Talk:Simply Shady

Ex "It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna)" article section
Must say, I'm surprised this has been turned into a separate article. I'd included discussion of "Simply Shady" in a section within "It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna)" because "SS" didn't seem notable enough to merit its own piece; and combining the song with "It Is He" was a tidy way to handle George's 1974 trip to India, not to mention providing a perfect example of the duality of his life at this point (spiritual vs "naughty") − a natural aside from the parent, Dark Horse album article, in other words. Seems a pity that this has happened: I felt It Is He was good enough to be a B on the quality scale with just a little more work, which probably won't be the case now with a chunk of its content removed; and this SS article, I'd imagine, is highly unlikely to ever graduate beyond a C either. The strength was in the unity, in my opinion. Apart from that issue, it would've been nice to see something left on It Is He's talk page, explaining the change. (As the edit history shows, the It Is He article didn't exist until just over two weeks ago and it was pretty much the work of just one contributor (me!).) I've done the same combination trick with "Behind That Locked Door" in the article for "I'd Have You Anytime", simply to make sure that BTLD got some coverage, and that article was then reassessed as a B − so it appears that this approach does result in an improvement in quality. A bit of consideration when carving up articles, especially such a new one and/or where it's clear that only one or two have had anything to do with its creation, would be much appreciated. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, when I made the move, I wasn't aware that it was something that had been done by only a few editors. Admittedly, I probably should have checked the article history or started a discussion before doing so. Certainly, per WP:BRD, you're welcome to follow up my "B" with your own "R", if you so choose. I only made the move because it seemed odd to me that info on one song would be located within an article on another. I've never seen that done before and assumed that it was very much nonstandard to do that. I'm not familiar with the "Behind That Locked Door" example. If we're going to have info on one song embedded in another article, it should probably be located at the Dark Horse album page. This is something that is routinely done for songs that aren't notable enough to have their own articles. However, in this case, I think we unquestionably have enough notability--established by the sources cited--and certainly enough content to warrant its own article. Of course, neither you nor anyone else is under any obligation to agree with me, and we can get some outside input if you think it would help. Evanh2008 (talk 11:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your rationale got me thinking about adding to the article. But I've just realised, when looking to add a couple of refs for what's there already, that I'd misunderstood a point made by Gary Tillery. So statements relating to Ringo's wife have to go; minor point, but that does reduce notability slightly. Anyway, its origins as a section within "It Is 'He'" mean that the other article is now missing some important details, so if you don't mind I'd prefer to revert. JG66 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done a bit of a u-turn on this issue: bought a few more books recently and I've found more points to add. JG66 (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa (big time): The healthy thing about Wikipedia is that our actions, good and bad, remain on record in the article and talk-page edit histories. So, as hard as some editors try to hide their tracks (say, by doctoring their article talk page comments after the event, or removing anything unflattering from their user talk page), there's nowhere to hide really … Here's an example where I was completely in the wrong four years back – because now I'm nominating the article for GA. A humbling experience, and welcomely so. Hats off & kudos to. JG66 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, thank you for the shoutout, ! I was just thinking recently about all the hard work you've put into these articles. Glad to see you're still working them up to GA status. I haven't been very active here for a couple years, but if no one else grabs the GA review by the weekned (unlikely, I guess) I'll start the process myself. Always enjoy working with you. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 03:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , blimey, I didn't expect to catch you! I'd not seen you around for some time – I was just shooting in the dark really. Ditto from me, and I'd be delighted if you took the review … No worries if you can't, of course. Best, JG66 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)