Talk:Highway 61 Revisited/Archive 1

Archive 1

Liner notes

Would someone be able to add something about Dylan's sleeve notes ( the ones on the back of the LP)?

Relative importance

"Dylan's next album, Blonde on Blonde, is usually considered his magnum opus; Highway 61 Revisited is similar, but is generally considered less mature and developed in comparison."

This is a highly debatable critical comment that many experts in rock and roll music disagree with, i.e. Rolling Stone, and should be rewritten.

MOS issues

The markup on this article is not in line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Album titles are supposed to be in italics, Highway 61 Revisited and song titles are supposed to be in quotes, "Desolation Row". I jujst went through and fixed all the markup, but got caught by an editing conflict and I don't feel like doing it again tonight, but I will get back to it. It's important that all the articles in the Wikipedia use the same markup style so any reader can look at an article and say, "That's a song" or "That's an album title". Ortolan88

Oops, I could've sworn it was the reverse. Thanks. Tokerboy 19:01 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

Lyrics and copyrights

You really can't put the lyrics to a whole long verse in the Wikipedia, I do't think. Dylan, through his nasty manager, has been a complete hard-ass about anybody quoting his lyrics, but even if he hadn't been so, this is copyrighted material. You should only quote a few characteristic lines, but a whole verse is over the line, I believe. Ortolan88 18:49 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

I'll try and do some summary, but it's hard to summarize lyrics that don't make any sense anyway. Does the length of the original song affect things? "Desolation Row" is extremely long, and the part quoted isn't a huge section of it, IIRC. I'll go back in a little while and fiddle. Tokerboy 19:01 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

I'm being eaten alive by copyright freaks who insist that Hitler has only got one ball is copyrighted. Believe me, you'll never avoid the same treatment here. I can suggest some wording if you like. The lyrics are evocative, vague and surrealistic, but probably not actual nonsense.

Let's see, how about this:

The lyrics to "Desolation Row" are delivered in a laconic tone and sound like a description of a surrealist painting or a film by Federico Fellini, with references to "postcards of the hanging", a "beauty parlor filled with sailors" and the "blind commisioner", who has "one hand tied to the tight-rope walker" and "the other is in his pants". All these strange characters "need somewhere to go" and the place turns out to be Desolation Row.

Or something like that. Ortolan88

I am still wondering whether our friend TMC is going to dig up some Anglo-Saxon dude's progeny with a claim on the lyrics to Beowulf... user:sjc

I changed the song Desolation Row to include no large sections of quoted material. I'm keeping the one verse at Highway 61 Revisited (at least for now) because I think that's much more clear-cut fair use. Quoting one verse from one song on the album the article is about because that verse effectively sums up the lyrical thrust of the entire album seems okay to me. Tokerboy 21:04 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

Genre

I changed the genre from folk rock to rock, mainly because there isn't much folkish about thios album and also because Dylan himself despised the term, as I have heard in press Conferences he made in '65 and '66. Ruckyou 03:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Article assessment

Ok, made it class B because I don't want to unilaterally call it a Good Article though it's the best Album entry I've seen. Anybody want to argue with "Top" importance? Megamanic 07:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

At the time, "Desolation Row" was arguably Dylan's most ambitious song and for many years his longest recording.

"Desolation Row" times out at 11:22. "Sad-eyed Lady of the Lowlands" times out at 11:43 and appeared the next year. What gives?

Too Long

Surely this article is too long? Perhaps the exhaustive detail about the recording could be moved onto another page and a summary left here. I have taken a first pass at improving the background section, but there needs to be a better explanation why the Newport festival is important to the record specifically (in the context of the wikipedia article) rather than to Dylan's development in general (in which case I think it belongs elsewhere).

Much of the article reads like a narrative, rather than an encyclopedia entry. There is a lack of NPOV, and too many weasel words.Major Bloodnok 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have found a link to The electric Dylan controversy which covers the issues detailed in the Background section in a neater, more succinct way. I suggest that the Background section can be drastically be reduced in length to a short summary with a link to the other page.

