Talk:The Inner Light (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hekerui (talk · contribs) 20:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you put into this. I don't have access to the cited works, but they all look fine and I remember reading Lavezzoli. I have some comments/suggestions, not necessarily GA-required stuff, and you can of course respond when you don't agree with something:

General

• one could additionally archive websources that are not on archive.org using webcitation.org to preclude linkrot
• I've used italics for instrument words trying to keep in line with MOS:FOREIGN, I guess you say those are loanwords?

• Most definitely, yes. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think that's wrong, bansuri is no loanword, it's followed by an explanation, and what about Khamaj thaat? But I know this is not FA. Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• to me it seems worth pointing out in the lead if it is true that the Beatles abandoned Indian music after this song

• I've added mention it was Harrison's final "Indian" song for the Beatles. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I removed some redundant words

• Thanks. Some of those edits were spot-on. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

• FUR okay, but why does this article use a different image than the Lady Madonna article?

• It's the image that most represents the song, in that it's the reverse ("flip" side) of the sleeve. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• why "embracing" and not simply "embrace"?

• Changed to embrace. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Background and inspiration

• why is "The more I learn, the less I know" in italics, was it in the source?

• I think lyrics and poetry look better in italics as it helps to differentiate from quoted comments, and it is an approach one sees in some books. Someone did raise this recently as an MoS talk page without success. I think it's a shame but I've changed all examples to non-ital here anyway. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• why the quote in the box and additionally that blockquote? the blockquote can be easily summarised

• It can be but I don't think it's necessary. In addition to giving Harrison's explanation of how and why he altered the verse to create a second verse, the block quote contains the lyrics – which is useful for readers since it establishes the foundation for many of the points appearing later in the article. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Composition and musical structure

• why is the sarod "heavily featured", that's not in a source, right? it's better to be succinct and leave out "heavily"

• It is in a source or two, but not necessarily a point made in the main text. I've reworded to "featured throughout the song" – the point being that sarod appears over the verses and the instrumental sections unlike the other lead instruments. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• does it says in the source that the song is "in the Indian classical genre"? it seems influenced by that style at the most

• I agree. I've changed to "Indian music" (in the infobox also). JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• it is mentioned here that the style is closer to Carnatic music but an explanation follows only in the recording section, why seperate them like that?

• I think it's sufficient to say that it adheres to the Carnatic musical discipline as a composition, and then to give more specifics under Recording, because there we're talking about the performance of the song. Other point is (not that it's mentioned in the article, admittedly), while Harrison wrote the song in late 1967, he was learning about these new instruments on the job – when working in Bombay the following January. As Bhaskar Menon explains it in the notes to the 2014 Wonderwall Music CD, at least, Harrison was assigning parts to each piece based on the combinations that seemed possible as he heard certain instruments live for the first time. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Harrison's extension into the Carnatic system ..." that sounds awkward to me, what does it mean?

• Have reworded to "progression within the genre". JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The contrast is borne out in ..." that could be said more plainly in my opinion

• Changed to "reflected" (I was probably trying to vary the wording before, and avoid another reflects/reflected/reflecting). JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "with the sarod" - "with" as an additive link makes the prose more wordy than necessary

• Have rephrased this, although I have to say that other reviewers have insisted that "with" is necessary in such instances. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• How strange. Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Arrive without travelling", "The farther one travels the less one knows", "We were talking" and "Without going out" are in italics for what purpose?

• Same purpose as mentioned above(!) – and similarly changed to roman now. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think the sentence about drone vs. harmonic movement in the verses should be written more plainly, what is "harmonic movement"? I'm not getting this, what does Lavezolli say here exactly?

• Well, I've often read about Indian music's lack of harmonic movement (as opposed to melodic movement, a quality that it does have, even within the limitations of single-chord drone). So I take the phrase "harmonic movement" to be a suitable paraphrasing of Lavezzoli's words regarding the verse's inclusion of chord changes. Anyway – I've reworded this to mention "formal chord changes" as a contrast to the drone-based songs. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• in the last sentence you write "therefore" - does Pedler make this conclusion from Everett in the last sentence? if he does not, it sounds like synthesis, and the sentence has a flowery prose and should be written more plainly

• Have removed "therefore" and reworded part of the sentence. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Recording

• why specify the size of Chaurasia's image?

• It looked huge otherwise, both on my computer screen and on my iPad. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• yes, we must stick with the sources but do you hear a tabla tarang in the recording at all? just curious

• I wasn't sure until recently, but now I'd say, yes definitely. It's there right of centre (as Everett says) and clearer than ever on the 2009 remaster. Also, at the start of the outtake included on Wonderwall Music in 2014, one can hear it among other background sounds as Harrison's talking to the musicians. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, I think I do now, too. Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• is "stopgap release" a common phrase? maybe it is but I had to look it up and one could formulate that more plainly, I think

• Have reworded. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "using deft changes in texture to help articulate form" is not clear, why not reformulate his words using the context of his work instead of quote directly?

