Talk:All Things Must Pass/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Isn't it a Pity

This song deserves an article more than "All Things Must Pass (song)" and possibly "What is Life." —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterJid (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and write one, and then link to it from this article. ☺ Spiby ☻ 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whos plays on the song "I Dig Love"? And did George write it on the Beatles peried? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.125.124 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Olivia Newton-John covers

Corrected this. Here's a reference, FWIW: www.onlyolivia.com/aboutonj/chart.html. cheers, Jim Butler 20:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I cannot find the source for this anymore, but I am certain John Lennon claimed he warned Harrison about the similarity of "My Sweet Lord" vs. "He's So Fine" before the recording was released. And claimed George was indifferent to his warning. Anyone know this source? It might be a good inclusion for this article.ZincOrbie 20:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AllThingsBWCover.jpg

Image:AllThingsBWCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Phrase

Looking up the origin of the phrase `all things must pass` on the net I found that Gospel of Matthew 24:6 has `all these things must pass...` Is there a closer parallel??Andycjp 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

sales data incorrect

The opening section states that "All Things Must Pass" is the best selling solo Beatle album. The reference links to RIAA - but their list is clearly not right, and doesn't mean this. For instance "Thriller" isn't in the top 100! This needs more investigation, and I'm sure "All Things Must Pass" did not out-sell "Band On The Run". MegdalePlace 22:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it - and I could be wrong - the sales figures for All Things Must Pass are slightly misleading, in that it was the RIAA's practice at the time to credit each individual disc as one record sale. Thus each copy of All Things Must Pass counted as three sales, because it had three discs, which means that it should really only be two-times platinum NB I am dragging this out of my memory, and I can't find a good reference. Instinctively I would expect All Things to have sold in relatively modest numbers simply because it was pricey. Still, as I write these words, the RIAA's top 100 list has Thriller at number two, All Things Must Pass half-way down the third page, and the other Beatles nowhere. Wikipedia says that Band on the Run went triple platinum, which isn't enough to be in the top one hundred. I imagine that Paul McCartney is not pleased that his most criticially-acclaimed semi-solo project sold fewer copies than e.g. Poison's Open Up and Say...Ahh!, but that's life. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of Bruce Springsteen's Live/1975–85, about which Wikipedia itself says "Live/1975–85 is the second-best-selling live album in U.S. history, certified by the RIAA for 13 times platinum, trailing only Garth Brooks' Double Live. This figure reflects the RIAA accounting practice of counting each record in a multi-record set as a separate unit sold; the actual physical number of copies sold is instead slightly over 4 million." This could of course be nonsense - Wikipedia isn't a great source - but it at least sounds plausible. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Number One?

On July 29, 2006, The Official UK Charts company changed their records because there was a postal strike when the album had originally been on the charts. At the time, record retailers would send in documents saying how many records had been sold, but because of the strike they could not during an eight-week period in 1971. All Things Must Pass, which had originally peaked at number 4 (with Simon & Garfunkel's Bridge over Troubled Water at number one), now has been given the number one spot for all eight weeks.[14]

Is this true about it being made No.1 for 8 weeks officially? How accurate is it? Where are these sales figures coming from after all these years? This has big repurcussions since "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" is the biggest selling UK album. Plus, how come the singles sales figures from these weeks were able to get through?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look and sure enough, there are now new charts for all those weeks with George Harrison No.1, but it's ridiculous - when the chart originally restarted - Harrison was No.18. So this is saying that it spent 8 weeks at No.1 and then dropped to No.18. http://www.chartstats.com/albuminfo.php?id=2751. This cannot possibly be accurate - who authorised these new charts? Whoever it was was obviously a George Harrison fan - this is a chart impossiblility.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I requested JD554 to look this up in the most reliable source for UK chart positions: The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles. – IbLeo^(talk) 06:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look in the The Virgin Book of British Hit Albums (p.133) and the album is indeed down as having been at number 1 for 8 weeks and being on the charts for a total of 23 weeks. --JD554 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also confirmed on The OCC's website[1]. --JD554 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have indicated the Virgin books as source for the UK chart positions. Thanks. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it a Pity / Hey Jude

In the Cover Versions section I propose removing reference to the Hey Jude ending (da da da dadadada...) being used on Concert for George since the version 1 on the All Things Must Pass album already has this incorporated into the song. This is nothing special about the CFG version. Or am I wrong? I'll do the edit in a couple of days if no one protests. It should also be mentioned somewhere else (possibly in the track listing) that the Hey Jude ending is used in the ending of Isn't it a Pity version 1. Tengilorg (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

who plays on which tracks?

i would like to know who played lead and rythm on which track, i mean after all we have here george harrison and eric clapton on one album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.226.119 (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Album Art

The phrase "Besides the colourfully re-imagined cover art," is humorous. The new album art looks like it was colored via Colorforms. There should be some mention of the horrific quality of the coloring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.14.235 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Art of Dying

As far I know it does NOT feature Collins. Hee took part in rehearsals, thinking it was the recording, but when it finallay was recorded, his performance was so poor it wasn't used on the album. At least that's what I read in an Biography of PC. Anyone who can confirm that? --Münzberg (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No. 1 - What actually happened

At the time of the 1971 postal strike the British Market Research Bureau compiled the charts and the strike made things rather difficult for them. They got their data by sending "messengers" around the country to call at a (presumably much reduced) sample of record shops to gather sales data in person, hoping to knock something together that looked vaguely like a chart.

In the case of the singles chart, they were able to produce a Top 40 (as opposed to the usual Top 50), as anything below that was far too shaky and hit-and-miss to be considered reliable. It was however followed by a "Breakers" list, of records - chiefly new releases - that might have figured in a longer listing if one were available. But this list in itself consisted of up to 30 titles, further evidence of the chaos prevailing at that time.

