Talk:Sour Milk Sea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination.  — Calvin999 16:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Replace
  Abbey Road Studios, London; Abbey Road Studios, London with {{hlist|[[Abbey Road Studios]]|[[Abbey Road Studios]]}}
• Alphabetise the genres and replace with the same coding for as above so that it bullet points them.
• 3:54 → {{duration|m=3|s=54}}
• Just write Harrison for the producer premature
• "Sour Milk Sea" is a song that was recorded by English singer Jackie Lomax and released as his debut single on Apple Records in August 1968. → "Sour Milk Sea" is a song recorded by English singer Jackie Lomax. It was released as his debut single by Apple Records on 26 August 1968.
• to help launch the Beatles' record label → Which was?
• the backing musicians → Remove 'backing'
• and his fellow Beatles → Too informal
• On release, → Not needed
• "Our First Four" promotional campaign → Some context is needed here
• Why is Thomas singled out as a critic for the lead?
• during February to April 1968. → between February and April of 1968
• his fellow Beatles → Again, I think it's informal to say "his fellow Beatles". It's like say "her fellow Destiny's children"
• , and Eastern spirituality generally, among Western youth. → and Eastern spirituality among Western youth.
• Harrison now adopted → Omit now, too contradictory to use 'now' follow by past tense
• , according to Everett, → Remove
• are roughly based → Does the author actually say "roughly"? Seems a bit odd, because you can't roughly be in a key.
• In his lyrics over the verses, → I don't understand what you mean by this?
• writes, Harrison focuses → Missue of comma, remove it.
• , Allison continues, the → You don't need to write the author overtime.
• the lyrical thrust → Not encyclopaedic
• I think you use too many quotes, it gets boring to read
• the Beatles did not return to "Sour Milk Sea" → Bit ambiguous. What do you mean by they didn't return to it?
• nascent → What does this mean?
• for Rolling Stone, David Fricke listed → Daid Fricke for Rolling Stone
• as, variously, a "get-off-your-ass rocker" and "dynamite". → This needs to be re-phrased, it's awkward

Outcome

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is good enough to be promoted to a Good Article. To be honest, I think it needs to be re-written for the most part. A lot of it reads quite awkward, informal and not encyclopaedic. I don't think this article is of the same standard for which I place articles on hold for and pass. I think you need to enlist an editor to thoroughly rewrite it for you. Perhaps list it for a Peer Review or even at the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE).  — Calvin999 16:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Thank you for your review, although I find your electing to fail the nomination baffling. I think the article is easily redeemable for a GA. I appreciate your experience, but … well, if you're right then almost every other reviewer I've worked with over the past 3+ years is wrong. Not just that, but also the FACs and GARs I've looked in on when the subject's been of interest.

Regarding the level of quotes, you could be right (for instance, Lomax was something of a larrikin raconteur), but again, it's hardly extreme, based on what I've seen. You might want to look at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, particularly the Music and lyrics section through "Side one" and "Side two". That article made FA just over a year ago – and while personally I think it does go overboard with the amount of quoted material, it was a very popular listing with other editors.

Also on the point of quotes and attribution, the guidelines at WP Songs state: "Do not include … interpretations of the lyrics or even statements about what the song is "about", unless they can be provided in the form of quotes that can be cited from sources with some authoritative insight (such as the songwriter or a notable performer)." Yet you want "according to Everett" removed, even when that author's own words "the Mixolydian ♭VII area" appear in the same sentence. And again, per that guideline (imo), it would be wrong to remove the attribution from an interpretation claiming that "the song pre-empts the concept espoused by John Lennon two years later in 'Instant Karma!'", even when the author's words have been paraphrased.

Also, when you say there's a "misuse of comma" after the word "writes", you're implying that the sentence should read: "In his lyrics over the verses, theologian Dale Allison writes Harrison focuses on the benefits of Transcendental Meditation …" Really? And your instruction to alphabetise the genres – sorry but where does that come from? Your instruction to reword the lead is also confusing; you want to see the existing sentence split up to read: "Sour Milk Sea is a song recorded by English singer Jackie Lomax. It was released as his debut single by Apple Records on 26 August 1968." Not only does that short-sharp approach seem unnecessary, but it's confusing when I see the opening sentences in song articles you've currently got up for nomination – for example: "You Don't Know What to Do" is a song by American singer and songwriter Mariah Carey included on her fourteenth studio album, Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse (2014), and features rapper Wale."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being precious or taking anything personally. I believe we do something, put it up on the wall, and talk about it objectively. I just can't see you've necessarily been applying GA requirements/guidelines throughout this review. A few of the things you've pointed out I will fix (and thanks for those comments). But otherwise, I've never seen a decision more worthy of a reassessment, quite frankly. JG66 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I've failed inappropriately. But I don't think the writing side of it is good enough to be made GA. For me, it just doesn't flow, and if it's not well written, then that's a problem that affect everything else. Compared to others I have reviewed recently, it doesn't compare and I think it needs more work than being on hold for a week. It needs more time than that and you can't put a time frame on something like that. It's purely my opinion, and I understand where you are coming from, because I've said the same thing when I've nominated for FAC and editors say it's not well written despite lots of input and a long time working on it. I had 5 supports of people saying it was greatly written, and 2 opposes of people saying that it was GA standard, at a push. Perhaps it just an attachment thing because we are the ones who've put time into it. I'm not really following what your point is with regard to my own nomination that you have highlighted? The sentence you highlight does not include when it was released or by who, which is the same thing I suggested to you, as to not make it long winded with lots of points. Generally, most GA music articles follow this approach. Please take my advice and seek a Peer Review or GOCE, and re-nominate it in the future. Thank for replying to me, and good luck.  — Calvin999 19:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)