The next section reads like something from a magazine, and needs much work to reduce the amount of exhaustive information which is probably better left to a book about the album rather than this particular article. For example I suggest parts like this can be cut without loosing the thrust of the section:

Johnston recalls, "I don't know how Tom Wilson recorded him... I used some EQ on Dylan's voice."

I am not sure why you would want to cut back.Why not put a summary at the top or the top of a section, and let the article grow?--Timtak 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting piece of Dylan history, but I don't think it has a place here. Any thoughts anyone? I'll leave it for a week or so, and revisit this.Major Bloodnok 17:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced down the Background section, and added a main article tag. I have cut the quote from Bob Johnson mentioned above, as it has been taken verbatim from [[1]], and falls fowl of Wikipedia's Fair Use Policy - see WP:NONFREE - as it is a very long quotation. Major Bloodnok 10:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Have also gone though the "Recording Sessions" Section, tidying up the grammar, and adding where needed. Major Bloodnok 11:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Newport

Is the Newport Folk Festival section really relevent in this article? It could be mentioned in a different section but as it is, the only relevance to the album is that the festival took place before Dylan recorded. Anyone else find that this section should be taken out? Glassbreaker5791 14:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it has nothing to do with the recording of H61R so I've removed it. Mick gold (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Article's content

There's way too much text on each individual song. They all have their own pages anyway so should most of this go there? None of the other Dylan album pages are like this one, most of them do not even have the "The Songs" section. I have checked the guidelines but nothing seems set on this point. Does anyone have any opinion on this or should I go ahead and tidy up? Silverwood (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian Jones

in the "Like a Rolling Stone" part I have removed "Brian Jones of The Rolling Stones apparently thought that the song was about him. Dylan, perhaps playing on Jones' paranoia, purportedly confirmed this to an audience at Carnegie Hall later in 1965." All that the book cited, Old Gods Almost Dead, says [[2]—you can find this in "Look Inside" function for this book] is "Later that year, Dylan told an audience in Carnegie Hall that 'Like a Rolling Stone'—which always closed his electric shows—was about Brian Jones." There is nothing about Jones thinking the song was about him. What we had in the article suggests that Dylan may not have been serious—but of course we can't speculate about that because it becomes original research. But at the same time what we had in the article does remind us that we have no way of knowing what Dylan was thinking—whether he was joking or serious. Without more information or context, I feel uncomfortable including this mention that Dylan said the song was about Jones. If readers don't have any context (which we can't provide unless we find other references) they will assume Dylan was necessarily serious, and then the big question of who the song was about becomes "answered." Well, if anyone disagrees with me or has other ideas about how to handle this issue, let's discuss. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree per your stated reasons. Airproofing (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Record Collector

I've been busy in real life but I'd like to add to good collaborative work being done on this article. I just got hold of November issue of Record Collector which contains good article:

Sean Egan, "The Making of Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited", pp. 52-67, Record Collector, issue 381, November 2010, published by Diamond Publishing. [3]

This is a detailed article on recording of album; it quotes Polizzotti, Sounes et al, but also contains new interviews with Charlie McCoy, Sam Lay, Al Kooper, Daniel Kramer, Harvey Goldstein, which have interesting info. I've tried to add Egan to References but perhaps Moisejp has a more elegant way of referencing this source. I believe Egan is well-known music journalist whose The Mammoth Book of Bob Dylan [4] is forthcoming in May 2011. Mick gold (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fix to the 2nd sentence

In case my edit note wasn't clear enough, here's how the second sentence originally appeared:

Having hedged his bets on his previous album, Bringing It All Back Home, dividing the record between an acoustic side and a side backed by an electric band, Highway 61 was Dylan's first album to feature a rock backing on every track, except for the 11 minute closing song "Desolation Row" which was performed on acoustic guitar.