• I disagree that it's unclear. Put it this way, I think phrasing such as "deft changes", "texture" and "form" is quite typical of how a musicologist would refer to a song, similar to how a commentator might analyse any work of art – it's going to throw some readers perhaps but I'd be surprised if most readers had a problem … Anyway, I thought it best to just remove Pollack's point, given your concerns below about the amount of quotes under Release and reception. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "remains the only Beatles song to have been recorded outside Europe" - "remains" is awkward, the Beatles have split so there is obviously no change, why not use "is"?

• Reworded. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Release and reception

• there is some tense mixing in this section that should be cleaned up

• I disagree. The past tense is used when the reviewer's comments are presented with a date or when the context clearly places them in the past (the 1968 release, obviously). Otherwise, the opinions and critiques live on, just as the elements of the song itself do under Composition. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• in general, there are too many long quotes here that can be summarizes and reformulated in one's own words without too much effort, which would cut down on the use of copyrighted material

• I've tried to cut down a fair amount of this, but I don't really agree it was a problem. As a for-instance, a very popular FA from 2014, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, contains huge amounts of quoted material, particularly from Reappraisal onwards, with long, long end notes. I think that's too much, personally; I've cut down some detail in the first half of the Sgt. Pepper article, but the later sections, certainly in terms of the amount of quoted material, remain pretty much as they were when the article made FA. An older FA, "Hey Jude", hadn't been at all well maintained: I first did some work on that about a year ago, at which point the amount of quotes was, well, ridiculous. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• That FA is indeed terrible in that regard. Good for you making Hey Jude better. Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Bruce Eder of AllMusic writes of Harrison's growth as a composer ..." - what does he write, I see no reference to this song specifically, this sounds disjointed from the rest of the sentence

• Cut that bit, leaving only Eder's comments on WYWY and The Inner Light. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Quoting the ethnomusicologist David Reck, Walter Everett writes" should be followed by a colon for consistency
• the quote in last sentence is s so celebratory and insubstantial, it sounds like a fan statement and I question what it contributes

• I think it shows that an otherwise dry and concise musicologist is clearly moved by the song. (I'd include comments from critics who offer equally insubstantial words that demonstrate nothing more than they hate a piece of music …) I've cut Everett's words and instead added something to introduce the quote from Reck. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Cover versions and popular culture

• is the flute by Sunil Gupta a bansuri? it's introduced so if it is, might as well name it

• I have no idea. I'd assume so, but the Concert for George credits give only flute. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• the image description of Anoushka suggests this is her performing this song, when it's just a general picture - I think it's a good idea to include her image but the description should make it clear this is her in some other venue

• Okay, done. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "In a discussion ... Nick Sagan ... was quoted as ..." - quoted by whom? and should this sentence not make clear what the blog says, that this is a guess?

• I've reworded this. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• these sentences, including the following about Gendel, suggest that there is a causality between the song and the Star Trek episode when this, in the blog, is only true for the title, no?

• I think I'd misunderstood Sagan's point after reading "the episode's writer Morgan Gendel admitted he borrowed from 'The Inner Light'" in the Wired piece. Have reworded the paragraph. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Notes

• why not put note 2 in the main article body?

• I think it's good as a note, and the point has been made in the main text: "although these instruments are more commonly associated with the Hindustani discipline, the performers play them in a South Indian style". JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the Simon Leng claim, it's sourced, but he's obviously wrong, no?

• He presents quite a forceful argument, pointing to a couple of specific moments on the track. I used to think he might be right, and I started thinking that again after hearing the outtake version and "Almost Shankara" side-by-side on the Wonderwall Music CD … JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The Beatles chose "The Inner Light" over Lennon's "Across the Universe", ..." chose it for what?

• added mention of B-side. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "In Everett's estimation, the song ..." - does that mean he guessed? and if he didn't, why not put this in the article body?

• reworded. Educated guess, I think. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• what's the relevance of note 7 for this article, the shared name of the magazine?

• Although I don't think it's significant enough to place in the main body, it's worth saying that this particular fanzine was a cut above the rest, imo. JG66 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Best regards Hekerui (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hekerui: Fantastic, thank you for the thorough review. You've given me plenty to think about – I'm taking a break now but will get down to it tomorrow. Best, JG66 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass, good work! Hekerui (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Hekerui: Thank you very much! Btw, please don't think I've ignored your point about italicisation (or lack of) for some of the Indian musical terms. I just can't get my head around the possibility of, say, in a Personnel list, the likes of sarod, sitar and tabla appearing in roman (because they are borrowed/loan words, and as accepted in English as celeste, bouzouki/buzuki, cabasa and koto, I'd say) but the less-common shehnai, bansuri and pakhavaj being rendered in italics. The same goes for when those words appear in the main text, of course. I'll have a think about terms such as "Khamaj thaat" – you've certainly planted a seed in my mind. Thanks again, JG66 (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)