Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 20 October 2023 [1].

Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC), Mick gold[reply]

Lasting for over 11 minutes, Bob Dylan’s song "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" occupied an entire side of his 1966 double album Blonde on Blonde. It has polarised music critics. Thanks in advance for any suggestions for improvements to the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I am unable to do a full review for this FAC at the moment, but I did want to make two drive-by comments:

  • I am uncertain about the structure of the lead's second paragraph. From my understanding the lead is supposed to be an overview of the article as a whole. I do not think spotlighting specific critics and quoting them here is the most ideal approach as it reads less like an overview to me.
  • I would move the "Live performances, cover versions, and legacy" section over the "Personnel" section. In my experience, the "Personnel" section is placed after the sections with prose.
@
Aoba47: I've reworked the lead, please let me know what you think. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
While the lead looks better, I still do not think it is necessary to have specific reviews by individuals (i.e. Wilfrid Mellers, Michael Gray, Roger Waters) here. The lead should be an overview of the article so I would instead put an overview on how the song was received and leave these specific people and their specific opinions/reviews in the article.
Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed; I think it's wise to set out the song's polarised critical reception, and to gesture briefly at why each side loves or hates it, but (in particular) the weight given to Michael Gray's changing opinion over time isn't right for this part of the article. Like a Rolling Stone does a good job of summarising lots of critical responses in the lead (though they're all positive); as far as I can see, very few other song FAs attempt to do much more than give a brief summary of the song's importance in the lead, generally relying on sales figures, chart positions and placements in critical rankings to give an impression of its quality.
(Another note while I remember: Bible is always capitalised.) UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for the drive-by comments and being unable to commit to a full review, but I still wanted to raise this to your attention regardless. Best of luck with this FAC.

Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

UndercoverClassicist

A few comments, perhaps a little short of a full review. My main worry at the moment is the primary-source analysis and criticism, which is currently presented in quite an unstructured way that leaves it open to a charge of editorialising. Giving the reader some more help in pulling out the narrative threads in the article would do a lot for its comprehensibility and accessibility.

