Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Highway 61 Revisited/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 19:07, 16 January 2013 [1].

Highway 61 Revisited

Highway 61 Revisited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mick gold (talk), Moisejp (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was brought to GA in February 2011. We then let it sit for a while and have recently come back to it for further polishing. We believe the article now meets FA requirements. We look forward to the FAC process and to addressing any concerns the reviewers may bring up. Thank you. Mick gold (talk), Moisejp (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments - I think you guys have definitely done a solid job, and with strong FAC campaign, it might actually achieve that bronze star :) However, we're here to review, so let's get down to the nitty gritty. I'm not yet convinced, so maybe we can work this out

  • Prose & MoS - don't look bad, but could be tightened in some areas.
    • On his previous album, Bringing It All Back Home, Dylan devoted Side One of the album to songs accompanied by an electric rock band, and Side Two to solo acoustic numbers -> instead of dedicating so much to introduce his previous album, why not try and trim it. I think you can introduce the main differences in between both albums more efficiently
Thanks Call Me Nathan, I think you're right, the opening sentence was ponderous. I've tried to trim it. Mick gold (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critics have written that Dylan's ability to combine driving, blues-based rock music with the verbal subtlety of poetry made Highway 61 Revisited one of the most influential albums ever recorded. -> I think for such a strong statement, it would be better to actually quote a critic and leave a citation
I've inserted one critical quote to back up our strong statement, but left it clear that it's more than one critic. Better? Mick gold (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to have over-linking (LARS, H61R)
I've removed lots of repeated links, including song names, musician names, and critic names. Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try to avoid NPOV statements like "hit single". Give us facts and let critics or the readers determine that
Thank you for all of your suggestions, Nathan. In the lead, I've removed the phrase "hit single". I see that we mention more specifics about its hit status later in the lead. I've also removed our statement in Reception that the album was a "hit". As you say, the chart positions and platinum status speak for themselves. Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dylan and Kooper then spent the weekend in Dylan's home -> prose need tightening throughout
This has been trimmed. Better? Mick gold (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to rely heavily on quotations; As a friend advised me on my own nomination, it might be best to paraphrase a bit to assure the read isn't interrupted.
  • Content - My main concern is that you pretty much have a song article composition section for every track on the album. This seems excessive. Remember, readers can always visit the song's homepage to learn more information. I think it would be best to wittle it down, and try and make it a solid section, giving only the important vitals on each or most of the songs.
On the previous Dylan article we took to FAC, Blonde on Blonde, reviewers praised the quality of the songs analysis. We could trim the Songs, and see if this is a major concern for other reviewers. I've trimmed the songs critical comments quite a lot. An improvement? Mick gold (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)'[reply]
I think it looks a lot bigger than it needs to. I suggest removing both the song-title heading and main-article links, and instead incorporating the linked song-name into the prose (see Ok_Computer#Tracks_1.E2.80.936).—indopug (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggestion, indopug. I've broken down the separate song sections and re-worked the paragraphs to try to substantiate the claim advanced by a critic in our lead that "in an important sense the 1960s started here." Several direct quotes were also turned into paraphrase per Nathan's suggestion. Mick gold (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "live performances" section reads kind of like a list. An annoying list. Is there not any critical info on any of his performances? Anything of importance aside from throwing a bunch of numbers in our faces?
I have trimmed the section to try to make it less listy and could try to trim it more if necessary. Our intention for this section was that it would convey how important the songs on the album have remained in Dylan's live repertoire. These weren't just songs he wrote in 1965 and forgot about, but most are songs he continues to come back to again and again (to varying degrees). If this relevance isn't as clear as we intended, we'd be very happy to hear suggestions about how to make it clearer. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time

  • File:ClarksdaleMS_Crossroads.jpg: the US does not have freedom of panorama for non-buildings, so image page should identify licensing for work pictured as well as photo
  • Significant citation cleanup needed. References mixes cited and uncited sources. Some inconsistencies in formatting (ex Kalet). Some sources of unclear reliability (ex)
  • MOS cleanup needed - overlinking (ex. Desolation Row twice in lead alone), section heading (The songs), etc
  • Some tone/neutrality issues - for example, "Dylan audaciously commences..."
