Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 19:36, 9 February 2013 [1].

George Harrison

edit
Nominators: GabeMc (talk|contribs) and Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've been working at preparing this article for several months now, and are now both confident that it meets, or is very close to meeting, all of the FA criteria. The article has held unchalleneged GA status for almost three years now, and we hope that the FAC process can help resolve any outstanding issues and result in a successful promotion to FA. Thanks in advance for your time and attention! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Review from Tim Riley

edit

Comment from Tim Riley – I'll be pleased to add comments, but it's a big article and I may take a few days to do it justice. Meanwhile as an alumnus of that temple of learning I just add the preliminary observation that no-one has ever referred to the "Liverpool Institute for Boys": if being formal it was the Liverpool Institute High School for Boys and, if not, just the Liverpool Institute. Oh, and Harrison's (and my) English master, A J Smith, would have had a fit at "Paul McCartney, who was eight months older than him" (my italics). More soonest. I'm looking forward to this. Tim riley (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks Tim Riley! We look forward to your comments (I've fixed the two issues you mentioned above). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First comments. More to come.

  • Lead
    • "widely regarded as the first significant benefit concert" – there had been benefit concerts for centuries! As it stands, the statement is plain wrong. You'll need to tighten your definition a lot – e.g. "widely regarded as the first significant benefit concert on lines later followed by Live Aid etc"
    • "He was a close friend of Eric Clapton" – it isn't clear why this particular friendship merits mention in the lead.
Sorry, GabeMc (and greetings, Tim Riley) – "penned" was my doing, whereas your wording was just fine. JG66 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Tim! I look forward to the rest. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch:

  • The Concert for Bangladesh: 1971
    • "Clapton, who made his first public appearance in months (owing to a heroin…" – I see what you're getting at, but it wasn't his appearance that was due to the drug problem, surely: it was his absence.
  • Living in the Material World to George Harrison: 1972–1979
    • "written after Harrison's break-up with his wife Pattie and while he was suffering from laryngitis" – it isn't immediately clear what his laryngitis had to do with the quality of the writing. The next sentence makes it a bit clearer – it mucked up his singing – but I think you might like to revisit this section.
    • "but both failed to chart in the UK" – is the verb "to chart" usual in this context? Fair enough if so, and the fact that I haven't seen it before is hardly relevant.
    • "His final studio album" – the last person mentioned before the "His" is Tom Scott. Better to use "Harrison's" here, I think.
    • "Following the former Beatle's departure from Capitol, the record company was in a position" – I was confused by this. Which record company? Capitol or Apple? Better clarify.
    • "reaching number 11 on the US charts" – isn't it usually "in" the charts? But what do I know?
  • Live performances: 1971–1992
  • The Traveling Wilburys: 1988–1990

More to come. By the bye, having read thus far I have little doubt that I shall be adding my support for its promotion in due course. It's good. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim Riley! I look forward to the rest of your comments, and of course to your support. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the encouragement, Tim Riley! I also look forward to the rest of your insightful comments, and after we've earned it, your support. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last lot. Hardly anything:

Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. I'll be glad to add my support when these minor matters are dealt with. Tim riley (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is clear, balanced, sensibly laid out, formidably referenced, easy to read, and evidently as comprehensive as one could ask. Excellent! Tim riley (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JG66

edit

please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive1 for JG66's review

  • Oppose. Having just read through the John Lennon and Paul McCartney FAs and seen the level of discussion permitted in those articles, I'm now more sure than ever that this article is not worth of Featured Article status. It's not size for size's sake: the apparent willingness in those other articles to embrace the artist's achievements and provide details on points that contribute(d) to the subject's artistry is in a contrast that's quite astounding to the approach you've adopted here. In this article, details that should be central to a discussion are shunted off into note form, as if they're some sort of an aside. While I acknowledge at the same time that User:John (below)'s culling skills would be very welcome in the Lennon and McCartney articles, there is so much general information on George Harrison missing from this article – as John put it: "I find myself wishing there was more of Harrison the man in there." Where the Lennon article provides great detail on his troubled upbringing, here so little appears discussing Harrison's stable family life, particularly the support he received from his mother. That and the abundance of siblings had a great bearing on Harrison's role within the Beatles (Lennon and Starr having been only children; Lennon and McCartney losing a parent during their teenage years), and also his ability to facilitate and bring his skills to the greater good of others' projects. His innate humility and ability to be a genuine friend are at the root of all his notable projects, just as the demons from Lennon's past were pervasive in his activities.