First round
  • It's a little strange that there's only one image in this article, it's a portrait of a man... and it isn't Dylan! A contemporary image of him would be useful, as would one of Sara Dylan. Has anyone ever suggested that anyone else was the sad-eyed lady?
  • I couldn't find a usable image of Sara Dylan. I've added some more images; one of which refers to Baez as a candidate for the Sad Eyed Lady - I'll be expanding on this in the section currently called "Presumed allusions to Sara Lownds" but which will become something like "Subject". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't want to say it without evidence, but I feel vindicated here: I was thinking that it's always Joan Baez who comes up when mysterious women in Dylan are mentioned! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing with the FAs on Like a Rolling Stone and Watching the River Flow, I don't see much on the music (as opposed to the lyrics) in this article: time signature, tempo, key and so on would all be useful additions.
  • I've added some info on this - a lot of the commentary on the music is not much more than gushing praise, it's hard to find much in the way of descriptions or analysis. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat a matter of taste, but I'd avoid
    false titles
    like "Literary critic Christopher Ricks": go instead for "the literary critic...".
  • Most similar high-quality articles have a short snippet of audio, justified under fair use: can we find or make one for this one?
  • The lead seems very short, given the length of the article: the idea of a lead is to stand as a possible substitute for the whole article, and there's a lot in the body text (things that stand out include Dylan's own perception of the song and its literary allusions) not mentioned there.
  • On a similar note, a few judicious quotations from critics are fine and welcome, but I'd suggest adopting a more synthesising approach in the lead to pick out overall trends in critical reception and the sort of grounds on which they have criticised and praised the song. I had a look at two other Dylan-song FAs (
    WP:UNDUEWEIGHT
    on Michael Gray at the moment: the lead on my screen is just over ten lines, of which he gets three to himself.
  • There's a few points where the tone and phrasing sound more like music journalism than encyclopaedic writing. The cream of Nashville session players: per [[MOS:IDIOM], should be rephrased more directly. Dylan counted off and the musicians fell in, as he attempted his epic composition: fell in is similarly an idiom, and attempted his epic composition is, I think, a little flowery for this setting.
  • Do we need all four lines of Buttrey's quotation?
    WP:PRIMARY
    discourages lengthy quotes from primary sources.
  • Although some participants later recalled that only a single happened, four takes of the song were recorded, three of which were complete: given that we're saying that this recollection was false, I think we need to frame this a bit differently: putting the incorrect account first gives it undue prominence, while the verb recalled implies true information.
  • The first take version: this and similar should be hyphenated as a compound modifier: first-take version. Most significantly, this should really apply to Sad-Eyed Lady: there's a case for not doing it in the title of the song, as Dylan doesn't (well, doesn't usually), but it should be done when we're talking about the sad-eyed lady. See also sheet-metal memories.
  • Scholarship that is being treated as "live" (that is, being used to help us understand the song itself, rather than the history of criticism on it) should be recounted in the present tense: "Gray writes... he considers...". I would suggest another verb than thinks: we know what he has written, states or concludes, which are all usual when referring to a text, but thinks is a bit close to mind-reading.
  • The fourth take was released on Blonde on Blonde, Dylan's seventh studio album, on June 20, 1966.: this sentence (and the wikilink) are placed oddly, since we obliquely introduced Blonde on Blonde at the start of this section.
  • Per
    MOS:NUMBER
    , there should be a consistent system as to which numbers are written in figures and which are spelled out: see The fourth take was released on Blonde on Blonde, Dylan's seventh studio album, on June 20, 1966. The recording session was released in its entirety on the 18-disc Collector's Edition of The Bootleg Series Vol. 12: The Cutting Edge 1965–1966 in 2015, with the first take of the song also appearing on the 6-disc version of that album.
  • Short quotations which fit into the sentence structure generally shouldn't be capitalised. It would read better if a little more work were done to integrate them: for example, Dylan played the song to his biographer Robert Shelton shortly after recording it, and called it "the best song [he had] ever written". There's a lot of capitalised direct quotes in this article, and at this scale it does detract from the prose quality and readability.
  • Be wary of verbs like confessed, which add editorial colour not supported by the sources. I wouldn't include something like [laughs] in a direct quotation: if the laughter is important, go for something like "Dylan said... and laughed".
  • a paean to his wife: we've got elegant variation going on here, as well as slightly subjective language with paean: give the song's title in this first part. I'd suggest describing it more simply as, well, a song.