In the case of the album chart, it was apparently not possible to put together anything reliable at all. There is some evidence that they attempted to use sales data only from the HMV shop in Oxford Street: whatever that one outlet sold, that was the chart! That idea fell through because sales at HMV Oxford Street were not representative of sales patterns across the country as a whole.

As a result, the British Market Research Bureau just gave up on the idea of producing an album chart during the strike, which meant that for the 8 weeks that it lasted, they simply took the last chart compiled before the strike began and repeated it week after week throughout the duration, weeks in which All Things Must Pass was stuck at No.4.

However, crucially, Melody Maker was still able to compile its own chart (quite how they managed it, and how reliable the result, we don't know), and it was this which put All Things Must Pass at No.1 for those 8 weeks. Unfortunately, official chart statistics couldn't use Melody Maker's listings because they were contracturally obliged to use only British Market Research Bureau data.

However, in 1983 Gallup took over compiling the charts and in 2000 Melody Maker ceased to exist (it merged with NME). This removed any barriers to adopting Melody Maker's data from those 8 weeks in 1971 and so in 2006 the change was made, giving Harrison his 8 weeks at the top, at the expense of Simon & Garfunkels's Bridge Over Troubled Water which now had 8 weeks fewer at No.1, but since it was still on 33 of them they shouldn't have any complaints!

Harrison's fall from No.1 to No.18 simply marks the point at the end of the strike when statistics shift back to the British Market Research Bureau listing. The implausible-looking size of the drop is partly due to the fact that the Melody Maker chart was often accused of being biased towards rock artists (as was the NME Chart) at the expense of pop/MOR/easy listening, and so rock albums tended to be listed higher. This could have had something to do with the precise nature of their shop sample.

I hope this clears up a few mysteries for everyone. Tonythepixel (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. This had really confused me. I still say it's ridiculous that Harrison's album goes from 1 to 18 (and that it apparently remained at #1 for all those eight weeks). I've also noticed that in the 'real' charts a lot of album re-enter, including many by MOR artists (Nana Mouskouri etc) which seems to back up your claims of bias towards rock artists. Anyway, thanks for that. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Track List Query

My copy of this CD has tracks 10-14 the other way round disc-wise, i.e. the "Original Jam" (It's Johnny's Birthday - Out Of The Blue) is on Disc 1 & the "Additional Tracks" (I Live For You - My Sweet Lord 2000) are on Disc 2. Gwladys24 (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected The Wrong Version of the article for a week to prevent further edit warring. I hope that editors can discuss the Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums while the article is protected. If consensus is reached before the week is up, I'll unprotect the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's some background: after initial uncertainty here as to the suitability of the passage in question, the matter was discussed at WT:ALBUM and consensus reached that such list entries should be noted only with associated discussion (and the guideline was updated accordingly). Now it seems that some editors (who were involved in the discussion) don't hear the result and continue to edit in reference to an unspecified, previous consensus. Uniplex (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

ATMP for GA? Suggested changes

George Harrison's albums from Concert for Bangladesh through to Extra Texture are all now up to GA status, "Isn't It a Pity" also ... I've been meaning to work on this one for months, and I feel there's a fair amount to do − plenty of points of notability are missing, in my opinion. I haven't been able to find the relevant edit-war discussion referred to above (after a minimum effort on my part, I confess), but I thought it best to run through some of the changes I'm proposing, up front, in the hope of taking the article up to a GA.

As far as missing details go, I'm thinking more is needed in the Background section on Harrison's standing within The Bealtes, and his musical activities outside the band during 1969 particularly. Simon Leng describes that year as "an incredible phase of creativity" for Harrison − he produces albums for Jackie Lomax, Billy Preston and Doris Troy, a surprise hit single for Radha Krishna Temple; guests on sessions for Jack Bruce; spends more time with Dylan and The Band, on the Isle of Wight; co-writes Cream's last single; tours with Delaney & Bonnie. All these projects, and everything, in fact, from Harrison's time in Woodstock/Bearsville in late '68, feed directly into what would finally appear as All Things Must Pass − there's an excellent Mojo article by John Harris that explores this idea. An interview Harrison gives to US radio in May 1970 offers plenty also, with George talking about doing his own LP in the wake of The Beatles' split.

In the Production section, mention of his mother's death and its impact on the sessions is needed, I suggest; recording is interrupted in early July as she's nearing the end, which is partly why the album came out so late in the year. Phil Spector's role is also glossed over right now, compared with what participants (such as Voormann, Barham and Badfinger's Joey Molland) and Harrison biographers have to say. Harrison was quite candid about having to do "more work than if he hadn't been there" on ATMP, because of Spector's drinking and eventual hospitalisation, and it seems Harrison continued through August as sole producer. Discussion of the early mixes is needed as well, I suggest, and the feedback from Spector (then recovering in LA) on Harrison's work so far. All this is covered at length in Madinger & Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You and Spector's comments are reproduced on The Beatles Bible. In Scorsese's George Harrison: Living in the Material World doc, and in the accompanying book by Olivia Harrison, Spector has much to say about George's meticulous approach to overdubbing his backing vocals and slide guitar parts.

Other points that I suggest merit either a mention or further comment:

• Clapton's growing infatuation with Pattie Boyd, behind the scenes (plenty in Boyd and Chris O'Dell memoirs)
• Barham's orchestrations being planned out up-front at newly purchased Friar Park
• innovative design by Tom Wilkes and Barry Feinstein, for what was the first boxed album in rock/pop history
• changes made to packaging for 2001 reissue (which will mean the alternative cover can come back in)
• more detailed musician credits, rather than simply repeating list on 2001 booklet − given recent research by Leng and others.

