Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Watching the River Flow/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2017 [1].

Watching the River Flow

edit
Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a one-off 1971 single by Bob Dylan where he collaborated with musician Leon Russell and briefly experimented with a blues-rock sound. I have done a bunch of editing to bring it up a couple of notches from the GA-level quality it was at, and the article was recently peer reviewed. I believe it meets the FA requirements. I would also like to give credit and thanks to User:Mick gold, who co-nominated it for GA with me in 2012, and who recently made several very helpful edits in preparing for this FAC; thank you also to Ceoil for copy-edits. Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my detailed comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ojorojo

  • Thank you so much, Ojorojo. It's great to have had someone with a deep knowledge of the subject review the article. I will make the wording change you suggested below when I get home tonight. Moisejp (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of observations/minor points:

  • Lead – Some details may be better left in the main body (backing musicians, charting countries, cover artists). Perhaps add some mention about where it fits in his chronology (e.g., a non-LP single recorded after his country rock phase with Johnson)
  • See what you think of my changes. I removed mention of the musicians, and added that it followed a country rock phase. I'm hesitant to remove the chart information because singles are measured by their chart performance. I also would rather keep in the covers information, but let me know if you strongly disagree. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I think the second sentence could be broken up. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do have a source that compares the Blue Rock recordings (the two originals and the unreleased covers) to "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat" but without any mention of blues rock [[2]]. If you like the following change (or have another to propose) I'd be happy to do so: "The music of "Watching the River Flow"—whose feel Bob Spitz has likened to Dylan's "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat" (1966)—has been described by different critics as a "[b]lues-powered sound [that cascades] like clumps of flotsam and jetsam",[18] as "featur[ing] some blistering guitar work ... and rollicking piano work from Russell",[17] and as "an energetic, funky-gospel rocker"." Let me know what you think. Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that he has explored some similar territory before is worth noting and your addition touches on it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the backing musicians are listed, maybe note that they were associated with Russell and had not recorded/backed Dylan before.
  • Perhaps the fact that they were associated with Russell (more so than Dylan) is somewhat implied already in the wording "Russell assembled"? I'm not optimistic I'd be able to find a reference explicitly saying Dylan had never recorded with these musicians before. Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. FWIW, most played with Russell on Mad Dogs & Englishmen (recorded 3/70) and Leon Russell and the Shelter People (8/70–1/71) and also would perform at The Concert for Bangladesh (8/71), at which Dylan also performed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that the inclusion of the chords without bars is useful (the way the first chords appear makes it seem that they are all of the same duration; the second appear to be a turn around). Perhaps describe it as an eight bar progression with substitutions (if you can find a ref).
  • I'm not a musician myself, but could I confirm you're saying the current source (sheet music) probably isn't enough as a source to go into the detail of description you would like to see? Assuming I can't find a written description of the progression (which I don't have much hope I will), would you favour me removing the current chord description altogether? Moisejp (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sheet music (the current source is guitar tab with lyrics). I'll add a note on the talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added it as a ref. Could you please suggest the wording that you'd like to see that is appropriate for the source? Is the following good: "...and consists of an eight-bar chord progression of F–B♭–F–G7–C7–F–B♭–F–C7–F with substitutions"? Moisejp (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sources don't explicitly say this in words, a better wording would be: "... and uses a chord progression in the key of F major." —Ojorojo (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The commentary in the Listen template may be better left in the article (excerpt with guitar is not particularly "blistering" – instead perhaps "20-seconds of intro with piano, guitar, and part of first of verse").