  • Some copy-editing needed for clarity and flow - for example, "Backed by the same musicians from the previous studio session, Dylan no longer employed Tom Wilson as producer.[26] Instead, he was replaced by Columbia producer Bob Johnston, who had lobbied to work with Dylan, although he was not involved in Wilson's dismissal". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you so much for your review. I have:
  • removed File:ClarksdaleMS_Crossroads.jpg;
  • fixed the section heading you mentioned;
  • removed many repeated or otherwise unnecessary wiki-links;
  • removed the source of unclear reliability that you mentioned, as well as the info we attributed to it;
  • rewritten the sentence requiring copy-editing (about Wilson and Johnston);
  • fixed the Kalet ref;
  • fixed some instances that may fall under the "citation cleanup" and "tone/neutrality" issues, and in the coming days we will comb the article line by line to see if we can catch any other such instances. Thanks again, Moisejp (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone through and removed every reference in the Reference section to uncited sources. (These were all used in previous versions of the article, but we somehow neglected to remove the reference when we edited down the material.) Moisejp (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to "tone/neutrality" issues, I have gone through the article and clarified several instances that the statements are the views of the writers we are citing. Moisejp (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly much better than it was. A few more points: first, newspaper/magazine/journal articles for which you do not include a link should include page numbers. Second, I'm still seeing a few MOS issues, particularly around quotations: for example, in "he had to overcome considerable resistance at Columbia Records, to give his album the title, "I wanted to...", neither of the commas are correct. Third, there are some extraneous/trivial details - for example "located at 799 Seventh Avenue, just north of West 52nd Street" is probably a bit much. The most serious issue, in my view, remains tone: for example, "doomy" is colloquial to the point of ambiguity. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria, I've responded to some of your copy editing points. Mick gold (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Mick gold and I have both looked hard but couldn't find any magazine/newspaper articles lacking page numbers. You're talking about in the Footnotes section, not the References section, right? Please let us know if there was one in particular that you spotted. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone's done this, not seeing any more. I've struck my oppose given the improvements here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comment. "A number of" has been replaced by "eleven" (number of outtakes subsequently released) and "several" (number of LARS takes on CD-ROM). As far as I know, no-one has published a figure for the latter. Mick gold (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the links and re-written: "artery" has become "major North American highway", linking to U.S. Route 61 , and Duluth, Minnesota, Bob Dylan's birthplace, is directly linked. Better? Mick gold (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting - Hi guys. I'm going to try and re-review the article. Let's see what I can come up with :)

  • Prose
  • At first glance I'm noticing a lot of "Dylan". It's coming off as repetitive. I think alternating between "Dylan", "he", "the singer" etc. would be a better read
  • The linking is inconsistent. Before, you had over-linking, now you seem to be missing key terms: Studio album, rock music, singer-songwriter (his picture is in the article for goodness sake!)
  • For the first time, -> It reads a bit awkwardly. You're only on the second sentence.
  • Dylan used rock music -> I think there are far more correct ways of saying this.
  • except for the closing 11-minute acoustic song, "Desolation Row" -> This is just my opinion, but I think substituting song for number would be better in this sentence.
  • one claimed that "in an important sense the 1960s started here." -> Especially due to the fact that this comes from a biography, I think you should separate this and attribute the author etc. Also, I believe paraphrasing this would be more efficient; "felt that the 1960s "started" with the album".
Thanks Nathan, I've attempted to implement your suggestions. Mick gold (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • over his long career -> I don't think writing long career is necessary.
Not sure I agree. Are you saying the fact that Dylan is still performing these songs on stage, 47 year later, is not notable? Mick gold (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipping over to the "Live performances" section again. I believe I have already high-lighted major issues with this section above, however they still remain...
