Talk:Collaborations (Ravi Shankar and George Harrison album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Collaborations (Ravi Shankar and George Harrison album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Concerns addressed (see comments). Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The lead, specially, is awesome! Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Consistent, verifiable. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Yes Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No or, all content is referenced. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Covers major aspects. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Concerns addressed (see comments). Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    I find it neutral. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Little or no change in recent month. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) One with fair use rationale, others cc. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Captions are descriptive. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass A good article indeed!

Discussion[edit]

I have started the review. It does not have any cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 10:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmritasyaPutra: Hi – were you going to add more here? I'm worried the GAR might time out, and I only just remembered about the nomination myself! (I probably should have got in touch before now, but I tend to wait until a review's complete unless issues are specifically brought up along the way.) Thanks, JG66 (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JG66 you are right about that. I am getting lesser and lesser time to come to WP these days. I am okay if someone else is willing to carry forward this review or if you have some one in mind. I will see if I can find some time this week, otherwise, I will leave a message in concerned noticeboard for someone else to pick it up or remove this review and put it back in the pool for someone else start afresh. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AmritasyaPutra Well, it would be great if by some chance you found the time … I might be able to find somebody, but I think it's unlikely. (Besides, I'd much rather it was you who continued the review, rather someone else starting all over again – or even worse, the nomination going back on the pile, maybe for months!)
It's been a while since 20 October, so I don't know if there's an automatic time-out after a certain number of weeks. Let's see how it goes? I completely understand you might have other commitments, of course! Best, JG66 (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the usage of 'instigated' correct? Is the intent 'inspired'?
Yes, I'd say "instigated" is correct here. I've found this definition online – "to bring about or initiate (an action or event)" – which, to me, seems perfect. What do you think? JG66 (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That meaning, literally is correct, but this word is used mostly in negative context. And it doesn't seem to fit here... to me. Check its usage in Merriam-Webster and Oxford. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – yes, I see what you mean. Now changed to "inspired". JG66 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the second paragraph of 'Background' appropriate for this article?
I do think it's important, because it establishes for the reader the depth of Shankar and Harrison's friendship, and this box set is a document of that. Reviews for Collaborations tend to focus on this issue (more than on the actual music perhaps), and its relevance is borne out elsewhere in the article, I think – in the section on the box set's packaging, for instance. Added to that, Harrison's widow was so involved in compiling and presenting the release – which reflects the personal aspect of the compilation, not to mention its obvious importance to George Harrison's legacy. (For example, the Harrison estate got this release together before any outtakes/rarities-type Harrison album – which is very unusual among the posthumous repackaging campaigns so typical of the late 20th century/early 21st – and four years before a box set compiling his best-known solo work, The Apple Years 1968–75. Okay, there were commercial considerations involved, with Shankar's 90th-birthday reissues over 2010, but the context of Collaborations is definitely the two artist's friendship.) Also, to be specific about the wording in this second paragraph, the statement "their musical collaborations continued only intermittently after the mid 1970s" is useful, given that 20 years pass before they formally reunited for Chants of India.
Your comment has got me thinking, though: I remember finding it problematic that the three studio albums appear in reverse chronological order in the box set, which is why I had to present this information as part of Background. (Rather than us coming across the details gradually – say, within the history covered under Musical Content – because the chronology is backwards.) Added to that, the mention of "When Harrison died in November 2001, following a four-year battle with cancer" establishes that it's a posthumous compilation for Harrison …
But obviously, all this is what I believe, and as you can tell, I could probably go on forever about it(!). What do you think now – does any of the above answer your concerns? JG66 (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the explanation that the reviews also tend to focus on their friendship is sufficient. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of "rather than Sanskrit"?
Well, all the Vedic prayers and other religious texts are in Sanskrit, whereas "Prabhujee" has the distinction of containing lyrics in Hindi. I guess I didn't think it needed stating in the previous sentence that anything from the Vedas would be in Sanskrit – do you think otherwise? JG66 (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a general reader may find the 'rather' unexplained, can we append a short phrase like "which is more common" or something along that line? --AmritasyaPutraT 06:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've had a go at clarifying the Sanskrit aspect, in the previous sentence. Any good? JG66 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is exemplary! I listened to the track "I Am Missing You" after reading this article, it's beautiful, thank you for this wonderful article! --AmritasyaPutraT 16:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you, AmritasyaPutra, for finding the time to complete the review, and for your generous comment. (And yes, "I Am Missing You" is really something; also "Supané Mé Āyé Preetam Sainyā" and "Jaya Jagadish Haré" from the same album. "Kajri", "Naderdani", "Dehati" (from Music Festival from India), they're amazing pieces as well … Ah, don't get me started!) JG66 (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to check them out. Thank you! --AmritasyaPutraT 06:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Collaborations (Ravi Shankar and George Harrison album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collaborations (Ravi Shankar and George Harrison album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collaborations_(Ravi_Shankar_and_George_Harrison_album)&oldid=1206744895"