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 Karanacs 20:36, 28 September 2010 [1].

The Basement Tapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/The Basement Tapes/archive1
• Featured article candidates/The Basement Tapes/archive2

Nominator(s): Mick gold (talk), I.M.S. (talk), Moisejp (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this article on behalf of the WP:DYLAN collaboration team. This is the second FA nomination for The Basement Tapes; the first closed with some support votes but no consensus. More work has been done on the article, and further indications of support have subsequently been received. Mick gold (talk), I.M.S. (talk), Moisejp (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (subject to satisfactory source and media reviews). All of the concerns I raised below have been addressed. A comprehensive, well written article. The coverage of the background and context for the basement work is excellent, and the engaging Songs section provides the article with a rich core of detail about the songs and, hence, the character of the album. PL290 (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to support. This high-quality article saw much work during its first FAC. Watching from the sidelines after a first-pass review early in that FAC, I anticipated I would end up supporting, though the FAC was eventually archived with changes still ongoing. My impression from my watchlist is that that was in fact the end of the changes, and it has now settled. I will comment again after reviewing the article in greater depth now. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC) *"The Basement Tapes was critically acclaimed upon release, and reached number seven on the Billboard 200 album chart. However, the album's format has led critics to question the omission of some of Dylan's best-known 1967 compositions and the inclusion of material by the Band that was not recorded in Woodstock." - "However" seems an odd way to begin the last sentence; also it's unclear which critics are referred to: those of the preceding sentence, or modern day critics? [reply]

Changed to "Subsequently, the format of the 1975 album has led critics to question the omission of some of Dylan's best-known 1967 compositions and the inclusion of material by the Band that was not recorded in Woodstock." to clarify that it's critics in the 1990s (Gray, Heylin) who have raised these issues. Mick gold (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Likewise, the lack of in-prose dating of individual voices in other places, including the Criticism of 1975 album section, sometimes leaves the reader unsure whether we're talking a critic around the time of the release or a modern day one.

*"Robertson and other members of the Band overdubbed new keyboard, guitar, and/or drum parts onto some of the 1967 Woodstock recordings" - the MoS deprecates "and/or".

Good point, I've moved Marqusee to New compositions & think it fits better. Mick gold (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*In the Songs section, the introductory line giving musicians contributes useful information, but its current format emphasizes the list-like nature of the section. Consider distinguishing it from the narrative in some way, for instance italicizing it.

*"In the early 1970s, Dylan released new recordings of four Basement Tape–era compositions" - personally I would recast to avoid what I consider an awkward compound adjective here, but if you prefer to keep it, I believe it should employ a hyphen not an en dash.

