Talk:The Answer's at the End

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Answer's at the End/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks extremely strong: well sourced, well written, and drawing on an impressive amount of research for a song article. Thanks for the time you've put into it--I think it's really paid off.

I've made a few edits as I went, so please double-check me that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. The only criterion that jumps out at me as problematic is #6. To fulfill it, I'd suggest adding an image, since there are some readily available on WikiCommons. An image like this one (Harrison in '74) seems appropriate. [1] What do you think? -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeepsi appears to have been following behind me reverting the de-italicization of song lyrics. It's not a GA criterion, so I won't revert again, but I did want to point out that the MOS makes no exception for song lyrics in stating that quotations shouldn't be italicized. A quick glance at some song FAs shows that the lyric quotations there are consistently written without italics: [2], [3], [4], [5]. So I'd suggest again de-italicizing these to conform with the MOS, but this isn't a GA criterion and won't affect this review either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2, thanks so much for taking this one on. I was just about to put a note up on the GANs page to say I'll be out of commission for about 10 days ... but you've grabbed me with a few hours until I go! Would be fantastic to get this one through before then, if at all possible! (I won't be without computer, just not really on the case – no books etc.) I have to agree with Yeepsi about ital song lyrics: with song titles appearing in rom+quotes, and any direct quotations from critics/biographers the same, I think it's important to be able to distinguish between those items and song lyrics. As far as adding an image goes, I've never found at past GARs that not having an image is problematic. It's not ideal, I know. I'd love to have a couple of images in each song article, but as long as the images complement the text. In this article, a pic of Friar Park and/or the grounds (not the gatehouse, as in the Friar Park article) would be perfect. I'd been hoping to find a 19th/early 20th century postcard image or something. I have to say I loathe that 1974 pic of Harrison! (It's not so bad when you see the full photo, actually, with Billy Preston, Ravi and President Ford, but this cropped image is horrendous.) But it's your review, Khazar2, so I respect your opinion. If you feel it improves the article or that its inclusion is needed to satisfy a GA requirement, then I can't really argue. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries on the italics. I still don't know if I agree but it's absolutely unimportant for this review.

As for the image, it is okay for articles to pass if no relevant images are available, but criterion 6 is "Illustrated, if possible, by images" -- in this case, there's so many free images of Harrison to pick from that it seems a shame not to include any. I'm by no means married to the 1974 image, though. Are there any you'd prefer out of those available at WikiCommons [6] (note that most are hidden in subcategories here)? As a third alternative, could the fair-use claim for File:Extratexture.jpg stretch to cover this song from it as well? The last option might be to check flickr for a picture of the Friar Park that would be free or fair use. Even the gatehouse would still be appropriate to the article, I think, though obviously not as ideal as the grounds/house itself.

If none of these options seem appropriate to you, though, I would be all right in the end with passing the article image-free. Incidentally, if we don't get this figured out in the next hour or two (I may have to disappear also), don't worry if you can't check in for the ten days. We can just consider this on hold until you're back with your books. Thanks for the quick response and for all you've done on Harrison articles generally. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2. Thanks for those choices. I've gone for the gatehouse image – what do you think? I hope it satisfies the current situation. But as a longer-term issue, I'm really into finding a way to bring images into all the Harrison song articles – all Harrison articles, for that matter. I'm just a little wary of gratuitous use of pics, for the sake of having an image (any image) in an article. There are steps I want to take in the near future, big-picture wise – contacting Apple, contacting Henry Grossman (Harrison's 1974 tour photographer, whose got some great live shots on his site) – so do let's stay in touch on this. I'm pretty much in the dark when it comes to chasing down anything but the most obvious non-free content, and I'm intrigued when I see articles like the Stones 1972 US tour that include some great images. I'd really welcome your input in cracking this issue, way beyond this particular song article: photos of Harrison & co. during All Things Must Pass sessions, Apple publicity shot for Living in the Material World (George with outstretched hand), Friar Park landscape, there's just no end to the number of images that would add to text visually in a number of articles, because of their relevance to the specific discussion. Anyway, time's running out for me right now! Hopefully the gatehouse pic suffices; no probs if you think we need more discussion first. (I really wasn't expecting a review on this article for months actually!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a helpful addition, personally, though if other editors decide to take it down later I don't think it'll be a factor for GA status. This looks ready to go, but I want to do a final check tomorrow when I'm not so sleepy before passing.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty terrible about image policies on Wikipedia myself, but I can tell you someone who's great with them (and one of the friendliest people on Wikipedia to boot): User:Crisco 1492. I'd suggest leaving a note on his talk page with any questions you have. If he can't answer them, he'll point you to someone who can. You're always welcome to ask me, too, if you need a second opinion about any of it, I'm just less likely to know the answer. =)

Travel safe and we'll see you in ten days! -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks, Khazar2! JG66 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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