  • Ian Bell's quotation is grammatically and meaningfully incomplete: what does Bell think of those people?
  • There was a typo in the quotation - I think it makes sense now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subtitle Presumed allusions to Sara Lownds seems to suggest that it's not clear whether the song is about Lownds, but we've previously (in the lead, most strongly) presented this as a settled fact. I'm not sure it is quite settled, but we need to think about how the sources allow us to situate it. I'd strongly suggest bringing Lester Bands up into this part of the article.
  • I've moved the Bangs material, but to Later account and technique as it seemed to fit after Dylan's own account of the writing. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wilentz material needs to be put into greater context: what does he mean by "the days when he asked questions and supplied answers" (do Dylan's songs ever provide all the answers? We never find out how many roads or what might be the way out of here...)? Is the Blake comparison being made by Wilentz or Wikipedia? We've introduced Wilentz as a historian: what gives him the authority to be listened to about music?
  • I've amended the into to Wilentz, but more could be said. There isn't a lot more context in the book about his remark, but I've added the phrase "in the traditional folk-ballad idiom". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ricks writes that "Dolores moves ...'To a tune that enthralls and entices', as does 'Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.": the quote marks need a look here.
  • Can we put the Swinburne quotation directly next to a Dylan one that echoes it?
  • I've put one; Ricks quotes several individual lines but I've chosen something else. Let me know what you think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I liked the comparison when I first saw it, but thinking hard about it, I'm not sure how much water it holds. Both are rhetorical questions about a mysterious woman, but Swinburne's is a series of them, while Dylan only actually asks one; Swinburne's is all about past experience and knowledge, while Dylan's is all about present mystery and beauty; the imagery in Swinburne's is very concrete while that in Dylan is very surreal. The "vibe" is definitely there, and I don't think there's anything wrong with this as a case study, but is there another example that holds up better under more formal, objective analysis? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the individual lines in Ricks are Dylan's. From Swinburne, Ricks comments "But again like the song, Swinburne's poem has recourse to questions that are stingingly unanswerable:" and quotes "Who gave thee thy wisdom? what stories/ That stung thee, what visions that smote?/ Wert thou pure and a maiden, Dolores,/ When desire took thee first by the throat?/ What bud was the shell of a blossom That all men may smell to and pluck?/ What milk fed thee first at what bosom?/ What sins gave thee suck?!" He then quotes a dozen Dylan questions from the song. I've amended the Dylan quotebox contents, and mentioned Ricks. I've also slightly reduced the direct quotation from Ricks. I find Dylan's Visions of Sin fairly impenetrable, to be honest. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biblical quotations should be cited in footnotes, like any other source: inline parenthetical citation is no longer encouraged.
  • Is Organist Kooper Al Kooper? In his (?) quotation, we've given the song's title in italics; we've normally used double-quotes.
  • Amended to double-quotes/ Yes, it is Al Kooper, is something else needed here? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see his full name given, but might have simply missed it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He gets a mention in Background and recording ("Al Kooper on keyboards") - should I use his full name again? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I didn't see that. A matter of taste, I think; there's a case for it as this is his first mention in prose: I won't argue either way. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Bangs describe his own review as Perhaps the most hostile critique of "Sad Eyed Lady"? If not, we need a secondary source that does to say that in Wikipedia's voice.
  • The subheading "More ambivalent responses" reads to me as euphemistic: most of these assessments are straightforwardly negative, and the hedge of "more ambivalent" isn't echoed in "favourable responses" further up.
  • The sections on critical reception are tricky to work through: I'd like to see more organisation that leads the reader through the different critical views and presents the individual critics in a more logical order. At the moment, it reads like a fairly chaotic hodge-podge of everything that's been written on the song.
  • I've attempted this; hopefully it has moved in the right direction. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't use sic for anything other than a straightforward error, generally of grammar: chronologically it lasts nearly 20 minutes reads more like hyperbole than a mistake to me.
  • The italics have gone awry in the third paragraph of "Live performances...".
  • For the cover versions, we can use the song itself as evidence for its length, so there's no need to be approximate on the timings (the Old Crow Medicine Show version is 9:27, for instance). I'm not sure about the critical comments section: firstly, these need to be attributed in the text, but presumably they're not all the comments critics have made, so there's an easy charge of
    WP:OR
