Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bob Dylan/archive2

Bob Dylan

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do already notified. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Sandy 19:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was promoted in October 2003 during the "brilliant prose" days, and then nominated for FARC in July last year (see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Bob Dylan/archive1) because of alleged comprehensiveness and POV issues. I can't comment on the former as I know little about Dylan, but I do think the article has major problems with regards to the latter. It contains a lot of weasel terms ("acclaimed as perhaps the best American concert film yet produced", "considered his finest album by many fans" etc.), and without inline citations they look rather POV. There are some citations in the sections for Dylan's later career, but several of the sentences without them ("Humor was a large part of Dylan's persona", etc.) looks like the author's own interpretations, which introduces original research issues. Several statements, such as "undeniably a fine interpreter of traditional songs", "A successful mix", "a highlight of the album", "accurately but prosaically titled" et al, are unquestionably POV. Extraordinary Machine 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted in the "Brilliant prose" days.[1] It has had somewhat of an unfortunate history for quite a while now. Jkelly 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem with it is that it has only a few editors on it, and they butt heads over unimportant things (i can't deny I'm one of em.) They (we?) don't do much to improve its structure adn citing etc. SECProto 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it is generous to call this article "stable" (criteria 2e), that it "article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars". If the {{citation needed}}s stop being stripped out of the article, criteria 2c has a better chance of being met. Jkelly 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the big problem is that the article has been very short on hard facts and very long on opinions, with people edit warring to keep their own opinions in the article. I think the article would be much better if every opinion that wasn't validly cited to a published source was just deleted and the article rebuilt from that point. But if I was WP:BOLD enough to do that, the fighting would have been even worse. Even though I'd only be correcting under WP:V. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ex. Mach. has a continuing problem distinguishing Original Prose from Original Research. Most of JKelly's time goes to saving Wikimedia from phantom legal problems over Fair Use that have not and never will materialize. These two are now in control of the article because GWO doesn't touch it, I've sworn it off, and Monicasdude is gone (he had the potential to really help the article but squandered it by being dictatorial). The article had a very nice balance and tone back in the Brilliant Prose days, but it has taken many shots since then. It has always been rather weak in sourcing (mea culpa), and the breakout of the ref tag makes it look really bad compared to recent FAs. I'm sure it will improve in that department, but now that the article is in the hands of two guys who mainly function to strip away rather than build up, the future doesn't look bright. JDG 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you finally have a kind word for User:Monicasdude. I think that User:Roballyn's editing is proceeding to get some referencing done, which is a great response to this review. Jkelly 23:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the very start I complimented Mdude on his abilities. Thrice I offered the olive branch, thrice was I gruffly rejected. Mr. K, I just don't get your views. JDG 19:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone can doubt MD's abilities, whether or not they argued with him (and many did). His Dylan ROIO site is quite superb. --kingboyk 16:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption in an otherwise fine article was done by one or two editors. They mis-used some guildelines. I meet this situation frequently. A method of handling an excessive use of the 'citation needed' tag is to point to the appropriate guideline and simply remove more than 2 or 3 such requests. Terryeo 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you gotten this idea that it is not okay to ask for more than two or three citations? Jkelly 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:How_to_review_a_featured_article_candidate#Dylan_examples. Jkelly 20:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not "otherwise fine". Like The Beatles, Bob Dylan is supposed to be one of the most influential artists in popular music history. Yet, like The Beatles' article, there is no discussion of his influence on popular music (there are minor hints scattered throughout the history section, but it's hard to see the forest through the trees). The article also does not discuss his style (lyrically, musically, or vocally). This guy is supposed to be a master lyricist, but where is the literary criticism that illuminates this? Volumes have been written on Bob Dylan; people write their dissertations on him, articles about him appear in peer-reviewed journals, and according to Amazon there are about 400 books available on him. Frankly, if someone completely ignorant of Bob Dylan were to read this article, they would probably not pick up on his importance. The article is simply incomplete, and what is already written is poorly sourced. His autobiography should not have its own section -- it's longer than its respective article. Punctured Bicycle 05:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you go too far on most of your points, but I'm with the spirit of your comment. Just so you know, a few of us, a while back, tried to move this away from the mini-bio category and to include more on his importance to modern music and on the purely literary aspects involved. We were thoroughly beaten down by the no OR people, the ever-present JKelly among them... What's hapening now will turn the article into a moderately well sourced article. I'm afraid the prose itself will suffer somewhat in the process. Your concerns, P. Bicycle, I think will only be met by dedicated sub-articles by writers prepared to meet daily attacks from the police. JDG 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the material you and others included on his importance in modern music was not supported by references, then it was entirely appropriate (see policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research) for other editors to remove it. If the material inserted was true, then it shouldn't be difficult to cite.

