Jump to content

Talk:Most of the Time

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in Most of the Time

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Most of the Time's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ALLS":

  • From If You See Her, Say Hello: Margotin, Philippe; Guedson, Jean-Michel (2015). Bob Dylan All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track. Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers. p. 425. ISBN 978-1579129859.
  • From Talkin' New York: Margotin, Philippe; Guedson, Jean-Michel (2015). Bob Dylan All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track. Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers. p. 23. ISBN 978-1579129859.
  • From Tangled Up in Blue: Margotin, Philippe; Guedson, Jean-Michel (2015). Bob Dylan All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track. Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers. pp. 452–461. ISBN 978-1579129859.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 18:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amended the ref in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Most of the Time/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I will be reviewing this article. Please expect comments in the next few days. Artem.G (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments/questions

[edit]

I have very few comments after first reading:

  • Dylan had started constructing what he referred to as "stream-of consciousness songs". - if it's a quote, ref is needed
  • I think it would be nice to have at least few lines of lyrics quoted, maybe in 'Interpretations'. (I mean in a {{quote box} }, not inline. I think such quotation would be fair use, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
  • with a number of critics opining that "Most of the Time" was a standout track.[16][17][18][19][9] - refs order
  • Dylan played "Most of the Time" live 36 times on the Never Ending Tour. - is it a lot? or should it be understood as 'he played that song only 36 times'?
  • Removed that number, as looking at the stats here [1], it's sort of in the middle for number of time played for tracks from Oh Mercy, and I couldn't think of anything particularly interesting to say about that! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two versions of the song were recorded on March 8, and six on March 12. Dylan recorded new vocals on March 16 and April 12. - though there is a yesr in the table, I think it would be right to include it to the first sentence.
  • [43][40] - ref order in the table
  • Among the most versions: - sounds clumsy, maybe it can be just "Among the versions", or "Most known versions"?

The article is well-written, and very close to GA. I will go through the refs now, but I can't see any major problems. Artem.G (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've re-read the article, and it seems to me that everything is ok - references are appropriate, given to reliable sources, I checked some and didn't find any copyvio; images are 'fair use' and I agree with that. The article is well-written and broad, and also stable. So I think it's a GA. Congrats, BennyOnTheLoose, and thanks for a nice read :)