Talk:Savoy Truffle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Will review this. Can't resist your article (and exclamations!) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see you again, Sainsf. A song about chocolate, at Eastertime – quite appropriate (in some cultures, at least) … JG66 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@JG66: A bit busy now, I think I will be able to get to this only by the end of this week. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No probs. See you then! JG66 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@JG66: Managed to jot down all my comments. Here they are:

Lead

• What are "eponymous" and "horn"? Repeat the link/explanation in the main text mention.

• Hmm, bit surprised you mention these terms(!). Have reworded to avoid using "eponymous"; "horn section" is now linked in the Lead, and "horn players" in main text also. JG66 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I stress on simplification, a common issue at GAN... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• coinciding with his abandoning the Indian sitar. Is "abandon" not a bit too strong? As if he began detesting the sitar? Later in the article you simply call it a return, a more positive treatment.

• Looking at online definitions, the secondary meaning of "abandon" does fit this context. Have reworded to avoid the term, though, just in case. JG66 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fine Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• We typically don't keep citations in the lead. Make sure that you have not excluded any fact of the lead from the main text. The citations should support everything in the main text.

• Well, for direct quotes we do, of course, also for any statement that might be contentious (even if it's well supported in the main text). But thanks for the reminder – it made me realise that mention of "a long-lasting friendship between [Harrison and Clapton]" was not borne out in the article (which I've now fixed). JG66 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fine Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Background and inspiration

• I think the quote would look better if placed on the right. At the moment it seems to be diverting the text a bit too much toward the right.

• Can't say I agree, but I've followed your suggestion anyway; in addition, I swapped the chocolates image over to the LH side, to ensure there's a bit of variety, instead of all pics and boxes sitting down only one side of the page. To my mind, the first quote box ("'Savoy Truffle' is a funny one …") looked better on the left because a) it sums up much of what's discussed in this opening section, so it seemed apt that this quote was the first thing the reader sees; and b) the box follows the infobox, where the sheet music image extends the box down on the RH side to end below the Lead paragraphs. Oh well, I appreciate everyone's gone their own perspective! JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Better. I have often been told not to "divert" attention from the text by keeping images or boxes in the way. Not any rule, though. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think the introduction "the English rock group" for the Beatles would be a good start, just like in the lead.

• Sorry, but why? If the band name was in any way obscure, I might agree, but they're still kinda famous. Not only that, but this is an article about a song by the band, so once a reader decides to move on from the Lead to the main text (if they ever needed that opening qualification "the English rock group"), then surely it's unnecessary. I agree it's easy to assume too much, even about such iconic figures as the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, but well … JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a strict recommendation, I just like a bit of similarity in the lead and the main text. But I respect your opinion. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I like the wording "self-titled", would look good in the lead, where you repeat "The Beatles". Anyone clueless about the album can just hover the cursor over the link.

• Ah, at first I thought you were referring to an alternative to that "eponymous" phrase, in the second para of the Lead. I understand now – you mean reword the Lead's opening sentence. I'm reluctant to do that because I think it's important to establish both The Beatles and the White Album in the reader's mind, particularly before the mention of The Beatles in the Lead's third para. I always feel the same way about how to handle an album's title track: it's very easy to constantly refer to "the title track/song", to the point that a late mention of the song by name (say, in a quote from an album review) can throw a reader. I don't know, maybe I'm underestimating how much alluding to the title (e.g. "their 1968 self-titled album") does ensure that the words are foremost in a reader's mind … Does any of this mean anything to you, about the need to explicitly establish the term The Beatles in the Lead? JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, I understand perfectly! Though I meant "eponymous" to be reworded specifically. I see why you need to say the name directly. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• During this period of disharmony within the group May surprise the reader who does not know about the background of "Long, Long, Long".

• Yeah, good point. I think it was the delivery that was the problem, rather than the omission of any explanation – would you agree? I've reworded it to be a clear statement, "this period was one of disharmony within the group". Unlike in other White Album songs, "Long, Long, Long" among them, the band's various problems are not that relevant to this particular song; "Savoy Truffle" is more about how Harrison was increasingly finding a more pleasant alternative in 1968. JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I don't wish you to recount all the history. Looks better. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do we really need a link for chocolate? You did not link it in the lead did you?

• Thanks, I've removed the link. JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would like to have a few words added on who Ravi Shankar is.

• Added words to introduce him, but it meant I also had to split the sentence in two. JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No trouble. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Composition

• about which Harrison and Lennon were openly critical Could be clearer on what "about" is; I believe it refers to the composition, but it also seems possible that the two were critical of and disagreed with Fontenot's view.

• Yes indeed. Have clarified the point now. JG66 (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Release and reception

• Pastiche could be linked.

• And it now is! Thanks, JG66 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrospective assessment

• 'In his book Revolution in the Head, Should the year not be mentioned here?

• I'd think not, because MacDonald carried out various revisions on his original (1994) text and it's fair to say that anything in his book "lives on". That's a different situation from, say, Rob Sheffield in The Rolling Stone Album Guide, because that's clearly the 2004 edition of the guide – previous editions had completely different text and contributors. JG66 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Link psychedelic.

• Done. I'd not done it before because I know linking in quotes should be done very sparingly, if at all. JG66 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no trouble in linking clearly difficult terms in quotes. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• music STILL hasn't caught up to it Any special reason for the special "still"?

• I reduced the word to small caps simply because it's not an acronym. Perhaps that's not necessary, or correct, thinking about it now. Happy to reinstate the regular-size caps if you want …? JG66 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As you like. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Images Can we add an image or two more?

• Look, I'd love to, although I wouldn't want to add anything for the sake of it. (At the time, I was slightly embarrassed when adding the chocolates image – seemed kinda trivial!) I was hoping to find a generic shot of a jazz, rock or R&B horn section, but I couldn't see anything suitable. Nothing good at Commons for Harrison or Clapton during this particular era. And it's not as if any of the cover artists stand out for their association with the track (i.e. compare with Long, Long, Long, where both Elliott Smith and Jim James were obvious contenders). I'll certainly keep looking, though. JG66 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That should be all. Again a melodious delicacy! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Sainsf! I was just about to take a break myself actually … Should be able to get down to this in a few hours, I hope. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Been through the article and addressed a lot of the above. Too tired right now to write responses – back soon, though! JG66 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@JG66: This article is ready to be a GA. Happy to promote this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: Great news, thanks so much. Nice working with you again – and I appreciate your eye for spotting where I possibly assume a reader's already armed with a healthy level of knowledge! Best, JG66 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

JG66, I try to be the lamest reader to give the best review! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Joking aside(!), it's great that you do. That concern you had about "During this period of disharmony within the group" was spot-on, for example. Yet most of the frequent music-article reviewers probably wouldn't question it. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)