Talk:For You Blue/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 13:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi JG66, I'll review this. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Moisejp, hello. I'm delighted you could take this review! I might give the article a read-through myself, because even though it's only been a month or so since I nominated it, I really can't remember anything about it … JG66 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi JG66, my pleasure. An interesting article of a very good song. Also the article's length is not too daunting! ;-) Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Ha! In fact, I remember coming to this thinking that it would be nice and straightforward (little in the way of background; simple 12-bar composition; no risk of complicated, alt interpretations). So I was slightly surprised that it ended up as long as it has. JG66 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments:

• The Let It Be... Naked article says a different mix was released on that album. Probably worth mentioning (or did you and I missed it?).

Quite right, yes. The mention of reinstating the full acoustic gtr part at Naked is unsourced (it's quite true, though), but I've added what I could find. JG66 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Consider mentioning the Anthology 3 in the lead? It seems noteworthy to me. Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Thinkin about it, now that I've just added the Anthology 3 take there, do you think we should lose the mention of the Best of GH compilation? JG66 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but I think it's OK to leave it in. It's somewhat significant in that Capitol Records deemed it one of George's most important Beatles songs.

Yes, that's the point – that Capitol saw fit to include it on a greatest hits collection. I just wasn't sure on reflection whether the significance of this would mean anything to the average reader. Will leave as is, then. JG66 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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):

   Flows well, interesting read.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Spot-checked a few references, and they all seemed well represented.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good level of detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   One non-free image with adequate fair use rationale. Two other images are from Wikimedia Commons.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Great work, am happy to pass this! Moisejp (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, fabulous. Thanks so much, Moisejp – that really was very pleasant, as always, but incredibly speedy also! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, I added this to Wikipedia:Good_articles/Music#1970_to_1979_songs but if you feel it is better in the 1960s category, please feel free to move it. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)