Talk:The Best of George Harrison/Archive 1

Archive 1

UK release date?

Old, old books I've got from the period (eg Carr & Tyler, The Beatles: An Illustrated Record, 1978 edn) give release date for this comp as 14 January 1977, but I know more recent sources (eg Badham, The Beatles Diary Vol. 2) list it as November '76, shortly after the US release. I'm wondering though, whether this 20 Nov date is a case of one author/researcher getting it wrong somewhere along the line and subsequent sources repeating the error. Does anyone have a reliable, firsthand-researched source that gives a Nov '76 UK release date for the album? Because, I'm thinking that Jan '77 makes far more sense from an EMI/Parlophone marketing perspective anyway: aside from the Capitol (UK) release for Wings Over America around this time, Parlophone finally issued the Magical Mystery Tour album in the UK, so they wouldn't have wanted a third Beatles-related release out within as many weeks (especially bearing in mind their deliberate 'staggered' release schedules in 1970 for Sentimental Journey/McCartney/Let It Be and three years later for 1962-66/1967-70/Red Rose Speedway/Living in the Material World). So can anyone confirm this 20 November date? Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again! (We seem to be bumping into each other a lot) The Nov '76 release used in this comes from JPGR. However, I've found that allmusic has the UK & US dates as the same day and eil list the release date as 1976. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Yeepsi − knew you wouldn't be too far away(!). Thanks for all the above, what a great info page at JPGR. Still a bit dubious about the UK release date for Best of GH but best to let it go, I guess, unless anything else turns up to support the Jan '77 option. PS the Extra Texture article's ready for quality reassessment, if you've got the time/inclination ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have every related page to The Beatles in my watchlist, which does help from time-to-time. Re your PS: Thanks, I'll reassess it. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 11:15, 16 April 2012 (TC)

Ah, I figured that must've been the case. (Every page − wow.) Probably don't me tell you, therefore, but I've just added to and reworked this Best of GH article quite a bit, so another reassessment should be due. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your suspicion that the more recent publications have drifted from the truth is correct. Allmusic would be your least reliable source of them all. Radiopathy •talk• 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Radiopathy. Yes, I agree − Allmusic is not to the place to turn to for dates. Not only that, but it's a good example of a source that often repeats others' mistakes/misassumptions − eg, Ginell's Dark Horse review claiming that Clapton guested on "Bye, Bye Love", when that was a rumour Harrison himself put to rest back in 1976−77. Badham also repeats the error, I think. So − hardly surprisingly − the same mistake ended up in wiki's Dark Horse article until quite recently, if I remember right ... and so it goes on (!). JG66 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Certifications section

Got in a bit of a mess trying to add ref for this RIAA certification − for some reason, can't get current ref #11 (RIAA − Recording Industry Association of America, "RIAA's Gold & Platinum Program") to appear there and remove the final ref (#15). If anyone can help, that would be great; also to hide ref 11's long url within the "RIAA's Gold & Platinum Program" wording. Thanks (can never work out how to do these things ...) JG66 (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Updating the above, allowing for new refs just added: 'ref 11' is now #19, and 'ref 15' now #23 ... JG66 (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Best of George Harrison/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NapHit (talk · contribs) 23:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Will start review tomorrow. NapHit (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• Lead is nowhere near big enough for an article of this size, I would expect least three decent size paragraphs. The lead is supposed to summarise the content of the article, yet there is no mention of the reception the article received, nothing about cover art either. see WP:LEAD, for help.