PL290 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC) *In the song entry for "Crash on the Levee (Down in the Flood)", after reading about the 1927 song ""When the Levee Breaks"", we are told, "Dylan's "Down in the Flood" repeated these images, adding the implication that the flood is retribution for past sins". This interpretation needs in-text attribution to its author (for example, according to Smith, Dylan's "Down in the Flood" repeated these images, adding ...). Currently it reads as WP:OR. PL290 (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - The prose is very good, however there are too many quotes in the "Columbia Records compilation" section. These quotes break up the fluency of the article, which caused me to lose interest while reading that particular section. Also the continuous statements from reviewers and biographers gets quite tedious; someone says this, then someone says that, occurs a lot throughout the section. I also find that some sentences need to be explained, such as "For Robert Shelton, the song evokes the work of Fats Domino"; why does it evoke the work of Domino, is there a lot of piano in the song, or is it similar to music genres that Domino used frequently? Apart from these points it is an impressive article and I'm looking forward to supporting.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Shelton writes is: "Consider how much 'Odds and Ends' owes to Fats Domino." as part of his wider point that that this album could have been titled Roots. He doesn't say why. The song is not dominated by a piano riff, like much of Domino's best-known work. Should we drop this comment? Mick gold (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should probably drop the comment. It's not essential for music critics to play musical instruments or have any other experience musically, so some of them can compare music inaccurately. Reading Robert Shelton's wiki biography he seems to be more of a journalist than a musician, so his claim is likely to be inaccurate, as he doesn't seem to be able to explain why he's made the claim.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Moisejp (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Mick gold (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following Kitchen Roll's suggestion I have shortened a couple of the longer song descriptions. In the case of "Tears of Rage", perhaps the Marcus quote did not add too much that was not already said in the Gill quote preceding it. I also shortened the Gill quote in "Open the Door, Homer". If anyone disagrees with these particular edits, they can be reverted, but I am sympathetic with Kitchen Roll that this section could perhaps be trimmed slightly to the most relevant or interesting points (although what is interesting will of course depend on the person). If anyone wants to revert my edits, perhaps we can find other little bits here and that could be whittled down a tiny bit—if other reviewers agree this is a good idea. For your part, Kitchen Roll, are you more satisfied with the article overall with these edits? Please let us know if you have further feedback. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the quotes you got rid of were necessary, so I support the two edits made by Moisejp to remove them. Is there any sheet music that can be referred to for any of the songs, in order to help show the compositional techniques used, rather than to just quote the biographers? Or maybe you could rewrite some of the longer quotes so that they just quote the key writer's key points and rewrite the rest, like with quotes such as "cool cowboy vocal". If this isn't possible I would still be satisfied with the article, but I think it would be better if there weren't so many quotes or if they didn't come one after another.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about the quotes for the songs is, they provide a way for Wikipedia to talk about the songs without WP:OR. (The alternative is just a list of songs.) The quotes are bound to come one after another, given the short section for each song, but that needn't be a problem if the resulting prose is engaging—which in my view, it is, and is made more so by the quotes. In my judgement the article would benefit from retaining the two Moisejp removed. PL290 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other sections in the article have a fluency that the "songs" section, in my opinion, doesn't, because of the amount of quotes in it. I also find that there's something missing from this section; it doesn't get a chance to develop, because there's so many different people's opinions in such a short passage of writing. Another aspect that doesn't particularly help is the song by song layout, which ordinarily I wouldn't have a problem with, but in this case I think the combination of the layout and the quotes prevents fluency. Of course I won't oppose over this, but I think it's an issue to consider. If you think the quotes add something to the article, reinstate them, but my preference would be to drop them.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand—and thanks for your understanding. As to reinstating the two that were removed, let's see what other opinions there are first.PL290 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support restoring the Marcus quote on "Tears of Rage", it's a strange comment but oddly memorable. Moisejp's editing of Gill's comment works for me. Mick gold (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Query - Issue of capitalisation has been raised per MOS. Most literature on this album, including Greil Marcus's original 1975 sleeve notes, Sid Griffin's book Million Dollar Bash, and Shelton consistently capitalise The Band, including mid-sentence. Therefore I would favor this format: The Band. Mick gold (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the correct way to write it. The way I understand it, a lower-case "the" is applied only when the band's official title does not include it, e.g., "Buffalo Springield" ("the Buffalo Springfield"), "Faces" ("the Faces"). - I.M.S. (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... The MOS appears to have changed since the last time I looked at it. I must say that it is rather confusing. Any opinions? If I am interpreting the MOS correctly, I suppose we shouldn't capitalise, after all - The Beatles seems to have adopted this rule. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MoS seems to have possibly changed. The link PL290 provided gave the example of "the Velvet Underground" with a small t. I didn't look too deeply, and if there are other examples in MoS that can be interpreted another way—or if, for example, as I.M.S. says it may be a case of whether or not the "the" is part of the band's official name or not—I am very open to discussion for which format to use, but that one example at least would seem to indicate that MoS's current standards favour a small t (in the Velvet Underground's case the "the" is part of the band's name, isn't it?). Moisejp (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eager to resolve this issue, as currently we have an inconsistency, with the first three "mid-sentence" cases of "The Band" using a large T (one in the first sentence and two in the Infobox) and all other mid-sentence cases of "the" throughout the article using a small t. I believe Mick gold prefers quite strongly using big T's. I have a bit of a preference for small t's but at the end of the day I think matters of style are arbitrary and either is fine as long as we are consistent. It appears MOS favours small t's—or does anyone interpret its explanation and examples differently? Just now I have basically run through how far we got in this discussion on September 11–12, but nothing was resolved then. So, if any other editors would like to give their opinions about this matter, it'd really help us to settle this issue one way or the other. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading MOS again, I see big Ts are optional for wiki-links. Mick gold, is that why you changed the t in the first sentence to a big T? If it's optional, I'd prefer to be consistent with whatever style we end up choosing for the non-wiki-links. Moisejp (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was why I selected the optional large T for the the wiki-linked Band in the first sentence, and in the info box - beneath the image of the album cover. The rest of the article now has "the Band" in mid-sentence which I have accepted as per latest diktat of MOS, but 2 optional wiki-linked usages seemed acceptable. MOS permits the examples of The Beatles, The Velvet Underground, and I ranked The Band in this august company. Mick gold (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Then in the Dwarf Music section should "the Byrds" and "the Band" (both wiki-linked) be capitalized—though maybe we don't even need a wiki-link for the Band there. Also, in Legacy, "the Cowboy Junkies" and "the Waterboys". I still think for people who read without paying attention to whether or not a given band name is wiki-linked or not, having all small t's would be more consistent, but if you feel strongly that you prefer wiki-linked names to be capitalized, I am willing to go along with that, but if so let's capitalize the ones I mentioned above as well. Moisejp (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to go along with your magnanimous offer to retain capital T for The Byrds, and The Waterboys [2] if that's OK with you & MoS. Cowboy Junkies do not take 'The' because it's not part of the name of the group [3]. FWIW, for me, it will always be The Beatles and The Band because 'The' was an important part of their graphics (think logo on Beatles' drum-kit) and their album packaging. regards Mick gold (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's settled then, The Byrds and The Waterboys it is. Moisejp (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This sentence from Reception and Sales doesn't seem quite right - Robert Christgau gave it an A+ in his Village Voice "Consumer Guide" column,^[1] and commented on how the recordings sounded richer and stranger in 1975 than when they were made: "The basement tapes were the original laid-back rock, early investigations of a mode that would eventually come to pervade the whole music. (?) - Otherwise the article has improved...Modernist (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain further please, Modernist? I don't understand your point. What doesn't seem right? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Christgau was accurate, but maybe it was a bit opaque. I've edited & simplified Christgau quote. Mick gold (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that would eventually come to pervade the whole music - the whole music? the whole of music? the whole music field? all of the music? The thought needs to complete itself...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is what Robert Christgau said, and it was perfectly clear to me, but Mick gold has revised that section now, anyway. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it isn't clear and Mick's revision is, so - Support as I did before...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: I reviewed the sources at the last FAC in July, saw little wrong then. Sources still look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support: I have re-read the article twice more and really see nothing amiss here. I would like to echo the comments of DCGeist in the first FAC "You've taken a very complicated story—has any other album ever had such a complex compositional history, complex production history, and complex distribution history?—and made it accessible and engaging, with a backbone of solid, wide-ranging research. [...] An article of which to be proud." Comments with which I wholeheartedly concur. Disclosure: I reviewed and passed this article at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and recuse, listy and too long. The article is 9,384 words of readable prose. The "Songs" section is a list that is tedious reading and detracts from the article; it could be moved to a List page and linked in a hatnote at the "Tracks" section. That same section also has incorrect use of WP:ITALICS. Once the article is trimmed, we may get more prose and MOS reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Size resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Can the song section be ordered in chronological order by recording date, or something like that, to make it more fluent (like what I've done with His Band and the Street Choir)? This would make the section less list like. I know it's a big ask, but it might work. If it does I'll be willing to support.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Roll, I don't think the songs can be ordered in a chronological manner. Apart from knowing the songs were recorded roughly from June to October 1967, no-one has any idea what order they were taped in. Some guesses have been published by critics like Heylin, but they're totally speculative. Mick gold (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Suggestion: I wonder if the headings are the problem. Please compare The_Basement_Tapes#Side_1 with User:PL290/Sandbox/Basement_side_1. The latter is a copy where I have simply removed the headings (mutatis mutandis). The results appear to me to be most encouraging for anyone finding the current appearance too list-like. I would be interested to see feedback about this idea from the nominators and the other reviewers. PL290 (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Query - Sandy has 2 objections: listy and too long. I thank PL290 for taking the trouble to draft a different format, but I don’t find the sandbox suggestion very convincing. It's still long, and, for me, by losing the titles in bold, the prose sort of runs together.