Because of the length, nobody noticed this starts with two dangling modifiers. The two gerund phrases (ing's) incorrectly modify Highway 61, rather than Dylan, who should be the subject since he hedged the bets and divided the record. Note that I also dropped the idea of "first" since Highway 61 still wasn't an all-rock album, though I believe the overall point - that Dylan was no longer doing folk - is well worth making. I have another tweak in mind for this sentence, but first want to see if the new construction is acceptable. Allreet (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well tweaked, there is now better grammar out on Highway 61. Mick gold (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Improvements to Highway 61 section and general assessment

I added "When Dylan was growing up" and "Interstate 35" to the opening of this section to tie the general background on Highway 61 to Dylan and also to account for the difference between the highway then and today. I'm about to continue this in the next paragraph to clarify the influence of the highway on Dylan, whereas the connection as it stands is more a series of generally related background facts. Though I haven't worked this out, the basic gist is that the music came up the highway and eventually reached Dylan while he spent nights listening to it on the radio. The usual biographies cover this in one form or another, and I need to read over those I have to pin down the specific references. The overall point stylistically is to build a more cohesive, more readable story. The hard part is doing it with economy, but I think that won't require more than little touches and moderate additions.

BTW, my overall impression of the article is that it's in good shape. I've identified some other needed edits, but for the most part, just minor cleanup (word-smithing and citation work). Allreet (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Allreet, thanks for your contributions! Sounds like you have some valid-sounding points about the highway paragraph. I haven't had a chance to sit down and think through this problem thoroughly, but I'm sure if some of us put our heads together in the coming edits, we'll be able to smooth out a really good story. Moisejp (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moisejp & Allreet for progress on this article. I'd like to add more information on some of the songs, and more context for the recording of H61R. I'll try to make some progress over next 2 weeks. Mick gold (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy Gill

I suspect the two books by Andy Gill listed under References are, in reality, just one book, they are US and UK editions of same book. I have the Carlton edition, My Back Pages. Chapter on H61R begins on p. 78, chapter on John Wesley Harding begins on p. 124. If the pagination of these two books is in fact the same, then perhaps we could simplify references by just having one Gill book. It doesn't matter to me which one, since page references would be valid either way. Mick gold (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be right, Mick gold. Looking at the descriptions of the two books on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk, I see that the descriptions are very similar. I don't have either book myself. But both of them are 144 pages, so as you say, it is likely the page numbers are the same. I'll tell you what. I'll go ahead and combine them in the next few days, using the Carlton edition, and then if you have a chance could you just glance through your book to see whether the pages seem to match what is being referred to—it doesn't have to be every single reference, just a few should suffice. That'd be great. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch, by the way!Moisejp (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out references, Moisejp. I've checked page numbers & found a mistake but I think it was my mistake. On amazon.com, Don't Think Twice It's All Right has a Look Inside! facility which confirms the two books are identical, they share the same title page: Text and design copyright (c) Carlton Books Limited, 1998. [5] Mick gold (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hello everyone - I've been so inactive recently that I wasn't aware of all the activity over here. Is the next WP:DYLAN collaboration officially underway? I look forward to working with all of you regardless. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi I.M.S. Great to have you back! I guess we have been collaborating on this "officially" (as officially as officially as it gets) for about a month now. It's making progress. Moisejp (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Sound clips

