Talk:Circles (George Harrison song)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Circles (George Harrison song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coolmarc (talk · contribs) 06:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Coolmarc. Thanks for taking on this nom – much appreciated. JG66 (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, a very well-written and interesting read! Well done! It's a shame you have had to wait so long for a review, I must imagine editors were only intimidated by how great the prose and coverage were!

General concerns

*I'm a bit puzzled regarding the song's release. How was it issued? If it was "released" surely that would make it a single? The infobox gives specific dates for the US and UK release, but the release section says merely "October 1982". What is the sourced release dates for these countries? I'm a bit puzzled as to what you mean with the cover art caption 1983 US single face label - what does this mean? Was the song then released on vinyl (judging from the cover art)? If so, it should be considered single as it had its own purchasable release, and the caption should then read 7"/12" vinyl cover art, the format should also be stated. I see it also was the b-side to a later Harrison single, is this the release you were suggesting? Is the cover art for that release? The A-side should be indicated in the infobox then in this case. I may be missing something here so please fill me in regarding this…

• Well, based on my experience with writing song articles, I don't really see any of those problems, but I appreciate it obviously doesn't make sense to you. The approach I've followed for a while now, I think, began with the GA review for Harrison's 1975 song World of Stone – Sufur222's point there under "General". I ended up replacing the InfoboxSingle temp with a standard InfoboxSong, having also discussed the issue at one of the two template talk pages or the WP Songs talk page (I'll supply a link here if I can find it). In fact, with "World of Stone", the song's first release was as a B-side, but the advice I got was to use the Template: Infobox Single only for A-sides or non-album B-sides, because that way the song is correctly identified as a "single" track rather than an album track. So this is the approach I adopted for, say, Hari's on Tour (Express), Māya Love, Learning How to Love You, among others.
• I see you're focused on the strict correlation (or lack thereof) between an image and the infobox's release details. I can't say I've ever given this too much thought – in that I can't imagine that the average reader would be surprised to find that an album track was also issued as a B-side, to help promote its parent album. Again, it's whether the messages necessarily need to marry up. I gather that when it comes to a commercial music release, there is some leeway for including a non-free image to identify the subject to readers, but that can take the form of a cover image, a vinyl face label, even a sheet-music cover image – anything that's specific to and in some way recognisable as official promotional material for the song. (As another example, someone else included a 2001 vinyl image at All Things Must Pass (song), a track from 1970; I had thought to remove it, but I realised that the image is specific to the subject and therefore identifies that song, and only that song, to readers.)
• You raised a couple of other issues. I've fixed the one regarding the October 1982 release date, I believe. As far as the caption goes, again, I can't see that readers would be thrown by the sight of a vinyl label, given that the song dates from the early '80s? What I mean is, I'm surprised you think this merits some sort of explanation (if I've understood your point above). You're also querying the actual wording, of course: would "1983 B-side face label" make it clearer, do you think? We could certainly live without "US"; as for "face label", it seems to be (or have been) a standard term, often qualified by "customised" or "generic" depending on whether the design is a departure from the record company's standard image.
• Don't really know what else to say. You bring an interesting perspective to this whole issue, but I've never found that an image, the caption, the infobox type, and details in the Release field need to be locked together as one, so to speak. I stress I'm not dismissing your concerns – as mentioned, I've been guided by input from other editors as much as by precedents and my own interpretation. Does any of this help resolve them? JG66 (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your explanations make a lot of sense. Thank you. However, I'm still a bit confused by this for example "Circles" was issued on 27 October 1982[67] as the closing track on Gone Troppo - I went to check the Gone Troppo article and the release date there is November 1982 - so if I'm deducing correctly from this sentence, all the songs from the album were issued one at a time in the build up to its release and "Circles" was the last one? How was "Circles" issued? To be honest, I don't know what "single face label" means (lol), I was suggesting if you could put it simpler it would be easier to understand or possibly link it to a Wiki article which explains what it is? So the reader could go somewhere further to read if they did not know what it is? It feels rather technical for me and the infobox essentially should be as accessible as possible. I also feel that you should indicate that it is the "single face label" of the "I Really Love You" single because from the infobox one would assume it would be for "Circles" only and then become confused, like I was now for example. Hence my original suggestion for the A-side parameter. If you feel this is not needed then I completely understand, it's only a friendly suggestion. CoolMarc 09:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Re your interpretation of the first sentence under Release: no, it means the song was issued/released when the album was issued/released, and it was the album's closing track. (i only went for "issued" to vary the wording – "unreleased" appears in the next sentence, "release" in the one following that.) By the sound of it, might be best to reword to something like: "Gone Troppo was issued on 27 October 1982 with 'Circles' sequenced as the closing track, following 'Dream Away', Harrison's song from the Time Bandits soundtrack."
• As cited there, Keith Badman gives a late October date for the album's release. Now that you mention the discrepancy, though, I'm thinking that the early November date (at the album article) is correct. Partly because it appears in Madinger & Easter's book, which is noted for being very well researched. I'll change to 5 November in this article.
• I'll check out the possibilities for linking "face label" in the caption. I was hoping my suggestion to reword the caption to "1983 B-side face label" might avoid the need to say more – for simplicity's sake. I've recently changed the article's Lead section (3rd para) to read: "In the United States, it was issued as the B-side of the album's second single, "I Really Love You", in February 1983." So I'm thinking that a label image captioned to say in part "1983 B-side" should be enough. Have to say, I'm warming to the idea of binning this image entirely. JG66 (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• My best suggestion would be either: A: the caption reads 1983 B-side face label but with "I Really Love You" in the A-side parameter, because from looking purely at the infobox the reader will not be able to deduce this otherwise until they get to the prose and in turn will become confused about the release from the get-go. or B: if you feel the A-side parameter need not be mentioned then like you said above I would consider removing the image altogether, because these two aspects essentially go hand-in-hand with each other in the infobox, if the one is not there then the other does not add up until the reader gets to the prose. I hope I'm not sounding too finicky! CoolMarc 14:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry Marc, but I really do think you are being too finicky. The image serves to identify the song, which it does. The need for such a strict logic to carry through from the image and caption to the release field – I've just never seen it insisted upon. I've changed the caption to read "1983 B-side face label"; immediately below that we have the standard: "Song by George Harrison from the album Gone Troppo". The way I see it, the reader automatically gets the shift: the image is dated 1983, it's from a single release; then, the song is introduced as an album track, with a first release date of 5 November 1982 given below that.
• Without the introductory "… from the album Gone Troppo", okay – I could see there might be cause for a moment of confusion. But as I've pointed out, we have examples where an image is taken from a song's subsequent commercial release (one being from 30 years after a song initially appeared); also, that in some cases the sheet-music cover appears, even though that has even less to do with the release of the record company's sound recording per se. And again, we're only looking to visually identify the song "Circles" – so where's the surprise in learning that the track was selected for inclusion on a single after its initial release? I just don't get this at all. JG66 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Release methods has changed a lot since the 80s, so it may not be as obvious to readers like me who are unfamiliar with the topic or releases around this era. Like I said, I was only making a friendly suggestion, it was not a must, I accept your view and the caption is definitely an improvement so no issues here. CoolMarc 17:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• It was indeed a friendly suggestion. I do apologise if it appears I'd taken it otherwise. Your comments, your attention to detail, are all very welcome. JG66 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

