Talk:Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this. At first glance it appears informative and well-written. I'm a bit busy, so I'll add my comments as I go along. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to give you more time to address my first review comments before I add more. Meanwhile, I will go ahead and fix citation/reference format problems that are easier than listing them here. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a book source for the comments McCartney made on the final verse of the song. Can I add the link to it here so you could structure it in a similar format as the rest? Apologies for not doing it myself, but I'm not too aware of how to sort it in your style (even though your approach is the correct one). After I see how you structure this link I think I will be able to do it myself for the remainder of the process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * JG66 added a citation for the quote and Piriczki noted the page numbers are 270-71 (although this hasn't been added to the article yet). After removing the self-published references, the article is light on inline citations. All quotations need a inline citation as well as sentences about specific persons, dates, locations, etc. Generally, for a GA, nearly all sentences should be cited. With the wealth of books about the Beatles, this shouldn't be difficult. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the review comments as article changes are made. This way I'll know if there are disagreements, etc. and why some points are not addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * as I said on your talk page, I made all the changes you suggested to the point of the final paragraph in the recording section. I am not too capable of simplifying the paragraph as I didn't write it, and, honestly, my own explanation would be just as complex. I added two additional sources to the recording section to strengthen my points, but if you need more, I'd be happy to find more.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Several concerns remained unaddressed. Please note that the WP:Good article criteria apply to the whole article, not just the portions you added. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been any work on the article in almost two weeks. Do you need more time? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been one month and the article is not progressing. Unfortunately, it still falls short of meeting the six good article criteria, particularly number two. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Citations
 * Since all the infobox material should be cited somewhere in the body of the article, the infobox (incl. genres) don't need citations, unless they have been disputed or frequently changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

✔️
 * Label
 * Only the original release label (Parlophone?) should be listed here ((Template:Infobox single, incorporated by Template:Infobox song). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * Citations
 * As above (see WP:LEADCITE). I don't see that any of the material is controversial or are quotations. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First sentence
 * I think this would be better if split, for example: "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" is a song by the English rock band the Beatles. Written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney, it was first released on the album Rubber Soul on 3 December 1965 in the United Kingdom."
 * As rewritten, the commas are unnecessary. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ... was a contributing factor to the Beatles' progression as complex songwriters.
 * Not sure what this means. Dylan's influence was a contributing factor?  Or the song is an indication/evidence/etc. of the Beatles' progression? Or both? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * the Help! filming sessions, and ... in mainstream Western society, and ...
 * I don't think commas are needed here. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think commas are needed here. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Composition
✔️
 * it is speculated that it was ...
 * Needs attribution. Not sure what the source wording is, but maybe something like "Lennon biographer Philip Norman speculates/suggests/etc." —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * was a parody on
 * McCartney uses this, but maybe "was a derisive/sarcastic/etc. comment on ..." —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * McCartney continues with the conclusion of the song, saying, ...
 * Awkward. Maybe "McCartney commented on the last verse, "In our world ..." —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * McCartney commented on the final verse of the song, saying ...
 * As rewritten, "saying" is redundant. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Lennon, the lyrics were primarily his creation, with the middle eight being credited to McCartney. In 1980, Lennon changed his claim, ... ''Regardless, it was Lennon who began ..."
 * Add citations at end of sentences. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ... the author John Stevens sees "Norwegian Wood" as a turning point in folk-style ballads, writing ...
 * Awkward. Maybe "author John Stevens describes "Norwegian Wood" as a turning point in folk-style ballads: "Lennon moves ..." Also, any direct quote needs a citation at the end of the sentence. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Before Lennon began writing "Norwegian Wood", between 5 April and 6 April 1965, while filming ...
 * Better split up, for example: "Between 5 April and 6 April 1965, Lennon began writing "Norwegian Wood" while filming the second Beatles movie, Help! at the Twickenham Film Studios. The song features George Harrison playing a sitar, which he became interested in after seeing a group of Indian session musicians recording an instrumental for the film.  Titled "Another Hard Day's Night", it is a medley of ..." —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

✔️
 * on their composition "Heart Full of Soul"
 * The Yardbirds didn't compose the song. Maybe use single/recording/etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

✔️
 * The Byrds
 * "The" in band names is not capitalized mid-sentence. Please change throughout. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

✔️
 * maestro
 * Accomplished sitar player or virtuoso? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

✔️
 * duly
 * Not sure this adds anything. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

✔️
 * Lennon on the other hand ...
 * Since the sentence begins with "While", "on the other hand" is not needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Lennon simply resonated with the sound of the sitar
 * The figurative "resonated" doesn't work well alongside a musical instrument, which actually resonates. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * while completely ...
 * Maybe something like "Harrison introduced drummer Ringo Starr to the tabla, an Indian hand drum. Starr was completely mystified and refused to learn how to play it; Harrison recalled it was "so far out to him". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Recording

 * Citations
 * This section has a lot of sentences that need referencing with inline citations. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As requested on my talk, I've done some work on this, trying to help out. I've hit some problems, though, which has led to rewording in places. Also (and I imagine this could be a result of previous sources having been removed as non RS, although I haven't compared the versions), I'm finding it difficult to marry up details given in our text with descriptions given in reliable sources such as Lewisohn, MacDonald and Unterberger. Maybe the Kruth 2015 book does cover these points – in which case, okay – but I can't access that online.


