Talk:Only a Northern Song/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yay! This is gonna be our third. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 03:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's great to see you again so soon! I'll start getting down to this over the next hour or two. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In the lead:
 * The lyrics and music combine to Sounds a bit like original research, can we simply say The lyrics and music combine to conveys?
 * Well, it's not OR – there's Pollack's statement about lyrics and music being "uncannily in tune", and Everett on how Harrison's disenchantment comes out in the dissonance he employs, which Harrison (per Pedler and MacDonald) acknowledges in lines like "You may think the chords are going wrong". Over the busy chord progression in the chorus also – when Harrison sings "It doesn't really matter what chords I play". So, the idea of the song's music and lyrics working together, as a combination, to deliver the message is certainly there in the main text, and it's a pretty notable aspect of this track. Although I can't really see that there was a problem before, I've just reworded the Lead to say "The lyrics and music convey his disenchantment …" In other words, I took it that it was the "combine to" mention you were objecting to? JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, there was some error in my reword which I fixed just now. Thanks for the clarification, the changes are indeed better. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there is a convention on what order to list reviews in, negatives or positives first? I generally go for the latter first, but am interested in your view.
 * Not that I know of – obviously, it's just important to be balanced and reflect what's given in the section(s) of main text. It's an interesting point, because one could say the first statement (in this case a highly unfavourable opinion) holds sway, simply because it appears first up; on the other hand, maybe it's the second statement that carries more weight, if it's read as somehow "trumping" the previous one? It wouldn't make much difference in swapping the two around, but I guess it seems correct (to me) to introduce the widely respected opinion of Ian MacDonald before the UCR one. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a serious point, I am just curious at times... Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Background and inspiration:
 * Would be good to introduce Harrison and Starr as you do for McCartney and Lennon.
 * I'm not sure what else we can do. We come to Background & Inspiration from the Lead, where I think it's fair to say that Harrison has become established in the reader's mind (even if they were to jump to the main text after reading only the first couple of sentences). In the main text, the descriptive "the Beatles' principal songwriters", for Lennon and McCartney, is more about providing context on Northern Songs than anything necessarily to do with introducing the pair. The context for Starr's first appearance, "Within the Beatles … Harrison and Ringo Starr, as contracted songwriters", seems to serve both purposes as well, I think. If you take an FA like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Background starts with no introduction for the Beatles (if that's comparable with the apparent lack of introduction for Harrison in this song article), and the individual band members first appear without anything in the way of an introduction. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, articles differ so much in treating lead and the rest of the article as one or different. It's your choice, I just love to highlight points that could prove helpful. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Harrison's link with Northern England Why is it not "northern"?
 * Have changed to lower case. I agree – to me, the term "North of England" should be capitalised, just like the (US) West Coast, but otherwise: northern England, southern England, etc. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * relating to their Liverpool childhoods "childhoods" seems a bit odd to me.
 * Hmm, I know what you mean! Have reworded to "songs about growing up in Liverpool". JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool! I was not sure what reword to suggest. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Composition and musical structure:
 * which had become his preferred instrument for songwriting during this period The reader may be interested to know when precisely Harrison had this interest in the organ.
 * I gather this was the start of that interest. Have rephrased slightly adding that organ replaced the guitar in this regard. How's that? JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, better. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "uncannily in tune" with one other Never seen "one other", perhaps this should read "one another" as "each other" appears somewhat weird here?
 * Yes, thanks. "One another" it should have been, and is. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Harrison biographer Simon Leng  You mean "Harrison's"?
 * No, "Harrison biographer …" is correct. It's descriptive rather than possessive, just like "Beatles biographer Hunter Davies" just before. I mean, one could say Harrison's/Beatles' but I cant help thinking it would imply that each of them (Harrison and the Beatles) has only ever had one biography written about them. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Recording:
 * The song was disliked by the Beatles' producer, George Martin, and rejected for inclusion on the album This reason could be added to the lead, it made me wonder why the song was rejected outright when I read of it there.
 * I'm reluctant to, because it's only Martin's opinion. And in my opinion(!), while Martin was rightly praised for his contribution to Sgt. Pepper, that acclaim and his many subsequent comments on the album rather elevated his status to that of a co-creator (something which, even within the period up to 1980, Lennon often bristled about). By 1967, the Beatles–Martin relationship had long moved on from the dynamic of a young band under the control of an established EMI staff producer; for a start, Martin was now an independent producer, and he was in no position anyway to reject one of their songs – and a year down the line they'd be frequently rejecting his suggestions, for the White Album. If you want, I could reword the Lead to say something like: "it was mainly recorded in February 1967 during the sessions for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band but the Beatles chose not to include it on that album" – to lessen the rejection message at the start. Another reason is that the impression I get is that it was a general decision re the unsuitability of "Only a Northern Song"; I've never read anything about Harrison being at all disappointed that his track was temporarily shelved, for instance. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to have the explanation. Do as you think proper. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Any clear reason why Martin disliked the song?
 * Hopefully my comment above goes some way to reducing the importance of this. Martin often stated his regret that he didn't nurture Harrison as a songwriter the way he (and Brian Epstein and Dick James) did with Lennon and McCartney. Martin used to say he only fully realised Harrison's talent in 1969, by which point Harrison had become an experienced producer himself and didn't really need anyone's help in constructing a track. Lovely guy, the late Sir George M, and one can't fault him for zeroing in on Lennon and McCartney early on (not that he was impressed with them as songwriters at the start either), but he was a bit straight! I always think there are quite a few Harrison and Lennon Beatles-era songs that could have been so much better if produced by someone more on their wavelength. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, how much I have learned of the Beatles and all those around them in just three songs! Are you one of the Beatles reborn? You are quite knowledgeable about them ;D Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Production:
 * author Ian Inglis has cited the sound collage effect Simply Inglis would do once you have introduced him. Some places say "Ian MacDonald" often. Please check for other instances.
 * Fixed. I think there's a good reason for repeating first names once we get to Reception, actually, and I've always done that in the past, but I've now removed them for those authors. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Beatles completed a final mix of the song on 21 April Would be good to add the year due to the "April 1967" preceding it and "October 1968" following it.
 * Done. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Appearance in Yellow Submarine film:
 *  introduced by the 1968 film,  I think it would be better to add the year in the first line itself.
 * Okay. What I've done is add the year before then, up at Recording. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In Retrospective assessment and legacy:
 * Among more recent reviews  May be it would be better to arrange the review in a chronological order?
 * I think not, because the approach I've tried to take is more a discussion of how the song's viewed retrospectively, in keeping with the legacy theme. I could see it would be useful if the discussion centred on musical or social trends affecting critics' opinions – the arrival of punk, New Romantic, acid house, Brit Pop movements, etc. But that's not the case here (or am I just being too lazy?!) … JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, do as you feel is proper. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Are the "oldies.about.com" and "Hey Reverb" sources very reliable?
 * With about.com, 3family6 looked into all their contributors and identified Fontenot as RS. I'd never heard of Hey Reverb before writing this article, in fact, but that site seems more impressive (i.e. reputable) than many other sources we've long accepted – as mentioned at the bottom of the piece the site is owned by the Denver Post. JG66 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That should be it. Would be glad to promote once we are done with these. Cheers, Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 03:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the article is ready for promotion. Cheers! Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fabulous – thank you! JG66 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)