This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bob Dylan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bob Dylan on Wikipedia, including songs, albums, concepts, people, books, and movies related to him. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bob DylanWikipedia:WikiProject Bob DylanTemplate:WikiProject Bob DylanBob Dylan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
This will be over with today! --K. Peake 09:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox and lead
Columbia Studio A, Nashville → Columbia A, Nashville in the infobox
Remove the blues genre from the opening sentence and place the side three of double album part here, placing the release year in brackets instead and removing the track position
Amended, hopefully OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the studio named as Columbia Music Row Studios here when elsewhere says otherwise and piped to the article for Columbia Studio B?
I had missed this. I think that older sources tend to state "Music Row Studios". Lots of the Blonde on Blonde articles previously links to Quonset Hut Studio. However, as Sanders (2020) wrote, "Johnston... block booked Studio A... Studio A was the secondary studio at Columbia's Nashville facility; Studio B was the in-demand room, the iconic Qunoset Hut" (p.99) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The song incorporated elements" → "The song is a blues number that incorporates elements"
"at being kept wating" → "at being kept waiting"
"involved with; she is" → "involved with, who is" to be less repetitive with the body
"for both lyrics and musicianship." → "for its lyrics and musicianship." to be less wordy
"A different take was" → "A different take was included on"
Amended per the five points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background and recording
"with a chorus" are you sure the plural shouldn't be used instead since this is about two recordings?
Tweaked. I added what the chorus was here (and removed it from later in the article). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be mentioned that the finishing lines are also used throughout?
"and "Most Likely You Go Your Way and I'll Go Mine" from the same album" → "and "Most Likely You Go Your Way and I'll Go Mine", also from Blonde on Blonde," and remove the first comma
"also believes that the classical poetry influenced Dylan" this does not work grammatically after the school part; I am confused what you are even trying to say here
Reworked - I also removed the article title from the text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Dylan mentioned The Odyssey," → "Dylan mentioned the Odyssey," with the wikilink
Add a space before Geoff Ward
Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
Mentioning the album's critical reception here is irrelevant; either replace with the song's for the first sentence or just remove this altogether if you can't summarize
I'm not sure what is needed here. Looking at the book, Billboard Books is shown as an imprint of Watson-Guptill. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; this looks a bit messy but should be sorted soon enough! --K. Peake 10:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for another thorough, constructive review, K. Peake. There may be a couple more amendments needed - let me know what's required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose Well done on the speedy response and cleaning things up really well; the only problem left is with Billboard Books since it should be cited in a parameter that creates italicisation. --K. Peake 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this is possible within the limits of the cite book template, K. Peake. I checked that Billboard Books, rather than Watson-Guptill or any other entity, is listed as the publisher in sources like WorldCat and the British Library catalogue. Trying to format manually gives an error message: "Italic or bold markup not allowed in: publisher=". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓Pass now, the reasoning for no implementation is acceptable! --K. Peake 17:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, K. Peake. The article is listed at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Music#Songs, although I think it should be under "1960 to 1969 songs" rather than "1970 to 1979 songs". I can't see the GA icon on the article page, so I'm not sure what's happened there. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose I was unable to edit the talk page due to only having my mobile phone available, therefore I have changed it now to add the GA icon and there must have been a similar error on the articles page that I will now fix. --K. Peake 10:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; this looks a bit messy but should be sorted soon enough! --K. Peake 10:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