*I would suggest the composition section should be slotted in somewhere after the recording section for better flow, as its a bit of a back and forth read as it is now.

• Ah, I remember trying that out before posting the article, back in July or whenever … It seemed to me that if the Composition section sits after Recording, we're left with that feeling: Hey, why are we getting this information so late in the piece? It's difficult because so many years elapsed between the song's conception and release, and the context for each of those events couldn't be more different. The conclusion I came to (as obvious as it sounds) was that the song was written first, reflecting the influence of the Beatles' stay in Rishikesh, and while the lyrics were fleshed out sometime after the 1968 demo, the melody was fully formed, with the keyboard-derived chord changes typical of Harrison's songwriting at that time. I guess the Composition-first approach is the lesser of two evils, in other words, in that the 14-year history is bound to lead to a degree of looking back as the article progresses; and hopefully, it's the more logical approach. I've played around with some possibilities over the last hour or so, but I can't see that the alternative would work better.
• That's my take, anyway. Perhaps I'm simply not taking my head where it should go – I don't mind revisiting the issue if you feel strongly about it? JG66 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. On a second read-through, the section placement makes perfect sense to me now. CoolMarc 09:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's great to hear. Thanks. JG66 (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

*I would suggest in the personnel section that you state the personnel were adapted from the album's liner notes, with it as a source.

• Thanks, yes – I've added sources there. JG66 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to cite which page number the credits occur and/or the album's ID number. This is encouraged by Template:Cite AV media notes, if not I understand. CoolMarc 14:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Good question – but impossible, I'm afraid. As with the original LP, the CD notes fold out to a large spread. It's basically all one page, artwork interspersed with lyrics and musician credits. JG66 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• No worries. CoolMarc 17:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

*Is it not possible to have a music sample, it would be really be beneficial with all the details on the song's composition. If not, I could assist and upload one?

• I've always shied away from that, actually – pure laziness – and I gather it's not a requirement at GA. (One reviewer told me if I just included a sample in each song article, I'd have a few FAs to my name …) It's kind of you to offer to help. Personally, I'm not bothered – I tend to head straight to YouTube if I read something online that demands musical expression! JG66 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. CoolMarc 09:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

*I fail to understand why the publisher parameter is important when the song was released through a label?

• Well, it's a parameter that's available, and I've filled in the details. The record label owns the recording (in most instances), the publisher handles the copyright, so I can't see that there's a conflict. JG66 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. CoolMarc 14:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest the first release date only should be used, and the later date should be explained in prose in the release section.

• Yes, done. Although, I decided against giving the later date in the main text. As mentioned, I'm thinking that 5 November must be the true release date – I think Badman's mixed up the album release with that of the lead single. JG66 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• The writers should be separated using a flatlist per infobox guidelines.

