Talk:Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments
Happy to see this at GAN. It's very neatly constructed and properly cited, and so I have little to say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It would be advisable to repeat the refs for the direct quotations in the lead, if past experience is any sort of guide, and yes, I know what the criterion says.
 * Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The technique section is ... very short. I had a nose about for more sources on the subject, and predictably failed to find anything very usable. There is no doubt that Dylan employed a range of poetic devices in the lyrics; if any scholar one day happens upon this archive, they may care to analyse Dylan's technique and write a learned article about it, or better a conference paper which they can illustrate with sound clips and diagrams of Dylan's alliteration (mercury mouth ... missionary), assonance (sympathize with their side), internal rhyme, metre and all the rest, not to mention his imagery (sheet metal ... Cannery) ... then we'll be able to write the technique section that the song deserves. But I digress. Of course, if you can find anything that enables the article to move even a little way in that direction, it would be an improvement.
 * If you haven't already read it, you might be interested in Timothy Hampton's Bob Dylan: How the Songs Work (aka Bob Dylan's Poetics:  How the Songs Work), although "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" doesn't get a mention there. There's also Richard F. Thomas's Why Bob Dylan Matters, which according to it's blurb "makes a compelling case for moving Dylan out of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and into the pantheon of classical poets" - sadly it only has a couple of passing mentions of the song. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me as if we should be working on a wider article then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I wonder if a table of covering artists with columns for date, recording length, and notes (brief summaries of critical comments "with patience and grace") would be helpful? I have often found that presenting info from an article text, compactly summarized, suddenly brings out interesting contrasts.
 * Added, let me know what you think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I note in passing that "Critical comments" can be read two ways; since the second half is labelled "More ambivalent responses", perhaps there should be a balancing subheading immediately after "==Critical comments==" to read "===More favourable responses===".
 * the first paragraph here seemed to be more about interpretation, so I've put a different heading on that, then added "Favourable responses" (without the "more") - happy to amend these changes per any suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Super.


 * Perhaps a separate subheading should be "===Literary allusions===", as the mentions of William Blake, Swinburne, and the Book of Ezekiel have rather a different quality from the more general discussion of wedding songs and so on.
 * what do you think about this? I can have a go at implementing it if you agree. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we're about there, actually. I've put in the subheading just to see - I think it works rather well actually, but feel free to do with it as you like.


 * By the way, if you're going to say "William Blake" in full then it'd make sense to say "Algernon Swinburne" in full also.
 * Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "Dolores" might be worth quoting from, since you have a critic comparing it to Sad-eyed lady and hence can't be accused of OR in the comparison, and the tone is indeed remarkable. How about a quote box beside where you discuss it?


 * An Ezekiel box might be in order, too. I think there'll be room, and again, it'll enable readers to see and hear the similarity in tone that the critic mentions for themselves.


 * Spot-checks are all fine.

That's about it from me, whatever you choose to do with the suggestions. Great article, keep 'em coming! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the thoughful review, ., I'm happy to respond, but pinging you in as you may want to reply to some of the points. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your interesting review and for saying nice things. Your thoughts about a text box for Ezekiel and for Swinburne are intriguing, but I'm afraid I don't have the technical skill to make such a box. Thanks  for an enjoyable collaboration. Mick gold (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * : You just copy the example box above, replace the text with the bits of Ezekiel or whatever, and cite it as usual. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the example, . I've added a Swinburne box and think it contributes to the article. Best, Mick gold (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Super. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Well done everyone. It's a worthy GA and a typically tantalising Dylan job for an ambiguous and mesmerising song. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)