This issue leads to what I've already described as glaring omissions in the Harrison article – specifics such as collaborations with Shankar, his commitment to developing the careers of Lomax, Preston, Badfinger and Splinter, session work for numerous others. Whereas you've stated that a new article like "George Harrison's musical career" should handle all those apparently nonessential points, and you've siphoned off mentions of his extracurricular musical work to the end notes, McCartney's musicianship receives significant attention in his biographical article (rather than the one on his musical career), just as Lennon's various creative outlets are discussed in detail in John Lennon. As author Simon Leng finally brought to light, Harrison's solo career is only half the story. To not see Harrison's work with Apple artists, his session work, collaborations with Shankar, Dark Horse Records, and especially Splinter merit a separate section is astonishing. And whereas McCartney's first tours with Wings in 1972 get a generous paragraph, Harrison's 1974 North American tour – much-discussed, controversial (to put it mildly), first tour there by a Beatle since 1966, since recognised by some as groundbreaking in its fusion of musical genres (precursor to world music) – this gets dismissed in a couple of phrases covering the concurrent album. Even Lennon's (two-song) 1968 Rock and Roll Circus performance is afforded more detail. And your willingness to go with a flawed generalisation regarding the 1974 tour (when a well-reasoned alternative has been put forward by Leng, the only author I know of who's actually bothered to research the subject rather than parroting the Rolling Stone verdict) – that just smacks of a laziness that's completely at odds with the apparent eagerness in the Lennon and McCartney articles to tell the full story. Another example would be the listing of McCartney's 1990 band members, when Harrison and Shankar's musicians constitute a far more impressive line-up. In this FAC, you've also repeatedly identified any missing details as being "excess", that related articles should be left to include those points, yet that's a completely different approach from the one adopted for Lennon and McCartney. (We get to read that "Live and Let Die" earned Martin a Grammy, for instance, but you don't feel the need to add here that The Concert for Bangladesh earned Harrison and his fellow performers a Grammy for best album. Likewise, Lennon's standing as a peace activist is rightly discussed in the Lennon article, yet we have no mention here of Harrison's standing as a result of the 1971–72 Bangladesh aid project.)

The role of Pattie Boyd, her inability to conceive children – Harrison's first marriage hardly gets a mention. Yet Yoko Ono's miscarriages are detailed, and in the McCartney article, the Personal Relationships section is almost as long as the two sections in Harrison covering the Beatles and his solo career up to 1987 put together. In fact, rather than the inadequate, cover-all "Family, friends and interests" section, Harrison is the one who really deserves that sort of coverage. He was the one who cultivated friendships, through decades – that's what governed all his work. Similarly, he wasn't just an ex-Beatle after 1970, he was a non-Beatle (actually from about 1966), and the article comes nowhere near to outlining this crucial point (which fed into and out of his own music, his collaborations, his spirituality, his championing of Indian music) the way a reader of that Lennon article is left in no doubt as to what made Lennon tick.

I've tried to draw your attention to the issue of scope repeatedly. The reason I've had to write comments of such extraordinary length is that the basic foundations for a thorough overview of Harrison's life have never been there, unlike in the Lennon article, which, though definitely overlong, appears be founded on an impressive understanding of the man. That just shines through from reading the Lennon article. Ideally, User:John's pruning of the text should've made way for the inclusion of much of this Harrison-the-man/the non-Beatle discussion, relevant to a number of sections, but it's obvious that that's not going to happen. To repeat, the difference in scope and general engagement with the subject between this article and the ones on Lennon and McCartney is just extraordinary. (And before anyone wheels out more of those WP guidelines to paste into a reply, let's be honest: we all compare similar articles when considering how to treat various points in music articles. When it suits us.) My very first comments in the review that was deftly removed (now at least restored with a link) were to say how surprised I was that this article was up as an FAC already. I've been impressed with your editing, Evanh, as well as the way you've been prepared to investigate a new issue that's been raised. But I'm afraid I can't see the article approaching the standard of "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" – this piece is lightweight, and the poor coverage reflects what I think is a shallow understanding of the subject. I oppose its promotion on the grounds that the basic foundations simply aren't there, and the necessary information is easy to find, but not within the timeframe of this FAC, I'd imagine. JG66 (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from John

