Wikipedia:Peer review/Like a Rolling Stone/archive1

Like a Rolling Stone

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get another set of eyes on it. The song is, after all, the greatest song of all time. (Rolling Stone Magazine).

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by R2

Hey, ill add stuff here from now on.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Source 13 isnt formatted correctly.
  • DONE
• Article needs bulking up - per Kodsters own assessment
• From this bulk up we can then restructure the lead, possibly removing the quotes
• Cover versions section is still quite stubby, try linking small sentances together
• Doesnt have a cover picture, is this typical of old songs?

I removed the semi-automated peer review here for two reasons: the first is that it breaks the transclusion (so no one could see it at WP:PR); the second is that it is already linked above and as the directions say "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below" I will review this too, but it may take me a few days Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

Agree this could be improved (though what is here is a good start) - here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is useful and there are many FAs on songs, for example Hey Jude is also a pretty iconic song and may be a useful model. Look at several FAs and see what they have and this does not to get ideas for expansion.
• I am surprised that there is not more on critical reception - that seems like an obvious area of expansion.
• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be expanded and needs to summarize the whole article. I would also make it clearer that the Springsteen quote refers to this song.
  • done
• Article needs a copyedit to clean up the prose - one example The song was originally written in 3/4 (waltz) time, and with a length of 1:36, was much shorter than the 4/4 version; it was later changed to 4/4.[3] repeats the 4/4 for no reason - why not something like The song was originally 1:36 long and written in 3/4 (waltz) time; it was later changed to 4/4 time and the final recorded length was a much longer 6:09.[3]
  • done
• Watch tense - the recording was almost 43 years ago, but On the first day of recording, five takes are completed; the song is never completed fully. is present tense. It is also confusing - first it says five takes are completed, then that the song is never completed fully (isn't fully redundant here - if it is completed, it is completed). Perhaps something like On the first day of recording, five takes were completed; however in none of these was the song actually played to the end.
• done
• Article needs more references - for example the whole Versions section has no footnotes.
  • done
  • Other examples needing refs Highway 61 Revisited was issued at the end of August, and when Dylan went on tour that fall, "Like a Rolling Stone" took the closing slot on his playlist and held it, with rare exceptions, through the end of his 1966 "world tour," as well as during his return to touring in 1974 with The Band.
  • Martin Scorsese's recent movie about Dylan, No Direction Home, appears to show, in footage filmed backstage in 1966, that Dylan was deeply affected by the mixed audience reception at that time. (without a ref this reads like Original Research).
    • done removed
• I think the article could say "Dylan was bemused" or "Dylan found the matter amusing" but not Dylan himself seemed to find the matter bemusing
  • done

Hope this helps, I learned several things about the song reading this, so keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll get right to that by June 12, when I come back from Europe. So, I'm just posting so that this won't be archived. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 01:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, June 12, I'm going to work on this. So get ready...LOL, just don't want to get this archived. Please don't... :( Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A bot does the archiving now - after a month it will archive it if the PR is inactive for 2 days. The good news is that the PR will still be linked from the article talk page and can still be edited (archive is just a historic term). After it is archived it will not be listed here (at WP:PR). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)