  • I realize it's not everybody's approach, but my approach for non-free content has always been to treat the caption (in the article) as an extension of the fair use rationale in the media file—that is, try to implicitly justify why the inclusion of the non-free media adds to the reader's understanding more than just words alone. The WTRF article's caption may not be the best example I've ever done, but I guess I was aiming to use the sound clip to give the reader a better understanding of what the "blistering" and "rollicking" descriptions in the article actually sound like in the song. If you feel my approach is valid, do you have a suggestion for details (ideally descriptions from the article or paraphrases of them) that you would like to see in the caption instead of "blistering" and "rollicking"? Or if you don't think my approach is especially valid, let me know—I'm open to different points of view. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting approach. I've mostly treated samples (and images) as examples of the general subject and not a particular aspect of it. That way they may be used to illustrate a variety of points, such as "guitar figure", "first verse", "chorus", etc., as the editor may choose. If you wish to use it to show what a writer is describing, perhaps the caption should be attributed, e.g., "Excerpt of "blistering guitar" and "rollicking piano" as described by critic Anthony Varesi[17]". Otherwise, the caption should be more neutral. (The opening guitar part is performed with a slide – worth noting, but I couldn't find a ref.) —Ojorojo (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the caption to include Anthony Varesi's name, and have removed "lead" from the description (was "lead guitar"). Please let me know if this is satisfactory, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release – Maybe title section "Releases and charts" and include the chart table.
  • Live performances and covers – I heard one Dylan performance where he used a very different backing arrangement (country shuffle/boogie?). Maybe include some info on live versions if you can find any.
  • I'll try to see if I can find anything. My best idea is to do a Google search by concert venue (and include "Watching the River Flow" in the search each time) and see whether reviews come up that mention his arrangements, which may take a bit of time. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a couple of searches and couldn't find anything, except a video of a jam of George Harrison performing it with Dylan, John Fogerty, Taj Mahal, and Jesse Ed Davis (on a good slide solo) at a North Hollywood dive in 1987. (~17:50–22:04)[3] —Ojorojo (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for looking, Ojorojo. I also have looked a bit. I agree such commentary would be nice to have (if it is findable) and I'd be interested in exploring this later more leisurely. My method of searching venue by venue could conceivably result in some insightful commentary about alternate live arrangements, but as I mentioned it's a time-consuming method. If this point isn't a deal-breaker for gaining your support, I'd prefer to not tackle this point at this time. Moisejp (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyman photo – As only one of three images in the article, this may give more prominence to the Stones cover than warranted. Wyman's image doesn't appear related to WTRF or playing/recording with the Stones.
  • Re. the Wyman photo: my thinking was that the Rolling Stones are arguably one of the biggest bands in the world—and (perhaps to a lesser degree) the fact that their recording reunited Wyman with his former bandmates after so long—adds to the notability of their recording over other covers, justifying the prominence of their recording in the covers section. But I am certainly open to changing the photo. One idea is I could change it to a pic of Dylan in concert. I'll check to see whether I might be lucky enough that a Wiki Commons photo exists for one of the 500 concerts where Dylan played WTRF—in that case the photo caption would take care of itself. If such a photo doesn't exist, let's discuss whether a generic live photo of Dylan would be better than current Wyman one, and if so what an appropriate caption would be. (I'm also open to suggestions for any other photos to substitute instead.) Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a match. Just confirming before I make the change, would you prefer the photo below to the Wyman one:
Dylan together with five members of his band onstage.
Dylan playing at the Spektrum in Oslo, Norway, on March 30, 2007, one of hundreds of concerts where he has performed "Watching the River Flow".
I agree that the Stones' cover is probably the most notable, but think a Dylan performance photo is more appropriate. There are several photos of Dylan and Russell performing together (e.g., the Concert for Bangladesh[4] and ?[5]). Your choice. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ojorojo. There are some very good ideas in your suggestions. I'll address them soon and get back to you when I'm done. Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images appear to be used properly. Alt text is present.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support and your image review, Wehwalt! Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wehwalt. I ended up changing one image per Ojorojo's request above. Could I please ask you to have a peek at it as part of your image review? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

edit

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Support from Aoba47

edit
  • For the following phrase (featuring Rolling Stones Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, and Ronnie Wood, as well as former member Bill Wyman), would it read better to say "featuring Rolling Stones members" and then list off the artist names? The second instance of "member" in that sentence could be changed to "the band's former bass guitarist". I could be wrong, but just the jump from the band to the list of the names reads a little weirdly to me.
  • In the paragraph of who has covered the song, do you need to identify where each cover was done? If it was done as part of a live show or an album? I am not certain about this, but I just wanted to ask you.

