Talk:Most of the Time/GA1

GA Review
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)

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

Comments/questions
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
 * Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.)
 * I've added something, with commentary from Ricks specifically about it, so I think it's use is fair and in lne with WP:MOSLYRICS. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * with a number of critics opining that "Most of the Time" was a standout track.[16][17][18][19][9] - refs order
 * Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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, 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)


 * 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.
 * Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * [43][40] - ref order in the table
 * Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Among the most versions: - sounds clumsy, maybe it can be just "Among the versions", or "Most known versions"?
 * Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * Many thanks for undertaking the review and for your constructive comments, . Let us know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 :)