edit

Oppose on prose quality based on preliminary sample. More detailed review to follow. --John (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead para:
    • "he enjoyed a successful solo career" is a bit weasely
    • "...and "Something", which would become the second most-covered Beatles song." Why "would"? Wouldn't we just say "which became"?
      • I agree, and actually did quite a bit of work removing unnecessary subjunctive and near-subjunctive wording throughout the article. Whether those you noticed slipped through the cracks or were somehow reinstated, I'm not sure. In any case, they're gone now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Harrison organized the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh, widely regarded as an innovative precursor to modern benefit concerts such as Live Aid." An "innovative precursor"? Wouldn't one of these on its own be enough? Fanspeak. Also, Live Aid was 1985; would that really count as "modern" compared to 1971, when we are in 2013? --John (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree in re the use of "modern", and have now altered it to "later" to make the point clear. Regarding "innovative precursor", I personally don't feel that it's redundant. It was a precursor to other events, but it was also innovative in that it differed in important ways from previous events. Two separate points. If others feel the same way, though, we can certainly trim "innovative". Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early solo work: 1968–1970
    • "It was during this tour that Harrison began to write "My Sweet Lord", the song that would later serve as his first single as a solo artist." -> "During this tour Harrison began to write "My Sweet Lord", which later became his first single as a solo artist." 27 words -> 20 words without any loss of meaning!
    • "It was only after Harrison had separated from the Beatles that he released what is usually regarded as his first solo album, the commercially successful and critically acclaimed All Things Must Pass." I suggest removing this completely or greatly reducing it. At all costs get rid of "commercially successful and critically acclaimed"; that is verbiage which should have no place on a FA.
  • All Things Must Pass: 1970
    • "After years of being restricted in his songwriting contributions to the Beatles, All Things Must Pass contained such a large outpouring of Harrison's songs that it was released as a triple album, with two of the discs composed of his songs and the third containing recordings of Harrison jamming with friends." -> "After years of being restricted in his songwriting contributions to the Beatles, Harrison released what is usually regarded as his first solo album All Things Must Pass. It was a triple album, with two of the discs composed of his songs and the third containing recordings of Harrison jamming with friends." Eliminates ambiguity, reduces wordiness and captures the essential part of the sentence removed from the section prior.
    • "Later sued for copyright infringement over the song "My Sweet Lord" due to its similarity to the 1963 Chiffons song "He's So Fine", Harrison denied deliberately plagiarizing the song; he lost the resulting court case in 1976, as the judge decided that Harrison had subconsciously plagiarized the earlier composition." -> "Harrison was later sued for copyright infringement over the song "My Sweet Lord" due to its similarity to the 1963 Chiffons song "He's So Fine". He denied deliberately plagiarizing the song, but lost the resulting court case in 1976, as the judge ruled that he had subconsciously plagiarized the earlier composition."
  • Living in the Material World to George Harrison: 1972–1979
  • Later life: 1988–2001
    • "Although he is filmed playing the drums, Starr did not actually play on the track; Harrison played acoustic guitar." -> "Starr is filmed playing the drums, but did not play on the track; Harrison played acoustic guitar."
    • "Also in October of that year,..." -> "The same month, ..."
    • "John Fugelsang, then of VH1, conducted the interview, and at one point a guitar was handed to Harrison. When an audience member asked to hear "a Beatles song", Harrison gave a sheepish look and answered, "I don't think I know any!"" This is not in the reference and I would suggest is too chatty. If included it would need to be sourced and rewritten. "Sheepish look" and the exclamation mark are signs of non-encyclopedic writing. I suggest removing this sentence completely.
    • "That same year he attended the public memorial service for Linda McCartney,..." It was in June 1998, so give the date rather than "That same year", which is clunky.
  • Guitar work
    • "Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner described Harrison as, "a guitarist ..." Lose comma
    • "Harrison listed his early influences as Carl Perkins and Chuck Berry. Harrison also identified Ry Cooder as an important later influence." -> "Harrison listed his early influences as Carl Perkins and Chuck Berry and also identified Ry Cooder as an important later influence."
    • "Harrison's use of a Rickenbacker 360/12 during the recording of A Hard Day's Night helped to popularize it" The "it" is ambiguous; use "the guitar" or "the 360/12" here.
