Talk:Try Some, Buy Some/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: JG66 (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Background and composition "The lyrics to "Try Some, Buy Some" reflect Harrison's perception of God amid temptations associated with the material world and take the form of a recollection of his first spiritual awakening." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 2: Planned Ronnie Spector solo album "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 2.1: Recording Major portion in the lead (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body and should be compressed.) Major Point 2.2: Single release "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 2.3: Reissue "Having long been unavailable following its initial release, Ronnie Spector's version was reissued in 2010 on the compilation Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 3: George Harrison's version "After the single became only a minor hit, Harrison added his own vocal onto the same instrumental track and included the result on his 1973 album Living in the Material World." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 3.1: Release "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 3.2: Reception "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 4: Cover versions "A longtime admirer of the song, David Bowie covered "Try Some, Buy Some" on his 2003 album Reality." (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Background and composition "The lyrics to "Try Some, Buy Some" reflect Harrison's perception of God amid temptations associated with the material world and take the form of a recollection of his first spiritual awakening." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Planned Ronnie Spector solo album "first released in 1971 as a single by former Ronettes lead … " (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2.1: Recording Major portion in the lead (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body and should be compressed.) Major Point 2.2: Single release "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2.3: Reissue "Having long been unavailable following its initial release, Ronnie Spector's version was reissued in 2010 on the compilation Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3: George Harrison's version "After the single became only a minor hit, Harrison added his own vocal onto the same instrumental track and included the result on his 1973 album Living in the Material World." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3.1: Release "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3.2: Reception "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4: Cover versions "A longtime admirer of the song, David Bowie covered "Try Some, Buy Some" on his 2003 album Reality." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done "Try Some, Buy Some" is a song written by English musician George Harrison, first released in 1971 as a single by former Ronettes lead singer Ronnie Spector. Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". The part "first released in 1971 as a single by former Ronettes lead singer Ronnie Spector" should not be in the first sentence. I feel the notability should be included here. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR) & (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

• I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@JG66: --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi JG66! I hope you are watching this page and have not forgotten about this article. As a gentle reminder, I'm putting the article on hold. I hope you don't mind. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah sorry Seabuckthorn, I thought you'd be watching the article also, but I should have replied here anyway. I've made a few changes there. It's a tough one: I'm thinking some further cuts might be necessary in the main text, and/or I should completely rewrite the lead from scratch … Any thoughts on progress so far would be very welcome! Best, JG66 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I've done a bit more work on the lead without resorting to the more drastic steps mentioned above. I really think that's all I can do (that is, unless I start deleting points from the main text). I appreciate your patience through all this – what do you think of the lead as it is now? JG66 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It's okay, no need to be sorry. You're right. I should watch articles also. Apologies. The lead looks perfect now. Thanks! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Seabuckthorn. Great news … (and a fair amount of relief!). It's good to get another one up there. Take care, JG66 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)