    or cherrypicking to make in terms of the selection here. On a separate issue, the punctuation is pretty wonky in that column.
  • Note B is uncited: is it OR?
  • There's quite a lot of inconsistency in the formatting of titles in the bibliography, as well as with author links. I'd suggest another title than References, given that it doesn't actually contain any references (those are the footnotes): either Bibliography, [Printed] Sources or similar.
  • I've made some amendents to these. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for this, UndercoverClassicist - sorry that there were some rookie errors that needed highlighting as well as your more substantial points. I'll work through these over the next few days. Much appreciated. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hope the review is useful: I'll keep an eye on this page but please feel free to ping me to take another look at anything. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for taking so long to get back to you, UndercoverClassicist. I have amended the lead a bit, but I'm planning to revise it again once the rest of the article is more settled. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem:
WP:NOHURRY and all that. The article's definitely on the up already. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@UndercoverClassicist: I've reworked the lead, please let me know what you think. One thing I haven't done is include an audio sample in the article. There's a link to the track in the infobox, and I wasn't sure what a short clip could be used to illustrate - but I'm open to any suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead could still do with a bit of love, with a particular eye on repetition and precision of language. I'm also not sure it really has enough meat to stand in as a summary of the article itself, which is what
MOS:LEAD would like it to be. A good way to start is by thinking of what the key takeaway is for the reader in each section or couple of paragraphs: is that information in the lead? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@UndercoverClassicist: I've had another go at the lead, taking out repetition and attempting to summarise some of the the content of the article. Thanks again. Reagards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about Baez and Havens seems to have been said twice in slightly different ways. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my incompetence, UndercoverClassicist. I can hardly believe it, but there it was. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BennyOnTheLoose, how are you getting on with these? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are only a couple of points I haven't replied to, Gog the Mild. I'll have a proper look through in the next day or so. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist I'd forgotten about the point relating to Swinburne. Hopefully I've now replied to all of your points above. Thanks again. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - will take a look when I can, hopefully over the next few days. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:UndercoverClassicist, how's it going? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I'm nearly there but there's one or two things that need a look. More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the clock":
    MOS:IDIOM
    is a bit unhappy: suggest a link to Wiktionary.
  • Noting that Dylan's claims in "Sara" to have written "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" in the Chelsea Hotel: wonky grammar here: simply Noting Dylan's claims...?
  • Suggest linking "speed trip" in the quote to the drug.
  • the phrase "Spanish manners: we need some explanation of what this has to do with Baez, who isn't Spanish.
  • Presumably it's a nod to her Mexican father?
UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Blake poem Tyger or The Tyger? We're inconsistent.
  • Perhaps link "madonna"?
  • Linked. (The disambiguation page includes "a nickname of Joan Baez"). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ricks writes ..." Ricks makes the point ... Ricks describes: could we look at the structure here to reduce this repetition? More generally, has anyone other than Ricks looked at this song from a literary perspective?
  • The Ezekiel quote is dropped in a bit awkwardly: precede with "such as" or similar?
  • The bit on Ezekiel gets quite confusing towards the end: in particular, I'm not sure what to make of there is a force that can outwait the kings of Tyrus: "the Lord, he who speaks through his prophet Ezekiel of the doom to come. I assume Ricks is making some kind of correspondence point here: is Dylan/the narrator meant to represent Ezekiel, and the Lady... Tyrus, maybe?
  • Ralph Gleason wrote in the San Francisco Examiner that "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" was "a ghostly enigma. Allen Ginsberg said it stands as a good poem all by itself, which is praise of the first rank.: the embedded quote is awkward. I'd be tempted to pull it out: "he quoted Allen Ginsberg [explain who he was and what sort of poetry he wrote] as saying..." or similar.
  • I couldn't track down the original quote from Ginsberg, so I avoided "quoted." (In trying to find it, I did see Barry Miles's description of the evening where Ginsberg played the song for Ezra Pound, who "smiled and sat still." (Allen Ginsberg: Beat Poet (2010), pp. 396-397). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a retospective review: is there such thing as a non-retrospective review? Isn't review just French for retrospect?
