Talk:Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs) 18:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this one on, but give me a few days to read through it thoroughly. I'll also ask for a second opinion just to be sure everything's been covered. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 18:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Paul MacDermott

Composition

• "A number of writers have noted the simplicity and universality of these chorus lyrics". You follow this with several references, but it would be better to name one or two. I know people are quoted later in the paragraph, but it's not clear whether that refers to something different. An example of how to do this could be, "A number of writers, [including A and B] have noted the simplicity and universality of these chorus lyrics".

Recording

• Where you say "The song begins with Harrison's strummed acoustic guitar, similar to the opening of Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man", before the "beaming harmony of doubled slide" arrives, as David Fricke puts it." arrives, as David Fricke puts it", I@m wondering whether it might be better to say "The song begins with Harrison's strummed acoustic guitar, similar to the opening of Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man", followed by what David Fricke has described as the "beaming harmony of doubled slide".
• On the subject of double slides, you may also want to mention the meaning of the phrase when it first appears. I'm guessing from what is said later that Fricke was referring to a guitar section, but that should be clarified.

Overall comments

• Although I'm familiar with many of Harrison's songs, I know less about their back story, so it was interesting to read this and learn a few of the facts. Apart from the above comments this mostly seems to read fine to me, but as I ran it through a text-to-speech programme I haven't been able to check for punctuation, etc. Once the issues I've mentioned have been addressed I'm happy to pass this, but will ask for a second opinion just to be sure everything's ok. Good luck. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Paul MacDermott, your comments are much appreciated. I've fixed all the above, I believe. Good point about Fricke's "doubled slide" comment; as well as the changes in that sentence, I've added mention of "twin" slide guitar just above it, which I hope should clarify things. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Just need to wait for someone to check through it and hopefully it should pass. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Arb break

I'm willing to give this a look later today. WesleyDodds (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion by WesleyDodds

• Illustrations - Fair use rationales look up to snuff, though I admit I'm rather foggy on the details of sorting them out properly (I tend to have others help me out when it comes to non-free media)

I believe all's fine on the illustrations/images front. As outlined in the section below, Aspects reinstated all images I'd cut originally, on the grounds that they all complied with fair use rationale. Looking at Aspects' contrib history around that time, it seems clear that his/her speciality is infoboxes, navboxes and related images. JG66 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Stability - pretty stable, in that there are no signs of edit-warring. All recent editing has been done to greatly expand the article.
• Broadness - Origins, composition, recording, single release, critical reception, and even covers all touched on. Nothing strikes me as a glaring omission. The great thing about writing about anything Beatles-related is that you have a wealth of sources for everything down to catalog numbers, and you seem to have mined the existing material pretty thoroughly. More than comprehensive enough for GA status, decently progressed enough for FA consideration. You could add something about the song's meaning and inspiration to the lead section, though

Added brief mention of reincarnation in lead-in, along with part of Harrison's quote from I Me Mine. Thanks for that – good suggestion. JG66 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Verifiablity - A couple of issues here:

• What makes the following sites reliable sources? Chartarchive.org, Archive.org, Warr.org, Second Hand Songs, homepage1.nifty.com