Apple Jam songwriting credits

The last, but fairly major, issue concerns songwriting credits on Apple Jam. I'd welcome input and discussion on this. Currently in the article, we have multi-composer credits for sides five and six of the original release of ATMP, which I believe is incorrect; in fact, I question whether, aside from "It's Johnny's Birthday" (= "Congratulations"), anyone but George Harrison is credited as writer/composer even post 2001.

Starting at the beginning, 1970, I've come across a mention in Alan Smith's NME review of the album which doesn't answer the question by any means, but rules out Mal Evans and Eddie Klein as co-writers on "It's Johnny's Birthday": "The final record of the three is a jam session for George and friends − mainly a continuing riff worked upon, and going on and on; or the fun of a little piece called 'IT'S JOHNNY'S BIRTHDAY'. I was surprised, incidentally, to see Harrison credited as composer of this one. It may well be that Bill Martin and Phil Coulter, who wrote 'Congratulations', will have other thoughts!" Alan Clayson and Keith Badman also imply that "It's Johnny's Birthday" was credited to Harrison only. There's a 1975 book I tracked down years ago − Harry Castleman & Walter J. Podrazik, All Together Now: The First Complete Beatles Discography 1961−1975 − brilliant, reliable, published so close to the important early solo years, meaning no revisionism. Castleman & Podrazik give Harrison as sole composer for all five tracks on Apple Jam; to my way of thinking, this is a true reflection of the original release, although "Congratulations" composers Bill Martin & Phil Coulter were credited within weeks of the album's appearance apparently. (Supported by this from Badman's The Beatles Diary Vol. 2: "At one point during the recordings, the musicians break into a brief version of Cliff Richard's 'Congratulations', thus earning a royalty claim by its songwriters Bill Martin and Phil Coulter.") I had a copy of the vinyl album from the 1980s and nothing in the credits ever led me to believe that the contributing musicians on the other Apple Jam songs (Clapton, Preston, Mason, Keys, Mason et al.) were being listed as songwriters.

Looking online, here's a 1970−71 Venezuelan print of the album: scroll down to bottom of page and Harrison's credited for all tracks, with "Congrats" writers acknowledged also. Here's another early print, from Australia, with the same credits. (I bookmarked Spanish and German versions also, but they seem to have disappeared from Discogs now.)

So that's the original release in more minor territories such as S America and Australia, with support for the major markets (I suggest) from Castleman & Podrazik's All Together Now and to some extent, the NME review.

As I say, even with the 2001 reissue, I'm still not convinced that anyone but Harrison (and Martin & Coutler) are credited as songwriters on Apple Jam. The CD booklet is confusing: participants are named, in parenthesis, after each song, but each track's copyright is with Harrisongs (plus an additional company for Congratulations). In While My Guitar Gently Weeps, published in 2006, Simon Leng gives only Harrison's name each and every time on the Apple Jam songs; Allmusic gives Harrison for two of the five tracks, no credits for the others. In The Beatles Solo on Apple Records (2005), Bruce Spizer gives no composer at all, while in his 2010 Harrison biography Ian Inglis writes that the disc three songs were "ostensibly" written by Harrison. At the risk of contradicting myself, I wonder whether these last two examples show the situation in the US on release in 1970. Apple Jam was a "free" disc, and there were no royalties owed on the tracks as such, although US copyright control was ensured through BMI being named on the record inlays; I've seen Discog examples of this also, where BMI appears after each of the song titles, but no composer's name at all. (This same free-disc criteria might've been why Clapton could be named on Apple Jam in the UK, unlike on the main part of the triple set.)

Anyway, I'm speculating now ... But I do think it's correct to remove the other participants' names from the songwriting fields under original release. Given the sources and visual evidence given above, I hope there's no objection to that? The situation post-2001, I'd really like to hear from others about, as with the other suggestions I've made here. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

An addition to support Harrison-only Apple Jam songwriting credits: Graham Calkin's Beatles Pages. Seems to me, from this and other album pages on the site, that Calkin focuses mainly on the UK releases, of course. Also, The Beatles Bible − all Harrison only − for example "Out of the Blue". Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

After dusting down (I kid, I kid), my copy of ATMP on vinyl, I'm not sure whether it's an UK copy or US copy (I know it's defo an original) now – the box and records say mfd in GB, whereas the sleeves say printed in USA. But the important matter:

• The sleeve says:
  • "Out of the Blue"* is credited to Jim Gordon/Carl Radle/Bobby Whitlock/Eric Clapton/Gary Wright/George Harrison/Jim Price/Bobby Keyes/ Al Aronowitz (<- there is a space too on the sleeve between Keyes and Aronowitz, not sure why?).
  • "It's Johnny's Birthday"* is credited to George Harrison/Mal Evans/Eddie Klein.
  • "Plug Me In"* is credited to Jim Gordon/Carl Radle/Bobby Whitlock/Eric Clapton/Dave Mason/George Harrison.
  • "I Remember Jeep"* is credited to Ginger Baker/Klaus Voorman/Billy Preston/Eric Clapton/George Harrison.

Thanks For The Pepperoni* [new line] Same as "Plug Me In"

*(C) Copyright for the world by Harrisongs Music, Ltd., England. All rights for the United States and Canada controlled by Harrisons Music, Inc. Reprinted by permission.