  • Dylan first performed every song except one -> first performed? every song except one? Not a good way to start a paragraph.
  • They have remained central, in varying degrees, to his repertoire during Dylan's long career of live performances since then. -> This is just a poorly worded sentence.
  • As I mentioned before, this section needs some buffing. It reads like a repetitive list and lacks cohesion.
Call Me Nathan, thanks a lot for your comments. I have gotten rid of the "Live performances" section, and moved just the second and third sentences from it to the previous section, now called "Reception and legacy". By being in this section, I believe the two sentences emphasize all the more that these songs have remained part of his legacy, in that that Dylan has performed them so often. But I have cut the extra details about the songs that he has performed lessoften, so we hope that it feels less like a list to you now, and that it has more cohesion. My cuts also get rid of the "first performed every song except one" sentence. I have also tweaked the "in varying degrees" sentence to be simpler. If it still doesn't work for you, I can try to tweak the sentence some more. Overall, do these changes address your concerns? Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I've had some time to look at the article, and agree that some work is still needed, with regard to language and structure. This is a good contribution though, thus my oppose is flexible and I may withdraw it once I feel that it is no longer appropriate.

  • "The album was innovatory in the way the singer used rock music as his backing on every track" – not sure if "in the way" is very nice here. Maybe try "as".
I have tried out "in that" to replace "in the way". Does that work for you? For me, "as" doesn't sound ideal, but if you don't like "in that" I'll change it to "as". Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fine. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 09:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "innovatory" is not a very common word is it? Why is it used here in place of "innovative"? And does this really mean that Highway 61 Revisted was the very first album to ever have rock music backings on most tracks?
"innovative" done. Mick gold (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Penguin, you ask an interesting question. Obviously in 1965 the Byrds and the Rolling Stones released albums which had rock music backing on every track. H61R was different because Dylan was famous for his compositions "Blowin' In The Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'", accompanied solely by his acoustic guitar, so his use of a rock band on every track (except "Desolation Row") was innovative. I've re-written lead to try to convey this. Mick gold (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. It's clearer now. There's just a grammar issue here; "used rock musician as his backing band on every track"; but otherwise it's good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this to be "musicians". Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "driving, blues-based music"?
It's blues-based music with a strong rhythmic element. But to write that would sound pedantic. Is this phrase hard to understand? Mick gold (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds a bit odd, but I agree with what you said. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few redundancies I'm finding, but if you believe they make the prose more readable, that's fine too: "ever recorded" and "around the world".
Removed "around the world". I do think "ever recorded" flows better than just "one of the most influential albums". Or "one of the most influential albums ever" without "recorded". If either of these doesn't bother you, I'd prefer to use one of them. Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just cutting "recorded" is good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 09:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cut "recorded". Moisejp (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Like a Rolling Stone' was a Top 10 hit in several countries around the world." – "multiple" is weak, because the plural "accolades" already makes this clear. Also "Top 10 hit" should be "top-10 hit". A hyphen is necessary because together, the "top-10" forms an adjective and this should not be capitalized.
Changed to "top-10 hit" in two spots. Moisejp (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP, if we take out "multiple", the sentence sounds pretty flat. Do you feel "many" is appropriate here based on the content in the article? Or possibly "numerous"? Moisejp (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You raised a good point: "many" should be alright. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "many" Mick gold (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:QUOTE discourages linking inside quotations.
OK,de-linked inside quote, 2 links moved to elsewhere in section. Mick gold (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "met her death" is too informal. Stick to "died".
Re-written. Mick gold (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the Highway 61 section has too many instances of the word "highway", making for repetitive reading.
I replaced a couple of them with "route". It was hard to replace any of the other ones, but let us know whether my change wasn't enough. Moisejp (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and blues legend Robert Johnson was said to have sold his soul to the devil at the highway's crossroads with Highway 49." – weasel-ish wording here as we are not told who claims this.