I've removed all refs citing Archive.org, Warr.org and Second Hand Songs as part of reworking the Cover versions section. You'll see I've replaced the Archive.org ref for Elliott Smith's version(s) with one from Rawkblog: I hope this can stay, otherwise there appears to be no way of acknowledging that Smith performed "Give Me Love" along with his sympathetic reading of other Harrison songs. The citation here is merely supporting the existence of a cover version (and this section of the article only discusses the more notable covers of course) – it's not as if any grand claim is being made in the article. JG66 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'd make a similar case for Chartarchive.org and homepage1.nifty.com. In the case of the latter, the alternative would be to omit "Give Me Love"'s placing on the Oricon singles chart – well, what I'm saying is, I don't speak Japanese and all links to the more respectable Oricon site in this and other Harrison single and album articles were/are dead. IMO, homepage1.nifty.com is definitely reliable – all the UK and US chart runs given there for Harrison releases are spot on (eg when compared next to pages covering Billboard charts in the book All Together Now by Castleman & Podrazik). It's unfortunate that the lawyers moved in(Link redirected to OCC website) on Chartarchive.org – if the full details were still available, it could be seen that it was an impressive source. (It's unfortunate also, WesleyDodds, that you feel the need to remove the ref without allowing me to reply to the points you've raised first. That is what the GAN process is all about surely.) JG66 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Use of multiple cites for a sentence is understandable from time to time, but it's used an awful lot here, making it unclear at times what it referencing what. For example, "Some commentators, particularly Harrison's spiritual biographers, remark on the subtle blending of the sacred term "Om"[20] in the drawn-out phrase "Oh ... my Lord", during the two bridge sections in "Give Me Love".[12][21][22][23]" is unnecessarily overloaded. Simplify and clarify as much as you can. On a related note, "Some commentators, particularly Harrison's spiritual biographers, remark on the subtle blending of the sacred term "Om"[20]" is cited to Harrison's autobiography. I haven't read that since I was in middle school, but as I recall, wasn't Harrison speaking in the first person in that entire book?

The ref next to "Om" was simply to acknowledge its inclusion by citing the page in IMM where Harrison's lyrics are reproduced. Now removed, as you'll see. JG66 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Prose quality - could use a tad more work in spots. Some of the roughness of the prose is due to those sentences that trying to combine cited material from two or more sources. The paragraph after the lyrical excerpt in Composition section is in particular needlessly complex, performing structural gymnastics in an attempt to tie all the cited material together. Be as direct and clear as possible. Also, the covers section should really be converted into prose.

Yes, point taken re prose quality – thank you. I've been through the article a number of times and I believe it's way stronger now. JG66 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Other notes:

• Cut down on the passive voice as much as possible.

Yes, dealt with along with reworking sentences that combined too many points at once. JG66 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Numbers below ten should be written out, ie. "climbed to number 8 on the UK Singles Chart" should be "climbed to number eight on the UK Singles Chart"

I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you on this. As a professional book editor, my view is that numbers in any percentage, tennis or golf seed, street address etc should be expressed in numerals, and so should a chart placing. One would talk about "the top two positions", but a single peaks at number 2. As far as editorial style for other numbers goes, it seems quite correct to spell out until 21 (ie the criterion is to avoid hyphenated numbers: twenty-one). JG66 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not too hot on a certain week's Billboard chart being used to source "For the week ending 30 June 1973, the Harrison, McCartney and Preston songs were ranked numbers 1, 2 and 3, respectively". It's really not something to note in the article unless a source explicitly comments on it--does the Schaffner cite right after it make that observation?

I've added text to explain the significance of this top three and Preston's position in what was a sensation at the time, by all reports, with talk of a Beatles reunion amid that unprecedented Apple release schedule. This moment, the 30 June '73 chart, was actually more significant than I'm able to state and support with references, because it's the only time post-'64 that the Beatles, together or solo, occupied the top two positions on the US chart. JG66 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Same thing with the song playing over George Harrison: Living in the Material World. Does the interview from the film expressly mention that it's included, or does the song merely play in the background? If it's the latter, it's trivial and borderline OR, and should be removed.

There is a point to be made there, via Alan Clayson's biography, but rather than make it I've just removed the mention altogether. JG66 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• With such a well-known song and huge hit as a single, I'd excise all reviews where the single isn't the sole focus of the review (that is, remove all the reviews of Living in the Material World). In fact, there's no need to cite individual reviews at all if one of the many sources you have access to summarizes critical consensus (this is why individual reviews are not cited in Be Here Now (album), for instance--one of the great things about a well-researched topic is that in most instances others have already done much of the heavy lifting for you)