    • "Harrison's guitar work on Abbey Road, and in particular on his song "Something", marked a significant moment in Harrison's musical development." Too many "Harrison's"; use "his" the second time
    • "...the dobro, an instrument that would soon become one of his favourites." -> "...that soon became..."
  • Sitar and Indian music
    • "Shankar influenced Harrison and the other Beatles not only musically, but spiritually." -> "Shankar influenced Harrison and the other Beatles spiritually as well as musically."
    • "Initially staying in Bombay, Harrison moved (to avoid crowding fans) to a houseboat on a remote lake in the shadow of the Himalayas where he was taught by Shankar for six weeks and read spiritual texts." -> "Harrison initially stayed in Bombay, then moved to avoid crowding fans to a houseboat on a remote lake in the shadow of the Himalayas. Shankar taught him there for six weeks." Much shorter and clearer, and we can take the spiritual texts as read.
    • "Indian classical music reached a larger audience than it ever had before." -> "Indian classical music reached a larger audience than ever before."
  • Rest of article
  • Suggestions for further sharpening of the article's focus:
    • I think there are maybe too many quotations in the article. It might be worth choosing the ones that are really crucial and paraphrasing the others.
    • I think there is considerable overlap between some of the sections and as a result the same material is included twice.
    • After an extremely detailed reading and review of the article I find myself wishing there was more of Harrison the man in there, rather than a listing of his musical accomplishments. Unfortunately I don't have a positive suggestion to make to address this. --John (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, he was a very private man in general and I think this leads to him being a bit of an enigma, something even Clapton has commented on, that he never really knew where he stood with Harrison in terms of respect and friendship. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last comment from me for now; I am not sure about the image sizes. The MoS discourages hardcoding image sizes unless there is a good reason not to let registered editors set their own preferences for image sizes. Is here a particular reason this article diverges from this guidance? --John (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You lost me on this one, but I'm sure Evan will know how to resolve this issue. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No good reason at all! Fixed. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We seem to have gone back to the sized images. Again, I would need to see a reason for this. They look tiny on my monitor at this setting. --John (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't get a reply so I put them back to the recommended settings. I wouldn't necessarily oppose over this, but I would need to seee the rationale for departing from MoS. --John (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per WP:MOSIM: "The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed." Per WP:IMAGESYNTAX "Forced image size": "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." Also, WP:IMAGESIZE says: "Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default", and the MoS in general would seem to be advising against larger images, not smaller ones (any user can click on the image to see a full size version). Having said that, its nothing I will spend time debating, but I will say that the way some of the pics display now, crowd the text on my 20 inch monitor, a size which I think is pretty standard globally. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got carried away and boldly removed and integrated most of the info from the live performances section into the chronological sections. I could see why it was organised that way but I thought it was a problem that it was trying to be too comprehensive and we need more of a summary style on the article. It also allowed me to take out the repeated mention of his laryngitis. I think there may be one or two other possible nips and tucks we could do to streamline the article even further, if you thought that was ok. As with all my edits, I am of course open to others not thinking they are improvements and undoing or refining them. See what you think. --John (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks great to me. Thanks much for your effort John! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It really is a pleasure. I keep thinking it is almost there. I wonder if there are any other sections that could be integrated? I think it is going to be largely chronological when it is finished, which is maybe no bad thing. I might ask Sandy what she thinks as I respect her opinion. Incidentally, did you see my suggestion way up there about the lead? --John (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can no longer oppose based on the improvements that have been made during the review. At this point I welcome comments from Sandy or from further reviewers. I have enjoyed working with Evan and Gabe on the improvements and I thank them for their collaborative approach, but I will find it hard to be a neutral reviewer now! Let's see what others think. --John (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Tomcat7

