Talk:Don't Let Me Wait Too Long

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Don't Let Me Wait Too Long/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: JG66 (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Background "Harrison wrote and recorded "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long" during a period marked by his heightened devotion to Hindu spirituality, which coincided with marital problems with his first wife, Pattie Boyd, and the financial complications affecting his Bangladesh aid project." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Composition "An upbeat love song in the tradition of early 1960s Brill Building songwriters, the composition has invited debate among commentators as to whether the lyrics are addressed to a lover such as Boyd or to God." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 3: Recording " Although produced by Harrison alone, the recording employs aspects of the Wall of Sound production synonymous with his former collaborator Phil Spector – through the use of reverb, two drummers and multiple acoustic rhythm guitar parts. Aside from Harrison, the musicians on the track are Gary Wright, Nicky Hopkins, Ringo Starr, Klaus Voormann and Jim Keltner." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 3.1: Phil Spector's influence (as above) (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 4: Release "It was scheduled to be issued as a single in September that year, as the follow-up to "Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth)", but the release never took place." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, opening paras need to be summarized.) Major Point 4.1: Planned single release "It was scheduled to be issued as a single in September that year, as the follow-up to "Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth)", but the release never took place." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 5: Reception "Music critics have traditionally viewed "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long" as a highlight of Material World, praising its pop qualities and production, with some considering the song worthy of hit status." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 6: Other versions "In November 1976, during filming for their joint appearance on Saturday Night Live, Harrison performed "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long" with singer Paul Simon, but the song did not appear in the broadcast." (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Background "Harrison wrote and recorded "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long" during a period marked by his heightened devotion to Hindu spirituality, which coincided with marital problems with his first wife, Pattie Boyd, and the financial complications affecting his Bangladesh aid project." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Composition "An upbeat love song in the tradition of early 1960s Brill Building songwriters, the composition has invited debate among commentators as to whether the lyrics are addressed to a lover such as Boyd or to God." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3: Recording " Although produced by Harrison alone, the recording employs aspects of the Wall of Sound production synonymous with his former collaborator Phil Spector – through the use of reverb, two drummers and multiple acoustic rhythm guitar parts. Aside from Harrison, the musicians on the track are Gary Wright, Nicky Hopkins, Ringo Starr, Klaus Voormann and Jim Keltner. " (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3.1: Phil Spector's influence (as above) (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4: Release "It was scheduled to be issued as a single in September that year, as the follow-up to "Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth)", but the release never took place." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body, opening paras need to be summarized.) Major Point 4.1: Planned single release "It was scheduled to be issued as a single in September that year, as the follow-up to "Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth)", but the release never took place." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 5: Reception "Music critics have traditionally viewed "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long" as a highlight of Material World, praising its pop qualities and production, with some considering the song worthy of hit status." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 6: Other versions "In November 1976, during filming for their joint appearance on Saturday Night Live, Harrison performed "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long" with singer Paul Simon, but the song did not appear in the broadcast." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long" is a song by English musician George Harrison, released on his 1973 album Living in the Material World. Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". I feel the notability should also be included here. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) & (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

• I think the Release in the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.
• I think the first sentence in the lead can also be improved.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey thanks, Seabuckthorn, fantastic. The lead issues you've raised at Talk:Try Some, Buy Some/GA1 look pretty daunting, so I think I'll go for the low-pain option by replying to this one first!

Thanks! { --Seabuckthorn ♥ 08:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Bit surprised by your point about the lead's opening sentence, in this review and the other one – simply because I've never found the wording I typically use a problem in past GARs. Best to deal with the issue where you raise it, above, than get too into it here, of course. (Just a thought that immediately comes to mind, that's all.) Best, JG66 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'm striking it out. All the best. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 08:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Because all the points you raise above are hidden in preview, and also because the issue regarding Release is spread across two areas under WP:LEAD ("Check for Provide an accessible overview, and "Check for relative emphasis), I'll reply down here, if that's okay – it's a bit confusing otherwise (for me anyway!).

* I've cut down the text about the album's face labels so that now we make mention only of the album's spiritual themes being reflected in Wilkes's artwork design. (The mention here of Krishna is also useful, so that readers have been introduced to the term before the end-of-article point: "Splendid Media's reviewer wrote that Poole "does the Krishna master proud" …") Importantly for the concern you raise, about lead vs article body, I've also added "like the majority of Harrison's lyrics on Material World" in the lead. I'm hoping this addition allows for mention under Release that aspects of the artwork reflected the album's lyrical content; in other words, reference to the Krishna image is following up on the earlier point about spiritual devotion, as well as a comment on the song's marketing perhaps. I'd like to think the rest of the information in those two paras under Release is accounted for in the lead in some way.

* The first sentence is simply saying that the song was released on Living in the Material World, with a date and its sequencing on the album (preceding a track that has been mentioned earlier in the article). I recently added "bestselling album" in the lead, which I hope covers the mention of its chart success under Release (and again, I've made reference to That'll Be the Day in a previous section). The statement about the Harrisons' marriage hitting breaking point in mid 1973 is following up on an earlier point also.