I've cited the the Johnson story to Polizzotti's book, where the musical history of Highway 61 is recounted in some detail. The story of Johnson selling his soul is mentioned in all the books on Johnson, see Mystery Train, Greil Marcus, p.35; Robert Johnson and the Invention of the Blues, Elijah Wald, p.274; Searching for Robert Johnson, Peter Guralnick, p.43. Mick gold (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The repetition of "piece" is slightly unpleasant here: "Out of this dissatisfaction, Dylan wrote an extended piece of verse which he later described as a 'long piece of vomit'."
  • "Dylan told Hentoff that the process of writing and recording 'Like a Rolling Stone' washed away this dissatisfaction, and renewed his enthusiasm for creating music." – cut "the process of". And "restore" is better than "renew" here.
  • "dissastisfied/dissatisfaction" is said three times in so few lines, and it feels repetitious. I would suggest using synonyms for an instance or two, like "frustration".
Above 3 issues addressed. Mick gold (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to disagree, but I don't see the importance of Studio A's street address. It's not useful information for most readers.
Replaced by Midtown Manhattan. Mick gold (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dylan and his band returned to Studio A the following day, where they devoted virtually the entire session to recording 'Like a Rolling Stone'." – By "virtually", do you mean "almost"? If so, "almost" is the preferable word. Also, "where" is an odd relative pronoun to use here. It's used more with locations, not days.
Mick gold has now fixed this. Moisejp (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need some clarification as to how "session" is defined. For example, "The first session, June 15 and June 16, was produced..." implies that both days together form one session. But this sentence—Dylan and his band returned to Studio A the following day, where they devoted virtually the entire session to recording 'Like a Rolling Stone'.— implies that day two was a separate session.
Article now reads: "The first block, June 15 and June 16, was produced by Tom Wilson". H61R was produced in two blocks of recording sessions: June 15 to June 16, and July 29 to August 4. I think this is now clearer. Mick gold (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Dylan and the band continued recording a further eleven takes" – ungrammatical; should be "but Dylan and the band recorded eleven more takes."
Done. Mick gold (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After recording multiple takes of..." – see above re. "multiple".
changed "multiple" to "several". There were between seven and ten takes of each of the three songs mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know where I heard this, but I heard that I should avoid using "not" where possible. E.g. "not satisfied" → "unsatisfied".
I have changed "not satisfied" to "unsatisfied". I did a search through the article to see if there were any other such instances, but there aren't. Moisejp (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music sample caption for "Like a Rolling Stone" says nothing about the song's music, which is the principal reason samples are given: to illustrate the sound.
I think this point has now been addressed by Moisejp. Mick gold (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for taking a look at the article, WP. We've tried to address most of your concerns and will be looking at the remaining ones in the very near future. Moisejp (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome! I'll respond to other points later. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP Penguin, have we addressed all of your concerns (for the portion you looked at, at least)? Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the other half then, very soon. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 09:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for restrictive vs. nonrestrictive: "...a song which has been described as revolutionary in its combination of electric guitar licks". My suggestion: remove "a song", or change "which" to "that".
  • I've noticed that you've chosen to use present and present perfect tenses when attributing to critic or author (eg. "Polizzotti writes that..."). I've thought of it as a journalistic/magazine style of writing. Can you continuously write something, or is it that the words have already been written, so past tense is used?
