The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks Your Power and no worries – I'm not in any rush. Hope you're feeling better. Tkbrett (✉) 13:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I appreciate the patience @Tkbrett - the booster had made me more fatigued than usual, but I am doing way better this point in time. I should probably have started this review right after I've recovered now that I think about it 🤷♀️ oh well Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 10:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So there is one image here, and that's the label for the vinyl's B-side. There is a NFC rationale, which is good. Stuff like this usually passes NFCC so I will allow it
Can't edit-war with yourself[citation needed] - the last 40 edits have been from the nominator only
The article covers all the broad aspects I would expect a song article to have - background context, music/lyrics, and release (reception if possible)
Each paragraph is cohesive enough and makes sense, not going into unnecessary tangents about unrelated topics. Focused, for the most part. Though I must admit - for a section titled "Background and composition", I expected more background context and a little bit about the music (instruments, tempos, tones, etc). I understand the latter is covered in a "Recording" section, but the "composition" section looks mostly at the songwriting. Lyrics can't be all there is to music, methinks
Unfortunately this is all I really have to work with. Writing about a song's music is one of my favourite things in other song articles, but while every Beatles song has a minimum of four musicologists breaking it down (Walter Everett, Alan W. Pollack, Ian MacDonald, Terence J. O'Grady, the list goes on...), the Kinks have minimal coverage; if it's not mentioned in Allan F. Moore's book Rock, then I typically can't write anything about the composition besides the lyrics. That's the case here, where authors emphasize the lyrics over the melody.
I understand the paucity of sources. The amount of content that the article has at the moment is totally acceptable - when I skim through the whole thing I don't see gaps in my understanding that need filling. Although I feel like some information in the "Recording" section can be moved to the composition section. For example, this sentence: "The production is subdued, allowing for attention to remain on the song's lyrics. After opening with 'machine gun drumming', the song is defined by a dominant piano and bass guitar, alongside snare rolls...". It focuses less on the recording process - which I feel like song articles would describe by telling us what instruments were used, for how long recording for the song took place, in which studios recording was done, etc - and more on the music itself. Plus, moving it would balance out all the focus on lyricism in that section
References are there, and there are inline citations in the prose for almost every sentence. The publishers for each sources look reliable. All the authors appear to be music journalists or writers so that is good. Though with regards to the refs retrieved from WorldRadioHistory.com, how do we know that this site is hosting its contents legally and not in violation of copyright laws?
Well, from the looks of it, that take-down policy applies solely to the American Radio History website. But I could be wrong. in fairness, the homepage for WorldRadioHistory does say similar things: that they don't intend to make money off the scanned images and they host content for research and educational purposes. And they do provide the option to take down copyright infringements. So with that in mind, I'll strike this concern
Round 2
This is an optional suggestion - and I am totally showing my ignorance of pre-streaming-era music here so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If this song was released as the B-side to a single, shouldn't the infobox have the type parameter be filled out as 'single'?
I followed Template:Infobox song#type in this case, specifically the bit that says this: If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. For example, "Stairway to Heaven" was released as a promo single in several markets and as a digital single in 2007, but became best known as a song from Led Zeppelin's fourth album. There's some back story here which is covered a bit in this article's release and legacy section and in greater detail in the aftermath section of The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society. The long and short of it is this: the Kinks were banned from performing in America in 1965 and that ban was not lifted until 1969. In preparation for the band's return tour, their label initiated a big promo campaign to bring them back to American attention, part of which included releasing "The Village Green Preservation Society" as a single b/w "Do You Remember Walter". Neither side of the single charted and you'll be hard pressed to find copies nowadays (Discogs shows zero copies for sale). So I think type=song makes much more sense than type=single as the song is known mainly as an album track. It's nice to have a picture of the B-side label in the infobox though because otherwise there wouldn't be an image.
I think it would be clearer to state in the opening sentence of "Background and composition" that the old friend's name *is* Walter. It makes the connection between the title and the background context more explicit.
I'm not clear on if the original friend's name was actually Walter. None of the band biographers mention a name, and in the November 1968 interview with Ray Davies, though he says "Walter was a friend of mine...", I don't think this explicitly means that that was the original friend's name.
Then we can clarify that Walter was merely inspired by the friend!
I observe two instances of repetition in this paragraph. "recalls his various exploits ... recalls a childhood promise they made to one another" and "the singer instead sees the older Walter as fat ... Walter is uninterested in the singer's reminiscing" Could rewrite that, I hope
I tweaked them slightly. How does that look?
Good enough
The use of "instead" here suggests noticeable contrast between the young Walter and the old Walter. Yet "playing cricket in the rain and smoking cigarettes together" and "fat and married [with an] early bedtime" does not occur to me as a striking juxtaposition. I would appreciate clarification here on what the sources' analysis here is supposed to say.
I added a bit on this.
"In its examination of Walter, the song is one of several character studies..." do you mean "due to its examination..." ?
Clarified.
Seeing a lot of "authors" being thrown around here, without any specified credentials. Are they musicologists? Music journalists? Biographers?
Yeah, I've gotten lazy with this. I've added greater specificity to their credentials.
"Author Ken Rayes compares it..." compares what? The song? Its subject matter?
Clarified the song.
I don't think you can "compare" a song's narrative to a certain genre of literature (?) It would be more appropriate to say that the lyrics evoke themes of pastoral literature or something similar
Agreed. I went with "evoked".
Everything in the second paragraph starting from "Author Ken Rayes..." can be split into its own paragraph, I feel. Whereas this part focuses on the song as its own piece, the other part of the paragraph focuses on how the song fits as a centerpiece in the album. Both topics seem pretty disparate.
