# Talk:His Name Is Legs (Ladies and Gentlemen)

This review is transcluded from Talk:His Name Is Legs (Ladies and Gentlemen)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 20:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: JG66
As I've come to expect, this is a strong GA contender. I've made some suggestions below.  – Quadell (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've made a few copy-edits. As always, feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree.
The only thing that struck me as odd was your change to text introducing the opening verse. I've reverted to "Harrison's lyrics incorporate some of Smith's favourite sayings, the first verse beginning …" I can't see that there was/is a problem with that wording, but it seems you did? JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It had struck me as confusing the first time I read it. I think it's just a matter of personal preference, though, so it's fine to keep your wording.  – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Style: This sentence in the lead is long and a bit unclear. "The song's arrangement reflects Harrison's adoption of the funk genre, and as with the album's humorous artwork, its inclusion on Extra Texture marked a rare example of light-heartedness among a collection of mostly downbeat songs." Does this mean that Extra Texture's artwork is light-hearted, and (possibly unrelated) the song is light-hearted? If so, then I would say that Extra Texture's lighthearted artwork isn't relevant enough to be mentioned in this lead. Removing that clause would make the sentence much clearer, in my opinion.
I've split it into two sentences, but you know, I really can't see that the second point is unclear. We've had mention of the album's "humorous artwork", so the song similarly provides "a rare example of light-heartedness", no? (Sorry to again be questioning your interpretation. I appreciate that you wouldn't be mentioning these things unless they struck you as odd.) Because reviewers commented on the zany nature of the song and the album artwork, grouping the two together, it's something that's discussed in some detail under Release & reception. So for that reason, I'd think it merits some mention here in the lead, no? JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Splitting the sentence helped a lot. Though I would not have found the album art important enough to mention in the song's lead, if you think it merits mention, that's fine. I do think you should use "the song's inclusion" instead of "its inclusion", though, since "it" could be the album or the artwork, given the sentence structure.  – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've rephrased to avoid "its" – I've gone for "the inclusion of "His Name Is Legs" …" (i.e., mindful of not overusing the word "song" in the second half of that para). JG66 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The entire paragraph now feels clear and fluid.  – Quadell (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: "...like some other of my songs about things nobody else knows or cares about, except maybe two people..." (Psst, JG66... I think he means you!)
Style: The word "while" doesn't work well in "Harrison played piano and electric guitar on the recording, while the other musicians were..." It sounds like Harrison was playing piano while, at the same time, other musicians were busy being certain people. What would you think of splitting it into two sentences? "...on the recording. The other musicians were…"
Okay. I went for a semicolon in fact. JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Clarity: In nb2, I don't know what "Harrison's case" means.
I've taken to a separate sentence – how's that? JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Your wording is fine, but what would you think of this? "In turn, Harrison chose to promote the image of a..."  – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought "For his part" might work better, following on from the Gandhi quote ("the image of your choice"). What do you think – not unnecessary, I hope? JG66 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That's great.  – Quadell (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Style: In the "1974 basic track", I think the clause "particularly 'The Lumberjack Song'" interrupts the flow and makes the sentence harder to parse. I would recommend simply omitting it, since the song is mentioned in both the previous paragraph, in the note at the end of the sentence, and it the following section.
Yes, thanks for that. I've removed it. JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Nomenclature: The phrase "former Bonzo Neil Innes" sounds awkward to me, since members had not previously been called Bonzos.
