Talk:Rain on the Roof (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 14:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

On first reading, it's an interesting and well-written article. I don't see any issues, but may make a couple of suggestions. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

• |genre= Soft rock and baroque rock are mentioned and referenced in the main body, but folk rock and pop are only referenced here. If it's important enough for the infobox, it is better to also have some mention in the main body and add the refs there.

• Neither of those sources discuss the song; instead, each author lists a bunch of the band's songs which he thinks fit in that classification. I'll just remove them since they add so little.

• |duration= Minor point, but the first infobox mention doesn't require the {{Duration}} template, only the subsequent mentions (something to do with automated functions).

• Fixed.

Lead

Resolved

• Will address later.
• Since this is a rather short article, the info presented in the lead is soon repeated in the following sections. For example, the sentence about the guitars ("'Rain on the Roof' features an interplay ...) is essentially repeated six sentences later ("The recording features an interplay ...) Perhaps the sentences in the lead or the main body could be reworded or trimmed to make them less similar.

• Agreed. I trimmed that sentence to: "Rain on the Roof" features several guitars played by Sebastian and Zal Yanovsky, as well as an Irish harp.

• Yanovsky manipulated the settings – Again, since it's so short, I wouldn't include this in the lead.

• Removed.

• Sebastian's push to release – Likewise.

• Removed as well.

I'll leave the stylistic preferences up to you. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Composition and recording

Resolved

• From prior experience with your GAs, if there are RSs, you probably would have added more to the composition. But to jump from the initial songwriting setting to ending on a seventh chord in the third sentence seems abrupt. Perhaps this could be moved to the end of the second or fourth paragraphs.

• Yeah, this was unfortunately all I was able to find. I agree that it seemed abrupt, so I have moved it to the end of that section where I think it reads better. I have reworked the first two paragraphs as well so the first one did not end up extra short.

• Reads much better. However, the V chord is not technically a major seventh chord (Amaj⁷), because it does not have the major seventh interval. Rather, it is a dominant seventh chord (A⁷). Everett uses V^m7 (lower case m = minor) to show a minor seventh interval, but usually it is written just as V⁷.

• Fixed.

• I don't know if this helps,[1], it shows the key as D major in cut time at a moderate tempo (~110 bpm). The intro starts on the V, with the vocal beginning on I. Unfortunately, it only shows the first verses, but it appears that the song starts and ends on the V (from Everett). Also, Daniel Levitin describes the melody and suggests a Mixolydian mode#Greek Mixolydian, if you're interested.[2]

• I have stayed away from citing sheet music since I think it strays a little to close towards original research, but I did add in Levitin's bit about it being a Greek Mixolydian though.

• Yanovsky played his hollow Guild Thunderbird electric guitar – Guild is better known for its hollow and semi-hollow body guitars, but the Thunderbird is a solid body.[3] He's often pictured with one,[4] although he might have used a different model hollow body (easier to get feedback than a solid).

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Interesting. I'm surprised Walter Everett made that mistake as he is usually quite a good source. I have removed the hollow descriptor and just called it a Guild Thunderbird. Also, I realized I incorrectly listed the Ditson twelve-string and pedal steel guitar separately – actually, it was one in the same guitar. Tkbrett (✉) 18:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Boone confuses the issue by his use of dashes instead of commas. There are at least three guitars: 12-string acoustic, pedal steel, and the electric Guild. "Antique" would describe the 12-string acoustic; pedal steels date from the 1940s and are electric; and the Thunderbird. So, actually you were right earlier. Another source includes "For 'Rain on the Roof', Yanosky accented the dream-like 6- and 12-string acoustics (performed by Yanovsky and Sebastian together) with a few jolting blasts from his Thunderbird."[5] Yanovsky also talks about his amp, if you're interested.

• Ah, I see. I have switched it back. I also added in Yanovsky's bits about his amp. Great find!

Release and reception

Resolved

• Because the song shared its name with – There's more to this, which may be of interest ("The addition in small type of 'you and me and' only adds insult to injury ..."[6]

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• I see that you've already used this source.

• Yeah, I had previously added a bit more about this controversy but then I removed it thinking it was not especially interesting. The lawyers sent letters back and forth but other than changing the title on the LP, it does not seem that anything else really happened.

Charts

• Go-Set & RPM – It would be better to also identify these sources as magazines rather than the re-publishing sites. For example:

! scope="row" |Australia National Top 40 (''[[Go-Set]]'')<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.poparchives.com.au/gosetcharts/1966/19661221.html|title=Go-Set's National Top 40|date=December 21, 1966|magazine=[[Go-Set]]|via=<!--Poparchives.com.au-->|access-date=February 27, 2023}}</ref>

! scope="row" |Canada Top Singles (''[[RPM (magazine)|RPM]]'')<ref name=Canada>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=2928&|title=RPM 100 |date=December 6, 1966|magazine=[[RPM (magazine)|RPM]]|via=<!--[[Library and Archives Canada]]-->|access-date=February 27, 2023}}</ref>

Adjusted both.

• Listener – For 1966, this is a magazine poll, but people seem to like using it. Better to cite the magazine, rather than the SPS Flavour website.

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Any idea where I would find that? I have not had any luck finding an official site.

• Not yet. I'm wary of the inclusion of stats from older record charts that aren't listed on WP:GOODCHARTS and are only available on unaffiliated self-published websites. Many of the Listener/Flavour positions were added by a now blocked user.[7] It doesn't meet the suitability criteria of the chart guideline #2: as a magazine readership poll, it didn't "cover sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources". Unless you feel strongly about it, I'd leave it out.

• I see. In that case, I'll just can it.

References

Resolved

• Sources – Question: In many articles, I've seen books linked to their googlebooks info page, instead of the book page(s) in question. This doesn't seem much more helpful than the links already provided by using ISBN. Has someone come up with some reason for linking them this way?

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have not seen it elucidated anywhere, but I guess it could be because the book may have multiple pages being cited. If it does not have a preview available, I don't think there's much use linking it, but I think it is helpful if there is one there.

• via WorldRadioHistory.com – I used to link and include this, but the fine print on its search page includes "Do not link to search pages for Wikipedia citations. These pages are not static and change often".[8] Also, we only have its word that "These are the issues the magazine has released into the public domain including Google Books."[9]

• Fair enough. I can't really justify their inclusion, so I'll simply get rid of the WorldRadioHistory links. I saw that attorneys for the jazz magazine DownBeat recently sent a letter to the website, resulting in this page.

• Interesting. It looks like Worldradiohistory has waited until it is ordered to remove rather than first obtaining clearance. Once the lead is addressed, we should be done. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was unsure how to justify linking it at a featured article review and now the Downbeat case has I think made that harder to justify. Sorry, I missed the lead comments. They are now addressed. Tkbrett (✉) 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

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

See the discussion above for the details.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

Good work. Lighter, folkier rock tunes often got lost in the late 60s stylistic shift. I hadn't focused on it before, but it's actually an interesting piece. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)