I suggest the only way to deal with Sandy’s 2 points is to cut the songs from the main article, and link the material in each song in some way.

There is already an article called List of Basement Tapes songs. I don’t think we should integrate our material with that. It already lists 100 songs, and therefore serves a different function, and is written in a more basic style. Perhaps we should create a list page called "List of Basement Tapes Songs (1975)". Then track listing could be placed in middle of aticle & wiki-linked through to songs on this list. I think I favor this approach.

Alternatively, we could create a unique article for each song. Five songs already have their own articles: "Tears of Rage", "Too Much of Nothing", "Ain’t No More Cane", "Down in the Flood", "This Wheel’s On Fire". "Open the Door, Richard" has its own page but it’s a different song, (the version performed by Jack McVea and Count Basie). So a new page should be created as "Open the Door, Richard (Dylan song).

What do other editors think? List of Basement Tapes Songs (1975) or unique article for each song? Or A N other approach? Mick gold (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think creating a song article for each track would take time to create for one, as The Basement Tapes is a double album, and also I don't think all these articles would meet the notability criteria. Creating a new article called List of Basement Tapes Songs (1975) would work, however some notable info in terms of the album's success should still be kept on The Basement Tapes page. I'll let you know if I come up with any alternative ideas.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think List of Basement Tapes Songs (1975) would be OK. We would still need a track listing with brief details in the parent article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PL290 & Kitchen Roll, the more I think about it, the more List of Basement Tapes Songs (1975) looks like the right way to go. It would be easy to transfer our song-by-song analysis, and where the "Songs" section occurs, we could move the track listing from end of article, with just composer credits, and wiki-link to "1975 list". I'm happy to make change tomorrow, if no objections. Mick gold (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that List of Basement Tapes Songs (1975) is the way to go. Moisejp (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's the right way as well. List of Basement Tapes Songs (1975) sounds good to me. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Query I've initiated re-structure via creation of List of Basement Tapes songs (1975). I've wiki-linked all songs in track listing to this article. Would it be a good idea to place guidance (eg "For a more detailed analysis of these recordings, see List of Basement Tapes songs (1975).") at the top of the Track listing section? Mick gold (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think wikilinking each song is the way to go; why not just a hatnote, see also, at the top of the section? At any rate, since the article is now a decent size, I'm striking my oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandy. I don't feel confident about selecting appropriate hatnote. Other editors welcome to hat. Mick gold (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the links to the individual songs and added a "See also" hatnote, as suggested above. Moisejp (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Query I realise that Sandy cautioned against wiki-linking the songs to the "1975 list" but the trouble with the way the article now reads is the only songs that wiki-link are those with their own article. These articles are, on the whole, poorly written & poorly referenced. Surely it is better that "Too Much of Nothing" should link to "Too Much of Nothing" and not to “Too Much of Nothing”. Surely it is better that "Tears of Rage" links to "Tears of Rage" and not to "Tears of Rage". Surely it is better that these songs link to aticles that are well written and well referenced, rather than to articles that are poorly written and poorly referenced? Mick gold (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. While it would be nice if those individual song articles were of higher quality, that's not your responsibility as far as this article is concerned. It is most helpful to the reader if all of the Columbia album's songs are wikilinked and most helpful, again, if they are linked to the highest-quality destinations, which in most or all cases happen to be the individual song sections in the new list article.—DCGeist (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've altered wikilinks as discussed. Mick gold (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - All the suggestions I've made have been addressed.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Just went through the whole article. Made a few, relatively minor copyedits. Encountered no substantive problems. One of the most important and intriguing albums in the history of rock music has an article worthy of it. Excellent work, folks.—DCGeist (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.