• The label says all published by Harrisongs, except for "It's Johnny's Birthday" published by Peter Maurice. World Music.. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, yeepsi. Seems to me you might have a US copy there, and perhaps not from the very first print run − who knows. I've read somewhere that the Martin & Coutler claim came within three weeks of the album's release, so mid December 1970 perhaps. I still maintain that the Apple Jam tracks being "credited" (on the sleeve) represents a list of the participants on each track, not the songwriters. In his 2005 book, when discussing the original US print run, Bruce Spizer mentions that the disc three outer sleeve gave (amongst other info) the "jam musician credits" − i.e. not jam songwriter/composer credits. Spizer also includes pics of the disc three record labels, which offer no songwriter names at all, just "BMI" under all five selections. (Which is why, I guess, he does't include any names in his sides five and six track listing either, as mentioned previously.) Seems to me that Harrison was credited as composer of all five Apple Jam tracks originally in the UK (as supported by Graham Calkin and Simon Leng, and implied to some extent by the 1970 NME review), and that at no point were Clapton, Gordon, Radle, Whitlock, etc credited on any record label. Based on that, my suggestion is that, under the article's Original Release track listing, they should be credited to Harrison, with "It's Johnny's Birthday" credited to Martin/Coutler/Harrison; the main text could then explain, under Release perhaps, about the Peter Maurice/Congratulations issue and the fact that in North America no composers had been credited originally. I'm happy to wait for more feedback from others about this, although having investigated the issue online and in a number of books, I'm now more convinced than ever regarding the original release. The 2001 reissue − still think it's a case of people assuming from the CD booklet that the musicians are the songwriters officially. What we need is someone who's got the 2001 or 2010 vinyl: what do those Apple Jam labels say − Harrison/Clapton/Whitlock/Radle/Gordon, etc? That would solve it for 2001 onwards, obviously. Thanks again, yeepsi − any more thoughts on this? JG66 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've found only side one label of the 2001 vinyl, it doesn't seem to list Bob. I've also found the (US) editon of the 2010 vinyl, here. Just has BMI on it, sleeve is too small to read the print, but it seems quite like the original (US) one (what I have). I'll have a look around for the 2001/10 vinyl editions to get a better look at this. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This] could be a big help. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great, Yeepsi, thank you. You're right about the 2010 pics − they're exactly like those in Spizer's book (I thought they were the very same ones for a moment there). It seems the 2010 ATMP release was a deliberate attempt to reproduce the 1970 original, maybe. Yes − not even Bob's name appears on the 2001 label, so it doesn't bode well for Apple Jam, as far as being able to confirm songwriting credits. With the situation post 2001, I keep coming back to the sole publisher, Harrisongs, which to my way is unheard of in the 21st century − so many co-writers (if Clapton, Whitlock etc etc are indeed credited as such in the 2001 booklet), so you'd think the credits and disclaimers would read like a telephone book for each song. (Take for example the musician credits on the 2010 Exile on Man St. reissue − what a mess!) I put in a few messages to other contribs about this discussion. I notice an unsigned contrib actually made the changes I'm suggesting for Original Release track listing, back in January; the changes were undone by Malik Shabazz, who I hope will join us here. JG66 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In January, I reverted the change of the Apple Jam songwriting credits to George Harrison alone because that's not the way the credits read on the CD (the first CD release, which was at hand at the time). If the original credits showed Harrison as sole composer, and it is considered best to show the first credits and deal with the rest in the text, then so be it.

I'm afraid I can't contribute much beyond moral support toward making this article a GA, but I'd be happy to do whatever I can. You seem to have access to a treasure trove of materials about the Beatles and Harrison, JG66. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Malik Shabazz. Thank you for that. With track listing for the original release, yes, I think revert to "Harrison", and "Martin, Coutler, Harrison" for "It's Johnny Birthday" (even though the latter credit only came in on copies manufactured from December 1970 onwards); text under Release can provide comment on the Apple Jam credits (the fact that on first US copies, no songwriters were named) and the royalty claim from Peter Maurice Music. Text in the Subsequent Releases section could then mention the apparent sharing of songwriter credits from 2001, even though those credits are far from clear (I suggest, given that Leng hasn't budged on the issue). And yes, I do have a few books on Harrison/Beatles ... I dunno, they keep publishing more! Regards, and thanks again, JG66 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference format?

