Talk:I Want You (Bob Dylan song)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 11:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer (the GA Bot doesn't notify nominators when I start a review because of this) - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting an independent copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.

Nominators and interested users are free to response however they wish - inserting responses directly under each point I make is probably the best way, but please do whatever suits you. The thing that can get problematic is if someone other than me ticks off my query points as done and/or crosses out my text. If you have done something, please say so under my query, but allow me to check and make the decision as to if it is done or not - that way I know what I have checked and what I haven't. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box
GA review – see Good article criteria for detailed criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio  to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio  to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio  to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

 * Pass
 * The article is stable. SilkTork (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a reference section. I'll make my customary remark that short cites are less reader/reviewer friendly than the more common long cites, and are not needed on an internet page where saving space is not an issue. My issue is that the page number is separated from the full details so a reader/reviewer has to look in two different places to get all the information. Short cites are acceptable for GA and FA, so this is not a GA issue, just my little grumble. I sometimes don't do GA reviews of articles that primarily use short cites, but this article is short, neat, and at a glance appears to be GA ready, so the short cites shouldn't be much of a nuisance. Grumble over - review resumed! SilkTork (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting point; I've come to prefer short cites rather than having citations like "[8]:16[25]:12–15", which I just don't like the look of. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The two images are appropriate and have valid fair use rationales. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Balanced and factual. SilkTork (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No evidence of copyvio or of original research. SilkTork (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is clearly written - I have two quibbles below in General comments, but they are not going to hold up the review, as they are minor. SilkTork (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is richly cited to a range of subject specific quality publications. SilkTork (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Covers main details that a reader would want in a clear and succinct manner. SilkTork (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Query
 * Is SongFacts a reliable site? I checked RSN and found this: . SilkTork (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In general, it's not. However, I thought that a WP:SPS exemption can be applied as, IMO, Pollack is "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (see e.g. Pollock's page at Rock's Backpage. However, I'm happy to remove, or attempt to re-source, info supported by that one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that Pollack can be regarded as a subject-matter expert. I have looked for another source on the "Dylan likes Hawkin's version" issue, which Pollack must have got from somewhere, but nothing has yet turned up. If no other source does turn up then perhaps we could talk about the relevance and weight of that piece of information. The important information is that Hawkin's was invited to perform at the 30th Anniversary show. The manner of the "Dylan likes" information - somebody told somebody who told somebody - makes it feel more like Chinese whispers rumours, and that the source is Hawkins rather than Dylan makes it feel less reliable and important. SilkTork (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed Hawkins' claim. I guess that Hawkins said this in an interview that Pollack read. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Focus. I should imagine you were expecting this query. The amount of detail in the Sophie B. Hawkins version section feels disproportionate considering the overall size of the article. Meanwhile, there is very little info in Tongues and Tails on Hawkins' version. It's awkward because by convention and guidance (WP:SONGCOVER) details of notable covers are included in the main song article. However, how much to include in the main song article and how much to include in the cover artists album article is a matter of judgement. I'm wondering if the Hawkins section could be reduced, with the bulk moved to Tongues and Tails, creating a section there, which could be linked via a "See also" link. What's your view? SilkTork (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I spent a disproportionate time digging out sources for Hawkins's version. I think in the spririt of WP:SONGCOVER, this article is the right place for the cover details. I've copied a little into Tongues and Tails, and moved the mention of the video there, though. I've also taken out some of Hawkins' own comments, about how she was "persuaded" to record it; they didn't seem to add much. Also trimmed other bits. I think that section is more proportionate now, but happy to work on it further. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * MOS - Lead. The lead is usually the tricky part. This is a decent lead, though there could be a little more on the Hawkins' version. Not much, but some simple stuff like the single going to 49 in the UK chart, and the (cut) performance at the 30th Anniversary. SilkTork (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've fiddled with the lead so it meets MOS. Please feel free to adjust or tidy up as appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Fail

General comments

 * "It's not just pretty words to a tune or putting tunes to words..." I've read this quote in a number of places. I don't have the source cited (Revolution In The Air: The Songs of Bob Dylan, Volume One: 1957–73) - could you check that Dylan is speaking specifically about "I Want You" rather than a general remark about his writing. SilkTork (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good call! Although it's in the section of the book about "I Want You", it's not as specific to the song as the article made out. I've reworded it. In the source, Heylin wrote: "The Dylan who delivers the chorus is hurtin’. The need is real—real enough for Dylan to generally give the song an inflection of real interest when he performs it. The gorgeous tune helps, being a perfect illustration of what he was talking about when he told one reporter..." before using the quote. I've amended the text; see what you think. (Incidentally, the book is available for online loan via archive.org). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to the Archive. I love that site, and yet I sometime forget about it. Seeing the quote that Heylin uses it does appear to be a general comment: "he tended to 'think of [a song in terms of a whole thing'"]. SilkTork (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "numerous failures were documented". This phrase stands out for me as the term "failure" is not one I'm accustomed to seeing in relation to the drafting process. I looked up the original and it says "lyrical experiments that fail", which is more interesting and understandable, though also seemingly an opinion by Sean Wilentz rather than by Dylan. When composing, an author may try out several ideas, and sometimes return to those that were earlier rejected. Could that be put into a quote: 'Sean Wilentz felt that the manuscript indicated "lyrical experiments that fail, about deputies..."'? SilkTork (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "Dylan replied and played the chord progression." This also stands out as it appears that Dylan's reply is missing. In the source it says: 'Dylan told him, "The intro is just the -, " then strummed the chord progression.' Perhaps leave out "replied" and maybe have a little more detail from the source: "Charlie McCoy asked about the song's intro, which had not been established; Dylan played the chord progression of the intro, and after the band had played through the first take, they discussed the arrangement again before the second take." SilkTork (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "The final take, possibly with a guitar overdub..." Could we have some more detail on this, and bring the footnote into the main body? Looking at the source it indicates that there is a "Take 5b" which is marked with "insert, guitar overdub", though all the musicians involved say there was no guitar overdub. What we appear to have is either a missing mix, which is Take 5 (the final version) though with a guitar overdub, or an intended mix of Take 5 that never occurred. SilkTork (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * While looking into Broad coverage I noted that "I Want You" is played during Renaldo and Clara. I was going to quickly add it to "an incomplete rehearsal from 1975 was included on Bob Dylan – The Rolling Thunder Revue: The 1975 Live Recordings (2019) [and in Renaldo and Clara" (as it's the same incomplete rehearsal), but I couldn't find a reliable source. I don't think it's important, but thought I'd mention it. SilkTork (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail

 * Almost there. Just the three textual quibbles, and a little more on the Hawkins' cover in the lead, and we're done. I've enjoyed the article - it's actually a song I've not really paid much attention to, though I heard him sing it at the Picnic at Blackbushe in 1978 when he put on a marathon show (over three hours) and my partner and I struggled to get home afterwards, arriving back at my flat in Kilburn as the sun was rising! SilkTork (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've settled the textual quibbles and dealt with the lead, so this is fine now. Pass. SilkTork (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)