I've added "Smith's former bandmate" afterwards instead – is that okay, do you think? Seems to me that we should point out the link between Smith and Innes if possible. By the way, early in the article, we do have Harrison referring to "the Bonzos" and Smith is introduced as "Bonzo drummer Larry Smith". JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Regardless, it's clear now.  – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Tenses: I think the present tense would be more appropriate for descriptions of the album: "Its inclusion contrasts with the melancholic musical content of Extra Texture, as does Roy Kohara's album artwork, which includes an inner-sleeve photo"
Ah, I've been struggling with this one. I keep thinking that where a release (the work's actual release) is being discussed, we're back in the past; but of course, many things ring true decades later – so I take your point. Having just reworded some of the text on this artwork (more than anything, to ensure that the LP's face label image is supported with critical commentary), I'm now more sure that past tense should be used, in fact. It's the mention of "the record's face labels credited production to "Ohnothimagen" (Oh, not him again)[71] and showed the Apple Records logo reduced to an apple core" – in that, the album hasn't been available on vinyl for a long time, so any discussion of the face labels would have to be in the past tense. Similarly, "The back cover acknowledged Smith", because the back cover of the CD artwork does not carry these acknowledgements. JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I see what you mean. The reason the album features are mentioned is to highlight its appearance at the time, and to explain motivations and reactions at the time. Looking at your rewording as a whole, I'm happy with the changes you made. But although they clear up one tense issue, they introduce another: comments by reviewers are sometimes given in the present tense ("authors Chip Madinger and Mark Easter write"), and sometimes in the past tense ("Dave Marsh of Rolling Stone observed"). I think past tense would be more appropriate in all of these. In addition, it's difficult to parse "while the record's face labels credited production" (where is the noun?), so could it be reworded? Perhaps the word "labels" could be omitted?  – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh darn. I'm sure there's a case for saying that I'm being inconsistent about the issue of tenses, but …
To my way of thinking, interpretation and analysis of a piece of art lives on in the present, whereas discussion of the recording, say, or commercial release (when it's clear we're talking about past events) is set in stone as having occurred in the past. There's a couple of artist FAs that really throw me in this regard, I have to say, because they use past tense for pretty much everything. Meaning that an album might be discussed in the chronology of the artist's work, among mentions of a recent tour perhaps or some new artistic direction – that's all in the past tense, and quite right. But then a 21st century voice will enter the discussion, via a direct quote maybe, and the use of the past tense there (eg "Spitz wrote") trips me up: I'm thinking, firstly, "Well, when? Seems to be around summer 1967?" Then – because the narrative is locked in the past, with no allowance for a contrast between events in, say, the 1960s and 2013 – my mind starts wondering, "So what did Lennon make of Spitz's comments; it seems he must've read them before starting work on the next album …?"
So, what I've just done in the "reception" discussion here (as with every song or album article – I'd like to think) is to use the past tense to introduce a reviewer's opinion where the critique is clearly identified with a date. That's meant the addition of a year for Madinger & Easter and Woffinden, and "On release" before the Marsh/RS quote. You'll see that comments from Rodriguez and Lindsay Planer are still presented as if they're "now" – in the present tense (and I must admit I'd have preferred to have kept M & E's in the present too). That's true to my logic of art – its content and critical appraisal, in various forms – living on in the present, and to my logic that it's only when we fix on a particular event in its creation or public unveiling that the past tense is needed (which is a considerable amount, of course). I don't know if I've clarified the situation here, necessarily – or instead come close to exhausting your patience on this issue! (I hope not of course.) I'd like to retain the approach that clicks for me, if possible, but I appreciate that as the reviewer it doesn't seem to work for you. What do you think? JG66 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, and I think I get where you're coming from, but I'm just not getting behind it. Whether someone wrote a review back in 1967 or wrote the review earlier today, he still wrote it. (He is not still writing it.) But the review decribes (present tense) the album and gives an opinion, even if it was written long ago. I think it's most grammatically correct to say "He wrote a review, which states X" (unless you're specifically referring to how it was received at the time, in which case "he wrote a review, which stated X"). But I can't agree that "He writes a review in 1967" is grammatically correct.
