Talk:All Things Must Pass/GA1

GA Review

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

• Listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 18:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, thanks so much for taking this on. I'll be going away at the end of March, so when you say the review's likely to take a while I hope that's not relevant (just thought I'd mention it!). I agree that the reviewer's role is a collaborative one; for what it's worth, I prefer a more consultative approach, but I'm sure that doesn't exclude your preferred method. Regards, JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Stable. There's been a few reverts of IP accounts, but nothing significant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Images. Two images are used, both are album covers, and both are non-free but appropriately tagged. I did consider the appropriateness of the second album cover, and if there is sufficient justification for its inclusion. The second cover is mentioned in the text so does meet the non-free criteria; however, as the only difference between the covers is one is colour and the other is black and white, it may be considered that it is stretching the rule on use of non-free a little bit - though I don't think it has actually broken it. So, while it's not an image I think is necessary in the article, I don't see it as breaking the rules. However, the text does mention "further examples of this cover image showing an imaginary, gradual encroachment of urbanisation on the Friar Park landscape" which does sound interesting, and for which an image or two would be useful (placed in the appropriate section rather than in the infobox). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree about including one of the urbanisation cover images – will add soon. I also had thoughts about adding an image of the album's "3 LPs for the price of 2" cover sticker, in the Apple Jam subsection. Maybe ... JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• There is an acceptable reference section. The citation method used is the less popular and slightly more awkward short citation method. This is acceptable, though as part of ongoing development consideration might be given to changing this to the more widely used full citation method in order to assist readers who wish to check sources, and to assist other editors who are more familiar with the full citation method. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I take your point that it's less popular but, these things being subjective, I actually find the more popular Harvard system and others extremely awkward. When deciding which style to adopt for Harrison articles, six months ago or more, this is what I went for, based on the various approaches I'd seen already in Harrison/Beatle/music articles on wikipedia, and my own preference of course. You'll see I've recently reverted to ampersands between names in multi-author works – that's in the interests of consistency across all the current Harrison GAs. JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

More on this in a separate section below, SilkTork, in case you didn't notice. JG66 (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not an issue for GA whichever way it goes. When there is more than one author, it is common to use ";" to separate each author, though it's not part of GA criteria, so using "&", while non-standard, would not prevent the article from being listed as a Good Article. The edit war, however, is not good. Resolve the matter on the takpage not through edit warring on the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. The matter is now resolved (albeit hardly satisfactorily, I think it's fair to say). I agree that a semicolon would be appropriate if elements within the full reference were separated by full stops, as in the Harvard system. To my understanding, to use a semicolon when commas are used instead of full stops would be incorrect, because the semicolon is stronger (hierarchically) than the separator (the comma). I take your point that this is not an issue for GA. With some relief(!). JG66 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. Prose is of a good quality. Readable and engaging. Conveying information easily and comfortably. Some paragraphing is a bit loose, and a couple of bullet lists suddenly appear, but those are matters to think about for ongoing development. The prose easily meets GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Article is well cited, and statements checked do match sources so I found no evidence of original research. The article is well detailed, balanced, and covers the main points that a general reader would require. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• layout, words to watch, and fiction SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Focus. The article is focused enough to meet GA criteria, though additional trimming and attention to focus is worth considering as part of ongoing development. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Query

