Talk:My Little Red Book/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 16:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I should have a review done for this within the next day or so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

VirreFriberg & PianoUpMyNose: After looking at the sources, I have a few questions about reliability to be addressed before reviewing the article.

pinging VirreFriberg & PianoUpMyNose Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Thebiguglyalien!

• Serene Dominic is a music journalist for the Phoenix New Times, primarily focused on music from the 1950s and 60s. Source here. He has won awards relating to the Arizona Press Club.
• Greg Russo has authored several books relating to musical artists, primarily those active during the 1960s. These include the Zombies, the Yardbirds, Jethro Tull and Frank Zappa. His books are largely based on interviews with the band members
• Eunice David was the wife of Hal David, so surely her insight on her husband's life would be a meriting trait.

As for the source regarding Ken Brooks, that is more of an area that @PianoUpMyNose is familiar with. But from what I can gather, Brooks has authored several books regarding rock artists, including Van Morrison and Phil Lynott. VirreFriberg (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

All right, this looks good. David would be a non-independent source, but all four of these sources should be usable. I should have more posted for this review soon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

VirreFriberg & PianoUpMyNose, I've posted the rest of the review. The sourcing looks really good. I was a bit of a stickler about prose and wording, but there are some places where it could be tightened up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing, Thebiguglyalien. My replies regarding the Love section are below, as well as the "setlist" note. PianoUpMyNose (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Thebiguglyalien. I will have a look through the article once I get home from my vacation in 2 days. VirreFriberg (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien; I just went over the section regarding the background and Manfred Mann version (@PianoUpMyNose did the Love section), and I fixed the issues you listed to the best of my interpretative abilities. I'm sorry for the delay in editing. VirreFriberg (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

I made some minor copyedits.

General notes:

• There are a lot of semicolons in this article that could be turned into two sentences; it's not a huge issue, but swapping a few of them might help the flow so the sentences don't get too long.
• There are several uses of due to and due to the fact (including two in one sentence!), which can be replaced with "because"
• The article uses "setlist" and "set list". Either is fine, but it should be consistent.

• Done.

Lead:

• with lyrics by Bacharach's songwriting partner Hal David – I don't think we need to specify that it's his songwriting partner, especially since the next sentence calls them a duo.
• was composed in the time of roughly three weeks together – Could we replace "in the time of" with "over" or just "in"?
• whose perfectionism intimidated the band – I didn't get this impression from the article.
• along with a more "forceful rhythm" – This quote is unattributed, and it might be better to just paraphrase the changes for the lead.

Background and composition:

• By the mid-1960s, American Burt Bacharach and Hal David – "American" probably doesn't need to be in this sentence.
• In 1964, ITV Studios in the United Kingdom – Is there a better way to word this? My first thought was "British studio ITV Studios", but that's even worse.
• which resulted in him flying to London with his fiancé Angie Dickinson, who was an actress knowledgeable in filmmaking – This can be made more concise. Instead of "which resulted in him flying", it could just say "he flew". The description of his fiancé could similarly be reworded.
• Dickinson ran into producer – "ran into" is slightly idiomatic.
• After being shown a picture of Bacharach by Dickinson – I'm not usually too concerned about active/passive voice, but it stands out here, especially since it's used to put two "after"s in the same sentence. This whole sentence runs on a bit long.
• In fact – Can be removed without changing the meaning.
• amongst – "among" is simpler and virtually always correct.
• Despite their hits being rhythm and blues-oriented... – This whole sentence runs really long and goes through a few different complete ideas.
• would come in handy – "would be useful" or even "was useful" is more formal.
• used them as a basis of the composition – It's not clear what this means.
• had been an opposer – "had opposed" or "disliked"?