    I would be quite against using the simple past. The grammar I've learned is that the simple past should normally only used with a time marker in the past, otherwise the present perfect is used. So "In 1983, Bob Smith wrote that..." is OK, but just "Bob Smith wrote that..." by itself is an incomplete idea. If I read that I think, "When did he write... ?" But the present perfect by its nature does not require a time marker, so if you say, "Bob Smith has written that..." it is a complete idea. (Or, in the case of our 1965 reviews section, even though we don't mention 1965 explicitly, the time marker is implicit (1965, when the album came out); here, using the present perfect would be strange, as it is definitely not an open-ended time period--it is finished.) As for using the simple present tense, it may be as you say a journalistic or magazine style, I don't know. But I don't think it is necessarily incompatible with Wikipedia. It is simpler, shorter, more direct, and I feel more elegant that having to constantly use the two words that make up the present perfect. However, if you feel strongly that the present perfect would be better, I'd be willing to change the simple present to that. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your view on this. Thanks for the explanation. As for present perfect vs simple present, I don't prefer either one over the other. But I see you use both in this article. Why is that? Oops, nevermind, I reread your reply. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "popular music" instead of "popular song" sounds less strange here: "Polizzotti writes that the composition was notable for eschewing traditional themes of popular song"
  • "Critic Mike Marqusee has cautioned that this composition is probably self-referential" – I feel that "cautioned" is close to crossing the line of POV.
Re-written to eliminate the word "cautioned". Mick gold (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assembles a parade of historical characters" – seems a bit too figurative. Keep things literal and direct. If this is verbatim from a source, it should be in quotation marks.
  • What is meant by "transformed" here: "transformed into a successful businessman" and "transformed into a torturer"?
Changed "assembles a parade" to more neutral "uses a parade". I've written the phrases "represented in this song as a successful businessman", and "described here as a torturer" to make it clear that the song represents Jack the Ripper and John the Baptist in these ways, but that is nor their true historical reality. Mick gold (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And regarding the Ma Rainey reference, I think it should be made clear that the song only portrays her that way, and this is not her in reality.
Re-written to clarify that Ma Rainey (b. 1886) did not actually share a bedroll with Beethoven (d. 1827) and this is a humorous suggestion by Dylan. Mick gold (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For both Polizzotti and Andy Gill, the reality hovering behind the song is the then-escalating Vietnam War; these critics hear the 'king of the Philistines' who sends his slaves 'out to the jungle' as a reference to President Lyndon B. Johnson." – when I begin to read this sentence, I am confused as to who Andy Gill is, and why he is mentioned. Perhaps "For both Polizzotti and critic Andy Gill, the reality hovering behind the song is the then-escalating Vietnam War; they hear the 'king of the Philistines' who sends his slaves 'out to the jungle' as a reference to President Lyndon B. Johnson." (And "hovering" is a bit colloquial.)
Both Polizzotti and Gill are critics who have written books on Dylan's 1960s albums. (The phrase "both critics" occurred in the sentence after their names were mentioned.) I've now introduced them with the words "For critics Mark Polizzotti and Andy Gill, the reality behind the song..." I've removed the word "hovering" which is probably borderline POV. Then the next clause begins "both writers hear..." Mick gold (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence fragment: "When Dylan and his band returned to recording 'It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry' on July 29, 1965."
Made sentence complete. Mick gold (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "present" as in "who was present at the recording session" is redundant, as the same meaning is conveyed without the word.
  • A question for Mick gold and for anybody else: Tony Glover was present in the studio as a guest, not as a participating musician, right? Does removing "present" make this less clear? Or, even if we leave it in, will readers assume he was there as a musician? (Or maybe it is irrelevant why he is was in the studio (as a musician or as a guest)?) Moisejp (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed this to "Tony Glover, who observed the recording session, has recalled..." to make it clear that Glover noted the interaction of Dylan and his band, but Glover did not play on the album. Mick gold (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's much clearer. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excoriating" is a bit strong. Would "criticizing" be OK?
Changed to more neutral "looks at the media". Mick gold (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Bob Dylan is American, we should use American English. (eg. "realises" should be "realizes").
  • As seen above (this is from the Side one section), a major concern I have is the tone and writing style. It isn't bad, but there is some colloquial language, and not-exactly-neutral wording. My suggestion would be to give the Songs section a quick copy edit, so that the prose is presented nicer. Feel free to ask questions! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend a citation for this one: "Dylan commences the title song of his album, 'Highway 61 Revisited', with the words 'God said to Abraham "Kill me a son'/Abe said 'Man, you must be puttin' me on".'"