I disagree on this also. Even if there was a source that covered the point, I think at least a couple of contemporaneous views need including for any song or album if they're available. As a reader, that often makes the difference for me whether an article's Reception section works or not – the more notable the work under discussion, the more it calls for a voice directly reflecting the critical reception on release. A few months back, I'd noticed that approach you mention in the Be Here Now article, in fact: having gone to the section purely to find a memorable quote from one of the mid 1997 reviews, I couldn't believe there was nothing there, and that omission would definitely have been something I'd have raised in the FAC. I appreciate your opinion on the issue, but this is mine. JG66 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Remove double citations (that is, having the same citation used twice in a row) unless absolutely necessary to prevent confusion (an example where I see it used appropriately is "The single was mastered to run at a faster speed than the album track,[35] in order to make the song sound brighter on the radio, author Bruce Spizer suggests.[40] Although the A-side's running time was given as 3:32 on the single, "Give Me Love" actually ran to about 3:25.[40]". Editors operating under good faith should assume that all material preceding a cite in a paragraph is referenced by that cite.

They should do, yes, but I can't see there's any problem in repeating a source in consecutive sentences. When I see sentences without citations in articles, I take them to be unsourced – it doesn't bother me, but that's how I read the situation. And there are certainly a number of contributors I've come across who won't hesitate to tag a [citation required] note onto the end of any sentence that doesn't carry a reference. Then, further down the line, perhaps those same contributors are the ones removing the apparently unsourced text; I've seen instances of this happening within a period of one month. JG66 (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Avoid using reviews to cite factual information, ie. "This live version of "Give Me Love", along with the accompanying concert footage, was subsequently included in the Living in the Material World reissue in September 2006, as part of a deluxe CD/DVD package." Reviews are essentially editorials, and should only be referenced for the author's opinions.

As a rule, I agree with that. But honestly, in this case the review simply supports a point regarding the inclusion of an item on a release, that a critic has been asked to review. It's pretty innocuous. Aside from that, the georgeharrison.com ref I added doesn't actually support the statement that the live version on LITMW 2006 is from December 1991. So this is an example where both references are needed. JG66 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Another point that's relevant to this one, I think, is the "released" date given in a song or album infobox. I'm mentioning it now because you (and before you, someone else) removed the second, UK release date I'd added. I can't deny that the WP guidelines and stipulations prohibit inclusion of anything but a single (first) release date, but like that issue of not being able to support a very basic point by citing an album review when no other source is available, it's a flawed requirement on a couple of fronts. Where applicable, differing B-sides for UK and US releases appear in infoboxes (Imagine (song)), as do alternative running times (Like a Rolling Stone) and record labels (Layla); and in film article infoboxes, various national release dates appear. So there seems to be an inconsistency as far as what an infobox is designed to deliver. Also, the single-release-date stipulation might be logical in the current era of simultaneous worldwide releases for top-level acts (for want of a better expression), but it's not for the 1960s/70s era of rock music, imo, when the US and the UK were clearly viewed as the main "territories" – one could say the only territories ever considered by record company headquarters in Los Angeles and London (unlike in today's global campaigns). So I see a big failing there. More importantly, it's not clear to readers that the "Released" field means the very first date on which the work was released, so to anyone with a book or two on the Beatles or the Stones, say (books that, whether written and published in the UK or the US, always give release dates for both countries), it invites the more casual editor to jump in and add a second date – it just looks wrong otherwise. I say "more casual", I suppose I mean less experienced – because it's okay for editors who are wedded (welded?) to WP guidelines, they don't question what's implied by "released". But it hardly needs saying that the vast majority of people who come to any given WP music article are non-contributing readers, next (a long way down the line) would be casual editors, and finally there'd be a few FAC veterans. So, logically you'd think, people are going to continue to add a second release date in infoboxes, and personally I can't get too disappointed at the thought of that. To me, as someone who's only been contributing for a year and tries to take these Harrison articles up to GA (I just don't have time to widen my interests on wikipedia), this situation resembles a local government department where the interests of the majority suffer because of the petty bureaucracy of a few ... Okay, having overstayed my welcome on this subject, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this is not an FAC (some of your comments do strike me as more applicable to that sort of a forum) and I'd hope that the likes of an album review supporting inclusion of a 1991 live version of the song and a site such as nifty.com (or whatever) can be permitted rather than the two details having to be removed from the article. (And yes, I'm also making the point that the one release date in an infobox is ineffectual.) JG66 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The whole section that begins "The "starting point" Harrison referred..." and concludes with the lyrics is unclear, given the four cites in a row. Clarify what these sources are actually saying. If they are all making the same point, then excise the redundant cites--you are only required to cite a fact once.

