Talk:The Beatles (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Overview

Prose: See below Resolved

Sourcing: See below Resolved

Coverage: See below Resolved

Neutrality: See below Resolved

Stability: No issues

GA Result: On hold for seven days Passed

Details

Infobox

• I release these are sourced, but to have a parent genre (rock) and subgenres (folk rock and hard rock) in "genre" field at same time is redundant. I'd recommend either using just the parent genre or just the subgenres

I have to be honest, if it was down to me I would just put rock music and leave it at that, but this sort of stuff gets argued over albums all the time. @Dan56: is probably best placed to answer this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It'd be ideal to have some kind of paragraph dedicated to how critics/writers viewed the music or what they called it (WP:SUBJECTIVE), and go from there as far as what we think is appropriate for the infobox (WP:POVFORM). That way we wouldn't have to rely on just one source that we're attributing "pop, rock, and folk-rock sounds" to (#Cultural responses). Otherwise, Katovich didn't feel it was redundant to write it that way, so I'm assuming he felt "rock" signified something different from "folk-rock", IMO. Dan56 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, if you listen to the album, particularly say Honey Pie, Savoy Truffle, Cry Baby Cry, Revolution 9 and Good Night (that's flapper, brass rock, folk rock, avant-garde and easy listening) back to back, you should, as sources generally do, come away with the impression that it's a diverse mix and there is no overall style to this album whatsoever, other than "The Beatles". It is seriously diverse. Individual songs have styles mentioned, both here and in their own articles, and that I think is probably the best option. I still think just going with rock and leaving it there is best. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand why one would list this as simply a "rock" album as the Beatles are best known as a rock band, but there's also no harm in leaving the field blank (which I've done). SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your bold edit SNUGGUMS. There's no accuracy to these subjective music interpretations, and while one critic is cited for a song article's genre, another critic(s) with completely different viewpoints may be cited for this article, hence the possible inconsistency between this article's infobox genre and the song articles. The point is to research the best sources on this article's topic and summarize with due weight. If sources that do comment on this album's genre tend to characterize it as a mix of such and such, that's what the genre parameter is supposed to summarize. Leaving it blank might suggest that most sources have found it too difficult to say anything. Dan56 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan you can include "rock" or you can include "folk rock" and "hard rock", but not all three- that would be redundant. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Katovich obviously didn't find it redundant to mention "rock" and "folk rock". Do you really want to open up a complicated discussion about subgenres and parent genres, or could we just stick to what the sources say and not cherry-pick which of their viewpoints we find appropriate? Dan56 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ha, that might not be intended as a threat, but believe me, it would threaten your sanity, SNUGGUMS! Doesn't mean to say I don't agree with what you're saying, though, because I do. JG66 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Okay, here's my position. As far as I can tell this is the last outstanding issue with this review which prevents the article from meeting the GA criteria. Now, to paraphrase George Harrison, "I'll put in any genre in the infobox, or I won't put any genre in at all. Whatever pleases you, I'll do it." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Magic. On the other hand, there's "You're giving me a wah-wah" [=> headache] … JG66 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's probably best to have none if we can't agree on which ones should be included. I'll go ahead and do that as I've found that to be useful to end genre disputes. Congratulations, now a GA! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Even if releases vary from nation to nation, just use one album chronology or the other

@CuriousEric: did this quite recently ([1]) and I think he's done it across all the Beatles albums. I have a feeling this was done to avoid the occasional revert when a brand new editor turns up and changes the "last album" from Sgt Pepper to Magical Mystery Tour. I'll let the two of you come to a consensus on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The North American chronology was already present in these albums (I did not add it): Introducing... The Beatles, Meet the Beatles!, The Beatles' Second Album, A Hard Day's Night, Something New, The Beatles' Story, Beatles '65, The Early Beatles, Beatles VI, Help!, Rubber Soul, Yesterday and Today, Abbey Road (a Good Article), Hey Jude

If we have the N.A. chronology listed in the above albums, it should be complete so we can navigate the series from start to end, or end to start. I added the second (N.A.) chronology to these albums, to accomplish end-to-end navigation: Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles, Let It Be

Without the second chronologies, you could go from Magical Mystery Tour to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, but not from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band back to Magical Mystery Tour. CuriousEric 02:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent summary and analysis, Eric. The US album chronology is not looked on favourably by the Beatles as they had nothing to do with the track selection, but just the "butcher cover" of Yesterday and Today gives it sufficient worldwide prominence to be useful. I think it should stay. However, the UK one has to come first and take prominence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. It can now have both. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• I've made some tweaks but still have concerns:

• The first two paragraphs seem a bit short, so let's expand or merge them

I've combined the second and third together.