Background

• "having made millions of pounds" this is not exactly encyclopaedic, would prefer a more exact figure
• "and so generate"
• "severely embarrassed" don't think you need the severely, embarrassed is enough
• "From January '76, when all the former Beatles' contracts with EMI/Capitol expired, and with only Paul McCartney choosing to re-sign with Capitol,[7] the two record companies were free to license releases featuring songs from the band's back catalogue and the individual members' solo work, without the need for artist's approval." very long sentence, takes a while to basically say that once their contracts expired the record companies were free to license previous material, try and trim it down
• Have January '76 and June 1976, be consistent, use full year very time
• "Along with accompanying singles, the double album Rock 'n' Roll Music was Capitol's first venture under this new arrangement, in June 1976, containing 28 previously released tracks from throughout The Beatles' career." second part of this sentence does not make sense, what happened in June 1976? was the album released? its not explicit which it should be
• "...particularly Capitol's choice of packaging." would elaborate on this, what was it about the packaging they did not like
• "Nevertheless, after what the record company had promised would be "the largest selling campaign in the history of the music business",[9] the recycled product was a major commercial success." too many redundant words are used in this sentence seems to be a problem throughout. Change to "After the record company had promised "the largest selling campaign in the history of the music business", the album was a commercial success."
• "Late the previous year..." I have no idea what you mean here, what year is previous year? you have to be specific otherwise the reader will get confused.
• There does seem to be a lot of sensationalist writing, such as spectacularly and severely. Try and avoid this, this an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, the article is supposed to be impartial.
• "however, due to the long delays" why where there long delays? not clear from the article
• "post-breakup triumph" again sensationalist writing, without a reference that is POV
• "Predictably, the artist immediately disavowed the venture[13][24] − he being the least attached to the Beatles legacy of all his former bandmates[25] − and it was a concept that would never be repeated for further Beatle-related releases." quite a few issues here, you can't start the sentence saying predictably, when we are only made aware of him being the least attached to the legacy of the Beatles late on in the sentence. Also the end of the sentence needs a ref

Song selection

• "As with the unimaginative album title, a risk-free approach prevailed..." again this needs to be flipped, start the sentence off with the risk-free approach, then lead into the album name
• "with which he had helped revolutionise Western culture" its a bit POV to say he revolutionised Western culture, certainly ref 27 does not say anything like that, just states he was influential in introducing the music to a generation, in light of this, it needs rewriting
• ref should come after punctuation, ref 13 and 30 are examples where this is not the case
• "In this way, "landmark" songs[30] such as "Within You, Without You" and "The Inner Light" were overlooked." This is confusing, due those three songs feature Indian songs, for a reader who is not aware of Harrison's work, this sentence is baffling. You're assuming the reader has prior knowledge of Harrison's work, which is not always the case.
• "The sixth solo offering..." song would be better than offering
• "Aside from the obvious commercial value of repackaging Beatles-era selections" -> Apart from the commercial value of repackaging Beatles-era songs
• lackluster should be lacklustre
• "he'd been reluctant to issue any 45..." abbreviations should be spelled, what is a 45, the link really does not help, its a single so again, I'm confused as to what you mean
• "which only scraped" more journalistic type writing
• "the underachieving "Ding Dong" I'm sorry but how can a song be underachieving, needs rephrasing

Release and reception

• "Some sources give the UK date as 14 January 1977, however, implying that the Harrison compilation was delayed there to make way for the release of The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour − an album cobbled together by Capitol in 1967 but a consistent seller overseas on import ever since." Too many WP:WEASELWORDS here, cut the chase, convey the information as quickly as possible
• "Harrison on the campaign trail" what does this mean, campaigning for what? President? without specifying what he was campaigning for its ambiguous
• "it had earned a gold disc..." I think the phrase is certified gold
• "and no doubt not helped by the much-hyped competing Beatles release" number of things wrong with this, firstly without a reference this is POV, secondly what Beatles release make it explicit.
• "failed to place at all
• "25 December" what year?
• "since the overall effect obviously diminished the significance of Harrison's solo career." overall effect of what? its not so obvious at all, this is too ambiguous for the layman to understood
• "appeared to sum up" well they either summed it up or they didn't no need for appeared
• "Sometime Village Voice..." would prefer Occasional instead of Sometime
• "observed a couple of minor positives, however:" however is redundant
• "Regarding the controversial choice of tracks, but rather missing the issue of what had passed as a hit song on Lennon's best-of compilation and the additions permitted on Starr's..." this sentence reads as if it should be part of an essay, this should not be the case in an encyclopaedia, there is no argument to be made, just present what is said
• "To Huntley," again feels like it should be in an essay change to Huntley States

