Talk:Don't fuck with the formula/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, reviewing music articles is new for me, but I remember reading about the whole Smile saga, and how this quote struck me, so I don't feel wholly out of my element! Surprised to see there's an article about it, but then, it was a very memorable quote (or misquote?)

Well-written:

1a Generally good. "songs with lyrics that embraced girls, cars, and surfing" is an WP:EASTEREGG when you can just say "subverting the vocal surf 'formula' that brought the Beach Boys their initial success: songs with lyrics that embraced girls, cars, and surfing" The Pet Sounds section quote containing the phrase "who the fight would be" is a bit jarring and baffling. A fight is not a "who". Maybe it's better to just reword it than to add a [sic]. In same section, improper contraction: "he'd" and "US" should be U.S. per WP:NOTUSA. Per WP:LQ, place punctuation outside quotes. 1b Fine on layout. Note 11's "noted" it a bit of a WP:WORDSTOWATCH when it could be "added"

Verifiable with no original research

2a Thoroughly referenced 2b Footnote 3 contains stray ]; 2c. Checked links verify content; Mike Love is a bit of a primary source, but there are other secondarys. 2d. Earwig concerns are attributed quotes.

Broad in its coverage:

3a. thorough coverage 3b. Tough one considering a lot more than the quote is discussed. I suppose it's unavoidable.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. Can appreciate the efforts for balance in describing band squabbles with no witnesses, or evaluating the subjective value of "formula" vs. "fucking with it". 5. No horrific edit wars

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Images are free

Further comments @Ilovetopaint: Under "Early success formula" the long Love quote "I was not happy about it but in the case of Roger Christian I wasn't as into the terminology of cars as he was. ... he provided some lyrical content to support Brian's musical abilities, so that was good" has some of the same jarring grammar of the Pet Sounds quote above. Can it be concisely reworded? It would also cut the redundancy to concisely reword the Flory quote in the lede. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done I think I addressed every issue except for reducing the Flory quote, because I'm not entirely sure how to properly rephrase it in Wikipedia's voice.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to mention this earlier in the Pet Sounds section: is "but not Dennis nor Love" proper grammar, as opposed to "but Dennis and Love were not" or "but neither Dennis nor Love were"? It sounds funny even if technically grammatical. Re the lede quote, why not "Flory writes in later years music journalists associate the band's legacy more with its experimental work than its vocal surf music"? WP:LQ concerns, at least in the Pet Sounds and Origin of quote sections are still outstanding. Thanks, Ribbet32 (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done I had to look at logical quotation before I knew what you meant.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The Wikipedia norm would be to place the punctuation outside of the quotes, unlike what's in the lede and Early success sections. For example,in the lede, we have "undone by his own family," which not only places the comma inside the quote, but doesn't reflect the source, which uses a hyphen. There are still instances in the Pet Sounds section, for example, "which we'd had so much success with." and no period in source.

Note 1 also includes a WP:WORDSTOWATCH: "noted a pattern where Wilson would" instead of "opined Wilson would tend to".

Regarding the Dennis Pet Sounds quote, I still think concisely rewording is better than sicing it- both to make it more readable and to avoid the POV issue noted by our Sic article: "Sic may also be used derisively by the proofreader, to call attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes and erroneous logic or to show general disapproval or dislike of the material". Ribbet32 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Lede was taken care of for LQ. Just noticed this- "Love recalled that he 'was not happy about it' when Wilson would collaborate with other lyricists—except in the case of Roger Christian, whose special knowledge of motor jargon he says benefited"- switches tense between "recalled" and "says". Hate to seem anal, but I do think this will be an easy job to wrap up. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done I'm still not sure if I get WP:LQ, or why Wikipedia defaults to British English over American in this one particular instance. Sometimes it's correct to put punctuation inside quotes and sometimes it isn't...? The original quote, "even though I never said it", originally ends with a period, but JG66's edits changed it so that the period is outside. Is that actually the preferred way?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Thank you. Not something I feel particularly strong about, but we don't want to fuck with Wikipedia's formula, do we? Smile! Ribbet32 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)