Talk:Love You To/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 01:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi JG66, I'll be reviewing this. On my first read-through, I only noticed one issue: In the "Retrospective assessment and legacy" section, it quotes Kot as saying calling the song "a boldly experimental track that Harrison records without his band mates as he makes the first full-scale incorporation of Eastern instruments on a Beatles album". But, even if it is a direct quote of Kot, "without his band mates" seems incorrect, as McCartney and Starr also played on it. Could I suggest "a boldly experimental track that Harrison records ... as he makes the first full-scale incorporation of Eastern instruments on a Beatles album". That way you can keep the direct quote but omit the incorrect and potentially misleading info.
I'll do a next level of check, including looking at the references, soon. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Moisejp, great to hear from you, and I'm so pleased you've picked this one up. Your point about the Kot quote is a good one – I guess I'd thought that, while not strictly accurate, his statement had a ring of truth to it, in that the song's hardly a Beatles band performance. I'll make the change you suggest, though. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi JG66. I'm still working through spot-checking the references, but so far so good. One other minor comment I had about the main text is: I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to mention explicitly in the Recording section that Lennon didn't play on the track. I know he's not included in the Personnel section, so it should be obvious. But, possibly, some people might read through the Recording section and think, "What about Lennon?" Some people might not know that all four Beatles did not necessarily play on every single one of their songs. (And if it's documented somewhere why he wasn't he didn't happen to be on the song, that could be interesting too.) Anyway, it's just an idea. Feel free to ignore if you have a good reason to. Moisejp (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, could be worth a mention. I've often been intrigued by Lennon's non-appearance, but then there are quite a few Beatles songs from the 1965–67 period where he seems to have sat out the session for the basic track or been relegated to a percussive instrument (which may or may not have been retained in the subsequent mix down) – Drive My Car, You Won't See Me, Michelle, Taxman, Sgt. Pepper come to mind … I can't find anything on this issue regarding Love You To, aside from the fact that authors such as Ian MacDonald simply don't list Lennon as a contributor. I've just added this, although it's tucked away in an end note. JG66 (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It all looks good, JG66! I'm passing the article. Moisejp (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose, grammar, spelling is all good. No MoS problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Well sourced. I spot-checked several and they were accurately reflected; no copyright problems.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad and coverage and well focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No biases; written neutrally.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable; no edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   one free image is appropriately captioned; one non-free image has proper rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations and great work!

Thanks for the review, Moisejp. I'm ultra pleased about this one making GA! Best, JG66 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)