edit

Good work overall (in much better shape than last time I read it). The major issue is the layout, which for me is a bit too chaotic. I think the death section should be moved up to the biography section, "Interest in Indian culture" merged with "Personal life" and the "Citations" paragraph could be separated into three or four columns.--Tomcat (7) 16:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive reinforcement Tomcat! I agree with you on the layout issues, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I've now moved the death section to the end of the bio and merged "Interest in Indian culture" with "Personal life". I'm not sure what you mean about the "Citations" paragraph, could you please clarify? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the number of columns in the "Citations" section to four, and I think it does make everything easier to navigate. Thanks for the suggestions! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "two-up, two-down terraced house "? Two attics and two basements?
  • Perhaps link cul-de-sac
  • I think Knife attack could be merged with the next section, and renamed "Knife attack and aftermath: year", since it is somewhat connected to his disease, and you suddenly time travel back to 1997.

Review by SandyGeorgia

edit
  • Oppose per the length of this page and John's prose reviewreview. We have as of January 22 32,000 words of review on a 11,000-word article. I suggest the article should be withdrawn, subjected to an independent copyedit, and per WP:SIZE and WP:SS, cut to about 8,000 words by focusing on sections which can be better summarized ("The Beatles" and most of the sections in "Solo career") and trimming verbosity. Here's one sample only:
  • Despite extensive treatments and operations, Harrison died on 29 November 2001, aged 58,[229] at a mansion in Hollywood Hills that had once been leased by McCartney.
    • Of course he had extensive treatment, who doesn't. Who cares that the mansion was once leased by McCartney? Unencyclopedic trivia.
  • Harrison died on 29 November 2001, aged 58, in Hollywood Hills.

I suggest an independent copyeditor with brutal use of a red-pen be called in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as your oppose based on "the length of this page and John's prose review", well, John only started his review less than 48 hours ago and unless I've missed something, each of his points have already been addressed. As far as "the length of this page" as a rationale for opposing, that is not necessarily indicative of the quality of the article per se, as the vast majority of words on this page are JG66 requesting that we add more detail (review now moved to talk) to an article that you have deemed too long. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article size update. - Thanks for the suggestion. After a top to bottom copyedit by Evan, John and myself, the article currently contains around 43 kB and less than 7,300 words of readable prose, well within our guideline's parameters according to WP:SIZE, though we will gladly continue to trim wherever needed. Any specific suggestions would be greatly appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit by SandyGeorgia
I am most pleased to find a trimmed article of appropriate size, but I am still seeing the same kinds of prose issues I mentioned above. Random samples only:

  • In mid-1997, doctors discovered that Harrison had developed throat cancer after they analysed tissue from a lump on his neck.
  • Unnecessary wordiness ... Harrison was diagnosed with throat cancer in mid-1997.
  • In May 2001, it was revealed that he had undergone an operation at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, to remove a cancerous growth from one of his lungs.
  • Same ... A cancerous growth was removed from one of his lungs (in May 2001??).
  • While I strongly agree with Sandy's sentiment, I partly undid this; it needs to be this vague to follow the source. It's likely the op was in April 2001 but with this source I think it would be OR to say that. --John (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article said that the operation took place earlier in the week. I had a look at my desktop calendar before changing it and found that the Sunday and Monday of that week were in April. May 1 was a Tuesday. Your wording eliminates ambiguity and avoids making the 5:2 guess that it was in May. Thanks for double-checking my work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They laughed and joked throughout the 90-minute meal and when Starr said he had to go, Harrison's family and other friends retired so as to give them privacy.
  • Unencylopedic trivia.

More review for same needed, throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the issues above, and will give the article another look later today for similar problems. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