  • I've amended to "later"; I was attempting to make the point that they were come years after the release, not more contemporaneous with it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gill notes that, though the song has its share of enigmatic imagery, there is no trace of the jokey nihilism that marks out much of the rest of Blonde on Blonde: not sure about 'notes' for a very subjective statement.
  • Bob Dylan's Poetics: How the Songs Work (2020), the parenthesesed date is a bit close to parenthetical citation to me, and that's depreciated. If the year is really important, "his 2020 book, Bob Dylan's Poetics..."
  • which "soars" when sung by Dylan.": we need he says or similar. I think the second quote mark is a mistake.
  • Is it worth being clear that Clive James was many things, but not really a music critic?
  • Link Danny Boy to the song.
  • We sometimes fall into simply condensing critical reviews rather than making use of them for the article's own purposes. This is particularly apparent in the Ross review, and perhaps with the Ricks one further up. Suggest taking a bit of a step back and thinking about what we want to get out of the source, and then looking to see if there's any way to restructure the sections so that they are led by the narrative of our article rather than the critical one. It's often better if we can pick out themes and ideas and then discuss how they pop up in multiple critics, rather than ever getting too closely attached to any one source for many sentences at a time.
  • The italics on (pictured in 1966) read oddly to me: I know we do them for TFA, but I don't think we really do them anywhere else. Happy to be corrected.
  • Renaldo And Clara,: decap and.
  • Don't link Baez down here; she's already linked far above.
Note that the duplink rule in the MoS has been recently amended. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm struggling to fully parse what's changed: it looks to me like it's no longer recommended to link first in the lead, then on first mention in the body, but to only have the link once in the whole article, unless duplinking makes things clearer? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reading is that second - or further! - links are permissible in the main body if it can reasonably be argued that this helps the reader. A fairly subtle tweak, but a move away from having to use IAR in such cases. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative French band Phoenix: false title, but we'd generally put the nationality before the genre ("Rock American band Bon Jovi"?)
  • Do we have any idea what Waits was going on about with "takes me out to the meadow"?
  • Odd to introduce Roger Waters but not Howard Stern.
  • Performers, adapted from That Thin, Wild Mercury Sound: Dylan, Nashville, and the Making of Blonde on Blonde: this seems like "under the hood" stuff to me: I would simply write "Performers" as an L3 subhead and cite each one to note 81. That way, if another source somehow comes along which identifies another performer, it can be added with no problem. Same for the Technical section.
Hi Benny, I agree with UCC. You seem to be trying t give the source in line. Not actually "wrong", but to my eye UCC's suggestion seems smoother. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog. Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose, how are you getting on with addressing UCC's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I have a bit to do on the Ricks and Ross critical reviews (including the part about references to Ezekiel). I've been going through some additional sources and should be able to amend the article in the next couple of days. I think jut about everything else has been addressed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist - I've reworked the Ricks/Ezekiel para to hopefully give it a bit more context. For Ross, I think condensing it a bit means that Heylin's comments more logically follow. Once again, I really appreciate your detailed attention and helpful advice. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is nicely written. I'm not quite seeing the connection between Tyrus and Ezekiel in the current framing, and it seems a shame to lose the previous material about Tyrus: Tyrus is described as "a merchant of the people for many isles"; this chapter of Ezekiel lists the many commodities and luxuries which Tyrus trades in, including silver, gold, spices, precious stones, emeralds, ebony and ivory. Thus, for Ricks, Tyrus is "one huge warehouse of hubris". The Tyrus verse presents the kings as tempters; it's not difficult to infer that they represent the seduction of "the world" and its tendency to get out of control (But who among them really wants just to kiss you?). Obviously, it's important not to go into OR here, but I think Ricks was onto something there.
UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist I've restored the part you mentioned, and attempted to include what I think is Ricks's point. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think we're there, and even I have (almost) run out of nits to pick. Nice work and an impressive article: I've never given the original too much time (I'm firmly of the view that the best Dylan songs aren't sung by Dylan) but will certainly be going back to it with fresh ears. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks again, UndercoverClassicist. You've really helped improve the article, and I've learnt some lessons. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