Yes, thanks. I believe I've got to the crux of these statements with the current wording. On the issue of redundant cites, I have trimmed these down considerably, but in some cases I've retained two at once. An example would be where there's anything resembling a fairly grand claim – mention of "the long-awaited Living in the Material World" comes to mind. But while I've followed your suggestion in most instances, I really can't see that the inclusion of two sets of superscript numerals instead of one is a hindrance. JG66 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• When citing any of the Media Charts websites, it's perfectly acceptable to simply indicate the URL. Media Charts is the publisher of each website, yet the current reference formatting infers that "Media Charts" and the individual URLs are both titles of the websites. You can list either just the website or the website and publisher Media Charts as separate entities, but the current format might confuse people (for an example of an article merely listing the URLs and no publisher, see how I formatted the refs in In Utero (album)). And remember, however you format your web references, consistency is required--either include the publisher for every web link cited, or none of them.

I've removed Media Charts and the like, going for the easiest option. JG66 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

These are my observations, but I will leave the final decision up to Paul MacDermott. Currently, giving JG66 the standard week to address the (relatively minor, it must be said) issues I have raised would be quite fair. All told, the article is pretty solid, and very close to GA status. I hope to see it pass soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Big thanks, WesleyDodds, for all the above. I hope none of my replies suggest otherwise, because I'm very grateful for a second and third pair of eyes to help improve and tighten up this article's text. (Not only that but I tend to take lessons learnt from one GAR and then go back to another article that might've passed GA with ease in the past – knowing that issues such as overuse of passive voice, possible confusion caused by my combining a number of points, etc might well need to be addressed there also.) Thanks again. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Arb break

couple of points

• Personnel—doesn't this need a ref? In any case it should be after cover versions (I think it is preferred to have list/table-based sections after prose-based ones)

Hi Indopug. Well, the only time I've felt the need to add a ref for personnel in a song article is when the issue is subject to debate about who exactly contributed to the recording. With George Harrison, anything from All Things Must Pass certainly falls into that category, so for all ATMP song articles, I definitely add something (eg for What Is Life). Re positioning of Personnel: from looking at a sample of song articles, I notice a number of different approaches. Layla FA, for instance, has the list way sooner in the article. (And pls note, no ref provided for personnel list(s) there.) Seeing the inconsistency across those articles, and not being aware of any hard and fast rule, I'd like to keep the list where it is ideally. Reason is, I've helped get a few Harrison song articles up to GA over the last few months, and I think I've got four more (including this one) are up for GAN right now, so my priority is consistency across all of Harrison's 1970–75 solo work. If you or someone else can find WP requirements re citation for list of personnel and where to position the list, I'll comply of course. JG66 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A personnel section is not required--note the WikiProject Albums suggests adding them, but WP Songs does not. Either way, I wouldn't say it's mandatory. In fact, I like to forgo it when I can, because usually they tend to be sourced straight from the liner notes anyway (a primary source), and having learned that WikiProject Films discourages listing full credits in movie articles for quite sensible reasons, I see no reason why music articles should do the opposite. Anyway, anyone of note who contributed to a song should, in a well-written and well-sourced article, be mentioned in the main body already; a separate list of everyone who contributed would be redundant in most cases. I would get rid of it entirely, but that's up to you, since it's really a preference issue at this point. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• You should add a photograph of Harrisson.

I disagree actually – this is only a song article. Two images do appear, both directly related to the song's status as an international hit single. Isn't that enough? JG66 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles about books, movies, paintings, songs and albums usually have a photograph of their creator. Especially so if we have a) free photographs of the person and b) the photographs are from around the time of creation of the artwork. Both these conditions are met here.

