# Talk:Behind That Locked Door

This review is transcluded from Talk:Behind That Locked Door/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Evanh2008 (talk · contribs) 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this one, starting tomorrow. Right now I have to sleep. :) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Evan, no rush – it's only been up for nom since February(!). Very pleased that you've taken it on. I'll give the article a read-through now myself, I think. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience, JG. I had family over yesterday and didn't have a whole lot of online time. Review begins below. If I say something stupid, please feel free to let me know; disagree if you need to. You know the drill...

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose looks good all around. There are a few quibbles below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
This article is almost frighteningly well sourced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Details the background, recording, and release of the song without descending to trivialities.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Looks neutral throughout. I have just one concern about the lead.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The album label is fine. I suspect the Isle of Wight poster is as well, but I will ask for a second opinion on that. After reading up on the relevant policy, I think the fair use rationale on the poster is valid. This criterion looks good.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for the moment. Just a few issues to resolve and I'll be ready to list the article. See below for specifics.
Lead section:

For reasons I can't quite figure out, I am somewhat uncomfortable saying that "much-admired" (with reference to the Early Takes version) is completely NPOV. I think I might be more comfortable with "well-regarded" or something similar, not that that makes any sense. Exercise your own best judgement on this one.
Yes, I agree. I seem to remember swapping around descriptions such as "highly ...", "well-..." and "much-..." to describe Dylan's comeback, Drake's pedal steel contribution etc, so the wording here was probably over-influenced by my wanting to vary the terms. Reworded now. JG66 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Background:

I don't think the word "virtual," or any other qualifier, is necessary here. By all accounts Dylan was quite secluded at this point.
Okay. He had spent a lot of time with the Hawks/Band through 1967, though, so I'd figured "secluded" might need softening. JG66 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's clearest without qualification, since the emphasis here is on his break from public performance. But I won't quickfail you if you think it's better the other way. :) On second thought, it might be better with "virtual," since there was the Guthrie memorial show, an appearance on Johnny Cash's television show, and (oh, yeah) a little album called John Wesley Harding. Guess he wasn't as inactive in the '66-'69 period as I'd remembered. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, might reinstate "virtual". It wasn't just that he got out once in a while, actually (Nashville sessions for JWL and NS, the Guthrie tribute); I was also thinking of the implication in "secluded" that it was just him, Sara and "Babies one, two, three", when in fact he kept up quite a strict work regimen with the Band through much of '67. JG66 (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"another repeat" is redundant. Just "a repeat" will do.
I've removed "another", but is it redundant? It followed mention of the Band backing Dylan as in 1966. JG66 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"another repeat," to me at least, implies that there was at least one repeat of the scenario beforehand. The '66 tour was the first instance of this sort of arrangement ("leading figures in the English music scene" supporting Dylan), but it wasn't a repeat. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh okay. No probs. JG66 (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I would drop the comma after "island." The refs here could probably be moved to the end of the sentence, but there's a good case to be made for leaving them here if you're trying to clarify to which refs the "minstrel" quote is sourced.
Yes, I know what you mean. I've just reworded the sentence to fix this. JG66 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"As well as a crowd" ---> "In addition to a crowd"
Done. JG66 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"Dylan's intentions for his comeback" ---> 'Dylan's planned comeback" — Strictly speaking, it was his comeback that was impeded, not his intentions.
Well, all this attention about "the return of the minstrel" did hinder his intentions more than anything – Dylan had escaped Woodstock to avoid such hype, yet the media turned the IoW festival into a "British Woodstock", aided somewhat by the festival promoters. No big deal; I've changed to "planned comeback". JG66 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not absolutely certain, but I think "30 August" should be treated as a parenthetical statement, and so you'd need to add a comma after it as well as before it. (I will double check this and let you know if it's wrong.)
I disagree actually. On the other hand, if you find otherwise, I won't put up too much of a fight! JG66 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not sure. I've asked at RDL here, in case you want to follow the thread. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow ... I agree that there's an argument for treating it as a parenthetical statement – not one I'd choose to pursue personally. Happy to concede to you on this, Evan. I'll just add the comma after "August", yeah? (Or would you rather wait for more input there?) JG66 (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks good now! I'm wrong about comma usage half the time or more anyway, so I was double-checking myself as much as you/the article. :) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Should be able to get the Composition section looked at later today. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 19:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Evan. I really appreciate those improvements to the prose. JG66 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Really sorry for letting this one stagnate for so long. I'll have comments on the rest of the article later today (very early Wednesday morning where I am) and I think we should be able to finish up and get this one listed before the end of the week. Thanks again for your patience! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That's quite all right, Evan, I can see you've been busy elsewhere (good luck with Led Zep, might give that one a read soon). Anyway, it gave me a chance to get "Sue Me, Sue You Blues" finished and GAN-ed. All good! JG66 (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Composition:

This section looks great. I would suggest changing "Dylan's performance on 31 August 1969" to "Dylan's performance at the Isle of Wight," since the location and the event would seem to be more noteworthy than the exact date.
Yes indeed. I've reworded the sentence. JG66 (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Recording looks fine. No problems here.
Release and reception:

I found the "in its LP format" clause somewhat awkward. I think the distinction being made here was between LP and later CD releases but, given that 33 1/3 was essentially the only game in town w.r.t. album-length material in the early 1970s, I don't think it needs to be specified. On the other hand, you could specify All Things' status as a triple album, which probably does bear mentioning, given that it was fairly innovative at the time. This could also help clarify Inglis' "In the middle of an album" comment, since uninformed readers (possibly assuming ATMP to be a single album) would also assume that side two, track three would put it near the end of the album, not the middle... I hope all that makes sense!
That's a good point about needing to mention its triple-album status – thanks. Tried to see if the info could be added in Recording section instead, but I can't see a tidy fit (i.e. don't really want to use "album" twice in the one sentence!). I've reworded the first sentence under Release and reception. I think it's okay to be mentioning it here, that ATMP was a triple album, rather than at one of the earlier mentions, because it wasn't as if he set out to make a triple – it just turned out that way. (Do you agree – mention it here rather than under Recording?) JG66 (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think mentioning it here is fine. All the issues have been addressed, as far as I can tell. I'm short on time at the moment, but I'll give it a final pass here in a couple hours. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
"at the end of November 1970" could probably just be "in November 1970."
Done. JG66 (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alternative version, Cover versions, and Personnel all look good to go.
I think that's it! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. Listing this one now. Great work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Fab! Thanks a lot for all your comments, Evan – I always welcome your eager editor's eye. Probably goes without saying: if you felt like taking on any of the other Harrison song articles I've nominated recently, I'd be over the moon. (I appreciate that you've got quite enough going on right now, though ...) Best, and thanks again! JG66 (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)