External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Brown (Bob Dylan song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 16:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5x expanded by BennyOnTheLoose (talk). Self-nominated at 16:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Brown (Bob Dylan song); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is my first attempt at a DYK review, second opinion needed. Article has been greatly expanded in recent days. Material is well-sourced, hook is interesting with source verified (the Trager book is available in Internet Archive), QPQ has been satisfied. Image of Bob Dylan is Public Domain from U.S. govt. I don't think ALT hooks are really needed, but if others do ... "Blind Boy Grunt" is a key ingredient, I think. OK. What did I miss? Jaireeodell (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The DYK bot didn't move this article, so I'm readding the tick per the above. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:John Brown (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 09:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Making a start. Initial comments to follow shortly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

First read done. Clearly in good shape: a few points of clarity and MoS which, I hope, won't take too much doing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • He didn't record it in any of the sessions for his own albums. He did record it for Witmark, but as our article on The Bootleg Series Vol. 9: The Witmark Demos: 1962–1964 puts it, "The recordings for the Leeds and Witmark demos were never intended for public consumption, but were made to sell Dylan's songs to other artists." The 1960s live recordings were issued much later (2005 and 2018, I think.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might be clearer to frame the sentence in the positive: talk about when he did play/record it, rather than when he didn't? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reworded and rearranged. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks better: any reason not to use the active? (rather than A pseudonym, "Blind Boy Grunt", was used by Dylan due to contractual issues; Dylan, to write "Dylan used a pseudonym ... issues; he...") UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-re-worded. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it spelt Reuben or Rueben? Article and biblio disagree. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I looked again at Margotin & Guesdon, Heylin (2009), Beviglia, Shelton, and Harvey, and, somewhat surprisingly, none of them refer to the Vietnam War. Marqusee wrote that "Dylan told the story of Ron Kovic—disabled Vietnam veteran, antiwar Crusader and author of Born on the Fourth of July—some seven years before Kovic lived through the nightmare and drew the lesson of the song from his own experience" but I tend toward not mentioning the War in the article. 22:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it's tricky either way: it seems like an obvious thing to put in the Background section (that the Vietnam War happened and that Dylan was/became known as an anti-war singer), and the reference to "a contemporary soldier" is slightly puzzling unless readers know that there was a war on in which such a soldier could be maimed. On the other hand, if no secondary source has actually made the join, there's an OR/SYNTH concern. It sounds like your solution is reasonable given the sources available. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've pretty much used your suggested wording, and added in that Dylan frequently reworks his songs both in the studio and in concert. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Amended. I'm not sure that one critic's comment on a particular version deserves adding to the infobox for genres, but I do tend to be harsher on the incusion of genres than many pther editors. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've added a mention of the content of the line; just quoting "And he dropped his medals down into her hand" probably wouldn't add much, but I'm always open to ideas. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One option would be to put the last verse into a quote box, which would effectively add an illustration to what is a fairly sparsely illustrated article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I couldn't find another image that felt very relevant. There are no free-to-use pics from 1987 or from shows where he performed the song, as far as I can tell. There are a couple of pictures available from 2012; maybe the one of him and the band with a caption that this was the most recent year he has perfomed the song? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't hurt; see comment about medals verse above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spot checks[edit]

Could you please provide the original source material to support:

  • "At the time, Dylan commonly enriched his writing and composition by borrowing from the vast reservoir of traditional songs. 'John Brown' was no exception." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Broadside Ballads, Volume 1 Various Artists Folkways Records LP FH-5301. Released 1963."; Under the cover of his 'Blind Boy Grunt' moniker for contractual reasons (he was signed with Columbia Records at the time), Dylan performs a few early rarities: 'John Brown' ..." (the book is available for loan for registered users on archive.org) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "'John Brown' is a paradox in that it is a tale told brutally and without restraint, yet in so doing it ultimately displays the empathetic qualities of its creator." (Actually p. 25 in the edition available on archive.org; I've amended the ISBN for that edition and the page references. Noty sure if I just mis-typed them or had looked at a different edition.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It's taken longer than I expected to find the time to address your comments, UndercoverClassicist. Hopefullly the article is getting there. Let me know about anything that needs further work. Many thanks. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we're probably there; I'll do a proper check against the criteria over the next few days. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review[edit]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) No issues here after a thorough review Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) No issues here after a thorough review Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Fully referenced to good, reliable sources Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) As above Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No sign of it; spot-checks done and no issues here. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No sign of it; spot-checks done, Earwig consulted and no issues here. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Through and detailed, perhaps already comprehensive. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Tightly and clearly written despite the vastness of the field into which it fits Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Does a good job of navigating, in particular, the song's differential critical reception. Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No issues here. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All check out. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All good - there are not too many suitable images, but those that are here add to the article and are well deployed. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass Excellent work: another article that takes us through one of Dylan's less well-known works, but no less interesting or authoritative for that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)|}Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.