I started cleaning up the references in this article, but noticed they're not consistent. (e.g. "Leng, Simon" vs "Simon Leng", order of the items in the reference) I'd be happy to fix them, but want to be sure we agree on the format for this article before I do so. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi GoingBatty. That's very considerate of you to ask, I gotta say. I'd noticed the issue too. From my point of view, I'd like to keep a uniformity if possible across all these Harrison album articles, and song articles too, come to think of it. The style I've used from The Concert for Bangladesh album and film through to The Best of George Harrison, and many song articles, is: Simon Leng, While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison, Hal Leonard (Milwaukee, WI, 2006). It's a cleaner, more flowing arrangement than that used by many contributors, imo, and after investigating recently the different options for Notes (for abbreviated citations) followed by References (containing full sources), it doesn't seem that there's any rigid requirement to follow that Harvard system, with all its full stops − which I think looks dreadful, science journal-like. (I realise I'm probably in the minority on this!) That's the style I'd like to go with, given the choice; and as I say, it would be consistent with a great many other Harrison music articles covering 1970−75. In fact, I could name the ones where it's not − about 6 in total(!). One thing I wonder about is the inclusion of ISBNs, though. I get mixed messages on this, one GA assessor saying they're crucial, yet, during my investigation into referencing options or, say, when checking with WP:Albums style pages, I'll find examples and guidelines for citing books and there's no mention of including ISBNs, let alone a stipulation to do so. Any thoughts on this, GB? I've somehow managed to get a few Harrison GAs through and/or contributed heavily to others, all without ISBNs appearing ... or maybe I should keep quiet about that ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on GA/FA rules, but if you have the ISBN, it doesn't hurt to put it in. I'll clean up the existing references based on your info above. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi GoingBatty. Okay, I'll digs up the missing ISBNs, makes sense to add them. You'll see I've done a bit of work on the refs also, imposing the Notes + References approach. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:All Things Must Pass/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 18:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, thanks so much for taking this on. I'll be going away at the end of March, so when you say the review's likely to take a while I hope that's not relevant (just thought I'd mention it!). I agree that the reviewer's role is a collaborative one; for what it's worth, I prefer a more consultative approach, but I'm sure that doesn't exclude your preferred method. Regards, JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Stable. There's been a few reverts of IP accounts, but nothing significant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Images. Two images are used, both are album covers, and both are non-free but appropriately tagged. I did consider the appropriateness of the second album cover, and if there is sufficient justification for its inclusion. The second cover is mentioned in the text so does meet the non-free criteria; however, as the only difference between the covers is one is colour and the other is black and white, it may be considered that it is stretching the rule on use of non-free a little bit - though I don't think it has actually broken it. So, while it's not an image I think is necessary in the article, I don't see it as breaking the rules. However, the text does mention "further examples of this cover image showing an imaginary, gradual encroachment of urbanisation on the Friar Park landscape" which does sound interesting, and for which an image or two would be useful (placed in the appropriate section rather than in the infobox). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree about including one of the urbanisation cover images – will add soon. I also had thoughts about adding an image of the album's "3 LPs for the price of 2" cover sticker, in the Apple Jam subsection. Maybe ... JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• There is an acceptable reference section. The citation method used is the less popular and slightly more awkward short citation method. This is acceptable, though as part of ongoing development consideration might be given to changing this to the more widely used full citation method in order to assist readers who wish to check sources, and to assist other editors who are more familiar with the full citation method. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I take your point that it's less popular but, these things being subjective, I actually find the more popular Harvard system and others extremely awkward. When deciding which style to adopt for Harrison articles, six months ago or more, this is what I went for, based on the various approaches I'd seen already in Harrison/Beatle/music articles on wikipedia, and my own preference of course. You'll see I've recently reverted to ampersands between names in multi-author works – that's in the interests of consistency across all the current Harrison GAs. JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

More on this in a separate section below, SilkTork, in case you didn't notice. JG66 (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not an issue for GA whichever way it goes. When there is more than one author, it is common to use ";" to separate each author, though it's not part of GA criteria, so using "&", while non-standard, would not prevent the article from being listed as a Good Article. The edit war, however, is not good. Resolve the matter on the takpage not through edit warring on the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. The matter is now resolved (albeit hardly satisfactorily, I think it's fair to say). I agree that a semicolon would be appropriate if elements within the full reference were separated by full stops, as in the Harvard system. To my understanding, to use a semicolon when commas are used instead of full stops would be incorrect, because the semicolon is stronger (hierarchically) than the separator (the comma). I take your point that this is not an issue for GA. With some relief(!). JG66 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. Prose is of a good quality. Readable and engaging. Conveying information easily and comfortably. Some paragraphing is a bit loose, and a couple of bullet lists suddenly appear, but those are matters to think about for ongoing development. The prose easily meets GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Article is well cited, and statements checked do match sources so I found no evidence of original research. The article is well detailed, balanced, and covers the main points that a general reader would require. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• layout, words to watch, and fiction SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Focus. The article is focused enough to meet GA criteria, though additional trimming and attention to focus is worth considering as part of ongoing development. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Query

• I'm still looking into the amount of detail. In places it sometimes feels a little excessive - such as the first paragraphs of the background section (this looks like it could be compressed), the Demo tracks section, the details on a poster that didn't appear in the album, and other details such as Harrison's meeting with Lennon and McCartney. What I'm considering is how much this impacts on the GA criteria, and how damaging it is to a reader's patience and concentration level. It would be a shame to turn readers off by being too detailed in what is intended to be a general encyclopedia entry - a brief overview of the the topic. Some of the detail seems more appropriate for a more extended text, such as a book chapter. To mitigate for the detail - the article isn't too long, and much of the detail is interesting - though, to be fair, focus can get lost even in the most interesting of detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I hear you. It's a tricky one, because All Things Must Pass is an important album on a number of fronts – which is why adjectives like monumental, sprawling, colossal, epic get such high rotation in the album reviews, no doubt. I'll certainly take a look at Background, now that you mention it. The point that needs to be made there is how held back he was in the last years of the Beatles (really, since immersing himself in Indian culture, in 1966), and then how emancipating this album was for him ("Harrison is free!" etc). But not excessively so, no. The Demo tracks subsection is difficult, because there was effectively five albums' worth of material recorded in some form or another during the period of production, and all those individual song titles carry redirects back to this album article – so it seems some sort of detail is needed for each track. I thought the Album artwork section was relatively short, actually; I'm comparing it, I guess, with something like Living in the Material World, where there is a fair bit to cover. I appreciate that you're talking about artwork that wasn't used for the release, though. Because the section doesn't seem excessively long, I'd rather leave as is ... but if, as you say, it might impact on GA criteria, I'll have to see if I can trim down the mention here and take more to "What Is Life#Release". Harrison's meeting with Lennon and McCartney – my feeling is that this is an important backdrop to the album's chart run/release, but again, I take your point. I'd always planned to add these details to the "Run of the Mill" song article, which deals with broken friendships in the band and business problems, perhaps "Isn't It a Pity" also – so I'll look at cutting it right down in this album article. I'll make a start on all this very soon. Thanks, SilkTork, I appreciate your thoroughness. JG66 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at cutting back detail in all those areas you mention. You'll see the Hari-Len-Mac meeting is now only touched on briefly and detail regarding the rejected poster design sits in a new end note. Condensed the Background section to some extent, and did what (little) I could with Demo tracks and outtakes, given the issue I mentioned above. I think the article's definitely improved as result of these edits, so I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts. I've tried to finetune the lead-in also; bit worried about new phrasing "Harrison's emergence as a creative force" (waffly ... weasely?). Regards, JG66 (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's enough for me to move forward with the review, though I think it's worth keeping focus in mind as part of ongoing development, and looking to trim where appropriate. Too much information can be draining and confusing. In the sentence: " In addition, Harrison identified his involvement with the Hare Krishna movement[nb 1] as providing "another piece of a jigsaw puzzle" that represented the spiritual journey he began in 1966, with his and wife Pattie Boyd's visit to India." is is necessary to mention Boyd? The paragraph from which that sentence comes already has a list of names which, cough, cough, read like the cast list of a Cecil B. DeMille movie! As regards "creative force" - I note from the extract here that the phrase doesn't appear to be used by Richard Williams. Has anyone else used the phrase? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed both of those points in the text you mention, I believe. Quite right – can live without inclusion of Boyd, and in fact I thought mention of the trip to India could go also. With the Williams quote, it's reproduced in a couple of Harrison biographies, and the implication's certainly there, about "creative force"/emergence as a top-level artist, etc. But going from Schaffner's use of the quote, as I am, it's should be avoided – I was trying a bit too hard with my paraphrasing, I think. I'll definitely keep in mind what you say about trimming further in the future; I can see the benefits already in the improved focus. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• The MoS section is generally the trickiest, especially the Lead section. I have a set piece which I tend to use in most reviews:

Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.

I'm not sure that "The original vinyl release featured two LPs of rock songs and a third disc of informal jams, titled Apple Jam." is as important as some of the information that follows. There's an editorial judgement in placing "a number of songs rejected by the Beatles" in the first paragraph - a judgement that would be worth explaining, especially as it's not mentioned in the article that those songs had been offered to the Beatles, let alone declined. The word "reject" may also need thinking about.

As an example of material not included in the lead - there's a section on the album artwork, there's little mention of the recording session or where it took place, and nothing on the overdubbing and mixing, both of which have a section.

I've now reworked the lead to cover the main issues discussed in the article. Although one can't argue with the criteria, it does seem a shame to have to bulk out the introduction like this (worth pointing out perhaps that overdubbing and mixing are both subsections within the Production (recording) section). I've juggled the sentences around a bit, but I feel there's more to come in that department.

There was/is mention of the title song being offered to the Beatles, actually. But your raising this, and the point about "rejected by the Beatles" not being supported in the article, makes me realise I've made a huge oversight in not clearly stating that a fair few songs recorded for the album were turned down by the Beatles. (Talk about not being able to see the wood for the [Friar Park] trees ...) That really is a major point of notability about All Things Must Pass: it affected everything from why Harrison invested so much time and energy on the project (channelling his frustration from the final years of the band – closure), to the nature of the attention the album received on release (which has snowballed in the decades since then, it's fair to say). So, this issue has involved a bit more rewording in the main text, obviously. You'll see I've changed "rejected" to "turned down" in the lead, but not in the discussion below. "Rejected" is certainly a word used often by many of the sources I have access to – one of the more innocuous descriptions they use, in fact(!). Will keep tinkering for a while longer on this issue and the lead section, still with an eye for trimming excess detail of course, and then drop you a line. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"bulk out the introduction" - I understand what you are saying, and there needs to be an eye kept on the lead to ensure it doesn't get too bulky, but it's worth being aware that for many (I think it's actually most) readers the lead is all that they read. If you ever had one of the modern editions (post 1972) of Encyclopedia Britannica, you would have been aware that they split the encyclopedia into the Micropædia (short articles) and the Macropædia (detailed articles) - most topics would be covered in both, but at different levels of detail. The Micropædia is our equivalent of the lead. The lead does serve as an introduction to the topic, and invites people to read the sections that interest them for greater detail, but the lead should also be able to stand alone - provide the reader with a summary of the main points of the topic. Generally, if an aspect of a topic is deemed important enough to justify a section of two or more paragraphs, then that aspect should be summarised in the lead; if the topic is not important enough to be mentioned in the lead, then perhaps it shouldn't have so much attention paid to it in the main body. Keeping a balance between the lead and the main body is tricky, but does help to keep the mind focussed on what are the important points. Some editors will simply place in an article any information they find on a topic - and sometimes they feel that when an article looks big enough it will therefore become a Good Article as long as the prose is OK. You, on the other hand, do appear to me to have a good knowledge of the topic, and to be able to assess the wide range of material available on the topic, and to judge which points are important and should be mentioned. Like most "fans", there is tendency to over-include material that is perhaps more of interest to another fan than to the general reader, but that's not a big issue, considering that your main editing instincts are quite sound. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this little bit of work on the lead will be the last thing needed. The Ratings Box is in my view not compliant with lists as this is now a fully developed article, and that embedded list does not effectively summarise the prose section, so it does not meet GA criteria. I am aware that such boxes are popular, so what I do is remove the box at the time of listing the article, and leave it to contributors' own discretion if they wish to put it back. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• Not a GA issue, but does [2] meet WP:EL criteria? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not – what makes it useful for readers, I think, is the image of the Apple Jam sleeve, which is discussed in the text. (I'll check again, but I don't think georgeharrison.com shows the original artwork.) Also, and this is relevant to a discussion I started on the talk page last year, I like the idea of being able to show an example where Apple Jam's songwriting credits read Harrison alone – although Graham Calkin doesn't show the actual labels, unfortunately. I seem to remember that sometime last year a user added the Apple Jam musicians as songwriters, under the article's 1970 track listing – which is why this was an issue I was keen to discuss on the talk page, and why, I guess, I'm keen now to support further the Harrison-only original credits by including the link. (As I wrote on the talk page, I really don't believe that those musicians are credited as composers on the 2001 booklet. And even Ian Inglis – the author I've cited as supporting the multi-composer idea, in an endnote before the article's 2001 track listing – is inconsistent about this. In his chapter discussing All Things, he writes that the jam tracks are "ostensibly credited to Harrison", yet in the back-of-book Discography, he lists Clapton, Gordon, Whitlock etc as songwriters. One of many beefs I have with Inglis's book actually.) Again, thanks for pointing out that it's not a GA issue as such. I will remove the external link if you think it really doesn't belong. JG66 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You discuss the song-writing credits neatly and appropriately in Footnote 23. I don't see what advantage the Calkin page brings. The aim would be to make this article more informative than Calkin's page, and I think that has been achieved. If you feel it would be helpful for readers to see a particular copyrighted image, then better to use that image under Fair Use criteria, than to link to a page that uses copyrighted images inappropriately, as that is against policy per WP:COPYLINKS. Calkin could have permission to use the images, or may be using them under a Fair Use claim. If he is using them under Fair Use, then so can we - therefore there is no need to link, unless he has a lot of images that would be inappropriate for us to carry. My view is that the link is not needed, but I'm not fussed about it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay – it's gone now. JG66 (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quick question: Should it be worth mentioning that portions of white noise from "No Time or Space", from Electronic Sound , was used on "I Remember Jeep"? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 20:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is quite detailed, and while the length is not excessive, part of the GA criteria is to do with focus, so I shall at some point be looking to see if the article's detail is too excessive for Wikipedia. If the overall detail is not too excessive, and the mention of that particular detail is felt to be encyclopaedic or worthwhile, then it would be worth including. Why do you feel that info is worth mentioning? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Worth is the wrong word I used there. I feel that it's a rare example of Harrison refering to/using anything from Electronic Sound or Wonderwall, as most count ATMP as his first solo album. (If that made any sense...?) Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Do reliable sources discuss this? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I thought now wouldn't have been a bad time to raise the question. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yeepsi. I've read one or two authors suggesting that there's a portion of one of the Elec Sound pieces on "I Remember Jeep", but I've never been sure whether this is the case. It's a detail that belongs in the 1969 album article perhaps (if it can be cited), and in an article on Apple Jam if it existed. (Must admit, I have considered starting an article on the latter, after reading so much about it recently.) I agree with SilkTork about focus, and it's quite incredible just how much there is to say about ATMP, given the background/build-up during the last year or two of the Beatles, its content, significance on release in its own right and within the Beatles' situation, its legacy etc. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Widely acknowledged as Harrison's first solo album..." Is "acknowledged" the right word? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This comment, which appears in the lead, is not mentioned in the main body, and only one of his two prior solo albums is mentioned. Some clarity on the situation, supported by sources, would be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I had thought that with Electronic Sound being visible in the infobox chronology (as well as getting a mention in one of the notes), that was sufficient on that one. Will add something about ATMP being viewed/considered as Harrison's first. JG66 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