No spotcheck needed, focusing on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was Template:Pop Chronicles; but the specific episode doesn't seem to be available any more, so I've used Wiletnz instead. (I also changed "played cards" to "played ping pong" as both Wilentz and Sanders mention that rather than cards. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7's title is missing a space before the date
  • Ref 16 is missing a work/website/publisher
  • Ref 31: no date/year? Also, there's a difference between the quote and the sentence; the sentence is saying it was written for his wife, but the quote is saying the song is about his wife
  • Amended to "about", per source. Added the year. I went with cite magazine as it's in a magazine format, but it's one of many "special editions" from Mojo rather than a regular issue. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are all these news articles from? If they're from a database like ProQuest or Newspapers.com, I do suggest adding links or using the ProQuest template in the "id" parameter
  • Added Newpapers.com clippings. (The Mojo special is not online, and Variety was from microfilm). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 59 date is wrong
  • No ISBN for Williams 1969? If not, I suggest adding an OCLC

Done with the review, excellent job keeping consistency in the Bibliography. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, MyCatIsAChonk. Hopefully all the issues above are resolved. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MyCatIsAChonk. Can I just check whether your "Support" above represents a pass for the source review, a support from a regular review, or both. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, is there a difference? If so, I've been doing something wrong, and I apologize for any confusion- in any case, I verify that the sources are appropriately formatted and reliable. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a source review. Which is what I had thought you had done. Thanks for confirming. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk, for no reason that I know of, it's usual when doing a general review against the FA criteria to give a bolded "support", but for the source and image reviews to give a bolded "pass". Perhaps it helps the coordinators keep them separate. When someone puts a bolded "support" on what appears to be a source review, as you just did, it might be the case that they mean "the source review has passed and I am also supporting this article on all the FA criteria" -- there are some reviewers who will do that. That's why Gog was asking. These aren't rules; they're just habits that have developed here at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see- thank you for clarifying! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • The lead says the first take was released on Blonde on Blonde; the body says it was the fourth take.
    Corrected to fourth take in the lead.
  • I see "polarised"; shouldn't the article be in American English?
  • "literary allusions in "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" which encompass William Blake's "The Tyger", Algernon Swinburne's "Dolores", and verses of the Bible": I don't think "encompass" is the right word. It means to include as a part of a whole, but I think the simpler connotations of "include" are all you need.
  • "Retrospective views often chime with this, praising the sound but dismissing the lyrics": I think this is a colloquial usage of "chime" -- something a bit more formal would be better.
    I've amended the article per the three points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dylan counted off": I am guessing this means the "1, 2, 3" that musicians often use to sync timing when starting a song, but I'm not sure. If there's a suitable link that would be good.
    I've wikilinked Count off. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to give the timing of the finished song after describing the first take, without saying that it was the fourth take that made the album.
    Moved, with a slight tweak to the wording. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although some participants later related that only a single take happened": I assume this is known to be wrong because the four takes do exist. If so I would rephrase a little; saying they related this sounds like a competing version of events. If it's interesting enough to mention at all, I would give it wording that makes it clear their memories are wrong. Perhaps make it into a footnote -- "X and Y later only recalled one take of the song during the session, though all four takes have survived" or something like that. Or since the recording session itself has been released, add the footnote to the sentence about that.
    Pending ... the "one take" appears in several books; I'm not sure when the literature started to reflect that there were several takes. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanders writes "Over the years, a number of participants at that session have remembered recording 'Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands' in one take, and that has become part of the mythology surrounding the song"(p.149) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a great quote. I would suggest moving "although some participants later related that only a single take happened" to the end of the paragraph, and then giving the information as you do here, so that the reader is clear that there's no debate about the number of takes and that those who remember one take are clearly wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved, and I quoted Sanders. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say who Gray is on first mention -- "Dylan scholar" or whatever.
    Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Around the same time, Dylan enthused to journalist Jules Siegel, encouraging him the listen to the "old-time religious carnival music".' A word is wrong here -- should that be "to listen"? And is Dylan referring to "Sad-Eyed Lady" as carnival music? And this is an odd use of "enthuse" -- usually one gives the topic that is being enthused over.
    I've amended the text. The source says that Dylan played the song from an Acetate disc of the album, and Attendant journalist Jules Siegel recalls that when the song came on, "[Dylan] said, 'Just listen to that! That’s old-time religious carnival music!' He was just thrilled with his own work." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does commentary on "Sara" really treat its account of the writing of "Sad-Eyed Lady" as intended to be accurate? I always assume lyrics take liberties for artistic purposes, but if critics have commented on the point then that's fine. Assuming that's the case, I think the introductory sentences of that section could be compressed. Currently you have 'In 1975, Dylan wrote and recorded a song to his wife which challenged the account that "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" had been written in the recording studio in Nashville. In "Sara", Dylan located the writing in a bohemian hotel where they had lived in 1965, singing that he had once been'. Much of this is immediately repeated in the lyrics themselves. How about starting with 'In "Sara", a song Dylan wrote and recorded in 1975, he gave another account of the origin of "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands", singing:" Then you could add that he and Sara had lived in the hotel in 1965.
    I've used your proposed wording, and added some commentary from Wilentz. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Dylan's lyrical approach to the song was to construct the verses as a series of "lists" of': again this seems wordy. How about just 'Each verse of the song is a list of the sad-eyed lady's attributes, complemented by a sequence ..."?
    I've used your suggested wording, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since 1959 had included a song called "Lowlands" in her repertoire": looks like a missing word -- should this be "she had"?
    Yes, amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Retrospective commentary has included consideration of temporal matters such as the early morning recording time": seems long-winded, and is it only Gill and Kooper that mention the early hours of the morning? It might be better not to have a topic sentence for this paragraph, but instead find ways to connect the individual retrospective review comments, which are quite disparate but do have some common threads. Perhaps start with "In a retrospective review, the critic Andy Gill,... Al Kooper, in a <date> interview with Mojo, agreed, describing the song as "the definitive version of what 4 am sounds like"." Then once you've finished with Gill's comments do something like "Other retrospective comments included ..." to connect the remaining reviews.
    I've reworked that as suggested, and also reduced the amount of direct quotations. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later commentaries have been critical of the song's lyrics while praising the music or performance." This sounds like all later commentaries have criticized the lyrics, but I don't think that's the case.
    I've added "Some"; I'm not sure if that's enought to address this point. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gray expresses a similarly contradictory attitude": I don't think this is a good way to summarize the paragraph -- he did not give contradictory opinions, as Heylin did; he simply changed his mind. I'd give the date of the first edition of his book, too; we only get the date of the 2000 edition, so the reader doesn't know if Gray changed his opinion between 1999 and 2000, or between 1967 and 2000.
    I've amended this and also reduced the amount of direct quotation from Gray. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice and guidance Mike Christie. Much appreciated. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp

Is this FAC waiting for a third prose review, or an image review? I could probably jump in and do either if needed, just let me know, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will review this. It's great to see another Dylan article up for FA, and sorry I haven't had a chance to review this until now. The article has a lot of good things going for it, but I have at least one medium-big issue, in addition to some smaller concerns, that I hope can be resolved. I haven't read other people's reviews above, and not sure if anything about this may have come up before and any consensus agreed upon, I'm just reading this with fresh eyes.

  • The medium-big concern is that "Critics are generally agreed that Dylan wrote "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" about his wife, Sara" (and the first wiki-link for her) comes in the "Critical comments" section, as though she were being introduced for the first time, but she is already basically referred to in the "Later account and technique" section; and there are details (such as "The couple had lived in the Chelsea Hotel in 1965") indicating that that earlier section is not just about "a" Sara, but is about Sara Dylan. I understand you put "Later account and technique" where you did because "Stayin' up for days in the Chelsea Hotel" contrasts directly with the reality of him writing the song in the studio. I understand it's messy to disentangle this part from there and move it later. I unfortunately don't have any easy solutions of the top of my head, but I would still argue there is incoherency in the existing flow of ideas, and I urge you to see if you can somehow creatively make the flow of ideas work better. I'll try to think about it too. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe in the "Favorable responses" section you have tried to group the commentary into related themes, which is good. But I found " Paul Williams found the song affecting, despite being unable to decipher the lyrics, and wrote that while he could appreciate the song on an emotional level, he was unable to articulate why" at the top sounded very similar to "David Pichaske wrote that ... "all attempts to explain the nature of its attraction have proven embarrassingly inadequate". When I was reading the Pichaske quote, I was thinking, "Wait a sec, didn't somebody else say almost the same thing?" I understand you have tied the Pichaske quote to the "techniques" (for lack of a better word) of assonance and alliteration, whereas the Williams quote is not tied to any technique. Still, I'd suggest bringing the Williams citation to be with Pichaske, and comment on how there were similarities in their reactions. Moisejp (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Live performances, cover versions, and legacy" in particular I feel there are too many quotations. At the very least, I would paraphrase some of them. Or even go as far as reducing some of the detail; for me personally, there is more detail than I'm interested in about the different cover versions, although if others disagree with me, that's valid, and if so you could do more just paraphrasing instead of reducing detail. Incidentally, in this section, like for Williams and Pichaske above, there are a few citations that are similar enough that I would acknowledge this similarity by grouping the comments together (this might mean rearranging the structure of the section so that you're not talking about each song individually?): "retained its "essence" despite being much shorter than Dylan's original" and "felt was true to the original despite the reduced duration" and "loses none of its expansive majesty" despite being shorter than Dylan's original". Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's better to keep the comments on each cover together here, but open to suggestions. (I think if there was anything interesting that the critics here said about the song rather than the versions, it would be better in an earlier section.) I've removed the Bristol Evening Post and Folk Radio UK comments, and reworked some of the others. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I suggest some of the following direct quotations in the "Favorable responses" and "Negative and ambivalent responses" would be quite easy to paraphrase without losing any nuance from the direct quotes (again, you wouldn't necessarily need to paraphrase all of these, but these are some ideas for ones that might be relatively painless). I feel that paraphrasing some of these would reduce the heaviness of having an almost non-stop stream of direct quotations in these sections.
  • "praise of the first rank"
  • "an appealing hymnic chant which ranks with the best of the new Dylan"
  • "as much funeral procession as wedding march"
  • "'Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands' stands with [Dylan's] "Mr. Tambourine Man" as perhaps the most insidiously haunting pop song of our time"
  • "technique of varying the chorus as a way of isolating the singer from the listener"
  • "you cannot quite ever sing along"
  • "all attempts to explain the nature of its attraction have proven embarrassingly inadequate"
  • "the greatest love song there is, was, and ever will be" and considering it Dylan's "finest combination of lyrics, melody and performance"
  • "unsuccessful, and rather grandly so, inasmuch as it is offered on the album, as something of extraspecial importance, and yet no one, subsequently, has, after any thought, really accepted it as such"
  • Reworded for eight of these nine bullet points, the excpetion being "'Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands' stands with [Dylan's] "Mr. Tambourine Man" as perhaps the most insidiously haunting pop song of our time" which I couldn't think of a good alternative. Suggestions welcome. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry I've arrived so late in the game with comments that aren't especially tiny. I'd be happy to try to work with you to resolve some of these as best I can. Moisejp (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, Moisejp. I'll probably be more than happy with any changes that you make to the article directly, or any very specific suggestions, but I'll work through these points anyway. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp I've amended the article in response to your comments; I'm not expecting this to have fully addressed all your concerns, but hopefully it's movement in the right direction. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be looking at this over this weekend, cheers! Moisejp (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I will sincerely try to get to this this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Your changes look good. I'm happy to support now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. I will have a run through this. It may take a while, so bear with me. I will do a little copy editing as I go. If you disagree with something, or don't understand why I have made a change, could you bring it up here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""The fourth take ... would occupy the entire fourth side of the double album"; "The fourth take was released on Blonde on Blonde". Given that there are only three sentences between these, the second mention of "The fourth take" seems redundant.
  • Amended to "the song", but I'm open to other suggestions, of course. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The music critic Alex Ross wrote that "The melody of the refrain [is] a rising and descending arc, made up of consecutive notes" in D-major." I don't see what the quotation adds. It is normal to paraphrase factual statements.
  • Amended. It's closer than I would like to the source, but I'm not sure that can be avoided, and at least Ross is credited. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sara Lownds, whom Dylan had married only three months prior to recording the song"; "Bob Dylan married Sara Lownds on November 22, 1965". Is it possible to not mention this twice in three sentences?
  • "Other later reviewers include the musicologist Wilfrid Mellers". It is a while before you mention a second later reviewer, so the use of plural jars a little.
    Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And those picky minor points are all I can find. Bravo! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Gog the Mild. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