• "returned to England with about 40 new songs"..... either replace "about" with "roughly" or "around" if not a more precise range

Changed to "around"

• "after which the songwriter would overdub voices"..... did you mean songwriters?

It depends what you mean. Generally the overdubs were done by the Beatle who wrote the song. Or is this just a question of grammar. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've gone with "they". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "and consequently is missing from several tracks"..... and was not featured in or and was absent from would be better

Gone with "did not play on" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• No problem SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is mentioned that the album received mixed reviews and notes what critics didn't like about the album, so how about also including what they did like?

Added a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since no other citations are in the lead, the ref supporting its sales in the United States can just be included in the "Commercial performance" section

Moved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll revisit the lead when the other issues are resolved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Background

• Image of George's house really isn't needed, I think one of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi would be better

See below re Abbey Road picture. Kinfauns was where most of the songs for the White Album were demoed, and the sessions have been widely bootlegged, so I think it has encyclopedic importance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please address the "citation needed" tag- either remove or cite the info

See below Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "The group had suffered a critical backlash over the film Magical Mystery Tour"..... maybe "The group's film Magical Mystery Tour had been panned by critics"

Changed to "a negative critical response for the film" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "The retreat had required long periods of meditation"..... required how, exactly? I think "included" or "consisted of" would be better

Changed to "involved" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Significantly, the Beatles took no drugs with them aside from marijuana, and the clear minds helped the group to write prolifically"..... "significantly" is POV, and I'm also skeptical about the use of "prolifically" here..... maybe "To help clear their minds for songwriting, the Beatles took no drugs except for marijuana"

I can pull out sources if required, but multiple sources have declared Sgt Pepper to be a drug album, and by 1968 Lennon was strung out on LSD and having difficulty writing - he hadn't written anything since "I Am The Walrus" about six months previously. The singles around this time, "Hello, Goodbye", "Lady Madonna" and "Hey Jude" were all McCartney. So I think the lack of drug taking at this stage in their career was highly significant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Significant to the Beatles themselves and the press, perhaps, but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to say "significantly" in a way like this SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a look now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Now we're good SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "rumours that Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow"..... for the benefit of those who have never read anything on any of these people before, let's include some detail on the truth behind these rumors

Multiple sources, however, do assert that Lennon believed them sufficiently true to write a song about it, although most of them are quite vague - possibly to avoid a lawsuit? (MacDonald's "Revolution in the Head" describes it obliquely as "The scandal allegedly involved special tuition given by the guru to female members of The Beatles' entourage") I've toned this down to "hearing rumours that the Maharishi had behaved inappropriately" and not named anyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not quite what I meant, you can keep "sexual advances" in the article, just would help readers to include whether or not he had much such advances SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I don't know, I don't have a reliable source that proves it one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Aha, found something about the rumours. They're bunk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course Cynthia's word would go against what John says :P, anyway thanks for adding that bit. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Recording

• The picture of Abbey Road Studios isn't really needed

I can't agree with that - it's where the majority of the album sessions took place. Indeed, Sgt Pepper uses the same picture, and I recall images were grilled over heavily during its FA review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I'll prevent such grilling for whenever this goes to FAC. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "the tranquil and productive time"..... POV, just use "their experiences"

Gone with "happy" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Better, but not something I would've done- just went and replaced it with "their times"

• "recording/producing session"..... per WP:SLASH, this should be "recording and producing session"

Replaced with "session at Abbey Road"" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Personnel issues

• "emphasised group identity"..... unity

I've removed it, as no source actually claims that the title was chosen to imply a full group collaboration Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "extraordinary synergy" is POV