These are my only two things that I have noticed while reading through the article, so I support on prose. Great work with this article! If possible, could you look at my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or if it falls outside of your interests. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day, and good luck with getting this promoted as it seems to already be very close to that point. Aoba47 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47. Thank you very much for your support, and for your comments here and in the peer review! About your comments here:

  • Hmm, if you do a Google search of, say, "Rolling Stones Much Jagger and Keith Richards" [[6]], there seem to be quite a few hits that match the usage I used, and I would argue it is an acceptable way to use "Rolling Stones". But also in the same search, hits of "the Rolling Stones' " come up. Would you prefer "featuring the Rolling Stones' Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, and Ronnie Wood, as well as former member Bill Wyman"? I'd be happy with that wording. However, I feel your suggestion of "Rolling Stones members" reads a little awkwardly (perhaps partly because there are two plurals in a row—Stones members), and I'd reluctant to change it to that, unless you feel very strongly that it's better.
  • The addition of the apostrophe makes the most sense to me so I would recommend doing that. Aoba47 (talk)
  • All of the covers listed appear on albums, and none are simply unreleased live performances. I see your point of—if the list were a combination of album and simply live covers—it might be beneficial to indicate which is which. But I can't think of a way right now to add mention of the fact that they were all album releases without it sounding wordy (for example, I wouldn't be crazy about "The song has also been covered by numerous other artists on albums, including..."). But if you have a suggestion for wording you'd like to see, I'd be open to your suggestion. Otherwise I feel it's pretty much fine the way it is now, and it keeps it simple and doesn't get overly detailed about what kinds of covers they are.

About me looking at your FAC, I would love to, but my most immediate commitment is I've promised IndianBio I'd give feedback at his peer review, and he has been waiting a long time for it. Once I've finished that, if your article is still in need of review, I'll take a look. Otherwise, I'll try really hard to jump in and review your next one. Thank you again for all of your suggestions and for your support! Moisejp (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