People read articles in differing ways - I understand that there are a number of readers who don't look at the infobox at all. While the relationship between the lead and the main body is helpfully laid out in WP:Lead, I don't think there is a similar guide to the relationship between an infobox and the rest of the article. Often, WikiProjects have standalone guidelines to infoboxes, providing guidance on what should be in the infobox, but not on the relationship between the rest of the article. I think it's probably a question of making an informed judgement on a case by case basis. I would feel that if information is important, that it would be discussed in the article; in this case, given that this is Harrison's third solo album, it might be helpful to have some mention of that perhaps in the background section, and some informed comment as to why it is considered by some to be his first "real" solo album. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I hear you. If it's okay with you, I might wait a day or two before fixing this and anything else you've raised (and other issues you might find during that time). Is that all right – or is it easier for you if each point gets dealt with as and when it comes? JG66 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem on when the work is done (or even who does it). I've not finished the review yet, but I think this is going to be GA listed with little effort. The sources I've looked at check out nicely, and the article is well organised and has plenty of detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded the mention in the lead. Still need to add discussion of the point in the main article, of course. I'm trying to find a quote from Harrison where he says the first two "didn't really count" or something like that, which I'll then combine with mention of Leng and a couple of reviewers who also refer to All Things Must Pass as Harrison's debut. (In the boxed quote under 2001 reissue, Harrison describes it as "the first album", of course.) JG66 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Have now added brief discussion of this in the main text, under Background. JG66 (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Cecil B. DeMille. Not an issue, but it's generally considered OK to silently correct someone's mistake in the spelling of a name, per WP:QUOTE: "Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected or may be retained and marked with "[sic]"—using the template {{sic}}—to indicate that the error is in the original source." One alternative is to leave the spelling as is and put {{sic}} after it, though that may simply draw attention to the mistake in what is a very short quote. Another option is to reword to avoid using a quote - simply paraphrase without quotation marks: "Harris felt the list of musicians was reminiscent of the cast list of a Cecil B. DeMille film." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering a couple of options – I agree, the addition of "[sic]" is pretty pointless. I was going to close up the space, as you'd done previously, but I notice on IMDb that he was credited occasionally as Cecil B. De Mille, and further down that page, "alternate names" of Cecil B. De Mille and Cecil B. de Mille are listed. So I'd like to stick with the spaced option; it seems perhaps that the wikipedia article on DeMille needs to acknowledge these alternatives, at the start of the piece. Thanks again, SilkTork. JG66 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looking to finish this now, so just going through and looking for quibbles. Reading through the lead I see "All Things Must Pass reflects the influence of Bob Dylan", but I don't see that explained in the article. There's mention of Harrison visiting and befriending Dylan, but nothing that states he was an influence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I missed that. Have added mention under Album content. JG66 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