Looks fairly good from a 20 minute scan, but still reading through...suggestions to follow ad-hoc in next few days. Noting that its gone through a few heavy duty copy edits - it reads very well to me so far.

  • This sentence is very long: In his book Bob Dylan's Poetics: How the Songs Work, historian and literature scholar Timothy Hampton comments that Dylan's variation of the delivery of the chorus to create a sense of distance between the singer and the audience, a technnique which he employed on several of the Blonde on Blonde tracks, is in evidence on "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands".
  • Maybe not use Spotify as a ref - track listing is at AllMusic here
  • I've added AllMusic, but retained Spotify as AllMusic doesn't include the track length. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move " Black, Johnny (2023). "Southern Discomfort"" to the bibliography. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this one. The publication feels like a magazine, and was sold from magazine racks rather than bookshelves. I can't find an ISBN for it. (I did find a reference to it as a "bookazine".) Other magazines, such as Rolling Stone and Variety aren't in the Bibliography but I feel if this Mojo publication is, then they probably should be too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay in replying, Ceoil. Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the

wikicup
once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive-by: is there a word missing in "Some writers have concluded that the song refers to Joan Baez, although most agreed that was composed for Dylan's wife Sara Lownds."? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not anymore. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh

I intend to support this nomination, subject to a couple of items.

1. The use of single (') and double (") quote marks appears to be inconsistent.
 2. The following cites could presumably be rolled into one(?):

58. Pichaske 1981, p. 285
59. Pichaske 1981, p. 285

--- Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sandbh. I've rolled the two citations into one. I found one place where the quote marks were single instead of double ("Lowlands" and "Lownds") but I didn't see any others - apologies if I've missed any. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks all good now: Support --- Sandbh (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bob-Dylan-arrived-at-Arlanda-surrounded-by-twenty-bodyguards-and-assistants-391770740297.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was published in Aftonbladet on 28 April 1966, Nikkimaria. If you search for "Sanningen bakom Bob Dylans första besök i Sverige 1966" you can hopefully see a preview of the original page clipping from the Aftonbladet site. I believe it may have been also published in Svenska Dagbladet on the same date. The picture is also at Alamy, which has a statment that "This image is a public domain image, which means either that copyright has expired in the image or the copyright holder has waived their copyright.". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Hi, I was wondering if you're satisfied with Benny's response and if you think the article is A-okay image-wise. FrB.TG (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sad_Eyed_Lady_of_the_Lowlands/archive1&oldid=1181031030"