  • "Gill comments that it is befitting that this song celebrating a highway central to the history of the blues is the fastest, most raucous blues boogie on the album." – I think commas around "celebrating a highway central to the history of the blues" would make the sentence a bit more readable, if that's OK. It took some rereading to understand what the sentence meant.
  • Is the word "whores" fine to use here, not in quotes: "where the narrator encounters sickness, despair, whores and saints, corrupt authorities, alcohol and drugs before resolving to return to New York City"? Why not "prostitutes"?
Re-written to clarify that "sickness, despair, whores and saints" is a quote from from Shelton's account of the song. Mick gold (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would immediately cite this one too: "The song opens with a report that 'they're selling postcards of the hanging', and adds 'the circus is in town'."
  • Titanic should be italicized.
  • This should have a citation as well: "As he had on his previous three albums, Dylan contributed his own writing to the back cover of Highway 61 Revisited, in the shape of freeform, surrealist prose: 'On the slow train time does not interfere & at the Arabian crossing waits White Heap, the man from the newspaper & behind him the hundred inevitable made of solid rock & stone.'"
On the page devoted to Highway 61 Revisited on official Dylan website, there is a tab with word "Discover". Clicking on "Discover" brings up page which reproduces Dylan's liner notes for H61R and also the credit list of musicians who played on album. We used this cite for Dylan's credit for playing "police car", so I've repeated cite for quote from liner notes. Mick gold (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this: "Biographer Anthony Scaduto writes that it may be 'one of the most brilliant pop records ever made. As rock, it cuts through to the core of the music—a hard driving beat without frills, without self-consciousness.'"

I feel that soon my "Oppose" will have to be withdrawn as this article has improved greatly. Sorry for the delay however; I've been busy lately. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed my "oppose", and may follow up with more comments soon. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been discussed below, but I strongly think the lead should briefly introduce Bob Dylan in some way. Similar to what MathewTownsend said, I agree "American singer" is unspecific. But something different would really set some context for someone who's never heard of Bob Dylan (very few people, but you get my point!).
The FA on Bob Dylan describes him as an American singer-songwriter. I think this is an adequate description, now added. Mick gold (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've notice you say "successfully recorded" and "recorded successfully"? What is meant by that? Can something be recorded unsuccessfully?
I would argue it is possible to unsuccessfully record a song. During June 15–16 recording sessions for H61R, Dylan and his backing musicians recorded "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry" and "Sitting on a Barbed Wire Fence". These recordings did not make it onto the H61R album and they were not released. They were released 25 years later on Dylan's The Bootleg Series Volumes 1–3. At the time, Dylan did not regard them as successful recordings and did not release them. Biographies of Dylan are full of stories of his making recordings and not releasing them because he finds them unsatisfactory or unsuccessful in some way. Let me know if you find this unsatisfactory as a response. Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True; that makes sense. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs citation: "Kramer captured Dylan sitting on the stoop of the apartment of his manager, Albert Grossman, located in Gramercy Park, New York, placing Dylan's friend Bob Neuwirth behind Dylan 'to give it extra color'."
The information in the first 2 sentences of "Packaging" comes from Highway 61 Revisited, 2006, Mark Polizotti, pp.5 - 7. To put a cite after every sentence seems excessive to me, but in light of your query, there is now a cite after both the first and second sentences. Mick gold (talk)
Thanks for implementing the suggestion. The sentence had a quotation, and as I've interpreted WP:INCITE, they must always immediately precede a citation. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the track list and personnel adapted from? Maybe cite album notes?
Track listing and Personnel now cited. Mick gold (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked ten random FA album articles, and only one of them had a total length of the album in the track list. Is it OK if we don't add it? If you feel strongly that it would be better, I guess we could add up the song lengths. But I'm not 100% sure whether if there are gaps between songs, these get counted in the song lengths and how this affects the total length. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed fused participle. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency needs to be checked on whether the album is referred to as Highway 61 Revisited or Highway 61.