Besides, photographs liven up an article, giving the reader a break from paragraphs of text.—indopug (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a GAN. Are you saying that the same picture should appear for other Harrison GA/GAN song articles from the early 1970s? (That would be 11 so far by my calculation, and that's only the ones I've had anything to do with.) That Harrison photo from December 1974 at the White House is an awful pic, and it's used in both the Harrison main article and his discography article. Another WP:Beatles song article GA, A Day in the Life, contains no image at all; Rain (The Beatles song) has only the pic sleeve (which, typically for the period, happens to provide a pic of the band). Where's the requirement that "Give Me Love" or any other GAN has to include a picture of the artist? JG66 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• you said that the song's inclusion on the the best-of compilation was very rare, but why do you need to show its entire track listing even if that were so?

There's no doubt about its inclusion being rare. There's been no Lennon-style packaging and repackaging campaigns in the eleven years since Harrison's death, for example, save for 2009's Let It Roll. Not just that but, there are plenty of notable points about The Best of George Harrison. I don't see what the problem is. JG66 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not debating whether the compilation is rare or not. I'll take your word that it is.

My question is: why do we need to include its tracklisting in the infobox and make it unnecessarily long? Especially when there's already the album tracklist? Also, consider that in older mobile-phone displays, the "hide" functionality doesn't always work as it should, meaning you have to scroll down an extremely long infobox to get to the text.—indopug (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessarily long? Its inclusion takes up hardly any space at all – it's the four lines needed for the song title in the singles chronology field that's already the problem. As for readers with old mobile-phone displays, it's my experience that if it's not the hide function, it'll be something else. Again, this issue is something that no one's raised in previous GARs, and I'm interested in consistency across all the Harrison song articles from this period. JG66 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Consider adding an audio sample.

Thanks for the suggestion but I don't believe it's a requirement at GA, is it? (I can't remember any reviewer mentioning this at previous GARs anyway.) It's certainly something I'd consider sometime, but most likely in a wave across all the GAs - ie, when I've got bored with writing and nominating them!

Yeah, there's no need to do this now.—indopug (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

All in all a very good article, that isn't too far from FA even.—indopug (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Indopug, I appreciate that. As I say, do please set me straight with some WP guidelines if necessary. Although I think it's ludicrous to impose that one-release-date stipulation in a rock music article within the 1960s/70s/80s timeframe, particularly for such an obviously Brit act like the Stones or one of the Beatles (as blurted to WesleyDodds above) – it needs the US and UK release dates – I'm happy to comply when it comes to something logical. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As it is, an infobox is a very quick summary of some basic facts; at first glance what the general reader wants is to know roughly when it was released. Not to know that it was released here on this date, and then there a couple of days later. The article body can deal with the details later.—indopug (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So why all the specifics on track length under Layla? The alternative B-sides and record labels in that and/or other single articles? (Why shouldn't the "B-side" and "Label" fields also be taken to mean "First-release B-side" and "First-release label"? The article body could deal those other details later, right?) I'm not sure you understand what I was trying to say above. "Released" makes sense to wikipedians who have made a point of familiarising themselves with project guidelines, but to the majority of readers (who haven't), the fields within the infobox are inconsistent in their scope – because UK/US or other comparisons are permitted for B-side, length and label, but not under Released. As I've said, seeing the one release date there looks wrong – it implies an error. In that, the single's release apparently occurred internationally on the one day, and this is because other fields do provide alternatives. JG66 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The simple answer is that template code emphasizes that only the earliest date should be listed. Personally I don't see what's wrong with only listing the earliest date. It's pretty sensible--once something is released, it's released, regardless of where in the world it was issued, and emphasizing certain territories smacks of bias. Yes, there are often different versions of a single released with different b-sides at different times in different regions. Then again, films can be released and re-released, in theaters or on various home video media, at different times, in different regions. For the purposes of the infobox (which, mind you, is intended to be a brief summary of the article; the prose is supposed to explain stuff in-depth), the earliest date any form of that single was released is what's important. WesleyDodds (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Arb break