* As far as "Planned single release" being adequately covered in the lead, I reworded part of the lead's first para ("an achievement that would have led to further commercial success for Harrison's bestselling album").

Let me know what you think now. I have to admit, this level of attention to the lead is a new one on me, and I worry slightly about the apparent need to account for each and every paragraph in a section. (I'd always understood it to be a little broader: can the reader navigate via the contents list to read more about something stated in the lead? and/or when the reader's reading the main article, has every major point they come across been touched on in some way in the lead-section paragraphs?) That's not say I think you're wrong, I assure you! Thanks again, Seabuckthorn. JG66 (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The article looks great! Thanks a lot for your polite explanations. It's a learning curve for me, so please don't take every recommendation as correct or mandatory. I'm good in committing mistakes.

I'll try to explain my perspective for the lead. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Also, paragraphs are used to develop an idea. So, each paragraph develops some separate important point(s) about the topic. This is the concept I follow while reviewing. But really, I'm quite good at committing mistakes or being wrong. So please feel free to strike out the points from my reviews which you think will not help in improving the article, which is our main aim here. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 13:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you're quite right to impose that (perhaps a touch less rigidly might be the way, but then that's only from what I've experienced). Basically, it's up to myself and others who nominate articles to raise our game. (And there are a few GAs from early in my time on Wikipedia that I need to go back to, having learned new lessons along the way.)

With this article in fact, since my last message I'd been thinking that all mention of Tom Wilkes's artwork could and should probably go. And along with that, the additional "like the majority of Harrison's lyrics on Material World" I put in the lead. Similarly, some of the text under Single Release could be cut or moved out of the front line and into an end note, and so avoid that "an achievement that would have led to further commercial success for Harrison's bestselling album" in the lead. What I mean is – and it was SilkTork who first enlightened me on this point – if I've got a problem with something being added to the lead to reflect content in the article, it could be that the information doesn't actually belong in the article. So I'm thinking of making those changes to "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long".

In other words, to some extent, it just took me a while to get my head around the issue you'd raised! JG66 (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your gentle reminder. I actually "unwatched" this page on closure. Apologies . I'm very happy to see that you are striving hard to improve the article. I'm not sure I agree with the removal of any content from the article in order to fix the lead because the article should have the most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge and all material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope should be covered in the article (GA 3). And to be honest, all your articles are excellent and the removal of any content would, I believe, affect quality. So if you don't mind, I'd like to recommend that you restore the content and would not prefer removal of any content because I've checked them thoroughly during my review and I believe I've not missed any aspect. I'd also recommend leaving the lead as it is in any such situation. Thank you so much for helping me clear my concepts. I'm feeling sorry for giving you a lot of trouble. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, please don't feel sorry, Seabuckthorn, and it's no trouble. I guess the review was over so quickly, and I really should've read the piece through, separate from addressing the points you'd raised. I've just reinstated in the lead that mention about "the majority of Harrison's lyrics on Material World". With the other items I deleted, I am reluctant to include them – I'll explain why …

With the mention of Wilkes's design for the album artwork that I removed, I realised that the only reason I'd entered into that subject at all originally was to try to account for a non-free image in the info box – deleted shortly before you saw the article, I think. (The relevant non-free content review has since been archived.) Until quite recently, the reference to the image, an LP face label, was more detailed and specific to Wilkes's design for the labels; then I made it a point about his art design generally. But I can now see the related text (as you saw it) for what it was: remnants of my vain attempt to support the image with critical commentary.

With the other changes I made since you passed the article – removing mention from lead that a single release would have benefited album sales further, and taking comparison with previous album's commercial success to an end note – I think they're quite important. Because, the whole point (beginning "Whereas the issuing of "What Is Life" as a second single …") is really an aside; it's not as if any commentators have actually stated this with regard to the single's cancellation. I thought the combined point – namely, the "What Is Life" single was partly responsible for its parent album's continued success; the latter lasted through much of 1971; this commercial success was achieved despite what was then an inordinately high retail price for an album; two years later, Material World's chart run lasted six months – I thought that might be useful to present to readers. But, in my opinion, it definitely belongs in the "FYI/in-case-you're-interested" setting, rather than up-front in the article body.

That's my thinking on these issues, anyway. I do value your opinion (and that's only partly because you're obviously as big a fan of the finest reviewer on Wikipedia as I am – the Mighty Q!). Do these explanations assuage your concerns about my reverts perhaps? Best, JG66 (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's clear now. Thanks a lot! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 11:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, JG66, very much for your diligence in writing such excellent articles. Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 13:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Seabuckthorn. This was the easy one of the three, of course – might take a while for me to get to grips with the other two GARs' lead-related issues! Best, JG66 (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Don't Let Me Wait Too Long. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.splendidezine.com/review.html?reviewid=3261572143153781

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)