  • It is true that we use both. The reason, I believe, is simply that we mention the album title so many times that it would sound very repetitive and "weighty" (if that's the right expression) if we used the full title each time. There are also at least a few instances where long song titles are shortened after their first mention: "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry" → "It Takes a Lot to Laugh"; "Sitting on a Barbed Wire Fence" → "Barbed Wire Fence". Do you feel strongly that this is inconsistent or unencyclopedic? Moisejp (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the things I've wanted to comment on before I am confident that I can support this nomination's promotion is as follows. It's a concern that may be met with disagreement to some degree, but I feel that the Reception and legacy section is quite dense on quotation. The format is that one writer said this excerpt, and that repeats for a few paragraphs. The third paragraph particularly stands out as being repetitive, but revision of other parts would not hurt either. Quotations are interesting and accentuate critics' opinions, but too many hurt the flow and the main reason for this section—not to aggregate all reviews and reportings but to describe and give an overview of the general response from critics, reporters, authors, etc. (the consensus). If some of the quotations can be paraphrased and/or trimmed, the article would improve in its readability, flow and general prose quality. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP Penguin, I support the paraphrased and reduced quotations edited by Moisejp in response to your criticism of Reception and legacy section, with one exception. I feel it is wrong to lose Phil Ochs' reaction since an important part of the significance of H61R was the impact it made on contemporary artist. Without Ochs, we have Larkin, a succession of music trade papers and 2 critics. Mick gold (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I agree that Ochs' quotation is valuable in describing the legacy of the album. I think it looks better now, but a little bit more work is still needed w.r.t. paraphrasing. It's not an easy thing to do, but I strongly think it will improve the writing and flow. 19:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comments by MathewTownsend
I feel there's a misunderstanding here. The lead states: "Critics have written that his ability to combine driving, blues-based music with the subtlety of poetry makes Highway 61 Revisited one of the most influential albums ever" - the Easter egg blues-based is actually a link to rhythm and blues when it should be linked to Blues. Dylan wasn't R&B. The musicians listed farther down in the article under "Dylan and Highway 61" are blues musicians (with the exception of Elvis Presley, but who was not an R&B musician). I tried to change the link to blues-based but was reverted. I'd be very surprised if many "critics" think Dylan's album was rhythm and blues-based.
Also, "Critics have written ... makes Highway 61 Revisited one of the most influential albums ever" - this is quite a statement and seems a bit POV for the lead, even if some critics said that.
And calling Dylan a "singer" seems pejorative to me. I know that wording was suggested to you, but that makes him sound like the front singer for a band when he was so much more. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MathewTownsend, I've reverted to blues-based as you suggested. You are right to point out that the musicians mentioned in "Dylan and Highway 61" are blues musicians, and this is also Gray's point about the meaning of the album title. I sometimes find it hard to be clear about the border between blues and R&B. Billboard changed the name of their black music chart from Race Records to Rhythm & Blues Records in 1949, so records by Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker were hits on the R&B chart. Mick gold (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-written first para to take account of your concern that "makes Highway 61 Revisited one of the most influential albums ever" may seem a bit POV for lead. Mick gold (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I reviewed this article for GA status nearly two years ago. Having re-read it several times today and reading through all of the comments above, I really cannot see any outstanding issues. The prose is very good, the article is comprehensive and excellently researched. The tone is neutral, the article is stable and of a reasonable length. The article complies with the style guidelines, is well referenced and is illustrated with short sound clips and suitably licensed phtographs. I see no reason why this article should not be granted featured article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Comments on Reception and Legacy

  • Lead: "It has been described by critics as Dylan's magnum opus" The phrase "magnum opus" does not appear anywhere else in the article. The lead should summarize the body; it should not introduce new material.
Phrase "magnum opus" has been dropped. Mick gold (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 1965, the US trade journal Billboard praised his "dynamic, deep-thinking delivery" and as being "in top form throughout his story-telling"." The grammar here is a bit wonky. What exactly was "in top form", Dylan or his delivery? If the delivery, cut the "and" between the two quotes and we're good to go. If Dylan, change "praised his" to "praised Dylan for his" and we're solid.
