Talk:I'm Down

Adrian Belew cover

Adrian Belew covered "I'm Down" for his Twang Bar King album (1983). It is item 1 on the track list for the album (as listed on the Wikipedia page for Twang Bar King). Tkbrett what further source do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevens94 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that a cover happened is not enough to justify including it in an article. See WP:COVERSONG. Tkbrett (✉) 16:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Beastie Boys cover

The Beastie Boys covered "I'm Down" for their Licensed To Ill album (1986), but in the end it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henkberg55 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Song writing credit

The article states that the song was written solely by Paul McCartney, but cites no reference for this. This seems to be a frequent issue with Lennon-McCartney songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.217.208 (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I'm Down/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 13:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this. On further reading, it appears rather straightforward, with only a couple of conflicting sources, so it should be OK. I usually work on a little at a time, so there is no time pressure. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

• |label= <br /> shouldn't be used in infoboxes (causes WP:ACCESS problems. Param already uses class=hlist, so it can be formatted as a normal bulleted list for display as a horizontal list separated by middots (see Template:Infobox song#label).

  Fixed.

• |length= The Capitol single lists the length as "2:30" (Parlophone didn't list lengths). FYI only – {{Duration}} is not needed for the first length (see #length).

• Fixed.

• Still shows "2:32" (intentional or oversight?)

• Sorry, missed that in the original comment. That's intentional. In the recording section I mention that "the stereo [mix fades] out two seconds earlier than the mono". The length of the mono is 2:32 and the stereo 2:30. The mono version is the one the vast majority of people were listening to in 1965, so I usually default to using its length if the difference is not too great, otherwise I would include both ("I'll Cry Instead" is 2:09 versus 1:49, for example). Of course, these days it's more common to hear the stereo version.

Lead

Resolved

Will address after the rest is reviewed.

• "I'm Down" is a song by – this is a bit long. Perhaps something like: "I'm Down" is a song by the English rock band the Beatles, written and sung primarily by Paul McCartney [is bassist needed?]. It was released on a non-album single as the B-side to "Help!" in July 1965 and, as with all of their songs, is credited to Lennon–McCartney.

• Agreed. I've rewritten the opening sentences slightly different than your suggestions; I think it's best to mention it being written by McCartney and credited to Lennon–McCartney in almost the same breath rather than in separate sentences. Let me know if you think they still need work.

• The song incorporates a Vox Continental – I would put this at the end of the second paragraph and maybe mention the "parodic" aspect (one of my first impressions back when).

• Fixed up both.

• Maybe include a mention that it takes its place on Past Masters in their core catalogue.

• I've added a mention of Mono Masters in the body and mentioned its initial rarity and subsequent inclusion on several compilations in the lead.

Background and composition

Resolved

• wrote "I'm Down" at the family home of – A time frame would be helpful.

  It's hard to get too specific, but I've included some more helpful info, namely that he moved into the house in November 1963 and that by October 1964 he was still trying to write a "Long Tall Sally"-type song.

• because there's nothing to them – I known what he's trying to say, but it may be confusing to some. Perhaps clarify that lacking a strong melodic component, the writer needs to build up other aspects to make it appealing.

  I've used an October 1964 quotation instead because he uses clearer language.

• Nice.

• and Alan W. Pollack writes – Pollack's "it's tempting to assume that they threw this song together in less than a single afternoon" seems too speculative and really doesn't add to Everett's observation (I don't have access to Everett's book).

  Yeah, that's fair. Removed it.

• is in ⁴
  ₄ – Some don't like the forms for notation being used in continuous prose, because they screw up the line spacing on some viewers. Many sources use "4/4" (as does Pollack), although I've seen both. Up to you.

  Ah, fair enough. I've changed it.

• The song opens with a solo vocal – Perhaps it's worth mentioning that Little Richard began several of his songs similarly (Riley: "It resembles 'Long Tall Sally' most during Paul's opening").

  Added Riley's comments.

• with neither bass nor drums to clarify the key – Since you've mentioned it, it may be helpful to explain the significance (Pollack's "it's an effect which retains the power to startle", since it's uncertain from the vocal itself).

  I've added Pollack's comments.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

So far, so good, although check the duration. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Recording, Release and reception

Resolved

• Looks good (I don't have access to Everett, Lewisohn, Winn, et al., so I'm AGF). Consider: each of the Beatles and the instruments they played are identified in "Recording". The later "Personnel" section just repeats the info and isn't really needed (also possible WP:OVERSECTION issue).

  I'd prefer to keep the personnel section as I think it helps clearly delineate who plays what without the reader needing to piece it together by reading the body. WP:SONG doesn't provide much guidance on assembling an article, but MOS:ALBUM does mention that a personnel section ought to be included.

The Beatles live performances

Resolved

• Great! Is there an image of them performing around the time? Or maybe use a quote box for a comment like Ringo's. It would help break up the text in the last sections.

• I previously added an image of them playing the song at Shea, but I removed it on reflection thinking that it probably does not qualify as fair use. I think the only way an image would qualify as fair use would be if it depicted John doing his elbow glissandos, but I haven't been able to find a good spot to screenshot that. Instead, I've moved John's quotation into a quotebox.

Covers

Resolved

• My access to Sheffield is limited, so I'm assuming that all of the Beasties info is covered by the single citation.

• Yes, it's all from Sheffield. I've specified page numbers a little more.

I'll look at the refs and lead tomorrow and that should do it. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Personnel

Resolved

• Addressed in above section

Notes, References, External links

Resolved

• MetroLyrics has been down for a while and might not come back. I've seen thebeatles.com website used for lyrics in other articles. Up to you.

• Fixed.

• Yes is no longer mentioned, so the category should be removed (& add the Beastie Boys?).

• Removed and added.

—Ojorojo (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

For the details, see above.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I think you nailed it Tkbrett. It's been a pleasure. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

   Thanks Ojorojo! I'm glad you were able to review this one. Thanks for your comments. Tkbrett (✉) 17:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)