Recording:

• Manfred Mann were ordered to the EMI Studio – Is "ordered" the correct word here?
• amidst – "amid"
• and as a result were not paid for by Manfred Mann's British label His Master's Voice, but rather by United Artists – How about "so they were paid for by United Artists instead of Manfred Mann's British label, His Master's Voice"
• which according to Serene Dominic led to the initial version recorded during that session being "lackluster" due to the rushed nature of it – "led to" and "due to" are redundant. This sentence should be rewritten to be more concise.
• She claims it lacks anything characteristic of Manfred Mann besides "Paul Jones" edgy vocals, which meant that the version was relatively barebones – This sentence reads awkwardly. "Claims" doesn't really fit an interpretation, it's unclear what "'Paul Jones' edgy vocals" means, and "which meant that the version was relatively barebones" is wordy but doesn't convey much information.
• On the contrary – This feels informal, and something like "Jones disagreed, saying that..." would be simpler.
• Nonetheless – Can be cut.
• along with a "distinctive flute riff" – According to whom is it distinctive? This is an interpretation, so it should be attributed.
• about 19 times — 19 is a specific number for "about". Does the source say "about 19"?
• An anectode about the song's recording is that Bacharach himself played piano on the song – "An anecdote about" gives me the same impression as "In this essay". Just describe the fact, and specify if it's unconfirmed or unlikely to be true.

Release and reception:

• In preparation and as publicity for – A little redundant, one or the other should cover it.
• What is a slight commercial failure? Maybe "it saw only modest success" or something like that.
• The reception paragraph falls into the trap of "In [review], they said [quote]. In [review], they said [quote]." Lean toward paraphrasing whenever possible, and mix up the rhythm of the sentences.

Love version:

• I'm not sure if there's a practical approach here, but is it possible to make it clearer that the band was not with a record label at first? I found myself assuming that they were already an established band until it said "one of their performances at a local nightclub".

• I suppose the section could start with something like, "The American rock band Love covered 'My Little Red Book' for their debut single."

• and strengthened its beat – In what sense is "strengthened" being used here? At first I read it as "made it better".

• Changed to "accentuated".

• been described as "garage punk", proto-punk, and hard rock. — Why is just one of these in quotes?

• "Garage punk" (when used in the context of the 1960s) is really just another term for garage rock and not its own genre. I've removed it from the list since it is confusing and not really necessary.

• It reached number 1 – Numerals 0–9 should be spelled out, but I don't know if chart positions are an exception.

• They're not. Fixed.

• Early Pink Floyd manager Peter Jenner claimed – Avoid "claimed", which can be read as casting doubt.

• Done.

Verifiable with no original research

What makes the following sources reliable? Are these authors well known musician biographers or experts of music history, or are the publishers well regarded for this sort of book?

• Brooks (1997)
• Dominic (2003)
• David (2016) – Dorrance Publishing Company is a self publishing company, so this is going to be unreliable unless it meets the strict criteria of WP:EXPERTSPS.
• Russo (2011)

Y All are reliable.

• I know this seems like such a minor and silly thing, but established and respected songwriting duo is cited to David, which is not an independent source to evaluate this.
• while bass guitarist Tom McGuinness was the only band member to understand Bacharach's songwriting – This should probably be attributed to Bacharach, since it's essentially his point of view of what happened.
• Bacharach was allegedly extremely disappointed – If this is from Bacharach's own book, then why is it alleged?

Spot checks:

• Einarson (2010) – Checked pp. 103–104. Good.
• Houghton (2010) – Checked both uses. Good.
• Marsh (1989) – Good.
• Dominic (2003) – Checked seven uses on pp. 47–48. Good, except:
  • "barebones" seems to be the exact wording from the source. Either quote it and attribute to the author, or paraphrase it to convey the same meaning.
  • "Bacharach deposited himself... isn't the exact quote.

Spotchecks look good.

Broad in its coverage

Covers all of the basic aspects that one would expect in an article for a song. No part of the article goes into excessive detail.

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight, and the song is not praised or criticized by the article.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

All images have non-free use rationales or are licensed under Creative Commons. The non-infobox image has a caption providing context.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.