I've removed the sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Lennon's devotion to Ono to the exclusion of the other Beatles"..... I think over the other Beatles would be better

Agreed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "quit on the spot" → "immediately quit"

I've gone with "left" - the previous part of the sentence makes it obvious his departure was imminent Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Other musicians

• If these two short paragraphs can't be expanded, simply combine them

I thought MOS:LAYOUT discouraged one paragraph sections - let me come back to this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've merged this information with songs - quite a bit of it was duplicate information anyway Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Songs

• "Although most of the songs on any given Beatles album are usually credited to the Lennon–McCartney songwriting team, that description is often misleading, and by the time The Beatles was recorded this was commonplace"..... not very encyclopedic, try "While most of the Beatles' songs were credited under Lennon–McCartney, many songs were not solely written by them"

I've rewritten this bit, and backed things up with a few sources Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

And I just tweaked it some more SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "With this album" → "With The Beatles"

See above Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Talents" in "individual songwriting talents" is POV

See above Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Remove "Indeed" from "Indeed, some songs" as it isn't really encyclopedic

See above Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Side one

• "Chuck Berry's hit 'Back in the U.S.A.'"..... a less POV term would be Berry's song

Agreed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "which was credited to the usual 'Lennon-McCartney'" → "which was credited under 'Lennon-McCartney'".

Changed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Eric Clapton played this Gibson Les Paul guitar"..... a Gibson Les Paul guitar

It was very specifically that exact model in the photograph. Although this raises an issue of whether File:George's red Les Paul, Lucy, given to him by Eric Clapton- 2013-07-13 20-56.jpg is really "own work". It looks to be a copyvio of this photo from gibson.com with some text added. I've removed the image and if I could remember how to nominate images for deletion on Commons, I'd do that too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "from practically everyone"..... almost or nearly would be better

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Singles

• This should just be one paragraph

I've expanded the second one so it has a bit more substance - should be okay now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "spending five weeks at number one"..... specify which chart in Australia this refers to

Done (and added other countries it was released in) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Release

Mono version

• "Unique" in "released with a unique, mono mix" is POV

Changed to "mixed separately for stereo and mono" (Lewisohn 1988 has specific, and different, dates that the stereo and mono mixes were done if you need them) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as we don't have any WP:PEACOCK terms like "unique" or "hit"

• "Several mixes have significant differences"..... I think drastic would be better here

I've gone with "Several mixes have different track lengths" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

• Just use Rolling Stone itself in the score box rather than "Rolling Stone Record Guide", and the "Record Guide" seems redundant to have when Rolling Stone itself is used

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reverted by Dan56 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your mistake (and why Dan reverted you) was using Rolling Stone in the box but not replacing the ref SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this effectively resolved now, then? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly- remove "The Rolling Stone Album Guide" and "Rolling Stone Record Guide", and when using Rolling Stone (Jann Wenner's review) in score box, include the ref there in score box as well SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally confused - can you handle this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, what is the rationale behind replacing the title of the book (from which there is an actual score) with the title of the magazine? Plenty of other FAs have used different editions of this book, and it was never brought up as an issue there. Btw, ping me here (I don't have this page on my watchlist) Dan56 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For simplicity more than anything else, really. However, it isn't a necessity. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• BBC News should not be italicized

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

References

• Three dead refs

Of the three, one claimed a chart position not in the source, one claimed to be a "best of" chart from 1969 but was from 1970, and one was a Mexican chart that is not only dead but the Wayback machine has no copies of. Oh dear! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

All dead refs must be replaced/removed in terms of WP:V SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

They were fixed - one was switched to a wayback machine link, one was resourced to a Billboard magazine retrospective piece, and one was removed. All sorted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• take a look at Movable Feasts: The History, Science, and Lore of Food in "citations"

Fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Pitchfork Media, PopMatters, and Slant Magazine should not be italicized as they are online-only sources

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• You forgot #116, #139, #140, and #142 SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oh ****, it's a cite web template, so it needs publisher. Sorry, I find these things as exciting as listening to "Revolution 9" backwards :-(

• The "M" in AllMusic needs to be capitalized

Well, you learn something new every day! (fixed) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• link Stephen Thomas Erlewine