On hold

As the review is now complete, and there's just the lead to tidy up to finish off, I'm putting this on hold for an initial seven days to allow the work to be done. If it's done earlier, give me a ping. If it's not done in seven days, no worries, I'll extend the time, and look to help out with the editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Pass

Article meets GA criteria. This is an informative, useful and readable article on an important album. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SilkTork – and for all your comments, I've learnt heaps from this GAR. Best, JG66 (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ampersands and the MoS

I have reverted the inclusion of ampersands in the article as they do conform with the Manual of Style on their non-use and the permitted exceptions. See MOS:AMP. The fact that they may have been used in other Harrison-related articles is not relevant except as a reason to also remove them from these articles. Afterwriting (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not a matter of my being "wrong" at all. I have presented the relevant MoS principle, which you were apparently previously ignorant of, and you have interpreted it in a particular way which differs from mine. So in future don't be so patronising and insulting. Afterwriting (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong, Afterwriting. As that link you supply clearly states, the stipulation concerns "normal text" in the article, whereas: "Ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion in tables, infoboxes, and similar contexts where space is limited." I take the Sources section to be such a context, and the Citations also (after all, "page" is abbreviated to p./pp in those situations). I've tried to do a thorough job with all points of editorial style in this article – SilkTork will be the judge of that – and wherever there may be scope for interpretation of MoS requirements/guidelines, I've opted for an approach that can be applied consistently on all the Harrison articles I work on. So I don't appreciate someone arriving at an article when the GAN light comes on and making a change that is not required in the MoS, to suit their personal preference. (I certainly wouldn't do it to another's work if I could see that an approach has been applied consistently throughout the article.) I will be reverting again on those grounds, and I hope this will now be the end of the matter. Regards, JG66 (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Just found this under Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style as an instance where an ampersand is encouraged: "For a specific article or chapter in an edited book, use: * Pooh, Winnie T. & Robin, Christopher (1926). "Modern techniques in heffalump capture". In A. A. Milne (Ed.), The Karma of Kanga, pp. 23–47. Hundred Acre Wood: Wol Press." This together with wiki-wide mantra regarding consistency being key – not to mention this at CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change" – makes me confident that it's quite correct to reinstate ampersands in the article's Sources section. JG66 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes might be of interest here. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan. Yes, I investigated them a while back. The problem is they're so limited in the amount of information they carry (okay, that would be the shortened bit, I imagine ...). The layout for References under Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes is the comma-ed option I'm big on. I've tried to customise those templates – no joy there. It's unfortunate that "Smith, The Universe, Random House, 2005" is acceptable/possible, yet there's no template for the longer-form equivalent, say: "John Smith, The Universe, Random House (London, 2005; ISBN ###)." Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The use of ampersands is not part of GA criteria so will not impact on the GAN. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sales comparisons

The article claims that "as of January 2011, All Things Must Pass had sold more than Lennon's Imagine album (1971) and McCartney and Wings' Band on the Run (1973) combined." This claim is contradicted by RIAA record awards; Imagine is 2x platinum (2 million) and Band on the Run is 3x platinum (3 million) for a total of 5 million while All Things Must Pass is 6x platinum (3 million 2-disc sets). The comparison is also muddled by the fact that the 6x platinum award followed the 2001 remaster of All Things Must Pass while the awards for Imagine and Band on the Run are more than 20 years old and those albums have been remastered and re-issued since then. A more direct comparison would be the awards for all three as of 20 years ago when All Things Must Pass was 2x platinum (2 million) but that isn't worth mentioning in the article because the information is so dated. Unless a timely and definitive comparison of sales data can be made regarding the albums in question, I would leave this out of the article.

As for the "first boxed set in the history of rock music," what about Elvis' Worldwide 50 Gold Award Hits Vol. 1?

Hi Piriczki – sorry, I've been watching Talk:All Things Must Pass/GA1 but not the article's talk page, so I hadn't seen this message before now. That's a good point you make about the Elvis box set in August 1970; I can now see why a number of sources I have overlook Woodstock and call All Things Must Pass rock's first triple album (and box set) – they're referring to the first studio work only, disregarding compilations and live albums. Thanks for that. I've changed mentions in the article to clarify the point. Regarding the mention of ATMP having outsold Imagine and Band on the Run combined, I disagree that it's contradicted or in some way muddled – more than anything, the claim is clearly presented in the article as just that, a claim. Bergstrom's article is (refreshingly) in-depth and accurate, in my opinion, and the judgement I've made editorially is based on that, and the fact that this detail is something I've read elsewhere (but no, not on Huntley p 61 or whatever it was, as you rightly pointed out). Another thing that adds credibility to Bergstrom's point, I suggest, is that McCartney and the Lennon estate are hardly backward in their proactivity regarding recognition for their respective interests, especially in comparison to both Harrison during his lifetime and the Harrison estate since 2001. That's a point that Bergstrom happens to make also, with Lennon's legacy, and biographers such as Hunter Davies and Howard Sounes have been pretty vocal on the issue of McCartney's "rewriting history" and otherwise orchestrating reappraisals of his past work. What I'm saying is, if there was an extra RIAA platinum gong up for grabs for either Imagine or BOTR, I find it difficult to believe that Mac or Ono wouldn't have got the RIAA audit underway. But the other thing to point out is that while you're talking about RIAA certifications, Bergstrom makes no mention of sales in the US or any one market; as an (international) internet music critic – rather than a reviewer for a newspaper-stand title, focused on a domestic market – he could very well be referring to global sales for these three albums. That's the way I take it. And it's a comment on international sales that I was/am interested in for this section of the article, because official certifications by country are found elsewhere, of course. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:All Things Must Pass/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs N A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Lacks personnel list! Otherwise it would be a B! Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)