"elements author Thomas M. Kitts writes represent..." two things. First, what is an elements author? Second, I feel like there are some words missing between "writes" and "represent". Ditto with "which Miller writes contributes"
Changed to ...elements which English professor Thomas M. Kitts thinks represent... and ...something Miller thinks contributes...
"Davies's lead vocal" --> "lead vocals" ?
I've never been sure which its supposed to be written as. An FA like Sgt. Pepper alternates between either. Anyways, I've switched it to "lead vocals".
Honestly either way was fine - just wasn't accustomed to this spelling variant
"sequenced as the second track between 'The Village Green Preservation Society' and 'Picture Book'" makes it sound like there are multiple tracks between TVGPS and Picture Book, and DYRW is second out of many. Moreover, I feel like this is a lot of words to simply say "Davies included 'Do You Remember Walter' as the second track off his original, twelve-track edition of the album, between 'The Village Green Preservation Society' and 'Picture Book'".
Yes, it was somewhat sloppily constructed. I've gone with yours, but specified the album by name and used "on" instead of "off".
You write about the NME preview by saying "critic Keith Altham described the song as [something] that 'take[s] you back in time to eras you may have forgotten'". In other words, nostalgic. But, this is already stated in the composition section. Does Altham write any explicit praise of the song, or at least provide insightful commentary about the song that was not already covered in the prior section?
Haha, welcome to 1960s music criticism! Someone asked about this in the FAN for the Beatles' song "I've Just Seen a Face" as well. This is typical of music criticism at the time, which is generally shallow and devoid of anything besides a description of how the song sounds. Good writing didn't really arrive until the '70s. What I've included here is Altham's entire description of the track. I'll just cut it since as you mention, it doesn't add much.
Learn something new every day I guess :") At least NME reviews nowadays are flavorful
For clarity, it would help to specify where the "God Save the Kinks" promotional campaign took place. Was it in the US? the UK? Does "their concert set list" refer to the set list for "God Save the Kinks"?
I'm not sure what to add that isn't already covered in the second half of the sentence: ...which sought to reestablish the band's status in America after their informal four-year performance ban was lifted in the country.
Fair enough
Not sure how "they never added this to the concert set list" and "they performed studio takes of this for a BBC documentary in Konk Studios" is supposed to be opposite of each other
I can split them into two sentences, but I was really just trying to avoid a short sentence.
That's all for the article's prose at the moment. Once we're wrapped up here, I'll do a spotcheck of certain sources, and when we're done, I'll have one last look at the article for anything I might have missed, then we can wrap up with the review Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 11:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your incisive critiques, Your Power. Responses are above. Tkbrett (✉) 13:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! All of my concerns have been resolved quick. Thank you thank you thank you. So the prose looks real solid for a would-be GA now; it's time for me to do spotchecks. I randomly handpicked 5 sources to review - "Looking back with the Kinks", The Story of the Kinks: You Really Got Me, A Very English Band, A Complicated Life, and The Official Biography. Will be back in an hour
"Looking back with the Kinks"
First citation - correct page; could verify the quotation.
Second citation - ditto with the first. I went ahead and checked the Miller book to see if it mentioned the original quote, and it did.
Third - ditto with second
The Story of the Kinks: You Really Got Me
First citation - Relevant quote in the book says "'Do You Remember Walter' was directly inspired by a close friend of mine who met me once I'd had success, and we didn't really know each other any more." This adequately verifies the information cited.
Second citation - Relevant quote says "On July 3, Ray and Wace met Reprise executives ... to plot the comeback. The rallying cry sent to the underground press was: 'God Save the Kinks'." Good enough
A Very English Band - Relevant quote: "The Electric Light Orchestra would ape the piano/drums intro to the evocative 'Do You Remember Walter?' a decade later with their hit 'Mr Blue Sky'." Verified.
A Complicated Life
First citation - verified. The Melody Maker quotation is laid out here, plus it supports the idea that the friend inspired Walter.
Second citation - book supports what the sentence says, without a doubt
Third - Ditto with second
Fourth - Relevant quote is "Davies had created idealized figures before, most notably in 'David Watts', but in that song he was writing in the present tense while hero-worshipping the sporting scholar of his youth. Walter is a very different creature, an adult version of the boy hero, demythologized by age ... the character in the song no longer exists in the present but lingers only in memory ... the song's narrator never gets to meet the adult Walter. He merely imagines what he might be like ...". The citation supports the information for sure.
Though a quick aside - I wouldn't exactly call the song a "rewrite of some of his earlier compositions" - the wording is a bit off to me. Perhaps substitute "rewrite" with "departure"?
The Official Biography - Relevant quote here is "... the main statements of the record's wistful theme - [the title track], 'Do You Remember Walter'...". Citation checks out
So, @Tkbrett - spot checks are a pass! I've found no glaring issues with regards to original research or unverifiability. I compared the article to the quotes in the spotchecked sources as well; seems like avoidable close paraphrasing or plagiarism is not an issue here. Checked earwig and the scores look good. As for neutrality, well, I'd take it that you have dredged all possible reviews that mention this song?
Anyways, juuuust one last comment, though, and that is with regards to A Complicated Life citation. Please check the bullet list above. Thanks for your patience! I enjoyed reading through this article - you have a way with words Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 15:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Your Power! I went with your suggestion regarding the Rogan citation. I appreciate the kind words and your thorough review. Tkbrett (✉) 19:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm still wrapping up another GA review so it'll take me a bit to get started Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"
· 
· 
· 
Anywho, this article 
passes GA Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"