Do we want to add sound clips? Right now the individual articles for LARS, ITALTLITATTC, FAB6 and JLTTB have sound clips. I say we could use some of these for now, and later if the need is felt and anyone has time to create new ones, we could substitute some of the new ones. Does anyone feel strongly that another song not among of those four should be represented with a sound clip? In my case, I don't have much time at the moment to make new sound clips, but if someone else does, that's fine, too. Moisejp (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a tough choice—they're all strong songs and very illustrative of the album as a whole—but I think I would go with LARS, ITALTL, and JLTTB. If we decide not to include clips, that's fine too: one can navigate to the individual song pages to listen to a clip. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If we could get a clip of "Desolation Row" that may be worth adding too since it is such a different song from anything else on the album. Maybe the title track as well. Rlendog (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some consensus on this? Allreet and Mick gold, do you have any opinion? We need to choose three songs (if the consensus is indeed that we are going to include sound clips). I'm happy with any three. I'm assuming one of them will definitely be LARS, and for efficiency I'd vote for using at least one of ITALTL, JLTTB and FAB6. I kind of agree with Riendog that DR would be a good choice since it is relatively different to the rest of the album, and would be willing to make a sound clip for it. But again, I don't have a strong opinion. If consensus ended up being to make three completely new sound clips, I guess over these winter holidays I could probably find time—but, yeah, I'd a little bit prefer not to make more than one. Moisejp (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Acclaimedmusic.net

We use Acclaimedmusic.net as a source for the Virgin Record Guide 5-star rating and also for a couple of polls where the album placed as one of the best albums of all time. But on the same Acclaimedmusic.net, there are a whole lot of other polls and a number of other ratings. Some of the publications may be less important and not need to be mentioned, but others, such as New Musical Express, the London Times and Time magazine, are important. We may need to decide which ones to include and where to draw the line of importance. If anyone wants to look at that link and has input on this matter, that'd be great. I'll try to look at it, too. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that Acclaimedmusic.net directly qualifies as a reliable source. It may be useful to guide to other reliable sources, but it would probably be better to access those sources more directly. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we used it as a source for The Basement Tapes, and it wasn't contested. I was trying to remember where we got the idea to use it, and I think it was I.M.S. who suggested it, having seen it used on another FA. I.M.S., do you remember anything about that? Moisejp (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I mentioned it at Talk:The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan#Onto FAR: What's our plan?. I believe I first saw it used on an FA; no one has ever contested my use of it at FAC. Even if they ask us to remove it, it will still be useful as a means to acquire other sources. SilkTork once told me this about acclaimedmusic.net: "You can check with the folks at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though it is generally accepted that if a site is well respected and well run, and other reliable sources use it, then it would be considered acceptable. I found three books which use the site: [6]. Actually I checked the noticeboard - it's been discussed twice - [7] and [8] - the first time mentions that it is used by three books, and it was accepted, the second (quite recent) time the person asking wasn't aware that it has been used by reliable sources, so it is quite worrying that the outcome was that they planned to create a bot to remove all uses of it as a a RS! From my reading of the site, the guy is taking his information purely from reliable sources. I would say that it is reliable. But it's worth another question at the noticeboard, pointing out the Google Books search." (From Talk:Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire) GA Review) - I.M.S. (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So we've established that acclaimedmusic.net may likely be OK as a source. How about my original question? Would anyone care to look on there and see if there are other rankings or star ratings that we should probably try to include? Or, conversely, if people feel it is not worth the bother or trying to push the bounds of this source, we could limit our refs from there to the Virgin Guide, or even get rid of it altogether. I guess my original concern was partly one of consistency: is it OK to just haphazardly list a few reviews when equally important/legitimate ones are available from the same source? Of course, no matter how many we include we're going to have to draw a line somewhere, but I just thought it'd be good to maybe try to have some kind of policy behind our choices, if we can. Moisejp (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't actually read the two links I.M.S. posted above until after I wrote my last bit. Neither of the two discussions say there's no problem using it. Maybe we shouldn't push the limits on this one after all. OK, I will go through it and see if I can find any links to more proper sources from it. Moisejp (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, I went through the listings on Acclaimedmusic.net and found any ones that looked even slightly promising for which I could find a legitimate reference. Here are the best ones, which I am going to go ahead and add:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20020419222457/http://blender.com/articles/issue5/100_greatest.html
• http://www.1000recordings.com/the-list/

