful and atmospheric writing style." -- same

Done - Attributed it to David Fricke and reworded paragraph slightly to better reflect the source.

• ", with some justification," -- suggest just cutting this phrase; no need for Wikipedia to take a side in the dispute

Done - Yeah, fair point.

• "However, there are also a lot of fans who dismiss the remix as revisionist history and prefer to listen to the original mix on vinyl or on the pre-1996 CD releases." -- this seems to need citation

This sentence will be problematic, because it's just an opinion expressed on message boards (like the Steve Hoffman music forums for example). The trouble with the whole "Remix information" sub-section is that, on the one hand, it's an important part of the album's post-release history, which I feel definitely needs mentioning, but it's not an area that has been very well documented. Yet, it is a "hot topic" amongst the most obsessive of Byrds' fans and should be of some interest to even a casual fan of the album. See my comments to your next point for more detail.

• I'm not sure http://users.skynet.be/byrdsfollower/remasters1996-2000.htm is a reliable source

No, I'm not sure that it strictly meets the criteria for a reliable source either. However, the author of that article has extracted information about the extent to which Younger Than Yesterday was remixed (i.e. three songs) from the mouth of the very man responsible for the remix. Prior to that article appearing in 2009, there was absolutely no publically available information on just how much of the album had been tinkered with. I guess I'm looking for some guidance here really. I may be able to replace some of the "remasters 1996-2000" sources with more reliable ones from, Johnny Rogan's book for instance, but info regarding the fact that only three songs were remixed will be impossible to find anywhere else.

Hmmm... I agree that it's a tough cut to make, but I think it just doesn't meet RS standards; we really shouldn't rely on his reporting without editorial oversight or acknowledged expertise in the field. It seems like you could keep the Irwin interview from ICE, though, which would allow you to still have a bit of information in this section. It sounds like the material on fan response will need to be cut, too, unless you can find an RS for it; I hear what you're saying in wanting to include this, but if no reliable secondary sources are discussing it yet, it's probably premature to put it in the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Done - OK, I've replaced all instances of that Byrds Flyght article as a reference and stripped out any specific info pertaining to exactly which tracks on YTY were remixed. I do agree that this stuff needed to be deleted in order to pass a GA review, but it's also a classic example of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines hindering its ability to present a complete picture of a subject, due to some information only being available on self-published sources. I know that Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, so much as it is concerned with verifiability -- and I certainly support that, because the alternative is basically unworkable -- but it's a shame that we'll loose this info from a high profile, easily accessible site like Wikipedia. As a self-confessed muso anorak and Byrds fan, how much of the album was remixed on its 1996 re-release is exactly the kind of information I come to Wikipedia looking for. Oh well...

One possibility would be to add this website as an external link, which is explicitly allowed at WP:EL even for non-reliable sources. It's not a perfect solution, but it would still get some readers there. I actually might do that myself in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, good call. That's a great idea for an alternative. Thanks!

• "Many fans enjoy the partially remixed album because it is very close to the original mix in most cases and offers noticeably better sound quality" -- where does this information appear in the given source? I skimmed it over and didn't immediately see it, but the source is long and I easily could have missed it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article only says, "the four albums that were remixed for the Columbia/Legacy remasters series do still sound very similar to the original albums in most cases" and "it's worth remembering that remixed or not, The Byrds’ Columbia/Legacy remasters do sound great." The "Remix information" section was written by an unknown editor before I ever worked on the article. I just edited it for accuracy and tried to add sources for Bob Irwin's comments and some of the other statements made. As I say, I'd be interested in your thoughts on how to improve this section without loosing it entirely...because that would leave the article noticeably incomplete in my view.

NB: One thing that I wanted to bring to your attention, in the interests of full disclosure, is the use of the Byrdwatcher website as a reliable source in this article. The site was submitted to the Reliable Sources noticeboard for review in November 2009 and consensus was that it was a reliable source (see here). Although it is technically a fansite, the likes of David Crosby have given exclusive interviews to Tim Connors, the site author/owner, and a number of books and magazines have said that the site is good, including Record Collector magazine and The Rough Guide to Rock (with the latter describing it as "the very best Byrds website"). Even the official Roger McGuinn/Byrds web page endorses it by listing it on their links page. In addition, it’s worth noting that the information on the Byrdwatcher page is well sourced with citations for quotations and such. Indeed, outside of an official band website, it's hard to imagine a more reliable web source for information on the Byrds. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If it made it through RS/N, I don't have any problem with it. I appreciate your linking me to that to save me time. And thanks generally for your fast and conscientious responses to the above! Glad to be working with you, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Looks like all of the above is resolved, so I'll move on to the final checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Thanks for your work in passing this article as a GA. It's been a pleasure workig with you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You too! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)