Cover art

• "very different" different on its own suffices

References

• This is the part of the article that is of the biggest concern, none of the book references have the ISBN's these need to be added
• I see the same book written out constantly when referenced more than once, you should move the books into a Bibliography section, and then use for example "Badman (2002), p.191 as the reference
• ref 35 needs a note saying subscription required

Unfortunately, there are too many issues for me to pass this or even put it on hold. There are issues with the prose, it appears to be written as more of an essay than an encyclopaedic article, as a result i'm not convoked the article has a neutral point of view. I would recommend the article receives a copyedit by an experienced editor to resolve this. The referencing needs addressing as well, instead of listing the same book fully each time, use a shorthand and list the book in a bibliography section. Fix these issues and I'm sure the article will pass, cheers. NapHit (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! Thanks for your comments, NapHit. Will reply more fully on your talk page perhaps. PS: "kissing the same book"?! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Best of George Harrison/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs) 15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to take this one on, but give me a few days to read through it thoroughly and I'll give it a full review. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's make a start on this. I'm mindful of the comments that were made in GA1, so I'll be looking to see if those have been addressed, as well as checking for prose, etc. On a general note there are no deadlinks or disambiguation links here, so all that seems to be fine. Many of the references are offline sources, so I'll accept those in good faith. I'll do a quick spotcheck from those I can access.

Lead

• The lead should be a snapshot of the overall article, which is now the case, although it does skip lightly over some subjects. On reception for example including brief mention of a couple of critics would enhance it further. Also, you mention the cover art, but a little more detail would make it more informative.

Background

• We have January 1976, then June '76. Years should be consistent, unless you're directly quoting something. You'll want to check these are consistent throughout.
• "Along with accompanying singles, the double album Rock 'n' Roll Music was Capitol's first venture under this new arrangement; released in June '76, it contained 28 previously released tracks from throughout The Beatles' career." This sentence is over long. You could break it up into two, substituting the semicolon for a full stop after arrangement.
• "Why did Lennon and Starr object particularly to the packaging? What other concerns did they raise? You should elaborate here.
• Is there any information on the nature of the "long delays"?

Song selection"

• As mentioned previously in GA1, the sentence beginning "In this way, "landmark" songs such as "Within You, Without You" and "The Inner Light" were overlooked while "Taxman" received its second album release in six months (having been issued on Rock 'n' Roll Music)" is a bit confusing. You might want to rework that slightly to make it more reader friendly.
• Change "which only scraped inside the top 40 in the main markets of America and Britain" to something else. Maybe you could say "which reached relatively low chart positions in the top 40 ..."
• "The underachieving Ding-Dong" needs to be rephrased. Perhaps say "Dong Done, which did not perform as well as expected," (if that is what you mean)

Release and Reception

• "Some sources give the UK date as 14 January 1977, however, implying that the Harrison compilation was delayed there to allow for the release of The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour (a part-compilation album issued in North America by Capitol in 1967, but a consistent seller on import in the years since then)." This is a confusing sentence. Can you break it up somehow?
• "Although the album was generally well received, its content drew criticism from fans, since the overall effect obviously diminished the significance of Harrison's solo career." You might want to change this as this statement may not be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with Harrison. Suggested change: "Although the album was generally well received, its content drew criticism from fans, who felt the overall effect diminished the significance of Harrison's solo career."

Overall comments

On hold

Progress has been made since GA1, but there are still several outstanding issues which haven't been addressed. This is an interesting and in-depth article which is well on the road to GA, but with a few teething problems. I'm going to pop this on hold in the hope these can be fixed. I hate failing GAs, so I'll leave it open for a few weeks and add the article to my watchlist. Many of the above points could be addressed through a copyedit, so you might like to do that. Best of luck, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need any help. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Paul MacDermott. I think I've fixed all the issues you've raised (I will just give it another quick read-through, to make sure). Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. That's looking fine now. I tend to agree with you about the review in the lead. It does look kind of odd, so if you want to remove that then go ahead. I won't let that hold up this being passed though. The article is fairly well written, quite broad and interesting, and the sources I've checked are fairly reliable. There's a couple of images too which seem ok. Therefore, I'll award this a pass Congratulations on another good article. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great news – thank you so much. As you'll see, I have removed that review quote. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)