If you agree, then great. If not, I'll probably have to solicit outside opinions from other reviewers; I'm honestly not sure whether this is (on the one hand) an error of grammar (GA criterion 1a) or a lack of precision (criterion 1b), either of which would require a change before GA status can be given, or (on the other hand) simply a difference of style, which does not require any change. – Quadell (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I've gone for "Robert Rodriguez has described", same for mention of Planer's comments. What do you think? JG66 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Looking it over carefully, the issue is way more complex and nuanced than I'd thought. I feel inclined to say "Author Dale Allison suggested" or "Author Dale Allison's book suggests", but the distinction gets very fuzzy. After all, books are often referred to by their authors (I've read Plato), and verbs for "saying" can be tricky to evaluate. Although Harrison wrote I, Me, Mine a while back, you could say he still "terms" a composition a certain way in that book. Do commentators still "note" something in their work, or can we only say they "noted" it when they wrote it? I was hoping to find a logical, consistent way of using tenses, but I have to admit, there's quite a bit more wiggle-room than I'd thought. After going back and forth a bit, I'm going to concede that I can't be strict on tenses for write/wrote and their synonyms without being arbitrary and inconsistent.
Thanks for your patience in hanging in there with me, and I do apologize for waffling on this. In the end, any way of putting it that sounds natural to you (an excellent writer) is probably fine.  – Quadell (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: In my opinion, the use of the "ohnothimagen" photo in this article does not satisfy the non-free content policy. Although the image is described in sourced content, it's only tangentially related, and (I believe) an article on the song can be fully understood without seeing the non-free image. This is just my interpretation, however, and the image's inclusion or omission will not affect whether the article makes GA status.
Yes, I could well ditch it. Thank you for laying out the situation so fairly. JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Clarity: I'm not sure what "note the place of" means.
How about "view 'His Name Is Legs' in light of its role as a precursor to .."? JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, I guess. It would be smoother to say "view 'His Name Is Legs' as a precursor to ...", but only if that is just as accurate. Is it?  – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I had that wording originally, but it seemed a touch redundant after we've already had mention (under 1975 overdubs) of Harrison and Idle collaborating on "The Pirate Song" for an RWT sketch. (Not that it's made explicit, I admit, that this sketch and Harrison's guest appearance on the show are one and the same.) To me, we'd then be stating the obvious to say that two of his biographers "view 'His Name Is Legs' as a precursor to to Harrison's well-received work with Idle, beginning with his guest appearance on Rutland Weekend Television". Perhaps not? I suppose the mention here, under Legacy, is simply to state that Huntley and Inglis do discuss the song in the context of Harrison's work with Idle/The Rutles/HandMade, so the sentence serves as a link to this final section (and in that way, provides the foundation for the Legacy section, one could say). As an alternative, I could reword to something like "Huntley and Inglis view the song as significant in light of its role as a precursor to …" – I'd need to check the sources first, of course, but from memory that would be a fair description of how the two authors treat the composition. JG66 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of prepositional phrases back-to-back in "as significant in light of its role as a precursor to...", so it seems to me that a simplification would improve the prose, so long as the simplification is accurate. I'm really not sure what the best way to phrase it would be... but I'm sure it's not an issue for GA status, regardless.  – Quadell (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I know, I know – "as … in light of … as a … to …" (Aargh.) What do you think about: "Huntley and Inglis discuss 'His Name Is Legs' in light of the track preceding Harrison's well-received work with Idle …"? I'll continue to think of other alternatives, but that one's the latest. (Not sure about tense here, though – should it be "Huntley and Inglis discussed"? [I'm not being facetious, I assure you!]) JG66 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That last alternative sounds good to me. Again, discuss/discussed is a tough one. I feel like they "described" it in the past, and their book "describes" it now. But they never literally discussed, did they? It's sort of metaphoric -- they wrote. So if they didn't literally discuss it, but literally wrote it, why can't we just as well say they metaphorically discuss it today in their book? I don't know anymore. But tenses aside, that wording sounds good.  – Quadell (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Clarity: You never explain what "became a member of the so-called Henley Music Mafia" means.
