Talk:John Brown (song)

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

External links modified

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.

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]

Did you know nomination

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]

(
)
  • ... that "John Brown" was recorded by Bob Dylan using the pseudonym "Blind Boy Grunt"? Source: Trager, Oliver (2004). Keys to the Rain: the Definitive Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, p. 84: "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'..."

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]

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]

    • Just gave it a once-over and don't see issues. Converting to a tick. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[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]

GA Review

Passed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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]


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

Comments

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]

  • Written in October 1962, the song was not included in sessions for Dylan's studio albums in the 1960s, but it was released under his pseudonym "Blind Boy Grunt" on the Folkways Records compilation album Broadside Ballads, Vol. 1 (1963).: I'm not totally sure what included in sessions for... means. Obviously, it wasn't released on any of these albums, but are we saying that Dylan never played it with a band at all?
  • 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]
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]
I've reworded and rearranged. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[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]
Re-re-worded. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separately, could easily cut "it" from "it was released".
  • Written in October 1962, the song was not included in sessions for Dylan's studio albums in the 1960s, but it was released under his pseudonym "Blind Boy Grunt" on the Folkways Records compilation album Broadside Ballads, Vol. 1 (1963).: not ideal to start a paragraph with a pronoun: paragraphs are meant to be self-contained ideas, but starting in this way makes the paragraph depend on the one that preceded it.
  • Whilst the lyrics are original, the tune is a traditional one ... The melody is based on "Rueben's Train", or the longer version from "900 Miles", a well-known song in the US folk music community: this could be more concise: e.g. While the lyrics are original, the tune is based on the traditional songs ...
  • On which: I'm not clear on what "Reuben's Train" is (a folk song?) or what "the longer version from..." means in this context.
Is it spelt Reuben or Rueben? Article and biblio disagree. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect from "900 Miles" to "500 miles" threw me at first. I see the EFN now, though missed it in the sea of blue on first read. It's a little out of scope, but suggest adding that information to the article on "500 Miles" so that readers don't think they've been sent to the wrong place?
  • On which: could the SFNM template be used for consecutive SFNs, to improve readability?
  • The lyrics are influenced by "Mrs. McGrath: I would give a little context to this song (e.g. date and genre).
  • Per
    MOS:SLASH
    , when using / to mark lines of poetry, we put a space on each side: Two households, both alike in dignity / In fair Verona, where we lay our scene...
  • the historian Sean Wilentz, author of Bob Dylan in America calls: comma after America.
  • Dylan said that it was based on the true case of a contemporary soldier: can or should the Vietnam War be worked into this somehow?
  • 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]
  • The article seems quite inconsistent as to who gets an introduction ("authors Philippe Margotin and Jean-Michel Guesdon") and who doesn't ("In a live May 1963 radio interview with Studs Terkel").
  • A pseudonym, "Blind Boy Grunt", was used by Dylan due to contractual issues; Dylan was signed to Columbia Records but Broadside Ballads, Vol. 1 was released by Folkways Records.: perhaps out of scope, but that seems... not exactly kosher.
  • The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan album which had started in April 1962 and concluded in April 1963,: comma after album, but this sentence might be better split for readability anyway.
  • only the eighth verse continued to change: I know it's Dylan, but given that we generally assume song lyrics to be reasonably fixed, would this be better phrased the other way: something like "that Dylan maintained a consistent set of lyrics, with the exception of the eighth [and final?] verse [which...?]"
  • 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]
  • comparing its subject to Dalton Trumbo's novel Johnny Got His Gun.: as its subject is the soldier, I assume we mean it (that is, he said the song was like the novel), or else to the protagonist of... (that is, he said the song was like a character in the book). Could we introduce that novel and the points of similarity a little?
  • the intense bluegrass version of "John Brown" : reads a bit oddly, and I notice that we haven't included "bluegrass" in the genres of the song. We also haven't mentioned the Unplugged album in the body text yet.
  • 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]
  • a failure on Dylan's part to deliver the final line as the "brutal punchline" it should have been: it might help to have that final line or final verse quoted somewhere.
  • 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]
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]
  • Could wikilink British Army, jingoism and pathos (separately, but I'd read that article).
  • It lists the 1962 Gaslight Cafe: as we've had a lot of nouns, better as "The website lists..."
  • During rehearsals for the Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead 1987 Tour, Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead had suggested that they play the song. He continued to include the song in some setlists: is he Garcia or Dylan?
  • Credits: as in your recent FAC, I'd suggest reworking Credits adapted from the Bob Dylan All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track book into simple citations for each individual.
  • I bet Don Was – mixing got tired of that joke.
  • In the sources, we normally capitalise the first word after a colon: e.g. Keys to the Rain: The Definitive Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. A few other oddities: e.g. Long Steel rail.
  • I've amended the articel per the points from the six bullet points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image checks nicely; could consider adding another one further down, perhaps under "Live performances".
  • 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]
Wouldn't hurt; see comment about medals verse above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

Could you please provide the original source material to support:

  • Around this time, Dylan often drew on traditional songs when writing his own (Margotin & Guesdon 2022, p. 142)
  • "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]
  • A pseudonym, "Blind Boy Grunt", was used by Dylan due to contractual issues; Dylan was signed to Columbia Records but Broadside Ballads, Vol. 1 was released by Folkways Records (Trager 2004, p. 84.)
  • "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]
  • He opined that despite the stark and harsh sentiment of the lyrics, Dylan's capacity for empathy can be detected (Beviglia 2013, p. 15.)
  • "'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]
    • Happy with all of these: are there any other citations to Beviglia that would be worth a check? I know I often copy-paste references when writing, so a mistake or typo in one can knock on further down the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

Review

Criteria

Good Article Status
- Review Criteria
Further information:
WP:WIAGA

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
    list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (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.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (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).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
    audio:
    7. [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

  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
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. 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
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. 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
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Does a good job of navigating, in particular, the song's differential critical reception. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No issues here. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
    audio
    :
    7. 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

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]

Discussion

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. 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. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Brown_(song)&oldid=1207836032"