• I'm still looking into the amount of detail. In places it sometimes feels a little excessive - such as the first paragraphs of the background section (this looks like it could be compressed), the Demo tracks section, the details on a poster that didn't appear in the album, and other details such as Harrison's meeting with Lennon and McCartney. What I'm considering is how much this impacts on the GA criteria, and how damaging it is to a reader's patience and concentration level. It would be a shame to turn readers off by being too detailed in what is intended to be a general encyclopedia entry - a brief overview of the the topic. Some of the detail seems more appropriate for a more extended text, such as a book chapter. To mitigate for the detail - the article isn't too long, and much of the detail is interesting - though, to be fair, focus can get lost even in the most interesting of detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I hear you. It's a tricky one, because All Things Must Pass is an important album on a number of fronts – which is why adjectives like monumental, sprawling, colossal, epic get such high rotation in the album reviews, no doubt. I'll certainly take a look at Background, now that you mention it. The point that needs to be made there is how held back he was in the last years of the Beatles (really, since immersing himself in Indian culture, in 1966), and then how emancipating this album was for him ("Harrison is free!" etc). But not excessively so, no. The Demo tracks subsection is difficult, because there was effectively five albums' worth of material recorded in some form or another during the period of production, and all those individual song titles carry redirects back to this album article – so it seems some sort of detail is needed for each track. I thought the Album artwork section was relatively short, actually; I'm comparing it, I guess, with something like Living in the Material World, where there is a fair bit to cover. I appreciate that you're talking about artwork that wasn't used for the release, though. Because the section doesn't seem excessively long, I'd rather leave as is ... but if, as you say, it might impact on GA criteria, I'll have to see if I can trim down the mention here and take more to "What Is Life#Release". Harrison's meeting with Lennon and McCartney – my feeling is that this is an important backdrop to the album's chart run/release, but again, I take your point. I'd always planned to add these details to the "Run of the Mill" song article, which deals with broken friendships in the band and business problems, perhaps "Isn't It a Pity" also – so I'll look at cutting it right down in this album article. I'll make a start on all this very soon. Thanks, SilkTork, I appreciate your thoroughness. JG66 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at cutting back detail in all those areas you mention. You'll see the Hari-Len-Mac meeting is now only touched on briefly and detail regarding the rejected poster design sits in a new end note. Condensed the Background section to some extent, and did what (little) I could with Demo tracks and outtakes, given the issue I mentioned above. I think the article's definitely improved as result of these edits, so I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts. I've tried to finetune the lead-in also; bit worried about new phrasing "Harrison's emergence as a creative force" (waffly ... weasely?). Regards, JG66 (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's enough for me to move forward with the review, though I think it's worth keeping focus in mind as part of ongoing development, and looking to trim where appropriate. Too much information can be draining and confusing. In the sentence: " In addition, Harrison identified his involvement with the Hare Krishna movement[nb 1] as providing "another piece of a jigsaw puzzle" that represented the spiritual journey he began in 1966, with his and wife Pattie Boyd's visit to India." is is necessary to mention Boyd? The paragraph from which that sentence comes already has a list of names which, cough, cough, read like the cast list of a Cecil B. DeMille movie! As regards "creative force" - I note from the extract here that the phrase doesn't appear to be used by Richard Williams. Has anyone else used the phrase? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed both of those points in the text you mention, I believe. Quite right – can live without inclusion of Boyd, and in fact I thought mention of the trip to India could go also. With the Williams quote, it's reproduced in a couple of Harrison biographies, and the implication's certainly there, about "creative force"/emergence as a top-level artist, etc. But going from Schaffner's use of the quote, as I am, it's should be avoided – I was trying a bit too hard with my paraphrasing, I think. I'll definitely keep in mind what you say about trimming further in the future; I can see the benefits already in the improved focus. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• The MoS section is generally the trickiest, especially the Lead section. I have a set piece which I tend to use in most reviews:

Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.

I'm not sure that "The original vinyl release featured two LPs of rock songs and a third disc of informal jams, titled Apple Jam." is as important as some of the information that follows. There's an editorial judgement in placing "a number of songs rejected by the Beatles" in the first paragraph - a judgement that would be worth explaining, especially as it's not mentioned in the article that those songs had been offered to the Beatles, let alone declined. The word "reject" may also need thinking about.

As an example of material not included in the lead - there's a section on the album artwork, there's little mention of the recording session or where it took place, and nothing on the overdubbing and mixing, both of which have a section.

I've now reworked the lead to cover the main issues discussed in the article. Although one can't argue with the criteria, it does seem a shame to have to bulk out the introduction like this (worth pointing out perhaps that overdubbing and mixing are both subsections within the Production (recording) section). I've juggled the sentences around a bit, but I feel there's more to come in that department.