I will be supporting this impressive article. However, not sure that mentioning it appeared his Greatest Hits Vol. II is for the lead. It seems faint praise. Disclimer, have been a listening to Dylan in a significant way for 30 years. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ceoil, thank you again very much for your interest in this article. Hmm, I could mention in the lead that WTRF was technically a non-album single (as Ojorojo suggested above) and remove mention of Greatest Hits Volume II... But I'm a little worried readers will be wondering even as they read the lead whether the song was eventually released on any albums. Plus, Greatest Hits Volume II is a relatively famous album. But if you feel strongly it shouldn't be mentioned (and nobody else objects), I could take it out of the lead as you suggest. Still another option would be just to keep "and was released on multiple compilation albums"—that may possibly be weaker still in terms of "faint praise" but at least the reader would not imagine the single was never released on any albums. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood, and its hardly a deal breaker. Not many people reading this far while browsing will be uninformed in Dylan lore, so it seems redundant. I'd big up the song with a different accolade, but non album single or similar is fine. Yes Greatest Hits Volume II is well know. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still heavy on chart positions and such stats (we get "in Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom" early on when there is so much else to say. How about "Worldwide"). Maybe remove one instance of the word "restless". Ceoil (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ceoil. See what you think of my edits to address your concerns. I'm happy to keep working on them if you feel they're not quite right. For the lead, I tried "minor hit in some countries worldwide"—I was reluctant to not include "some countries" because simply "worldwide" may suggest a more widespread number of countries when we only have evidence of four. Moisejp (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Moisejp. I am impressed with the article, minor quibbles aside. Will return next weekend after another read, I suspect to support. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you shorten the list all those after "numerous other artists" Moisejp Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ceoil. The list includes all the covers I could find (for which the artists already had Wikipedia articles), but I could shorten it to any arbitrary number. There are a few I know are quite famous and several others I hadn't heard of but they may well be famous. I'll start by removing a few that seem likely to be on the less famous/notable side, and you can let me know if there's a ballpark figure of how many more you'd like me to remove. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I not thinking of "for the sake" of it or arbitrary just more readable. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed all the presumably less notable artists, for which there was only an "Overview" for the album in AllMusic, not a proper "Review". This ended up being six artists I cut, so the list is quite a bit shorter now. Moisejp (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was wording Mick gold contributed, and I see it's wiki-linked to pastoral. The source, Ricks, does not use either word (there's a link to the pages in Google Books if you want to have a look). In the source there doesn't seem to be one specific sentence that "implied bucolic notion" refers to, but when I reviewed the source (and look at it agin now), the "relaxed pastoral" vs. "conflict" idea seems to match the overall idea described in the cited pages. But I am happy to adjust the wording in any way if you have suggestions. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your choice. Are you happy with its rention. Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously do, but its not fatal. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dylan sought to subvert critics like Gleason - again, I understand this, as a fan, but in the article its just thrown out, in a sea of quotes, with no subtext. Its a fascinating point, that you might expand upon. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mick gold—if you have time—would you have an idea, and a good source, to expand on this? I guess it would amount to discussing Dylan's annoyance at his critics/fans trying to "own" him and always expecting him to "have something to say". Moisejp (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Heylin section is expanded to clarify the Gleason bit, and this goes into more detail about Dylan's annoyance at fans'/critics' (largely artistic) expectations, there may (or may not) be some overlap with the Shelton section, which discusses his distancing himself from fans' (political) expectations. There is also a bit of overlap between Ricks' and Heylin's discussion of Dylan's restlessness. Especially if the Gleason bit is too obscure for the general reader, another possibility could be to pare down the Heylin section to only talk about Dylan's lack of inspiration. We could use the last three sentences in the paragraph, but tie the question "What's the matter with me?/I don't have much to say" more explicitly to just his lack of inspiration rather than to Gleason. But that’s just an idea. I'm interested to hear Ceoil's and Mick's thoughts about this, or as mentioned before, whether Mick has ideas to instead successfully expand this section. (But maybe the “Ballad of Easy Rider” vs. “WTRF” bit should be removed regardless, as it disrupts the flow of other arguments—and because Ricks already touched on Dylan’s restlessness—but, again, that’s just an idea!) Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp I'm afraid I'm working away from home - and my Dylan books - for a while. Can't look at this immediately. Mick gold (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Mick. I hope your work is going well. Moisejp (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To sum up my standpoint, I don't feel really confident about finding sources for and expanding this subtle Gleason point on my own. I would propose either removing it, to focus on Dylan's lack of inspiration, or leaving it as is. Either way, having re-read this paragraph and considering the overall flow of the section, I wouldn't be against removing the “Ballad of Easy Rider” vs. “WTRF” sentences, unless there is consensus or strong opinion to keep them. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moisejp I was hoping for a ref rather than removal, as the passage rings true! Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1987, Dylan has performed the composition often at his concerts. - this might seem like trite to a new reader unless mention is made of the exceptionally long and vital career, the large volume from his back catelogue he might choose from, as well as the reality of his never ending tour. Otherwise it reads as an aging star pumping out the hits. Ceoil (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you've cut that from the lead. That's fine with me, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The implication is that you should audit for similar broad claims after the lead for similar howlers. I don't like that we say "four country albums", and the list them; it could be taken as padding, please also look over. Ceoil (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think perhaps you mean to say that I haven't taken enough care to read carefully and audit. But I don't think that's fair. I have read through this article dozens of times in the last months with a critical eye. What is considered a "howler" is subjective. That's why in FAC multiple reviewers make suggestions and reach a consensus on what they can all accept—because everyone has slightly different opinions on what the perfect prose would be. For me, listing the four albums is an interesting detail and not padding at all. Also, removing the names of the albums requires having four footnotes bundled together, which is a little awkward. But if you feel it's better without listing the four albums, sure, we can remove them. I will do so. Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we remove the four titles, we need to put the following in context: "During the New Morning sessions, Dylan reportedly decided that he did not want to continue working with Johnston." Are you happy with "During the sessions for New Morning—the fourth of these—Dylan reportedly decided that he did not want to continue working with Johnston"? Moisejp (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can rely on and ask other reviewers, but that doesn't make you able to define what you thought I meant to say. If you think the page is perfect and on its face does not need an audit, why put it through a review process. There are more elegant formulations, and this is but one. Ceoil (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean I thought it was perfect, or that I didn't want to accept yours and other people's reviews. All I meant was that "howler" is very strong. I'm really sorry if I misunderstood what you meant. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More bits:

  • Christopher Ricks mentions Dylan's restlessness which he finds at odds with the implied bucolic notion of enjoying watching the river flow. For Ricks, the vocal phrasing and the musical arrangements conflict with the lyrics - needs to be explained for lay readers. Why restless.
  • I've brought up a couple of times how the "Easy Rider" vs. "WTRF" sentences (about Dylan's restlessness) from the Heylin paragraph seem possibly out of place. What if I moved them to the Ricks paragraph, would you see that as being potentially helpful? Then the third paragraph would be about Heylin's and Ricks' observations on the "restless" theme, while the fourth paragraph would be about Heylin's observations about his relationship with critics/the press and his lack of inspiration. This move would give more context to Ricks' statement about restlessness, as you have requested. Moisejp (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conflicting critical estimates" - reword -cc
  • I tentatively changed it to "changing, polarized critical estimates". It may get closer to the heart of the issue than simply "conflicting". I'm still considering whether there may be a better way still to express this. Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Heylin, by beginning "Watching the River Flow" with the question "What's the matter with me?/* - paraphrase the Q, reword
  • "Marcus argued that"..."For Marcus" - Remove one instance of the word Marcus.
  • You're right that there were three sentences in a row mentioning Marcus. Looking at them now, I found it at first difficult to remove his name without causing ambiguity about who was talking. But I ended up opting to adjust the first sentence by changing it to "He went on to describe"; this may be slightly wordier than "he described", but I think it makes it clearer that we're talking about Marcus, not Taylor. If you disagree with this edit, I'm happy to look at it again. Moisejp (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall the article is overly reliant on quotes. Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2017
  • Do you have suggestions for candidates you think would be good to paraphrase? If you do, that would be really helpful for me. I did a round of looking for places to paraphrase before I nominated the article, and changed a few of the easiest ones at that time, where there was as little as possible loss of meaning or colourfulness. I'll also have another look today for candidates, but if you have suggestions, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think Moisejp has done exceptional work in research, and my hope is that a successful nom is brought back in a few months or so. Ceoil (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, can you tell me how your opinion changed so greatly from "I will be supporting this impressive article" to oppose? I'm really trying to be very cooperative and to take on all of your suggestions. I'm truly sorry if we got into a misunderstanding above. What can I do to still keep this on track? Moisejp (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is on track, but I have highlighted a number of structural issues you need to work through - the lead needs to be woven into the story of his career at that point, which it doest do. The the article vague at places, listy at others. And so forth. All of these will take time to resolve. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added more to lead to try to convey where he was in his career at this point. I have removed the list of four country rock albums, and removed one album (the "limited tour edition" one) from releases containing "WTRF" to reduce the article's listy-ness. To improve vagueness/unclarity, I've re-paraphrased a section of the Marcus discussion to make it clearer. I'm still looking at whether there are other vague spots I can improve. Moisejp (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, I understand. If I withdraw this nomination now and open another peer review in the near future, would you be willing to work with me to improve the areas you feel prevent it from achieving FA quality? Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terrific album to put forward, but it needs a further push on prose and tightness, is what I'm saying. Ceoil (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, super. I'm thrilled you think the issues are fixable within this FAC, thank you. I will work hard to address your remaining issues. Moisejp (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So please read above. I can only repeat myself so many times. Please roll up you sleeves and address. I'm worn down by prognosticating and promises.

Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ceoil, I'm working at it, and believe I've made some good progress. I'll let you know when I've finished. If you prefer to wait until I'm done before responding or checking my edits, no worries. Thank you again lots for your suggestions and edits. They've really helped improve the article. Moisejp (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm a little confused about the intentions above so could do with clarification. This nom has been open almost three weeks so if Ceoil and Moisejp believe outstanding issues can be resolved reasonably soon (say in the next week or so, and of course allowing for other reviewers' opinions) then I'm happy to leave it open; if the issues are deeper and would require longer to resolve then I'd prefer to close this now and let PR be the next step as mentioned above -- pls let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like very much to resolve all issues during this FAC, but it's up to Ceoil to decide whether the gap is too big. Although since deleted, I was encouraged by Ceoil's following edit [[7]], and am working to quickly address the points brought up—and look for other instances of similar issues—in the hope that I can gain Ceoil's support in the next several days. Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - this should be ok to be completed during this FAC. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil. I'm now ready to ask you to please look at the article again. I've made many changes for prose and tightness based on your suggestions, and I hope you'll find them all to be improvements. If there are any bits where you preferred the previous version, I'm happy to revert these. I'm also of course very happy to hear any suggestions for further tweaks. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist

edit

I'm glad to see this. I had the 45 years ago, used to listen to both sides many many times...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

No spotchecks carried out. Mostly, the sources are in good order; a few routine issues:

  • Björner.com: can you clarify who is the publisher of this website, and why it qualifies as a reliable source?
  • The same question, with regard to Jambands.com
  • Why is Jambands.com italicised?
  • The Maury Dean book is missing its ISBN, which you include in all other book refs
  • ISBN formats should be regularised, preferably in the 13-digit form. At present you are using both 10-digit and 13-digit forms; here [8] is a simple 10 to 13 digit converter. Also, the 13-digit format should be standardised, preferably in the subdivided form as in the Marcus book.

No further sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, thank you so much for your thorough source review.

Support from Edwininlondon

edit

Short and sweet. Very little left for me to say. Just nitpicky things you may consider:

  • his writer's block in the early 1970s -> looks like I'm the only one finding it odd to refer to the 14 months of the decade leading up to March 1971 as "early 1970s". Plus: did this writers block definitely not include some time in the 60s?
  • whose feel Bob Spitz -> would be nice if there was some indication of why Bob's opinion matters (biograpger?)
  • Retrieved 2017-07-16. -> odd date format for all the retrieves

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Edwininlondon. On the question you raise about writer's block: In 1969 Dylan released Nashville Skyline, which was a hit album, reaching number 3 in the U.S. and number 1 in the UK charts. Dylan released Self Portrait in June 1970 consisting primarily of traditional songs plus some well-known Dylan songs as live recordings from the Isle of Wight concert. It also contained 4 original songs: "All The Tired Horses", "Living The Blues", "Wigwam" and "Woogie Boogie" (instrumental). This album was quickly followed by New Morning, released October 19, 1970, containing 12 original songs. As the article states, Dylan released no singles or albums in 1972. In 1973 he released the soundtrack album Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid, a mainly instrumental album containing just 2 original songs: "Billy" and "Knockin' On Heaven's Door". CBS released the album Dylan at the end of 1973, which contained old recordings made during the Self Portrait and New Morning sessions. In January 1974, Dylan released Planet Waves, containing 10 new songs. So I think it is accurate to say the "writer's block" or dearth of new songs from Dylan was the gap between New Morning in October 1970 and Planet Waves in January 1974. Mick gold (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the review, Edwininlondon. Please let me know if Mick gold's explanation is satisfactory to address your first point. For the second point, I have added "the journalist" before Spitz's name. I would have just put "journalist" to be consistent with how I introduce other characters (no "the"), but it may not be obvious how to parse "whose feel journalist" for all readers. I will change all the dates in the Reference section in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the block so clearly. All fine now, I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2017 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Watching_the_River_Flow/archive1&oldid=801807457"