Talk:Walls and Bridges/GA2

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See comments below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    See comments below
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See comments below
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    GAN being placed on hold

Comments:

  • The lead is too short for an article of this length.
I'll do this last (you may have to remind me). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Critical reception" section needs some additional sources. The general lack of critical praise can be captured by the Pazz & Jop poll of that year, see results here, album not in the top 30. On the other hand, the article should state that it got him his most sympathetic reviews since Imagine (see Carr & Tyler's The Beatles: An Illustrated Record page 112). That book, as well as Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, provide good contemporary book-form discussion.
  • You could also include the retrospective critical assessments of some Lennon biographers.
  • I think most of the text in the "Footnotes" would be better placed in the article. Why are they relegated down there? Bouncing back and forth makes the article very choppy to read. Usually Notes of this kind are the last resort when an article has gotten too big – see Paul McCartney for an example – but that's not the case here.
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but a couple of Notes got put in the wrong place. "'Whatever Gets You thru the Night' was released as a single at EMI's instance." should be moved and integrated into the beginning of the "Promotion and aftermath" section, where the same selection is discussed. There are two descriptions of "#9 Dream" originating with the arrangement for Nilsson's "Many Rivers to Cross", they should be merged (either place would do I think). The whole sentence "The version of 'Old Dirt Road' that was included on ... similar to the master take." belongs in "Recording", not "Music and lyrics", since it's about the recording of the song, not about its themes. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entries in "Citations" are difficult to read due to heavy repetition. Please use some form of WP:CITESHORT, such that a bibliography section will have the full details of each book just once, and then each individual cite can be just "Blaney, 1973 to 1975, p. 142." or "Blaney 2005, p. 142."
Will work on other issues in a bit. Isn't this personal preference? Per WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style". Granted, chapter titles aren't needed and removing them might make References a bit more readable. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 08:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are a lot of variations in good citing style and I would not ask an author to change from one to another. But when multiple citations exist and the only difference are page numbers, I believe that doing it your way is substandard. If you look at GA or FA Beatles articles by other editors – John Lennon or Paul McCartney or George Harrison or Cynthia Lennon or The Long and Winding Road or Hey Jude or All Things Must Pass or Extra Texture (Read All About It) and so on – they all use some variation of short form citation for books. So do the large majority of FA or GA articles on other subjects. What is the advantage that you see in your method? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I hope this isn't taken as some form of an argument) You can't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason for the citation style to be changed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not looking for an argument. I've looked at many different citation styles people use on WP and I've changed my approach a couple of times. But I'm trying to understand the rationale for yours. Do you think it is easier for editors to maintain? Easier for readers to follow? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, I hoped my comments weren't taken as arguing. After looking over a bunch of articles, I've decided you're right. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. However, some of your short forms precede the first appearance of your long form, both for Blaney and for Urish & Bielen. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other cites need to be consolidated. There's no need for five separate cites of "John Lennon - Walls And Bridges (CD, Album)". Discogs.com. Retrieved 30 January 2013." Just once per WP:NAMEDREFS.
These are all different. I'll clarify the titles. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 08:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes SuperSeventies.com a reliable source? Where in that page is "pop rock" given as a genre? Just "rock" will do.
 Done Removed and changed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You went too far, pulling the whole assessment and quote out of the article text. Editor Dan56 has restored that. But he also restored "pop rock" in the infobox genre. This I do object to, based solely on one source. "Pop rock" wasn't even a term in much use in the mid-1970s, and you will find few if any descriptions of John Lennon as a "pop rock" artist. If you want to use "Rock, pop", like the Beatles and Lennon articles do in their infobox, I'm fine with that, because that means something different than "pop rock". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look out for inconsistent usage. "Lost Weekend" should be the same each time, "Ya Ya" should not be "Ya-ya", things like that.
  • Look out for erratic linking. "Mind Games", "Julian Lennon", "Record Plant East", "Harry Nilsson", "Pete Hamill", etc. should be linked the first time they appear in the article text, regardless of whether they were linked in the infobox first. There shouldn't be any links inside quotations, such as in "Starring Julian Lennon on drums and Dad on piano and vocals".
  • "WNEW" should be linked and it should be "WNEW-FM", and moreover why is that interview characterized as "infamous"?
 Done above three. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some direct editing of links. Also of punctuation problems, including commas creeping inside song quotes or album italics. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more later if I come up with additional comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional comments:

  • This article really leans heavily on Blaney John Lennon: Listen to This Book. Yet there are lots of books written about Lennon, and the FA John Lennon article only uses Blaney twice as a cite. Why the heavy use of just one source?
It's used as a large majority of the book is available as a preview on Google books. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you realize that isn't the greatest reason. Go to a good library, they'll have lots of Beatles and Lennon books. Or go to a bookstore and sit in a chair and write down notes and page numbers. Or buy the books for your own enjoyment - I have ten or so Beatles books, all acquired long before WP existed. One well-known editor here says he owns fifty Beatles books! Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of the album title?
  • What is the New York Philharmonic Orchestrange? It shouldn't contain a link to the New York Philharmonic if it's something completely different. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And more:

  • I've gone back over the article history and the assessment of critical reception has been all over the place. At first it said it wasn't as highly regarded as the first two albums but had devout followers (including Elton and Ringo, neither cited), then for a while the article has said the album was highly regarded by critics, then for a while the article said it had received mixed reviews, then about five weeks ago with this edit it was changed to "Walls and Bridges was poorly received by contemporary music critics" with a cite to Stine, Jean C.; Marowski, Daniel G. (1 October 1985). Contemporary Literary Criticism 35. Gale Research Company. p. 261. ISBN 0810344092. My county library carries this series, but unfortunately doesn't have volumes from 1985. So can someone tell me what exactly it says? From my own impression at the time, I believe the critical reception when the album was released was "It's not great, and is uneven, but it's certainly better than Sometime in New York City and Mind Games, and maybe it shows that Lennon is getting back on track." The Pazz & Jop poll I quoted above proves that "highly regarded" is incorrect. But the Gerson review in Rolling Stone, while hard to summarize, is certainly not "poor" but would support "mixed". The Carr & Tyler assessment of opinion corresponds to my impression. So should this Contemporary Literary Criticism assessment really trump all other sources? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

  • Some cites are missing publication dates, including "Bring on the Lucie" PopMatters and the Gerson Rolling Stone review.
  • You cannot visibly link to the fansite beatlesinterviews.org for the 1975 Hamill interview - that's a copyright violation of Rolling Stone and a violation of WP:ELNEVER. You should make the cite directly to Rolling Stone. Fortunately, right now, the interview is visible at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/john-lennon-long-nights-journey-into-day-19750605, but even if it weren't, you couldn't link to beatlesinterviews.org.
  • Same story - you cannot visibly link to the fansite john-lennon.com for the 1980 Playboy interview. The citation has to be to that issue of Playboy. If it's isn't online, don't give a url.
  • It would be better to find the original cite from Uncut than a blurb from CDUniverse.com.
  • What makes this a reliable source: Calkin, Graham. "Walls And Bridges". Jpgr.co.uk. Or is it just some fan's website?
  • What makes this a reliable source: "Beatle Brunch looks back 30 years ago this month to a very special Lennon anniversary". Joe Johnson's Beatle Brunch. Or is it just some fan's website?
  • What makes Discogs.com a reliable source? It's user-edited content, which generally means no good for WP use. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the nominator's request on my talk page, I am failing this GAN, so as to allow the issues raised here to be addressed at a more leisurely pace. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walls_and_Bridges/GA2&oldid=791793350"