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Pitchfork" should read "Pitchfork Media"

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

• only link Ian MacDonald and Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties for the first edition

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kenneth Womack should be linked in for The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles but not Reading the Beatles: Cultural Studies, Literary Criticism, and the Fab Four

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• You forgot to link him in The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles :P SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I got the template wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• If The Beatles Diary Volume 1: The Beatles Years by Barry Miles has two different editions, please indicate this (I see two books with this name having 2001 in one and 2009 in the other, and two different ISBN numbers)

Resolved via comment below. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a general note, when using multiple refs from the same source (i.e. multiple Rolling Stone refs), link that work in the first instance that ref is used and not in subsequent refs

I've done as many as I could find. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Daily Telegraph" should read The Daily Telegraph and be italicized
• Rolling Stone should be italicized
• Chicago Tribune should be italicized
• The Guardian should be italicized

Should be all sorted now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

External links

• Are "MusicBrainz" and "NorwegianWood.org" high-quality sources?

Nope. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I hope my changes haven't interfered in some way, Ritchie333. With the Miles situation, I thought it was important to mention Taylor's involvement in writing "Happiness Is a Warm Gun", not just "Savoy Truffle", and in fact the wording there wasn't correct per Miles' text (i.e. Taylor didn't "claim" to have helped write Savoy Truffle; Miles quotes Harrison acknowledging that Taylor wrote some of the lyrics). But when trying to supply a source for "Happiness", I noticed that the Miles 2009 page numbers didn't correspond at all with Miles 2001. I can't work out how the '09 edition could have double the number of pages – completely different format, I guess.

With the cite needed tag, at the start of Background, I've found something (in Bob Woffinden's The Beatles Apart) that should take care of the first sentence. I'll look in Schaffner's The Beatles Forever and Doggett's book also – they don't normally miss an opportunity to establish the Beatles' influence at any given point. Alternatively, I'm sure online sources won't be difficult to find, to support the statements given in Background's first two sentences (eg AllMusic articles on the band and the Sgt. Pepper album; the band's bio on Rolling Stone's site). The statements about the Beatles' influence post-Pepper are bang on, no question about that; it's just I couldn't see how a Time citation from September 1967 can be used to support an early 1968 perspective. JG66 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's puffery (and given I unearthed quite a few copyvios in the article while working on it, it might be that too). The easiest thing to do is replace opinion with hard facts, so there's now a brief description of Sgt Pepper's chart success and sales figures. That should sort things out. I will look at the discrepancy in sources when I come to addressing those points in the review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, regarding Miles The Beatles Diary Volume 1: The Beatles Years, the problem is that the 2009 edition came off a Google Books search. Sometimes, it gets page numbers totally and utterly wrong compared to the paper version (which should be considered authoritative). I have removed citations to this edition (but left the 2001 edition as-is), and resourced the facts to other sources. In two cases, I replaced the claims with something else - if there was a significant hoo-ha about a small nude photo of McCartney on the poster, another source would say it. As it is, I think the time taken to assemble said poster is probably more of interest, and more neutral. In general terms, Miles is a knowledgeable author, but being friends with McCartney he does have a tendency to lob his POV in that direction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, bit puffy perhaps – but then if there's one late 20th century musical act that warrants such a statement of fact, one might argue, it would be the Beatles post-Pepper. Your call. If you did want to reinstate text carrying something close to that original message, I'm sure it's possible, and it would accurately set up the position the band (and their audience) were in before the album's creation.

I totally agree about Miles. Fine when he's playing the diarist and nothing more, but his editorial asides are noticeable in comparison to Keith Badman's handling of Beatles Diary Vol. 2 ... Good job, by the way. JG66 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh if you want an extreme POV pushing source, MacDonald's your man. Great with the facts, but let's see some stuff I would not cite : "Across The Universe ... his most shapeless song" ... "Helter Skelter ... few have seen fit to describe this track as anything other than a literally drunken mess" ... "All Together Now ... trite enough to have been chanted for several seasons on English football terraces" ... "Mean Mr Mustard ... comes as a shock, in the bland sunshine of Abbey Road ... complete with fairground waltz and cartoon grotesquerie". Anyway, you get the idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)