There was/is mention of the title song being offered to the Beatles, actually. But your raising this, and the point about "rejected by the Beatles" not being supported in the article, makes me realise I've made a huge oversight in not clearly stating that a fair few songs recorded for the album were turned down by the Beatles. (Talk about not being able to see the wood for the [Friar Park] trees ...) That really is a major point of notability about All Things Must Pass: it affected everything from why Harrison invested so much time and energy on the project (channelling his frustration from the final years of the band – closure), to the nature of the attention the album received on release (which has snowballed in the decades since then, it's fair to say). So, this issue has involved a bit more rewording in the main text, obviously. You'll see I've changed "rejected" to "turned down" in the lead, but not in the discussion below. "Rejected" is certainly a word used often by many of the sources I have access to – one of the more innocuous descriptions they use, in fact(!). Will keep tinkering for a while longer on this issue and the lead section, still with an eye for trimming excess detail of course, and then drop you a line. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"bulk out the introduction" - I understand what you are saying, and there needs to be an eye kept on the lead to ensure it doesn't get too bulky, but it's worth being aware that for many (I think it's actually most) readers the lead is all that they read. If you ever had one of the modern editions (post 1972) of Encyclopedia Britannica, you would have been aware that they split the encyclopedia into the Micropædia (short articles) and the Macropædia (detailed articles) - most topics would be covered in both, but at different levels of detail. The Micropædia is our equivalent of the lead. The lead does serve as an introduction to the topic, and invites people to read the sections that interest them for greater detail, but the lead should also be able to stand alone - provide the reader with a summary of the main points of the topic. Generally, if an aspect of a topic is deemed important enough to justify a section of two or more paragraphs, then that aspect should be summarised in the lead; if the topic is not important enough to be mentioned in the lead, then perhaps it shouldn't have so much attention paid to it in the main body. Keeping a balance between the lead and the main body is tricky, but does help to keep the mind focussed on what are the important points. Some editors will simply place in an article any information they find on a topic - and sometimes they feel that when an article looks big enough it will therefore become a Good Article as long as the prose is OK. You, on the other hand, do appear to me to have a good knowledge of the topic, and to be able to assess the wide range of material available on the topic, and to judge which points are important and should be mentioned. Like most "fans", there is tendency to over-include material that is perhaps more of interest to another fan than to the general reader, but that's not a big issue, considering that your main editing instincts are quite sound. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this little bit of work on the lead will be the last thing needed. The Ratings Box is in my view not compliant with lists as this is now a fully developed article, and that embedded list does not effectively summarise the prose section, so it does not meet GA criteria. I am aware that such boxes are popular, so what I do is remove the box at the time of listing the article, and leave it to contributors' own discretion if they wish to put it back. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• Not a GA issue, but does [1] meet WP:EL criteria? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not – what makes it useful for readers, I think, is the image of the Apple Jam sleeve, which is discussed in the text. (I'll check again, but I don't think georgeharrison.com shows the original artwork.) Also, and this is relevant to a discussion I started on the talk page last year, I like the idea of being able to show an example where Apple Jam's songwriting credits read Harrison alone – although Graham Calkin doesn't show the actual labels, unfortunately. I seem to remember that sometime last year a user added the Apple Jam musicians as songwriters, under the article's 1970 track listing – which is why this was an issue I was keen to discuss on the talk page, and why, I guess, I'm keen now to support further the Harrison-only original credits by including the link. (As I wrote on the talk page, I really don't believe that those musicians are credited as composers on the 2001 booklet. And even Ian Inglis – the author I've cited as supporting the multi-composer idea, in an endnote before the article's 2001 track listing – is inconsistent about this. In his chapter discussing All Things, he writes that the jam tracks are "ostensibly credited to Harrison", yet in the back-of-book Discography, he lists Clapton, Gordon, Whitlock etc as songwriters. One of many beefs I have with Inglis's book actually.) Again, thanks for pointing out that it's not a GA issue as such. I will remove the external link if you think it really doesn't belong. JG66 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You discuss the song-writing credits neatly and appropriately in Footnote 23. I don't see what advantage the Calkin page brings. The aim would be to make this article more informative than Calkin's page, and I think that has been achieved. If you feel it would be helpful for readers to see a particular copyrighted image, then better to use that image under Fair Use criteria, than to link to a page that uses copyrighted images inappropriately, as that is against policy per WP:COPYLINKS. Calkin could have permission to use the images, or may be using them under a Fair Use claim. If he is using them under Fair Use, then so can we - therefore there is no need to link, unless he has a lot of images that would be inappropriate for us to carry. My view is that the link is not needed, but I'm not fussed about it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay – it's gone now. JG66 (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quick question: Should it be worth mentioning that portions of white noise from "No Time or Space", from Electronic Sound , was used on "I Remember Jeep"? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 20:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is quite detailed, and while the length is not excessive, part of the GA criteria is to do with focus, so I shall at some point be looking to see if the article's detail is too excessive for Wikipedia. If the overall detail is not too excessive, and the mention of that particular detail is felt to be encyclopaedic or worthwhile, then it would be worth including. Why do you feel that info is worth mentioning? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Worth is the wrong word I used there. I feel that it's a rare example of Harrison refering to/using anything from Electronic Sound or Wonderwall, as most count ATMP as his first solo album. (If that made any sense...?) Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Do reliable sources discuss this? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I thought now wouldn't have been a bad time to raise the question. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yeepsi. I've read one or two authors suggesting that there's a portion of one of the Elec Sound pieces on "I Remember Jeep", but I've never been sure whether this is the case. It's a detail that belongs in the 1969 album article perhaps (if it can be cited), and in an article on Apple Jam if it existed. (Must admit, I have considered starting an article on the latter, after reading so much about it recently.) I agree with SilkTork about focus, and it's quite incredible just how much there is to say about ATMP, given the background/build-up during the last year or two of the Beatles, its content, significance on release in its own right and within the Beatles' situation, its legacy etc. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Widely acknowledged as Harrison's first solo album..." Is "acknowledged" the right word? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This comment, which appears in the lead, is not mentioned in the main body, and only one of his two prior solo albums is mentioned. Some clarity on the situation, supported by sources, would be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I had thought that with Electronic Sound being visible in the infobox chronology (as well as getting a mention in one of the notes), that was sufficient on that one. Will add something about ATMP being viewed/considered as Harrison's first. JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

