Talk:Long, Long, Long/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is an interesting read. Will review. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very much into music articles, but I loved reading this and others written by you. I have only a few comments to make:

In the part mastering the Indian sitar since 1966 (Background and inspiration), "since" should perhaps be "in".

Yes, changed to "in". I see what you mean – we've had "after", so "since" didn't work somehow. JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seemingly united in a common spiritual goal Could not understand this.

Ah, I thought it was quite straightforward(!). Not to worry, I've removed the whole phrase. There's some truth in the "seemingly united" message – in that Rishikesh was very much Harrison's (and Lennon's) "trip" – but there's no need to touch on such intrigue when we've already made it clear with "Led by Harrison's commitment". JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and, as a result, felt isolated within the band This implies that Harrison was the only one to be moved or the one most affected by the Maharishi's teachings. But we can not say "as a result" if we have not explored how others were affected by this. Perhaps we can say Among the Beatles, Harrison was the one who continued to espouse the Maharishi's teachings.

Bit surprised, because I thought mention of "their mixed experiences on the course ... the divisiveness that pervaded the group upon their return" would provide a foundation for the point. I appreciate that that's perhaps not the case so I've added to your suggestion ("Alone among the Beatles"), and reworded the second half of the sentence. I may well come back to this sentence somewhere down the line, to add "Although he joined his bandmates in publicly denouncing the Maharishi," – I don't feel it's necessary to state that right now, just something I'd like to include. Point being that "the Beatles" announced they had severed ties with the Maharishi, in June 1968 while putting on a public face for the launch of their Apple Corps enterprise, but privately it seems Harrison didn't feel that way. Are you okay with that or would you rather see any such statement added now? JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the changes made are enough. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the 'you' in 'Long Long Long' is God Should the name of the song not be in double quotes?

I don't think so – double quotes surround the whole quoted phrase but the song title is within that, so single quotes (as with "you"). JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Fine. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Composition, link "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" and mention Bob Dylan (with link).

Both appear (linked) under Background and inspiration, actually. JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed that! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Beatles historian Mark Lewisohn Could this be better written as "Accroding to Mark Lewisohn, the historian of the Beatles, ?

I wimped out: "author …"(!) JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can "acoustic" be linked? (Recording)

Well, I'd rather not. There has been a move towards avoiding links for such obvious terms/musical instruments in music articles – vocals, drums, guitars, keyboards, etc. For instance, recently any links for all bar the vaguely exotic were removed from the suggested Personnel list in the album style guide (which songs generally follow). Up to you – I just think these general terms aren't going to throw readers who come to a song article. JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. New to music articles, will have to learn all this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

while, less impressed, Record Mirror described it as "not a strong tune" I think this part could be separated into a new line with a "However" to bring out the contrast in the reviews in a better way.

Hmm. I have to disagree on this. We introduce the two viewpoints with "Among contemporary reviews" and then give what are only brief, insubstantial opinions. I guess this is relevant to your next point … JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the difficulty. Let this be as it is. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Record Mirror give the only negative review at that time? If so then I think we can mention this at the end of the section, after all the positive reviews.

I can't say with any certainty, but the album was very well received, I know that. I've been pretty spoilt for contemporary reviews of the White Album (12 in total, a good mix of UK and US pieces), and Record Mirror and Melody Maker are the only ones that offer any comment regarding "Long, Long, Long" – which isn't that surprising, given that many of the album's 30 tracks get little or no mention. I worked on another White Album song around this time, "Savoy Truffle", and that track received a fair bit of attention in the 1968 reviews, so the Reception section there reflects that. I'd love to add more on this song, even a general comment on how critics perceived it, but all I've got on the latter is Schaffner's comments. JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the difficulty. Let this be as it is. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sighing, self-annihilating coda "Coda" may not be understood by all. Can it be linked? I understand this is within a quote, yet it is allowed to link a few necessary terms in quotes.

Yes, I agree. Added a link. JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. Good luck! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Wow, thanks very much for the compliments. It's nice to come back to this article after many months and see it getting such a warm reception! (And I can't help thinking how appropriate it is that you're reviewing this nomination – after comparing those truly fantastic panoramas on your user page with the sense of wonder this song attempts to evoke!) I'll get down to addressing the things you've raised shortly ... JG66 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66: It is my turn to say wow! I indeed love those panaromas, I had five or six more earlier! Your articles are indeed masterpieces, it made me yearn to hear the song. It is indeed a feast for the aesthetic! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are far too kind (if that's possible). I was praising another editor earlier on, for taking an amazing article to Featured status – I think I know how embarrassed I might've made him feel ( ;-) JG66 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66: Hehe, I love to embarrass others when they embarrass me! Interesting discussions above! Getting down to business now. No copyvio was detected, sources and imaes look good. The prose is great, almost professional! This meets all the GA criteria. I am happy to promote this. Excellent work, do take this to FAC! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent news – thank you so much, Sainsf. This article is one I particularly enjoyed pulling together, because I started off merely interested in the track, but the more I read about it from the source material, the more I came to appreciate it – and the more I realised I really liked it. Meaning that, having all the information compiled in the article leads one to come up with an informed opinion, as obvious as it sounds. Strikes me that between us in this review, we've used a lot of exclamation marks, so I've fought the urge this time … Thanks again, it's been fun. JG66 (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]