Here are a couple more that I'm leaning towards maybe not adding unless anyone strongly thinks we should:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20050205103328/http://guterman.com/guterman_100/guterman.100.html (but he did apparently publish a book with this list in it--does it make him worthwhile to include?)
• http://www.utne.com/archives/TheLooseCanon.aspx
  Now, I.M.S., or anyone else in the know, is Rock List Music still considered a reliable site? If so, we have all of these lists to choose from, most of which would seem worthwhile:
• http://rocklistmusic.co.uk/steveparker//1001albums.htm
• http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/rs200.html
• http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/guardian100.htm
• http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/mojo_p4.htm
• http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/mojo.html
• http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/nmeindex.html
  

Moisejp (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Rocklistmusic is a reliable source. It has been mentioned but never discussed at the RS noticeboard. I would think that if we choose not to use Acclaimed Music, then we shouldn't use Rock List, as they appear to be much the same. That being said, Rock List should be very useful as a way to find rankings - we can locate a list and, instead of linking to Rock List, link directly to the source. Most of the lists are from websites, newspapers, and books. I think that if a direct source is available, we should always cite that source. If a link is dead or a book unavailable, we should forget about it. As I mentioned earlier, we can treat these "compiling" websites as tools instead of direct sources. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Singles

Since this came up as an edit summary, LARS was the only single A-side, but "Buick 6", "Highway 61 Revisited" and "Queen Jane" were the B-sides of Dylan's next 3 singles (JLTTB was next after those, but in a live version, not the H61R version). I am not sure if that is worth mentioning somewhere. My inclination would be to do so, especially since the middle song of the trio in particular is so much more highly regarded now than its A-side ("Can You Please Crawl Out My Window") but I don't know if others agree. Rlendog (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this info is definitely worth adding. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be an obvious place to add this information for all the songs, so I added the information to each individual song's section. Rlendog (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

LARS

Mick gold, in your recent edit of the LARS part you took a paragraph (about the target of the song/identity of Miss Lonely) directly from the LARS article. Was that on purpose? Wouldn't it be better, as it was before, to be worded differently from in the LARS article? Moisejp (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Moisejp, I can see the merit of your suggestion that we vary the wording, so have gone back to the sentences from earlier version of article. I didn't think it was necessary to include the detail of Warhol and 'the diplomat', or Michael Gray's comment, since that is spelt out in detail in LARS FA. Mick gold (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Heylin 2009

Mick gold, my copy of Heylin 2009 seems to be different from yours, as on mine p. 245 talks about "To Ramona" and "All I Really Want to Do". Let's just go with your copy. I think that's the only Heylin 2009 I've added to the article, so presumably the other ones are all OK. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, actually refs 92 to 95 I also added. Mick, could you check your copy and change the pages accordingly. Thanks a lot! Moisejp (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, Moisejp, I've checked these refs and tweaked accordingly. I'm surprised your version is so different. On amazon, hardback and paperback "Revolution In The Air" seems to have the same number of pages,[9] & [10] In my version, LARS is p.237, and last song, "Wedding Song", is p.449. best Mick gold (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mick. Yeah, I was quite surprised it was so different, too. Mine's a paperback, maybe yours is hardcover? In mine LARS starts on 287, and "The Wedding Song" on 548. Moisejp (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Small inconsistency

We have a small inconsistency in the text in that in "Highway 61" song section it says the "Can You Please Crawl" single was released on Nov. 30, but in Outtakes it says it was released in December. Only a couple days difference there, but an inconsistency nonetheless. Riendog and Mick gold, apparently your sources each gave those respective dates? If we can't resolve which is correct it may be safer to just not mention specifically when the single came out. Moisejp (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

November date seems to come from Krogsgaard, 1991, a book I've never read or looked at. Books I've consulted merely say "Window" was released in December 1965. We could drop sentence at end of H61R?? Mick gold (talk)

I guess that'd be a possible solution, although it'd be inconsistent to mention all the other B-side releases but not this one. I think I would a little bit prefer to just make its release date less specific for both mentions. Another option would be to drop the mention of the single from Outtakes, as the single does not technically constitute H61R outtake, and b/c we have already discussed the two versions in Recording sessions, July 29–August 4 (we could also add the info there that the October version was released as a single)—as long as people reading Outtakes don't get confused and think the early pressings of "Positively 4th Street" were the "Window" single (could anyone think that?). Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a good entry on "Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?" in Gray's Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, pp.117-118, which analyses lyrics and details the 2 recording sessions. Gray gives November 30 as release date of the single "Window" so I've gone with that. Mick gold (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for GA?