People read articles in differing ways - I understand that there are a number of readers who don't look at the infobox at all. While the relationship between the lead and the main body is helpfully laid out in WP:Lead, I don't think there is a similar guide to the relationship between an infobox and the rest of the article. Often, WikiProjects have standalone guidelines to infoboxes, providing guidance on what should be in the infobox, but not on the relationship between the rest of the article. I think it's probably a question of making an informed judgement on a case by case basis. I would feel that if information is important, that it would be discussed in the article; in this case, given that this is Harrison's third solo album, it might be helpful to have some mention of that perhaps in the background section, and some informed comment as to why it is considered by some to be his first "real" solo album. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I hear you. If it's okay with you, I might wait a day or two before fixing this and anything else you've raised (and other issues you might find during that time). Is that all right – or is it easier for you if each point gets dealt with as and when it comes? JG66 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem on when the work is done (or even who does it). I've not finished the review yet, but I think this is going to be GA listed with little effort. The sources I've looked at check out nicely, and the article is well organised and has plenty of detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded the mention in the lead. Still need to add discussion of the point in the main article, of course. I'm trying to find a quote from Harrison where he says the first two "didn't really count" or something like that, which I'll then combine with mention of Leng and a couple of reviewers who also refer to All Things Must Pass as Harrison's debut. (In the boxed quote under 2001 reissue, Harrison describes it as "the first album", of course.) JG66 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Have now added brief discussion of this in the main text, under Background. JG66 (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Cecil B. DeMille. Not an issue, but it's generally considered OK to silently correct someone's mistake in the spelling of a name, per WP:QUOTE: "Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected or may be retained and marked with "[sic]"—using the template {{sic}}—to indicate that the error is in the original source." One alternative is to leave the spelling as is and put {{sic}} after it, though that may simply draw attention to the mistake in what is a very short quote. Another option is to reword to avoid using a quote - simply paraphrase without quotation marks: "Harris felt the list of musicians was reminiscent of the cast list of a Cecil B. DeMille film." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering a couple of options – I agree, the addition of "[sic]" is pretty pointless. I was going to close up the space, as you'd done previously, but I notice on IMDb that he was credited occasionally as Cecil B. De Mille, and further down that page, "alternate names" of Cecil B. De Mille and Cecil B. de Mille are listed. So I'd like to stick with the spaced option; it seems perhaps that the wikipedia article on DeMille needs to acknowledge these alternatives, at the start of the piece. Thanks again, SilkTork. JG66 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looking to finish this now, so just going through and looking for quibbles. Reading through the lead I see "All Things Must Pass reflects the influence of Bob Dylan", but I don't see that explained in the article. There's mention of Harrison visiting and befriending Dylan, but nothing that states he was an influence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I missed that. Have added mention under Album content. JG66 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

On hold

As the review is now complete, and there's just the lead to tidy up to finish off, I'm putting this on hold for an initial seven days to allow the work to be done. If it's done earlier, give me a ping. If it's not done in seven days, no worries, I'll extend the time, and look to help out with the editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Pass

Article meets GA criteria. This is an informative, useful and readable article on an important album. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SilkTork – and for all your comments, I've learnt heaps from this GAR. Best, JG66 (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)