Talk:Piggies/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 20:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A new review going to arrive here this night or until this weekend. Sorry for the delay, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * song by the English rock group -> song recorded by English rock group
 * from their -> for their
 * But doesn't the version you're suggesting – "Piggies" is a song recorded by the English rock group the Beatles for their 1968 album The Beatles (also known as "the White Album"). – introduce an element of vagueness/ambiguity, in that it's not clear whether the song actually appeared on the album? Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, redundancy should be kept to a minimum, which is why I've followed unambiguous wording (which was recommended by a reviewer in the past, btw) along the lines of "[Song title]" is a song by [name of artist] from their album [Title of album]. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * contributed the -> contributed to the
 * Sorry, but that would be incorrect. Thomas contributed to the recording, yes, but he contributed the harpsichord part (to/on the recording). An alternative would be to say: "… who also played the harpsichord part." JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Since its release -> Upon its release
 * But the point that's being made is that the song has received a generally mixed response not just on release but in the decades since then. I'm trying to reflect content in the "Retrospective assessment and legacy" section also. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * a mixed response -> mixed responses
 * Done, but I can't help thinking there's something wrong in changing to "mixed responses" there. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Infobox
 * Do you know where the song was recorded?
 * Yes, we give the location along with the dates. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Background and inspiration
 * Unlink the Beatles here
 * WP:REPEATLINK states that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated … at the first occurrence after the lead." This song article has three paragraphs in the Lead, so I would have thought it's useful to repeat links for any term in the main body of the article. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * for inclusion -> for its inclusion
 * Done but, as with "mixed responses" this doesn't read right to me. ("its" seems redundant.) JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * as evidence -> as an evidence
 * I'm sorry but that's just bad English. "Evidence" is too general a noun to receive an indefinite article; one might say "as an item of evidence" but not in this context. Alternatively, we could reword to "cites these words as evidence of Harrison's main inspiration for the song having been Orwell's work", but I think that would be unnecessarily verbose. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is White Album not italicized here and in the lead
 * Well, the title is just a nickname really and most sources do not italicise it, even a book that favours the alt title, such as Quantick's Revolution: The Making of the Beatles' White Album. This issue actually appears as an example in our Music MoS at WP:THECAPS. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * in concert -> live in concert
 * But it's redundant, surely, after we've had "performing"? JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Composition
 * Unlink baroque pop the second time
 * Further to above, I would have thought it would be especially useful to readers to link the term again in the more specific discussion under Composition, no?


 * motif, and -> Remove comma
 * Done, although I think the comma was helpful in that instance because of the long phrase that follows. (And the latter is a good reason for using a comma where it wouldn't otherwise be needed.)


 * eight, before -> Remove coma
 * No, the comma there is for the parenthetical phrase "which first appears at the end of the passage leading into the middle eight" – i.e. the text that follows ("before the melody drops down …") relates to the first part of the sentence. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * subject to a -> subject of a
 * It should probably be "subjected to", but I've reworded to "is partly shifted to", removing all mention of "subject". JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * After the instrumental -> Following the instrumental
 * Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Inglis writes -> Who is Inglis?
 * He's been introduced up at Background/inspiration. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ray Davies of the Kinks, and the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band -> Remove comma
 * I'm afraid that would just introduce confusion. The comma's there because otherwise we'd be saying that Ray Davies was also in the Bonzos. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Production
 * Image: instrument long -> instrument widely
 * Done. Thank you. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * as producer -> as a producer
 * Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why isn't White Album italicised
 * Please see above. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * bass, and -> Remove comma
 * Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * lead vocal -> lead vocals
 * But it's a single lead vocal part. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * middle", and -> Remove comma
 * Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * added, to -> added in order to
 * Reworded "to mark" to "marking". I know "in order to" is a phrase we're told to avoid here. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Release and reception
 * flawless


 * Charles Manson interpretation
 * Box: Harrison, in -> Remove comma
 * Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Place the image more above to look better with the text
 * Well, I don't agree – and in fact the image is there to work with a point made in the paragraph below it, regarding Manson's appearance ("the long-haired hippie type"). Not only that but I know I've read somewhere (although I'm afraid I can't find it now) that images and quote boxes should not appear on either side of a paragraph, which is what would happen if the Manson pic was moved up. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Image: Manson, taken -> Manson taken
 * Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Personnel
 * Rename section into "Credits and personnel"
 * But why? All we're doing is naming the personnel on the recording, and they didn't get credited as such. Not that we have a Songs style guide, but MOS:ALBUM gives "Personnel" as a suggested section title. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Ian MacDonald: -> Credits adapted from Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties (1998).
 * Again, I can't see that it's necessary; plus, they're not adapted from MacDonald's book. The approach I've followed is consistent with other articles where the line-up and specific contributions have come from a biographer such as MacDonald – e.g. Sgt Pepper FA. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Outcome
 * On-hold for 7 days. Apart from less word and comma issues, this article is professionally written and I think after I'll pass this you should even try it with FA status. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's very kind of you, Cartoon network freak, thank you. I'm sorry that in reply I've probably come across as being super-precious about my work – I don't think I am, and I enjoy the review process, having a fresh pair of eyes on the text, etc. But I'm confused about many of the changes you're suggesting; I just don't see them as an improvement. Regards, JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of the points were not intended to raise up false content, but to improve it. However, you're a more experienced user than me; thus, if you say they're not needed, it is OK, as well. Great work and passing. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)