Talk:Instant Karma!/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll do this one, longest unreviewed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: No issues
• Reference check: No issues found

Comments: This article is pretty well-written and it was an enjoyable read. Some minor prose questions and other things jump out at me which I'd like to ask a question on for clarification, to also question any omission or such.

• "Lennon and Ono promoted the single with a rare appearance on Britain's Top of the Pops." - is "rare" important here?

* Well, the TOTP appearance is much more significant than "rare", being their only performance together (semi-live or otherwise) on UK television. But that's not a point made in the article, of course, so you're right – I've removed the mention of "rare". JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• "in the evening of 27 January." - I believe it is "on the evening of 27 January."

* Quite right – thank you. Reworded to "on the evening …" JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• "EMI mainstay" - Please use the full name and not the acronym.

* This one's really got me, actually – because I've never once seen "EMI" spelt out. (As an example, although I've known the acronym my whole life, I couldn't even hazard a guess at what the three letters stood for … I had to consult the Wikipedia article just now.) In light of this, can I ask, are you insisting the original company name be spelt out? I don't want to push it; just seems an unusual change to make, imo. JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• "with take 10 being selected for" - Wording and possibly a MOS:NUMBER issue on "take 10"

* Reworded to avoid the problem(s), I believe. JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• "sung occapella by Ono," - is it the song or is it supposed to be "a cappella"?

* Embarrassing – thanks for being so tactful(!) "A cappella", it is. JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have this so short, I really could find much fault with the actual article! It definitely covers the main aspects and the more detailed parts of the history, it is neutral and stable, the one image does have its proper rational. The amount of work put into this and the fact there were no issues with the references shows that a fair amount of maintenance probably was needed to keep it that way. Fix these very small issues and it will pass. Going to place this on a symbolic hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi ChrisG. I did a bit of work on the article after Yeepsi nominated it this time around (checking with him before I did so, of course). I notice he's been out of commission since mid December, so I was thinking I might step in here and help get the GAN through in his absence. That is, I believe it's okay for another contributor to do that (would you happen to know for sure?).

Quick question on images. Yeepsi and I had discussed adding a screenshot or still from Lennon and Ono's TOTP appearance – to show Ono blindfolded and holding up a sign. Do you think there's enough relevant commentary in the article to support that non-free image? I had been hoping to add comments interpreting Ono's appearance and actions as having a feminist message; I know I've read a couple of authors making that observation, but I just can't find the quotes now … Cheers, glad you picked this one up, JG66 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly okay, I've done it before myself. I don't know about the image to be fair. Since its a bit of a tangent to the actual topic of the song. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah great, I'll intervene with a clear conscience then!

With the proposed extra image, I thought we might be safe with the commentary that's currently there, on both the actual TOTP performance and interpretation of the song lyrics (earlier in the article). Having said that, it's been a long while since I last read the piece. If I do happen to dig up those comments about Ono on TOTP – which refer to the freedom-of-speech message in the song, not just feminism, thinking about it – I'll raise the issue again. JG66 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is borderline, but I see no reason that it would cause an issue with the criteria in this case since a good faith reason behind it has been given. Just let me know when you want to have it checked again before passing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, ChrisGualtieri. Sorry for the delay. I've addressed the queries at last. With that possible second non-free image, I think let's wait till Yeepsi's back, and one of us will get in touch with you to check you're okay with its inclusion. My thinking is it's not worth holding up the GAR, and besides, perhaps I'll end up finding that interpretation I mentioned, somewhere down the line. I think that's what you were saying anyway, pretty much (Just let me know when you want to have it checked again …)? Best, JG66 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. So I'll pass it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)