Added "a coterie of local musicians". Does that do it, do you think? JG66 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The wording you have now is acceptable, but I'd like to avoid giving the impression that HMM was something official (unless it was). What would you think of this? "...Smith became a part of a coterie of local musicians known as the Henley Music Mafia, which also included..." (BTW, just to be clear, either wording is fine for GA status. I'm just curious which is better, in your view.)  – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I've gone for your wording. I was hoping to find a more effective description of the Maf', and quote the author directly, but all I've turned up is the identity of other members! I think "coterie" carries a sufficiently unofficial tone. I'll keep looking for the quote, though. It's in Leng or Clayson … or Badman maybe. JG66 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll put this on hold, and I look forward to your responses and fixes. All the best,  – Quadell (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell, I'm always pleased when you take on one of these reviews. Oh, and I'm still laughing at your comment on Harrison's quote "... nobody else knows or cares about, except maybe two people". (So you don't think there's one of those Million-Award thingumies in this article? Darn, I was so sure I was on the path to glory here, you know ...)
Will have to familiarise myself with the article again. With your reservations about including the "ohnothimagen" photo and any reference to the artwork in the article's lead, I think I've not made the link clear enough, maybe – because the song and art design/concept seem to be irrevocably tied together, according to some sources. So I'll need to revisit that issue.
Thanks again! JG66 (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It's always a pleasure to read one of your works, JG66. Take a look at my remaining comments and see what you think.  – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's a pleasure to be on the receiving end of your reviews, Q (if I may be so bold). I'm very grateful for the attention you put in – and the time, given my eagerness to debate an issue! – because as much as I want the articles to become GAs, I'm not interested in "fluking" a pass. That simply causes more work in the long term (and my first two song GAs are still articles I need to revisit for that reason). Again: hope I've not exhausted your patience with the latest round of replies. JG66 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
No no, I have had some exhausting and frustrating reviews, but yours are truly not among them. It's clear you want to improve the articles above all other concerns, and that goes a long way. (Incidentally, "Q" is a long-term moniker of mine. User:Q is probably the username I would have used, had it not been already taken... and if I thought I could avoid constant comparisons to the James Bond and Star Trek Qs.)
I think the write/wrote issue is the only open issue left. Let me know where what you think about it. All the best,  – Quadell (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for putting up with my back-and-forth in this review. It certainly passes now, and I'm glad to promote it. (I'll finish the technical GA promotion later this morning.) All the best,  – Quadell (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh excellent, Quadell, thank you! Another highly enjoyable GAR/GAN. To sum up in reply to your latest comments above and your message on my talk: I'm really happy to have my theories on the tenses issue challenged – it's gets me thinking too, ensuring that I'm not off the dial. In other words, please don't feel it's been any effort, having to debate the points here. Not for a minute. I'd been thinking about the issue today, and I realised it's all down to whether one takes the verb "write" literally. There's no reason that one shouldn't take it literally (in which case, past tense obviously), but as you say, it can also be used as a figure of speech to mean "Jones' work states". That was going through my head: It's okay as long as you don't take the word literally! All good stuff.
Quick word on that " '...like some other of my songs about things nobody else knows or cares about, except maybe two people...' (Psst, JG66... I think he means you!)" Part of the reason I found your comment so funny, and still do, is that I simply can't stand this song! Absolute rubbish ... Thanks again, Q. Best, JG66 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A Few Words About Monty Python ... don't you think it's a bit of overkill with all the references to Monty Python? I'm a fan of George,Monty & Bonzo , but the mentions are irrelevant to the song itself. Do any Pythons appear on the song? Did the Pythons produce it? Write it? No. It is true that the album sleeve for "Extra Texture" mentions that Eric Idle doesn't appear on the album , but , that's all. Yep , George recorded a definitive studio version of the Lumberjack Song , and did all that Handmade Films stuff , and worked with various Pythons ( and Bonzos ) over the years. BUT ... it all has very little to do with the song "His Name Is Legs ( Ladies & Gentlemen )". Otherwise , its an informative article , and would remain as such , even with the Python references removed. Something to think about. 75.107.98.130 (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In the “Legacy” section, 2nd paragraph, there is a mention of the George Harrison song “Greece”, from his later album “Gone Troppo”, with a hyperlink. Clicking on the link takes you too a completely unrelated song, having only the title in common, by DJ Khalid. This really should be removed, as he had nothing to do with George Harrison. 75.106.32.81 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)