Hi everyone! It appears work on this article has stalled as editors (myself included) have been working on other stuff, which is fair enough. But it seems to me that we're surely 99% of the way to GA. Regardless of whether we decide later to take it to FA or not, it seems a bit of a shame to indefinitely put it on hold and not get a GA status when we're so close and have put so much work into it. I think we could get it passed with very little more work. A couple of small issues were addressed above but haven't been totally resolved. One is that we now have three sound clips, do we want to put captions on them? Mick gold, you're always so good at coming up with captions, would you be interested in doing that, or anyone else? Captions are not my forte, but if I had to come up with some I probably could muster something, maybe not great ones, though. Or, I'm not even totally sure if it's necessary for GA, and if not we could just leave them as they are. The other small issue above is about whether or not to get rid of the Acclaimedmusic.com and RockList.com refs. I vote that we keep them for now for the GA (assuming we do go ahead with GA) and then if we eventually do decide to go for FA, we ask ourselves again then whether or not we want to try to not use them. What do people think about all this? Moisejp (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. I had a look at the article, and thought it's in quite good shape. I've added captions to sound clips. Moisejp, do you want to propose it for GA? Mick gold (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks ready. Should we file it for peer review before we go for GA? - I.M.S. (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Might as well go for GA, imho. Mick gold (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% on the structure of the article. If anyone can point me in the direction of some guidance or best practice on the recommended headings and subheadings for an album then I feel I could contribute more. For example, I am not keen on "the songs" as a heading. I have not found similiar on any other album pages and yet I don't feel confident to say this is wrong. Silverwood (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors who have worked on H61R have previously taken The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan to FA status. Mick gold (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mick, but I should have clarified I meant album pages other than Dylan ones, as I had noticed the Freewheelin' overlap. GA/FA should set good examples and I am hesitant to back this article as a paragon in the absence of a wider consensus on structureSilverwood (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I nominated it. Looks like there is quite a backlog so we'll see how long it takes to get reviewed. Moisejp (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Highway 61 Revisited/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Four found and fixed. I don't think Robert Shelton needs to be wikilinked twice.[11] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: One fixed and one tagged.[12] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixing and tagging—appreciated! Moisejp (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   To create the material for his next album, Dylan spent a month writing songs in his new home in the Byrdcliffe artists' colony of Woodstock in upstate New York.[31] Four days after the Newport Folk Festival, Dylan returned to Studio A on July 29, 1965, to resume work on his next album. next album - next album seems a little clunky here. as we are talkign about the very album in this article, it appears awkward.

   Allreet has made nimble edit in this clunky prose. Mick gold (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The Wolk reference at blender.com, has gone dead, can't find it on the site.  Done

   I have removed the Blender Wolk reference. Moisejp (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Other online sources check out, assume GF for off-line ones to which I have no access.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and focussed

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One image with a suitabel FUR.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a couple of minor points. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Ok, everything good now, another GA for the Big Zim! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, Many thanks for your GA assistance. Mick gold (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks a lot, Jez!! Moisejp (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph move

I think that this paragraph:

Dylan wrote an extended piece of verse, by different accounts either ten or twenty pages in length,[17][18] which Dylan described as a "long piece of vomit".[18] He refined this long poem into a song consisting of four verses and a chorus—"Like a Rolling Stone".[19]

should be moved to the section above it (under the "Background to recording sessions" header), as it refers to the writing and not the actual recording. It makes more sense, too, as LARS and its recording has already been mentioned in the paragraph above it. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It should probably be moved into the 1st paragraph of the "Background" section, since it overlaps some of the material there (i.e., writing LARS). Rlendog (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion. I've moved the para into the previous "Background" section. I removed the detail about the verse being either 10 or 20 pages long, because it seemed to trip the sentence up & make it too cumbersome. Mick gold (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Highway 61 Revisited/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The article does not include information on technical personnel, and it needs improved referencing for verification of information. Article requirements: Y Start: reasonably complete infobox; lead section with overview of album; track listing; reference to at least primary personnel by name; Categorization by at least artist and year. Y C: all of start and (1) cover art in infobox; (2) at least one additional section of prose; (3) track lengths & song authors in tracklist; (4) a personnel section including all musicians. B: all of C and (1) most technical details in infobox; (2) technical personnel in personnel section; (3) no obvious issues with sourcing; (4) no obvious issues with readability, though it may not conform completely to style guidelines; (5) no glaring omissions of information (see some suggestions at WP:ALBUM) or extraneous information, like trivia. Higher Classes are not assigned by WikiProject Album. Please review "the perfect article" and, if already B class, consider seeking additional feedback from Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Featured articles. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for additional information on article class. To request a reassessment from the Album project, when concerns are addressed, please see "requesting an assessment". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it's an important album of an important artist. --Cryout 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryout (talk • contribs)

Don't worry, it's just a vandal that keeps putting the speedy delete tag on the page, it's not a genuine deletion request. The vandal has been warned, and they'll be blocked if they keep it up. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on Featured Article of The Day

I know that this isn't a conversation forum, but I've got to say thank you to the folks that wrote and edited the article to one of my all-time favourite albums. Congratulations on being chosen the Featured Article of the Day for 28 February 2013! I would have thought you folks would have either waited for June 16 or August 30. Thanks again for putting the time in to make this a Featured Article. Well Abe said, "Where do you want this killin' done?" God say, "Out on Highway 61" --Abebenjoe (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Abenjoe! Moisejp (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Police siren

Since I don't have immediate access to either the cited source, or the album cover, I will rely on my ears and memory. The title track is punctuated, not by a police siren, but by a whizzer whistle, a whistle with a perforated disc inside which spins as air passes through it,and effects a change in pitch. I believe that I read somewhere that Al Kooper had it on a string around his neck, and Dylan was messing about with it. I'll try to find a source for this, but in any case, if a cop tried to pull me over with that siren sound, I would have laughed myself silly. Thanks Gimelgort 03:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Dylan is credited on the album with "guitar, harmonica, piano and police car."Bgates3 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Book ranks it #1 of all time - notable?

I don't if this is important enough to include in the article, but Australian rock writers Toby Creswell and Craig Mathieson (each notable enough to have their own WP pages) have listed Highway 61 Revisited as greatest album of all time.[13] Adpete (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that would be worthy of a mention in the article.--JayJasper (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Geography

While he was growing up in the 1950s, Highway 61 stretched from Duluth....

File:Mn61.svg

– True enough, but actually the old U.S. 61 extended all the way from the Canadian border near Grand Portage, Minnesota, to New Orleans. North of Duluth it ran along the North Shore of Lake Superior. (It's continuation in Canada also was numbered 61).

After the Interstate system replaced U.S. trunk highways in the '60s and '70s, the North Shore portion was re-designated Minnesota 61.

Sca (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Relevant sentence revised accordingly. Sca (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have further revised it, as (a) the municipality of Thunder Bay did not exist in the 1950s, and (b) the US highway 61 did not extend into Canada, only to the border, where it met Ontario Highway 61. Kablammo (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

BBC Radio documentary on this album now available (1 hour)

May contain extra information

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06hc0yy

22 days left to listen as of 20th Oct 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.251.224 (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Kooper's improvised organ riff on "Like a Rolling Stone" has been described as "one of the great moments of pop music serendipity".

By who, exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.60.57 (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)