• Yep, thanks, done this. (I guess you mean the producers.) JG66 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead

*The theme of the lyrics is reincarnation, specifically the cyclical aspect of human existence as, according to Hindu doctrine, the soul continues to pass from one life to the next. I can't help but feel that this sentence is too long and can be simplified and split into two sentences instead.

• Have reworded to: "The theme of the lyrics is reincarnation. The composition reflects the cyclical aspect of human existence as, according to Hindu doctrine, the soul continues to pass from one life to the next." How's that? JG66 (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Works for me! CoolMarc 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• A slow, meditative song, "Circles" has received a mixed response from reviewers Why did it receive a mixed response? Because it was slow and meditative? I would suggest stating what was liked and disliked by critics.

• How this: "A slow, meditative song, "Circles" has received a mixed response from reviewers, some of whom find it overly gloomy." ? JG66 (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Much better. CoolMarc 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Harrison's Friar Park studio over May–August 1982 I feel like this would read better if you simply used "between May and August 1982".

• Okay, done. JG66 (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Background and composition

*The image caption needs to be rephrased and explained why it is relevant to the song, even though it may be obvious in this section why it is relevant.

• Okay, I've added "where Harrison wrote the song". JG66 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• His fellow Beatles this needs to be rephrased.

• Changed to "he and his Beatles bandmates". JG66 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is there not more background to Simon Leng other than that he was Harrison's biographer? A large amount of the prose is of his opinion, it would be useful to know his occupation, nationality etc. Is he a professional writer with qualifications, has he written for a major publication?

• I don't know too much about Leng's background, actually. I just know that his book was heralded as a thorough, long-overdue study of Harrison's music (as opposed to a biography of Harrison the celebrity musician/ex-Beatle), and it's frequently cited by other authors and biographers. I don't see how we can give any more than we do now, though – I mean, he's unquestionably a reliable source, and readers will surely come away with the impression that he's something of an authority on George Harrison's musical career (as they should do). All I can think to add is "musical biographer" – that's accurate and it distinguishes him from the more celebrity-focused biographers. Leng's book While My Guitar Gently Weeps certainly deserves an article on Wikipedia, imo, but there isn't one currently so it's not as if we've got anything to link to, unfortunately. JG66 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. CoolMarc 18:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Link organ, it is not the most widely-known instrument especially in recent times sadly…

• Done. (And "sadly" indeed.) JG66 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "fugue-like keyboard parts" per WP:MOSLINK fugue should not be linked within the quote. The linking inside quotation marks seems occur through the rest of the article as well.

• Done, there and throughout the article, I believe. JG66 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• in the Harrison canon of the singer's desire to pass on to I don't understand what's being said here…

• Bit surprised you found the original wording problematic, but that's what a fresh pair of eyes are for(!). I've removed the "Harrison canon" bit and reworded slightly. I don't know if that solves it – I mean, does the "singer's desire to pass on to" portion need addressing also? JG66 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• It reads perfectly now, thanks. CoolMarc 18:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why are the song's lyrics in italics?

• Well, I think it's useful to differentiate between a comment/interpretation/opinion from the likes of Allison and Leng, much of which would be impossible to paraphrase adequately, and the actual song words. The latter are clearly in another "voice", while the commentators' words are grounded in reality. Also, the all-italic treatment is quite common for poetry and song lyrics. Do you think it's a problem? JG66 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there's a direct WP policy or guideline, but I based my concern on the example given at WP:LYRICS where "Hey Ya!" and "Love Story (Taylor Swift song)" for example don't put the lyrics in italics. I guess it's up to you at the end of the day. CoolMarc 18:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Recording

*seemingly unlikely pairing of Harrison and Lord According to Leng?

• Yes it is, but do you not think that it's obvious from the context? Aside from that, it's followed by mention of Lord's membership of "heavy rock bands", which provides a clue as to why the pairing might be considered "unlikely". JG66 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Other than those few concerns, the article is definitely up to scratch! I imagine you'd be able to resolve the issues in no time, though I'm placing the review  On hold in the mean time. CoolMarc 07:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: First of all, thank you so much for your compliments. It's particularly encouraging after the less-than-stellar assessment my last nomination received! (In fact, I was planning to pull the articles I'd nominated for GA and refrain from nominating any others. Somewhat disillusioned with the process, to put it mildly. So your encouragement is very welcome.) I'll start addressing the points you've raised here. Thanks again, JG66 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I can see that a lot of research and effort went into the article, it's very refreshing to see, your style of writing in particular is also very good and makes for an interesting read! Ping me when you're done! Cheers CoolMarc 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Check

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Check

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Check

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Check.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Check.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Check.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for taking the time to address my minor concerns with some very in-detail explanations. A very respectable article, very much worthy of GA-status. Congrats. CoolMarc 18:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Thank you very much for your review and for helping to get this article to GA. If you had the time and the inclination, I'd be very happy to see you again soon at GAN. It's nice to work with a reviewer who's prepared to really engage with an article and enter into some discussion. Fabulous – and thanks again. Best, JG66 (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)