# Talk:Living in the Material World (song)

Hey everyone. Mea culpa – a note to explain that I'm intending to change the style of cite formatting here.
Before I started expanding the article in September, this was the most recent user edit, which shows that ref templates were used throughout – that is, the article followed Harvard-style citation, as there is no template that allows for an alternative style. I won't lie: I admit I'm no fan of Harvard. But the main reason I'm wanting to change the format now is that I can't figure out how to correctly present the cites containing links to Rock's Backpages. By "correctly" I mean that, while mention of a sourced article being available on RBP is needed, together with the fact that access is dependent on paying a subscription, wording in a cite such as 'Anne Moore, "George Harrison On Tour – Press Conference Q&A", Valley Advocate, 13 November 1974' is quite sufficient as a reliable source in its own right, surely; yet the parameters of the ref template appear to restrict whether those print details can stand alone, separate from a secondary point regarding availability online. So what I'm concerned about is that, should the article(s) no longer appear on RBP sometime in the future, and if print and online details are not clearly separated, editors might remove the citation entirely and with it, the point being made in the song article. (It happens!)
I'm raising the issue here with what I concede might be an almost "after-the-event" tone/message. At the same time, I guess I'm hoping that it's clear how much I've expanded the article from September to its current form. In other words, the work I've done is not just doubling what was there originally, it's more like tenfold – and from my point of view, it's so much easier to bring over cite details from other articles I've expanded (containing non-Harvard refs) by simply pasting them in each time, rather than having to negotiate a cite template. The proof of the degree of expansion is in the amount of cites to magazine or online pieces where items are separated by commas instead of ref temp/Harvard full stops. (Only individual cites to the Allmusic, Rolling Stone and PopMatters reviews are set in the ref template style currently, since they were the only reviews included back in September.) So I admit that this is not just about the RBP situation.
Happy to discuss, even if – in the interests of making style consistent throughout, in preparation for taking the article to GAN – I now get started on removing the templates. Any thoughts or objections, anyone? JG66 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Living in the Material World (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: JG66 (talk)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  

2: Verifiable with no original research

a. Has an appropriate reference section:  Yes
b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

c. No original research:   Done

3: Broad in its coverage

4: Neutral

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:  Yes
6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR) & (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article: 

I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best,  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 09:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Seabuckthorn, thanks for your compliments, you're really very generous. Made quite a few additions to the lead, to address the issues you raised. And you're quite right – the lead definitely needed more. But I'm slightly surprised that you include the Overdubbing subsection in with the other problem areas. There does seem quite a bit from that, spread throughout the lead, no? (Although, I admit a "concise summary" has not been achieved – but that would be hard to do, I suggest.) Anyway, see what you think now ... Best, JG66 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks  You're right. I misjudged the Overdubbing subsection. Apologies. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm really pleased to get this one through, Seabuckthorn, because it's such a major statement within George Harrison's work. (I don't mind admitting I had to get a bit of an education first on the subject of reincarnation, before starting on the article.) Thanks so much for your help! JG66 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)