 * For instance: our mention that the abandoned 12 Oct version featured "two 12-string acoustic guitars, bass, and a faint sound of cymbals". I've not found that instrumentation given anywhere. I hoped Lewisohn's liner notes in Anthology 2 would be definitive – he lists Harrison's sitar, then acoustic guitar [singular], finger cymbals, maracas, and bass guitar. If Harrison added sitar, rather than playing it live with the band, then it would seem he was on percussion with Starr during the original taping. Unfortunately, I've only got limited access to John Winn's book Way Beyond Compare; if it's anything like Winn's second volume (That Magic Feeling, which I've found to be excellent), that could be the source to go to for this.


 * Another example: Unterberger pages 132–34 is currently the source for statements regarding Lennon's partly double-tracked vocal on the 12 Oct/Anthology 2 version; the initial, comedic quality of the song; and the "laboured" vocals. Perhaps I was rushing as I read (apologies if so), but I can't see that Unterberger actually states those things. With the part about double-tracked vocal over last line of verses, that's referring to the first attempts by the Beatles on 21 October, I believe, not the version on Anthology 2 as we have it(?). (As a suggestion, I'd say don't let's dwell on a discarded initial take on 21 Oct just because Unterberger happens to, but the two officially released versions are important, of course.)


 * Hope I'm not making things seem too bleak regarding the unsourced statements. I'll keep looking. JG66 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Good points. The article shouldn't be trying to explain things that are not found in available (and accessible) sources; instead they should be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

✔️
 * emphasising the drone quality further than ...
 * Awkward – "more than". Needs cite. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reworded this, and a ref's been added already. JG66 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

✔️
 * Smith recalls the difficulty in recording the sitar, saying:
 * Again, this is a redundant construction. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now rephrased. JG66 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

✔️
 * the band was unsatisfied with the song and would return to it ..
 * "Would" does not add anything. Maybe "and returned to it". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Btw (and there's been much discussion on this at the Beatles and other band articles), I understand that in BritEnglish, we treat "the band/the group" as a plural entity – so "the band were …" Similar to "family" in other words, whereby it's treated as singular if we're talking only about the concept or identity, but plural when we're referring to a particular collection of people. JG66 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It saw the group experimenting ...
 * "It saw" does not add anything. Maybe "The group experimented with ..." Needs cite. —Ojorojo (talk)


 * so the band scrapped it, and reevaluated ... the Beatles skipped the rhythm section, and decided ...
 * The commas are unneeded. Need cites. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Last paragraph (beginning with "Norwegian Wood" opens with I (E) chord ...)
 * Since this deals with composition, it should be in the "Composition" section. This may be overly technical and appears to be a combination of Pedler and other source(s)/OR. A simplified chord chart or Nashville chart may present better. Why no meter or tempo? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Without RS to back up each of the points, this paragraph should probably be eliminated. The highlights from Pedler may be added to the composition section. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Several concerns with sourcing have been noted, both by myself and JG66. These include lack of proper inline citations and statements not supported by the references (see "Recording" notes above). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Several concerns with sourcing have been noted, both by myself and JG66. These include lack of proper inline citations and statements not supported by the references (see "Recording" notes above). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There is a lot to like about this article. However, there are problems with sourcing as noted under GA criteria #2 above.  With the vast amount of material about the Beatles, this should not be a problem.  The nominator has been given plenty of opportunity to address the concerns (the review has been "on hold" since 2/16).  Since he did not participate in the review discussion, it is unknown why this is an issue. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There is a lot to like about this article. However, there are problems with sourcing as noted under GA criteria #2 above.  With the vast amount of material about the Beatles, this should not be a problem.  The nominator has been given plenty of opportunity to address the concerns (the review has been "on hold" since 2/16).  Since he did not participate in the review discussion, it is unknown why this is an issue. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a lot to like about this article. However, there are problems with sourcing as noted under GA criteria #2 above.  With the vast amount of material about the Beatles, this should not be a problem.  The nominator has been given plenty of opportunity to address the concerns (the review has been "on hold" since 2/16).  Since he did not participate in the review discussion, it is unknown why this is an issue. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)