Talk:4th Time Around/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tkbrett (talk · contribs) 21:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review to come. Tkbrett (✉) 21:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

It is thought to be a parody of "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)", a song written by John Lennon and recorded by the Beatles, which was released on their 1965 album Rubber Soul. This sentence seems a little long. If you break it apart, you could also include more context regarding the influence Dylan had on Lennon's writing of "Norwegian Wood".
- Amended, but could probably be improved further. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I think we can sharpen it up further. How about something like this? Commentators often interpret it as a parody of the Beatles' 1965 song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)". John Lennon^[a] composed "Norwegian Wood" after being influenced by the introspective lyrics of Dylan. Lennon later reflected on his feelings of paranoia when Dylan first played him "4th Time Around".
    - Much better - sorry I left this to you! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording

Nice and detailed. No issues.

Composition and lyrical interpretation

Unless Heylin makes it clear that he's speculating, maybe try a different word (MOS:CLAIM).
- The source is "Presumably Dylan penned this impenetrable pastiche only days (or hours) before he began recording it in Nashville". - is that OK? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it should be fine in this case.
"4th Time Around" has been interpreted as a response to the Beatles' song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" ... It's awkward to start a sentence with a digit. Also, this sentence is in the passive voice, so fixing that will solve both issues. The sentence should be rewritten as Commentators often interpret "4th Time Around" as a response ...
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you missed this one.
    - Ooops. Not sure if I didn't save the change, or amended the lead instead of here. Should be OK now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Good.

Live performances

Good.

Personnel

Instead of just writing The personnel for "4th Time Around" were as follows, I think given the uncertainty it would be better to specify, According to Olof Björner, the personnel ...
Björner's site lists the personnel differently. Differences are highlighted below:

Bob Dylan – vocals, guitar, piano, harmonica
Wayne Moss – guitar
Charlie McCoy – bass guitar, guitar, bass harmonica
Robbie Robertson – guitar
Joe South – bass guitar, guitar
Al Kooper – organ
Kenneth Buttrey – drums

I wasn't sure why the asterisk was there on the organ. I don't hear piano, but I guess that's because Björner isn't listing the personnel for "4th Time Around", but instead for the entire February 14 session, which would include "Visions of Johanna" and "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat". A different source may help here. Does Clinton Heylin ever list the personnel? I believe Philippe Margotin and Jean-Michel Guesdon's book Bob Dylan All the Songs will have personnel listings for each track.
- I've used Sanders 2020. Margotin and Guedson have the same musicians, but with a (?) against Kooper and McCoy (who they list for "guitar, bass, harmonica"). Sanders states that he has access to the full 18 disc set of the Blonde on Blonde sessions, and his interviewees for his book included Johnston, McCoy, Kooper, and Moss. Heylin, who is generally scathing about other writers on Dylan, gave the book a nice blurb: "Detailed and diligent". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's much better. I'm glad you have a grasp of the available sources since I don't know much about the different Dylan authors.

References and comments

I was concerned that Björner looked just like a fan's blog, but I see now that he is trusted by other scholars and has had a book published by a real publisher. That alleviates my concerns by WP:BLOG.
- Yes, his site is used as a source by most, if not all, of the main authors. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio score of 43.5%, only because of direct quotations by Lennon. No concerns regarding plagiarism.
I've made other fixes as I went through. Please make sure nothing looks objectionable.
- Thanks for those. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose: On hold while issues above are addressed. Tkbrett (✉) 12:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Tkbrett. I've replied above - hopefully this resolves your points, but perhaps lead may need a bit more work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Responses above. Sorry for really dragging this out on you BennyOnTheLoose. I'll make sure this gets done once you respond. Tkbrett (✉) 20:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, Tkbrett. Your comments have definitely improved the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - BennyOnTheLoose, happy to help. ✓ Pass Tkbrett (✉) 21:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[a]