Quote from Billboard has been re-written. Mick gold (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rock culture, in an important sense, the 1960s, started here." Can we check to make sure this is the exact wording used in the source? It got has no grammars.
Michael Gray writes in The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia (2006). p.321: "The whole rock culture, the whole post-Beatle pop-rock world, and so in an important sense the 1960s started here." The quote has been corrected. Mick gold (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reception and Legacy section makes no mention of covers by other artists. If we are to claim that an album had a "legacy", surely there must be notable covers, yes?
I've added some notable cover versions to this section, but have not finished putting all cites in correct format. Mick gold (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now cleaned up the cites for the covers Mick gold added. Moisejp (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I made some quick, relatively minor edits last month, and have reviewed some of the other Dylan album articles. Reading it again, I think this article does an impressive job of capturing the history and impact of this album. It's on par with other featured album articles and I have no major reservations. (Btw, wasn't Tempest great? ) --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK (own work, fair-use). Sources and authors provided. Some additional comments (no action required):

  • Cover image is fair-use. OK.
  • Three fair-use audio samples is in the upper range compared to other music FA-articles, but some -especially famous albums- use three samples aswell. All samples provide a quite detailed fair-use rationale, covering different aspects of each song. OK.
  • File:It_Takes_a_Lot_to_Laugh.ogg uses 10.18 percent of the original song length instead of 10, but the guideline is "should generally", not "must always". OK in this instance.
  • The other 2 samples have 30 seconds, following the recommended sample length for longer songs. OK. GermanJoe (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck: Have a copy of Gill so started checking the stuff attributed to him. I'm surprised that the author's descriptive words are often re-used with little or no variation, and without quote marks, e.g. "least interesting", "most raucous blues boogie", "limitless possibility/ies", "enervated tone" (that's where I stopped). Not as bad as copying entire sentences without quotes, and if it were just one or two instances one might let it pass, but the frequency suggests lazy editing at best, and it doesn't auger well for the paraphrasing of other critics' work. Please walk through the article and double-check this sort of thing (not just Gill). Also:

Critic Andy Gill wrote, "'It Takes A Lot To Laugh' provides a succinct illustration of Dylan's creativity, both in the way it adapts an old blues song, and in the way Dylan recorded two radically different versions of the song: the first, fast and guitar-driven; in his second version, released on Highway 61, Dylan transformed the song into a 'slow, loping, piano-based blues'."

This suggests that all of the above is as it appears in Gill's book, and he's quoting someone else saying "slow, loping, piano-based blues". In fact "'It Takes A Lot To Laugh' provides a succinct illustration of Dylan's" and "slow, loping, piano-based blues" are Gill's exact words and the rest is paraphrasing. You might recast as:

According to critic Andy Gill, "'It Takes A Lot To Laugh' provides a succinct illustration of Dylan's creative processes", both in the way it adapts an old blues song, and in the way Dylan recorded two radically different versions of the song: the first, fast and guitar-driven; in his second version, released on Highway 61, Dylan transformed the song into a "slow, loping, piano-based blues"

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments, Ian Rose. I'll go through Gill, Heylin, Gray. Shelton, Polizzotti, over next 2 days and double check for lazy editing as you suggest. Mick gold (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too. It's a start, but I have checked all of the Heylin 1995 and Heylin 2009 quotes and made a couple of changes. I'm satisfied we have quoted and paraphrased properly for these two sources at least. Moisejp (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I've gone through the prose again looking at all cites to Gill, Heylin, Gray. Shelton, and Polizzotti. Some cites altered, some paraphrased, some quotes corrected. I think we have addressed lazy editing. Let us know if you have further concerns in this area. Mick gold (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, looks okay now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Highway_61_Revisited/archive1&oldid=1140156372"