edit

Just on a very quick (i.e. non-exhaustive) pass, File:Harrison Birth Cert.jpg is listed for deletion. Also at the moment I have some doubts about the authorship of File:George Harrison Vrindavan.jpg as claimed. Needs some further investigation, I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed File:Harrison Birth Cert.jpg per the deletion discussion. Should it latter be determined that the image is indeed PD, then it can be added back. I'm not sure why the authorship of File:George Harrison Vrindavan.jpg is dubious. How could we prove authorship? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to doubt the authorship and permissions for that second file. Every single usage of it I can find online lists Wikipedia or Commons as the source, and I've never come across it in any biography or photo book of George or the Beatles. The user's page on commons has many other photos of religious sites, services, and figures in India. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the uploader's Commons history, with very few image source problems over a long period of contributions, i agree with Evanh2008, this seems unproblematic. But the other two fair-use images need some checking, both have weak rationales:
  • File:Sutcliffe_and_Harrison.jpg - Sutcliffe is not even mentioned in the article. If he was crucial for Harrison's carrier or there are other missing noteworthy facts about the two influencing each other, fair-use may be appropriate. Currently it fails NFCC#8 "contextual significance".
  • File:Harrison_&_Shankar.jpg - Free (albeit bad quality) images of Shankar exist, aswell as a free video (failing NFCC#1).
Both fair-use images are good illustrations, but add little additional encyclopedic information. The depicted information can be easily summarized in-text, making fair-use difficult to argue. The easiest way to move forward would be to exchange the first one with a different, free Commons image from this period (some more from 1964 are available) and replace the second one with a free image of Shankar, if needed.
Indeed, I had considered replacing that Sutcliffe picture with one of the public domain ones prior to the nomination. In hindsight, I probably should have. I'll give it a look now; thanks. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one (not PD, but under a CC license)? I can crop it if necessary. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All license conditions look fine, so should be OK. Regarding cropping, it depends if the scene fits into an encyclopedic article (no idea what's going on with those girls - please add an English description to the image summary). If the event is worth a very brief mention, you could just keep the image as is, but up to you either way. GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now swapped out the image. I much prefer the old one myself, but working out a definite fair use rationale will likely have to wait for later. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Please check the second fair-use image aswell (see above), when you got some time. Fair-use is always a somewhat difficult topic, thank you for adressing those issues. GermanJoe (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a look and am now ready to swap out the Shankar image as soon as I have some input here. My first choice for replacement image is File:Ravi Shankar 2009 crop.jpg. My only hesitation at the moment is that it is also the infobox image at Ravi Shankar. I don't know if there is an issue there with using the same image on closely related articles; I know there's no legal issue, but I'm not sure what is most... encyclopedic? We could also use Commons:File:George Harrison, Gerald Ford, Ravi Shankar.jpg, which features both Harrison and Shankar, along with President Gerald Ford (for some reason). I don't really want to use that one, though, as Shankar is barely visible, hiding out in the lower right corner. Its only saving grace is that it includes Harrison and Shankar, much like the current image. Commons:File:Dia5275 Ravi Shankar.jpg, featuring Shankar alone, is also an option, but it is much lower quality. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the contested image with the 2009 pic of Shankar alone, pending further comment. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indopug (mostly) about the lead

edit

While the rest of the article looks good, I think the lead can be significantly improved. The key problem for me is that it's unordered and a bit all-over-the-place. It starts with his international fame as Beatles guitarist, and then jumps to his Indian influences (without any more context about Harrison the Beatle). Then we have brief mentions of his solo career, the Wilburys and a Rolling Stone list. In the second para, we hit these same points again (Beatles, solo, Wilburys), this time naming a few successful records and shows.

I think a better approach be: after starting with a small "lead-within-a-lead" para, talk about his life mostly chronologically (somewhat like John Lennon). This summarises Harrison's life better (you can start with the Quarrymen, for eg) and makes for a much more readable story. You can then also have stuff about the Fabs' unprecedented popularity and acclaim (remember, we write assuming that the reader knows nothing of the subject) and how his guitar-playing was influential (the RS list isn't really enough). The Indian influence can also come with context, "Though Harrison's songwriting was initially overshadowed by Lennon and Macca, he came into his own by incorporating Indian influences...", as can the successful singles. Third para would be about the rest: solo work, Bangladesh, the Wilbury and Handmade.

Thanks for your insightful comments. I've now made some edits to the lead that will hopefully address your above concerns, with which I generally agree. If there are details missing it is perhaps due to the last several weeks, during which the noms have been strongly encouraged to trim any excess detail for brevity. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other things:

  • Please see JG66's extended "review" at talk. Feel free to trim out as many as you like. I am really not interested in an infobox dispute. To me, they are almost all excessive, but consensus at FAC trumps my opinion, or at least it sure seems to. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1943–1957 → 1943–57 per WP:YEAR.
  • Audio samples: neither of them seem to have been discussed in the prose. So, what purpose do they serve? How do they satisfy WP:NFCC #8? Wouldn't "Something" (in Guitar work) and "Within You" (Songwriting) make for much more relevant samples?—indopug (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I've now introduced some detail on the audio samples. "Something" is too short to get anything usable guitar wise (18 seconds max) and I'll consider uploading a sample from "Within You". Otherwise, "OBS" and "HDYS?" contain two of Harrison's finest guitar solos. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per your suggestion, I've uploaded an audio sample of "WYWY" and added it to the "Songwriting" sub-section. Thanks again for your comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/George_Harrison/archive1&oldid=1086353743"