Remember also that NPOV is a key policy on Wikipedia, and is non-negotiable. "Original Prose", if comprising editorial opinion and interpretation, must not be included in articles. Extraordinary Machine 14:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: they really seem to be hard at work over there. I've dropped in on the talk page a couple of times to lend some ideas: others might want to do same? Sandy 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a solid article, and you should all be proud of it. It's really worth working at improving it; I've copy-edited a few paragraphs, and found that polishing was required. Tony 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 50 citation/references in the past week. Is the article now heading in the right direction in the eyes of administrators? Mick gold 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a non-admin (by choice), but I wanted to compliment you on the citations/references. Very nice job. I simply don't have access to those books. JDG 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Take care! Mick gold 11:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I second JDG's comments. -- GWO

Status? Needs a close look. Prose size is 46KB, much improved on inline citations (still some cite tags), not sure on the prose and other issues. Sandy 21:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are focus and structure (4), citations (1c), and stability (1e). Marskell 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has substantially improved during the FAR. Jkelly 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Referencing aspect has improved greatly as a result of Mick Gold's efforts. But it is still not featured quality in my eyes. The fact that the article was promoted in the "brilliant prose" days, when standards were much lower, is reason enough for it to have to go through the FAC process again. As it stands now, there are still some citation needed tags. The article is not comprehensive -- his influence and style is noted in the lead but not expanded upon. The lead isn't particuarly good -- it jumps from the 1960s to 2001 in a heartbeat. Chronicles Vol. 1 doesn't need its own section and now a "Theme Time Radio Hour" section has popped up. Punctured Bicycle 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to argue that it is stable. Jkelly 22:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Mick Gold has worked very hard to improve the article. But it is still not FA quality. Too many opinions and interpretations are presented like they are facts. (One critic cited does not show a consensus or a general opinion). I'm still doubtful about the other "facts" and will look at it again soon. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, unfortunately; despite the improvements to the article, it still suffers in its structure (per Punctured) and in the use of citations (per Wolfowitz). Andrew Levine 13:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Keep, with the further improvements. It is still not the best article it could be, but its recovery is impressive. Andrew Levine 03:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve supplied some citations/references for prose written by other people. Overall, I still think it’s an accurate & well written account of a complex career. Is Harmonica Wolfowitz seriously suggesting I should give 4 citations for each critical point? How many citations are needed to demonstrate that Dylan began to perform Hard Rain a few weeks before the Cuban Missile Crisis developed? I think there’s a high degree of consensus among Dylan biographers & critics about the highs & lows of his work. For example, the mid 60s trilogy and Blood on the Tracks are cited as Dylan’s greatest albums in every Dylan book I’ve read.Mick gold 23:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree 100% With Mick. It is indeed an accurate and very well written account of a very long and complex career, and congratulate him on all the work he has put into the article. Lion King 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's much much better than it was back when the FAR started. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Everyone agrees that it has improved greatly since the FAR started. That doesn't mean it's featured quality yet. Even if we only look at referencing, the main area of improvement, there are still citation needed tags in the article. Besides referencing, there are other FA criteria, such as comprehensiveness (1b), stability (1e), style (2), lead (2a), structure (2b), and focus (4). I've already said that the article isn't comprehensive; it doesn't do a good job of explaining why "Bob Dylan's influence on popular music is incalculable", as All Music puts it. The article has various stylistic tweaks that need to be done (one example, consistent dashes aren't used presently). The lead does not do a good job of summarizing the article; you can't just say "1960s...forty years later" with nothing else in between. "Philosophy", "rockabilly", "Celtic", "jazz", "swing", "Broadway", are mentioned in the lead and nowhere else. In terms of focus and structure, the autobiography section is longer than its respective article. Focus is lost in the later years, devoting too much detail to trivial things (e.g. providing the full date of a DVD release), and many of the paragraphs are "stubby". Punctured Bicycle 01:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mick saved it. JDG 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. There are still nine cite needed tags, as well as the prose problems mentioned above by other editors. Sandy 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Much improved but not yet up to scratch. It would be for the best if this article were worked on further and went through the FA process again. It's not too far away from what's required and I feel that delisting and making it go through the process again is the best way of getting the standard of article that a giant like Dylan deserves. --kingboyk 16:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some minor criticisms. JDG is right, Mick Gold deserves an award for his work on this, and it is a great piece. I think many of the criticisms are unfounded; it seems fine to me to jump 40 years in the intro to succinctly indicate Dylan's staying power. The only weak point in the intro IMHO is the point PB makes about rockabilly etc not being discussed later. Many of the citation needed tags seems to be going overboard - by those same standards we would delist most of the FAs I have read recently, and reject most of the scientific papers I read. Example: "The songs were in the same vein as the hit single, surreal litanies of the grotesque flavored by Mike Bloomfield's blues guitar, a rhythm section and Dylan's obvious enjoyment of the sessions.[citation needed]" Surely if Dylan's enjoyment is "obvious" it doesn't need citing? Is it really controversial to say that the songs were in the same vein as the hit single? My main concern is the length of the article (69 kB including those 111 references ); however, this seems to be because it goes into much more detail than most FA bios, and includes more direct quotes than most. If the whole article were to be rewritten to be 32 kB I think it would lose a lot. Overall, I think it stands as an excellent review of Dylan's life. Walkerma 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'm only judging the prose, which has improved significantly. Please allow time to satisfy referencing issues. Tony 16:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC) PS Still some stubby paragraphs, as per Punctured B—aren't they relatively easy to integrate into their neighbours? Tony 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mr Gold's removal of the worst of the MonicasDude period. The lack of a few citations is nit picking. When reviewed by the Guardian, this was considered one of the factually better articles. -- GWO