Thanks, WesleyDodds and Indopug for the second opinions on this. I see there are a few issues raised, some of which have been addressed and some that haven't. Also I notice there's been no significant editing of the article since 23 January. I'll leave this open until 31 January, a week after the most recent review. Alternatively, give me a shout if you're happy with what's been done and I'll close up before then. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul MacDermott, I was hoping you might provide a voice of reason on all this. There's been no significant editing since 23 January because points have been raised here, I've responded to them, and no one's provided any guidelines that are not being adhered to in the article. As the first reviewer, you appeared to give your okay on the article at the top of this page and in a message here, subject to a second opinion because of the limits of your text-to-speech program; you pointed out punctuation and copyright status of images as areas that might require another's input. WesleyDodds spotted some important things regarding the prose and they were addressed in the article on 23 January. It seems to me that everything else raised has either been a personal preference (eg removing repeated citations from consecutive sentences, the positioning of a Personnel section or avoiding the inclusion of a second reference to support a point) and/or an issue that's more appropriate for a Featured Article candidate. I've never seen anything like this at GAN.

The only two issues that are in any way pertinent, as far as I can see, are the use of a 2006 Living in the Material World review to support mention of 1991 live version being released on DVD and the use of homepage1.nifty.com for the single's Japanese chart position. I've seen both of these practices deemed acceptable at recent FAC level and FLC. That same Japanese user's website currently provides sources for chart placings in the George Harrison discography, and the assessor there appears to have no problem with that (and as I found out once to my cost at the time – but to my benefit in the longer term – NapHit is super thorough with his reviews). I remember seeing an Allmusic review being used to support a point made in Harrison's main article (currently GA/FAC, and being promoted by an experienced FA campaigner). As stated above, the details on nifty.com that I can check next to other sources, the UK and US chart runs, are a perfect match; and the Music Box review piece is merely being used to acknowledge the existence of a bonus feature in a reissue package. Another 2006 review does the same – I just don't know how the else the point can be supported with a reference, since none of the decent Harrison biographies have been updated since 2006. (And to repeat, this is no great claim: it's simply saying that a live version of the song appears on the reissue. How else should it be supported? Should I instead cite the CD/DVD booklet's liner notes?)

As far as adding further images, firstly there appears to be no requirement to do (in the past, GA reviewers have suggested I give it some thought, particularly if I wanted to take the article to FA, but nothing more than that). I'd love to add more images in all the Harrison articles I work on, as long as they're relevant to the article. I had an excellent publicity pic in the Material World album article but for some reason it was deemed as not complying with free use/non free content; that would've made a perfect image in "Give Me Love", because I think it was also used on the cover of the sheet music for the song in 1973. I don't know how pictures like this get through the net, for instance, because there's no end of photos I could scan from Harrison books and include. As WesleyDodds writes, the final decision's yours, Paul. I think you need to arbitrate, because this is feeling like FAC, and I believe I've either followed others' suggestions or addressed them with clear reasons for not making a change. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm personally happy with the article, but wasn't sure whether, having requested a second opinion, I needed to wait for the agreement of everyone else, particularly as other issues had been raised. This is only the second time I've had second opinion feedback, so I'm still finding my feet, as it were. But ok, as I think it's fine and the two issues I couldn't check myself have been given the green light I'll stick my neck out and pass this as a GA. I agree some of the suggestions are probably more tailored towards FAC, and you should seriously consider taking this forward. There's nothing like seeing all those hours of work pay off when your article is chosen for the main page. Cheers and good luck with this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, Paul McD. I'm sorry if I put some pressure on you there. I'm just wary of the FAC forum (and that's what this GAR was starting to resemble), because it inevitably becomes a popularity contest of sorts: nominators understandably become focused on turning around any objections in the quest for a gold star, and I've seen the quality and scope of an article suffer as a result, to be honest. I take on board all the comments stated here, though. I completely agree with Indopug about images, for instance, and I want to see more appearing in all these Harrison articles. (Midway down the right-hand side of this page is the pic that got ditched from the Material World album article. I'd love to see it reinstated and added here also. I'm thinking a letter to Apple Records might be in order, for that and a number of other images.) Thanks as always for your time, Paul MacDermott, and to everyone else. I might just consider braving the world of FAC after all – sometime soon – because you and others have mentioned a few articles now that might have a chance there ... JG66 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)