Talk:You (George Harrison song)

Fair use rationale for Image:568886you.jpg

Image:568886you.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 19:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I will be doing this one. Give me a few minutes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The prose is what prevents me from passing this right of the bat. While I am not going to rubber stamp it, I don't think too much is wrong either.

Confusing block of text, "The sessions for Troy's eponymous album on Apple ran intermittently from September 1969 through to the spring of 1970[7] and, in the words of Harrison musical biographer Simon Leng, they provided the then Beatle with a "songwriting master class" in the soul music genre.[8] Another of Harrison's favourite female vocalists was Ronnie Spector, formerly known as Veronica Bennett,[9] lead sing.." - This is difficult to read and interspersed with otherwise useless quotes. Quotes should be used for effect, not to describe minor two or three word tidbits. It ruins the flow and was best put to prose for effect.

I think I've dealt with this issue now, by removing much of the detail on Doris Troy's album. I had thought Leng's point was important, about that project being a "songwriting master class [in soul music]", but I take your point that the quotes needed to be used more sparingly. JG66 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Another section is probably the best example I can give, for this quote use, "Musically, Leng describes "You" as "[t]he most obvious of Harrison's Motown tributes", other examples of which include "What Is Life" and "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long",[18] while another Harrison biographer, Elliot Huntley, calls it "a sort of 'Be My Baby' mark two", after the Ronettes' 1963 hit song.[16] Inglis suggests that Harrison's former bandmate Paul McCartney "partly emulate[d]" the melody of "You" for his 1976 hit single with Wings, "Silly Love Songs".[2]"

I've paraphrased Leng's "Motown tribute" quote in the main text, with other examples taken to end notes. Huntley's comparison has gone, which lessens that effect you mention, of overdoing the direct quotes. Worth mentioning here that both Leng and Inglis have written books dedicated to Harrison's music (theirs are certainly not rock-star bios, in other words), and so their observations are useful in identifying the context of a song within Harrison's work. (I guess I'm saying that with regard to the point you make directly below, hoping that you agree these comments from Leng and Inglis can stay under Background and Composition, rather than moving to Reception.) JG66 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the only place that it could be used with some effect would be the Reception section, but it continues to be incredibly jammed packed with references of little value as quotations. Pick a handful and drop the rest. This sentence offers nothing of encyclopedic value besides unspecific criticism, much less that can't be replaced by paraphrasing: (Roy Carr and Tony Tyler opined: "this limp carousel succeeds only in conveying an accurate impression of its mother-egg: Dejectionsville"; the result, they concluded, was "Doleful, lacklustre, would-be singalongs which quite fail to arouse.")

I've retained only the second half of Carr & Tyler's quote. I can't say I'm over-keen in keeping the words in the article – as well-known as their book is among Beatles biographies, the two authors have a view that might best be described as jaundiced. I just feel that a) they're notable among Beatles biographers, and b) it does provide the article's Reception section with some balance. JG66 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

One other point is the earlier line, "... Robert Rodriguez, "the irritable, gravel-voiced mystic on tour the previous year had been but an illusion". This doesn't make sense in context and doesn't seem to be praise or negativity... it just is "there" without clarity as to its purpose.

I'm really grateful to you for pointing out the article-wide issue re overuse of direct quotes, CG, but I really think this one's worth keeping in. I've added mention of Harrison's "spiritual pronouncements" offending critics during the tour (under 1975 overdubs) and made mention in this Reception section of both the year 1974 and Harrison having recovered his voice. Now that the words are presented in a clearer context, I'm hoping the quote is more effective? JG66 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Now moving from the quotes, another type of problem pops up. The line: "The song has yet to be remastered since the CD releases of that compilation and Extra Texture in the early 1990s." - is really awkward because we have nothing about additional releases or other remastering work, the prose here is ambiguous and confusing.

Sorted out this one, I think, with mention of various reissue campaigns from 2001 onwards. JG66 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Cover versions has this same problem with its opening: "Among other versions of the song recorded after Harrison's death in November 2001..." - It just bad wording. And what about covers prior to his death? Seems like it is missing.

Ditto, hopefully. I was trying to make the point that those cover artists have responded to Harrison's death, recording the song as a tribute. (As far as I know, no one recorded a cover before then, but it's not a claim I can support in the article.) JG66 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The prose needs a big overhaul for me to pass it, but I will put it on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi ChrisGualtieri. Thanks for taking the time to do the review, and for your comments. I'll get down to addressing your concerns over the next day or so. Best, JG66 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I can put it on hold if you want, but the GA bot is not updating anyways... meaning no one will see the status change anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry, I've just been too busy to get down to this, or spend any time on wikipedia in fact. I've got a work deadline that's currently taking every waking hour but I'll finally be free to revisit the article on Wednesday, and I am keen to see this one promoted. Is that okay with you, ChrisGualtieri – to keep it on hold a while longer? Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. You waited long enough for the GA anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience – yes, it's only been up for GAN since February or March(!) ... I've gone through the article a few times over the last day or more. I'd welcome any feedback you've got; hopefully it's heading in the right direction now. Any more specific issues, please let me know. JG66 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better now. Are you happy with it in the Reception section, still seems a bit quote happy to me, but I no longer find it potentially confusion or jarring to average readers so I could pass it on the bare minimum, but I want you to be happy with the added work. If you have FA hopes I might ask for a quick assistance from an editor whose has an FA just to get their opinion - I am a bit out of my element here, I do not have an FA yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the Reception section's okay actually. Because the subject there is how critics reacted, and how they continue to view the song, I'd say readers expect to see excerpts from reviews reproduced. I'm grateful for your consideration re possible FA hopes, though. On that score, I haven't taken anything to FAC either. I'm always conscious of not wanting to lose time in the FAC process, when I could be taking articles that are currently only Start or C level (as many of the George Harrison song and album articles are) up to a B or GA. You could say I'm thinking big-picture! JG66 (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• GA passed. Congrats. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ChrisGualtieri! I'm very grateful for your help in getting this article to GA. Best, JG66 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on You (George Harrison song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140413074500/http://www.infodisc.fr:80/Bilan_H.php to http://infodisc.fr/Bilan_H.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)