Talk:Deep Blue (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 18:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Infobox

Add a caption to the image.

Yep, done.

Good. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I'm worried this section is too tangential — GA criteria 3b says the article must be focused. In particular, the quote from George's sister and footnote (even though it's not in the main body) about Indian music seem a bit off-topic. Is everything in the section really related to the composition of "Deep Blue": do we need to know that his mother was a Catholic, or need to include the anecdotal clause after noticing the sketches of Fenders and Gretsches he made in school exercise books?

Thanks, you were right about that. If memory serves me right, I was considering writing an article on George Harrison's family background, so much of the detail would've gone there. Template:John Lennon and Template:Paul McCartney show to what lengths the family members of those two former Beatles are covered on Wikipedia – way over the top in my opinion (and I've seen editors propose some of those articles for deletion, on the grounds of "fancruft"). Anyway, for "Deep Blue", I've ditched both the box quote and the end note you mention, in addition to cutting that point about sketches of guitars. I do think the mention of Catholicism is important, though, to work with points about Harrison embracing Hinduism, his reading extracts from the Bhagavad Gita to her during her final moments, and the significance of that in the song's final verse (as commented on under both Composition and Reception). JG66 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — it's much better now. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

the last of whom — "the latter of whom" sounds better to me.

Hmm, doesn't work for me – but I've changed it as you suggest. JG66 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link "major" to major chord and "minor" to minor chord.

Done. JG66 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What key is the song in? (If it has a "mix of major and minor chords", does it contain modulations, or is it even atonal?) What time signature does it have? How fast is the tempo? What is Harrison's vocal range? Are there any interesting dynamics — does the song crescendo or decrescendo, or is it consistently loud or quiet? Is there anything more you can tell us about the song itself?

Well, plenty I could tell you about the song musically, but none of it would be supported by a reliable source of any sort(!). Safe to say, if any of the sources I've come across had provided those details, they'd be in the article. JG66 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick search myself I can't find anything online that would help. It seems a shame that no source seems to mention it. GA articles only need to be "broad", not "comprehensive" so even if there is a source out there, this minor omission won't make the article fail. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean (seems a shame …). The Ian Inglis book I've used is part of Praeger's series on popular songwriters. From what I've seen of the Praeger title on Paul McCartney, the author there goes into just the sort of detail you're asking about, yet he devotes very little discussion to McCartney's lyrics. Meantime, Inglis' book on Harrison focuses at length on lyrical themes, with the occasional comment on musical influences, genre, feel, etc. – it's frustrating(!). JG66 (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

Why is "dobro" written in lowercase if it's a brand name?

It is a brand name, yes, but it's also widely used in a generic sense regardless of the particular brand of guitar. In fact, I'd say it's far more common to talk/read about "a dobro part" than, say, "a part played on a resonator guitar". That's judging from music books I've got, the Simon Leng and Alan Clayson books being examples where "dobro" is used throughout. To my mind, the lower case treatment is also consistent with the likes of wah pedal, velcro, spanish onion, french windows, brazil nut – all terms that originated with initial caps but have since lost that "special" treatment, at least whenever a degree of discernment regarding capitalisation is encouraged – because the ubiquity of those terms means the words no longer (necessarily) describe the trademarked or nation-specific item. What do you think? JG66 (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if books are using lowercase then fair enough. Leave it as "dobro". — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reissue

I think Reissue should be a level 3 heading, so it's part of the Release section — this is done on the Bangla Desh (song) GA.

I have to disagree with you there, I'm afraid. In the "Bangla Desh" article, the significance of the 21st-century reissue was more that the song hadn't been remastered in all that time and/or included as a bonus track somewhere – but it was always available, on the increasingly dated-sounding Best of compilation. Whereas "Deep Blue" wasn't available anywhere at all, officially at least, between 1971 and 2006. As a result, the text under "Reissue" here is considerably more substantial than that discussing the song's original release. So I'd say (and I think the treatment afforded its unavailability, in the Lead, supports this) it does merit a separate section. Perhaps an alternative title might be in order, I don't know. (Maybe: "Unavailability and 2006 reissue"?) Since nominating the article, I've scored a copy of the 1987 Musician interview where Harrison discusses the track, and there is something I'd like to add from the interview, regarding the song's apparent obscurity. I don't think it's vital to include, but it's certainly relevant, and that would add to the need for a standalone section, of course. JG66 (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I understand your reasoning now. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

midway through the sessions for his All Things Must Pass triple album — "triple album" is too much detail for the lead (especially as it isn't mentioned later on), and would need a link to triple album anyway. I think midway through recording sessions for All Things Must Pass would be better.

I see you've addressed this. Thanks. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unusually among the parents of the four Beatles, Louise had been fully supportive of her son's musical ambitions from a young age, and her death resulted in a renewed focus on family on Harrison's part. — Too much detail for the lead; remove completely.

This has been done. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gained a reputation as a "lost" B-side. — Is "lost B-side" is a musical term? This isn't expanded upon later in the article (at least, the word "lost" isn't used again). If someone described the B-side as "lost", it needs an inline citation.

Thanks for removing the word "lost". — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did think it was pretty innocuous – a "lost B-side" being quite a common expression for those songs apparently hidden away on single flip-sides and long forgotten. And I kinda thought the message was there at least twice in the main text. But yes, I've reworded it now. JG66 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Did the song not chart on anything other than the Billboard Hot 100?

I've not been able to find any record of it, no. I did quite a bit of work on Harrison's discography article a while back, and I notice there's a number 23 chart placing under Norway. I'll investigate, but it's not supported by the ref there, and I'm sure it's a case of the Billboard peak inadvertently reappearing in the wrong column (or some mild vandalism). JG66 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discography article does appear to have made a mistake. I've removed the Norway 23. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was the song never performed live or covered by anyone notable?

No, on both counts. I'm thinking that, by omission, this is clear to readers – we don't need to explicitly make the statement(s)? JG66 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, okay, I just wanted to make sure the article wasn't neglecting any notable live performances/covers. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article fit into Category:Apple Records singles?

I'd say no, but that's based on advice I got a year or two back about another Harrison B-side. "Deep Blue" was listed during part of the single's chart run on Billboard, but I still don't know whether that qualifies a B-side for the category … Happy to go with whatever you suggest, actually. JG66 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said it does: the category says "Articles about singles (A-sides and B-sides) released on the Apple Records label"; Deep Blue says "released as the B-side to his 1971 charity single "Bangla Desh"". — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Everything has been resolved apart from the category issue, but categories aren't even mentioned in the GA criteria! Thanks for responding so quickly; pass for GA. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bilorv – great news. I'll fix the category, here and in a couple of other song articles I've worked on. (I'm sort of embarrassed I didn't even check what the text at Category:Apple Records singles has to say first …) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]