# Talk:Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp (Let It Roll)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp (Let It Roll)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Evanh2008 (talk · contribs) 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Lead section:

Minor style edit - "Frank Crisp, who was a nineteenth-century lawyer..." could easily be trimmed to "Frank Crisp, a nineteenth-century lawyer...". Omit unnecessary words, as Strunk and White would say.
Might "at the start of 1970" read better as "in early 1970?"
Not a big deal, but the adjective "cinematic" might be preferred to the hyphenated "film-like."
Also minor, but I would suggest moving the "in Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire" clause to the previous sentence, following "the Victorian Gothic residence." Perhaps tack "of the estate" onto the latter sentence, following "the grand house and grounds" so the sentence doesn't end abruptly.
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree pretty much on all the above. With that final point, "I would suggest moving the "in Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire" clause to the previous sentence ...", the only thing that bothers me is that it's now a fairly long sentence. I remember juggling the various clauses around a bit between the two sentences, trying to massage them into place, so it didn't seem too bad, the way I'd worded the sentences previously. There's certainly a logic to your suggested reworking, and I appreciate the fresh pair of eyes – as I say, just hope the sentence "Harrison wrote the song as a tribute to Frank Crisp ..." isn't too long and wordy now(?). JG66 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, on second thought my suggested prose was somewhat unwieldy. I've just now given it an edit myself to see if I can't get something that flows right. I think it is somewhat better than the original, and certainly better than my suggestion, but let me know what you think. I'm striking my resolved comments below, and will have further comments on the others later tonight. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
On third thought, I think I actually prefer your use of the en dash here. Let's call this one resolved. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I added that after writing the above comment. I agree, I'm happy with it now. JG66 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Background:

"concentrating on an area encompassing the counties of Berkshire and Oxfordshire, to the west of London." ---> "concentrating on an area west of London encompassing the counties of Berkshire and Oxfordshire."
I would end the sentence beginning "Harrison described Crisp" with a full stop, and begin the bit with Taylor's quote as a new sentence entirely, as the two statements aren't clearly connected enough to warrant a coordinating semicolon (I am here deferring to Strunk and White's guidelines on semicolon use; it isn't strictly prescriptive or universally observed, but I find it a useful standard to follow.)
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that a semicolon is acceptable there, in fact. It is (was) grouping together two snippets offering George's perspective on Sir Frank: Harrison thought he was a cross between Lewis Carroll and Walt Disney, and Harrison used to talk about Crisp as if the latter were still alive. No big deal, but personally I prefer to avoid list-like, short, sharp points and ensure there's some sort of flow through each discussion. And a semicolon is a more subtle way to achieve this than a full stop, of course, which by definition separates rather than links. Not too bothered about the way it is now. JG66 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The "great success" quote needs to be attributed in line to whomever said it, per MOS:QUOTE.
I thought the "according to Chris O'Dell" attribution from the previous sentence might have carried through. Obviously not(!), so yes, you're quite right. Now fixed, with addition of "O'Dell writes". JG66 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I had guessed it was O'Dell, but thought it was somewhat unclear. Looks good now! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Composition:

I know who Terry Doran is, but other readers of the article may not. Perhaps identify him as "his personal assistant Terry Doran," or similar?
"With its reference to roads and the UK's Highway Code, musical biographer Simon Leng has described "Everybody, Nobody" as Harrison's first "motoring" song." ---> "With its reference to roads and the UK's Highway Code, "Everybody, Nobody" has been described by musical biographer Simon Leng as Harrison's first "motoring" song." - See dangling participle.
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
"With its reference to roads and the UK's Highway Code, "Everybody, Nobody" has been described by musical biographer Simon Leng ..." Yes, absolutely. (Funny thing is, I only went for that "Simon Leng has described" wording (resulting in the dangling principle issue) because I've found that so many editors object to almost any use of passive voice, even when the latter presents a point with more clarity.) JG66 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, many a good sentence has been ruined by the obsession with the active voice, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Reads fine now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Recording:

Very, very minor, but perhaps change "Beatles author Bruce Spizer" to "Beatles biographer Bruce Spizer"? "Beatles author" just reads a little awkwardly to me, as if we're saying he authored something entitled Beatles.
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, for sure. I think of Spizer as a compiler actually; "author" and certainly "biographer" rather flatter his writing abilities, I think it's fair to say – on the book's cover and title page, his credit reads "Compiled by Bruce Spizer". How would you feel about "Beatles compiler Bruce Spizer"? On the other hand, I realise that reintroduces the awkwardness you mention, as if Spizer collects Beatles for a living ... Anyway, I've removed "Beatles biographer" on the page and gone with "author Bruce Spizer" for now. JG66 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Simply "author" is fine with me. No problem here. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Since there seems to be disagreement regarding whether or not Frampton played on the track, I would suggest making clear who it is that credits both the acoustic parts to Harrison. I assume it is Leng himself, since you cite him, but I don't have the book in front of me so I don't know if he is quoting someone else for that info. Personally, I would end the sentence at "Bobby Whitlock on piano" and begin a new sentence that looks something like (just an example here): "Although Leng credits both the song's acoustic guitar parts to Harrison, Beatles biographer Bruce Spizer writes that guitarist Peter Frampton may have supplied one of these parts."
It's more than a claim from Leng actually – because Frampton's not credited for appearing on the album at all. I take your point though, about how the information's presented in that sentence. Have ended sentence as you suggest and fixed the Frampton issue. JG66 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
An aside: Was it "Ladders" or "The Ladders"? I seem to remember it being the latter, but you may want to check and see which Clayson uses.
I always thought it was "The Ladders", going back years. It was only when adding the point to this article that I found that majority of mentions were "Ladders" only. Frustratingly though, neither of those particular citations (in Clayson and Badman) actually mention the name – I'm sure it's a case of me needing to add a second page number to that Clayson p 306 ref, to support mention of "Ladders". I haven't been able to find it right now, so what I've done is remove mention of the rumoured band name altogether and replace the Clayson ref with a better one from Doggett. Will look into the Ladders/the Ladders issue sometime soon; I'm thinking that the Badman and Woffinden books would be the best places to start, but neither of them have indexes. JG66 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Not a big deal, of course, and leaving the name out is fine. I'll have to check Google Books later and see if I can find out which it was, though, as this has got me wondering. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I seem to remember it was reading an early '70s interview with Ringo that sealed it for me, with his constant mention of "Ladders". I'll definitely come back to this point, because it's the sort of detail I hate to miss out. JG66 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Release and reception:

I would link ballad, since the modern sense of that word meaning "sentimental piano-backed love song" seems to be more prominent than the historical sense in which Gerson and the song's title use it.
That's inspired – great suggestion! JG66 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
"Bruce Spizer" should just be "Spizer" in this section, since you gave his full name in the preceding one. Ditto for "Simon Leng".
Yep, I know what you mean, but ... I always imagine that readers are quite likely to jump to Release & Reception section from the start of the article, more so than they might to another section. So I tend to ensure that the name of an author or critic appears in full in that all-important section. (I realise there's a hole in that logic to some extent.) I've retained first names for Spizer and Leng – are you insisting that they go? I'm certainly not making a stand on the issue; just wonder if my rationale here makes a difference. JG66 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, the MoS does specify that surnames alone should be used once a person is introduced. There are cases, though, where that can become monumentally confusing (I remember the prose at Paul McCartney going through many revisions last year, trying to make clear the distinction between Paul and Linda, and earlier between Paul and his parents, without using first names; it was not fun). There are good reasons to ignore the MoS from time to time, and if you think this is one of them, I'm willing to led it slide. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I would change "Clayson describes" to "Clayson has described". There doesn't seem to be any particular reason to use present tense here.
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Personnel:

I think "unconfirmed" is the sort of language we might use if a particular person had been mentioned as possibly having performed. For example, if someone had speculated that it was Ringo, we might write "Ringo Starr (unconfirmed) - tambourine". Since we don't seem to have anyone in particular in mind, we should probably just leave it at "player not known".
Yes indeed. Fixed that. JG66 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
On second thoughts, maybe "uncredited" might be the term to use, do you think? I've recently used that wording in a new song article, "Can't Stop Thinking About You", but as always, I'm keen to come up with a solution that can be applied to all articles. Just a thought ... JG66 (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think "uncredited" would be preferable. Changed it to that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Cover versions:

Since this section is only a paragraph, I wonder if it might be preferable to incorporate it into the end of "Release and reception". You'd have to do some chronological juggling to get the flow right, but I don't immediately see that there's a need for a separate section. I know we have an individual sections on covers for most other song articles, but those are generally a lot more substantial than this one.
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Other than that, looks great! A very nice read! Let me know if any of the above is unclear or if you have any questions. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've solved the lead issues. Hope JG doesn't mind me helping fix the wording issues. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed wording problems, and left the issues involving sources for JG. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Damn, but you're keen, yeepsi! No, honestly, it's very helpful and generous of you – as always. But it might be an idea to leave alone what are obvious suggestions (as opposed to points concerning GA requirements). Otherwise there's a feeling, as the nom, that what were simply well-reasoned suggestions are now set in stone, with all discussion over. Just thought it worth mentioning, but big thanks otherwise. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Evan, thank you so much for all your comments. I saw the review, put it in the proverbial Mañana basket, but I'd found myself nodding away in agreement while skim-reading through it – thinking Yes, absolutely ... the more I saw. I get something new from every reviewer at GAN (and then end up scurrying back to previous GAs to apply those lessons, or meaning to). From my perspective, that engagement you bring to a review is just fantastic, and exactly what a nominee wants to see. Hope you take on a few more song and album GANs, because there's quite a backlog, I gather! JG66 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the work and the kind words, JG and Yeepsi! I think we've resolved just about everything, but I'll give the article another thorough read later tonight and see if anything else jumps out at me. Nice work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
One last bit:
Just one last thing — under "Release and reception," we have an IMDb source (currently ref #85) citing a clause which states that the song is credited for only one episode of How I Met Your Mother, though it appeared in two episodes. Knowing a little bit about how IMDb works, I would say that this was probably an error on the part of an IMDb user. The official studio credits for both those episodes almost certainly list the song. I would delete that clause (and the accompanying ref) entirely, especially since IMDb is not a reliable source.

Okay. Gone now. JG66 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I also want to mention, lest anyone think I didn't notice or failed to address it, that Bootleg Zone, while probably not a reliable source for many statements (and certainly not a high-quality reliable source in the FA criteria sense), is almost certainly reliable for the statement it is sourcing, as there is no reason to doubt the info there presented.

Yes, I agree, and this point has come up in previous GARs. I only use it (here and elsewhere) to support the existence of a bootleg release. JG66 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Once this last quibble is taken care of, I should be ready to list the article. Thanks again! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

All done, I think. Thanks again, Evan. JG66 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Article now listed. Congratulations! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 12:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Fabulous! That's just great – I get so excited about these Harrison song articles. And it was nice to work together in this forum, Evan. Cheers, and thanks once again – JG66 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In the composition section, the lyric "handkerchiefs to match your tie" is not only written erroneously as "handkerchiefs and matching tie" but the Monty Python Matching Tie and Handkerchief came about in 1973, making it impossible for this song's lyrics (from 1970) to be a reference.  It can also clearly be seen in Harrison's I Me Mine (p. 208-209) that the lyric which became "handkerchiefs to match your tie" was originally written "... match your style", making the supposed reference even harder to believe.
Is the sentence including quotes from Leng even relevant in this case?  I'd suggest removing it if nothing else of note can be written about the lyric. Johnny Mentos (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)