Talk:Wah-Wah (song)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wah-Wah (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 18:09, 11 November 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

Hi Tomcat7. Thanks as always for your comments. My replies below each of your points. Regards, JG66 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Most of the content in the huge Background section offers no information to the actual song--Tomcat (7) 12:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right on two fronts – the section is huge, and it contains mostly background rather than direct information on the song. My take, though, is that the context within which "Wah-Wah" was written is a huge moment in The Beatles' story (in that one of them actually walked out on the band), certainly very significant in Harrison's career. And it's an episode that had a lot of history/build-up beforehand, and has received plenty of comment and interpretation from critics, biographers, observers, etc ever since. (Yes, Starr quit six months before this; but (a) that doesn't lessen the impact or notability of Harrison's departure, and (b), if Starr wrote a song specifically addressing his walkout, I'd expect the relevant song article to go into that in some detail.) So yes, after research, there does seem to be an awful lot to say ... You're the reviewer, Tomcat, and a (welcome) fresh pair of eyes – have you got any specific suggestions for what should stay or go? JG66 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would expect information about this one song in this section, not, for example, about the album and the several tours and projects. Nevermind, do we really need this section anyway? Many, if not most of the song articles do not have this section and simply begin with the Recording section.--Tomcat (7) 18:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through this section and done what I can to cut it down; it's now about two-thirds the size of what it was previously. I took your point about not needing so much info here, but still, there are so many points of notability to include about this song. Looking in Harrison biographies, Beatle books and magazine articles that I have here, the '68 US trip/'69 Get Back walkout is seen as a very significant moment – "Wah-Wah" is about the end of The Beatles, I guess (long before Lennon ever wrote about it in "God"). I think this Background section works much better now (I'm pleased actually that your comments made me have a rethink on this text), as the section seems more focused than before. See what you think. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Tomcat7. Just cut back a bit more from this section, which imo has made a big improvement. The only other thing I can think of with this issue, is to take the paragraph beginning "Harrison's diary records that Lennon and Ono "diverted" him" down to the end of the discussion on the song's lyrics and music (just after Mellers' and Huntley's comments on musical structure); then perhaps combine the two sections of the article under the title "Background and composition". (Personally, I don't think that's a good idea, actually – I just tried it, and it doesn't really work.) Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts, with the pared-down section as it is currently. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I think it is fine now. --Tomcat (7) 14:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Pop culture author Robert Rodriguez opines" - does not seem to suggest that he is a professional critic.--Tomcat (7) 12:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly a bad choice of words ("pop culture author') – I think it's how his publisher describes him. Rodriguez's book on the four Beatles' first decade as solo artists is definitely a cut above most, imo. It reminds me of Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, in that his affection for his subject(s) is clear but there's no hint of a personal agenda or attempt at revisionism; most importantly, like Schaffner, he takes readers right into the moment and doesn't play favourites among the four. I'd agree with you that Rodriguez's apparent lack of professional-critical credentials might be a problem in a Release & Reception section, but his comments here concern the live version – recorded at a concert that is certainly the purview of popular culture writers and social commentators, given its status as the first rock multi-artist benefit concert, the influence behind Live Aid and Concert for New York etc. Anyway, that's a long way of saying I'll change Rodriguez's description to "Beatles author" or something similar if you wish, but that, given the notability and influence of The Concert for Bangladesh far outside of Beatles circles, I still think that a viewpoint from a "pop culture author" wouldn't be inappropriate. Your call – just thought I'd state my case. ("music writer" maybe?) JG66 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, music writer is good.--Tomcat (7) 18:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, changed to 'music writer'. JG66 (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• "trade solos" - can you reword it to plain English?--Tomcat (7) 12:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Have reworded – thank you. JG66 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

MetroLyrics link

The MetroLyrics link for "Wah-Wah" in External links shows

SONGWRITERS

PAGE, JAMES PATRICK / PLANT, ROBERT.[1]

Misidentifying copyright holders by MetroLyrics is not uncommon and was brought to the attention of Wikipedia:Copyright problems.[2] No action was taken to address the problem or to remove bad links, but the bot operator was later banned. If there are no objections, I'll remove this link. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo, thanks for raising the issue here. My feeling is that it's okay – yes the lyrics are attributed to Plant & Page (and that's embarrassing), but if a reader comes to this link after reading the article, the first line or two of lyrics are going to tell them they have in fact got the correct "Wah-Wah". You raised an interesting point at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, I admit. If we know that, even despite the appearance of a LyricsFind symbol, something untoward is going on re MetroLyrics, I guess we should ditch them all. But is that the case? JG66 (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

MetroLyrics as a source is questionable. Maybe they usually get it right, but there are too many spectacular blunders:

• "Stairway to Heaven" (LZ song) – HOWARD GREENFIELD, NEIL SEDAKA[3]
• "Something" (Beatles FA) – MAX GREEN, CRAIG EDWARD MABBITT, BRIAN MONEY, ROBERT ORTIZ, JOHN FELDMANN[4]
• "Good Vibrations" (Beach Boys) – HARTMAN, DAN/WAHLBERG, DONALD EDMOND/WAHLBERG, MARK[5]
• "Johnny B. Goode" (Chuck Berry) – CHARLIE DANIELS, BRENDAN COKER[6]
• "L.A. Woman" (The Doors) – JAMES[7]
• "Money" (Pink Floyd) – GOAPELE K. MOHLABANE, JAMES RYAN WUIHUN HO[8]
• "Green Onions" (Booker T. instrumental) – with lyrics by KRIS KRISTOFFERSON[9]

WP articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources. WP:ELNEVER includes "If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it" (miscrediting copyright holders is probably a copyvio – try it on an album or book).

It still puzzles me why 20,000+ links to a single commercial site were added to WP by an automated process with minimal discussion.[10] This should have been handled by establishing a recommended list of lyrics providers (similar to WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:ALBUM/SOURCES) that have been checked for accuracy as well as licensing. Then article editors could choose to include a link if it seems correct. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. Based on that sample (two of which are among my favourite songs of all time), feel free to ditch the link. I imagined – I guess we all imagined – that such a process had taken place when the MetroLyrics links were added to song articles here … Thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)