Talk:Most Likely You Go Your Way and I'll Go Mine/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ippantekina (talk · contribs) 02:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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 non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I see why you included two YouTube links, but personally I'd keep one only.
"song by American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan, which was released as the first track" grammar
Any way we can remove the quote and citation from the lead?
I'd sum up the lyrical content in one concise sentence. The rest of the info can be elaborated in prose later
"The song has been covered by British progressive rock group Hard Meat (1970), by Todd Rundgren (1976), and by Patti LaBelle" you should either introduce who they all are or just leave their names

Amended per the points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section currently reads a little staccato. Some remarks i.e. "a demented marching polka beat", "mix of desire, regret, jealousy, and disgust" can be part of the previous section. I'd also paraphrase some to avoid a quote farm.

Yes indeed! I've rearranged and trimmed this, but kept it all under this section. Let me know if more is needed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"it reached number 66 on the Billboard Hot 100,[30][31] and 47th on the Cash Box Top 100 Pop Singles" change to "number 47" for consistency
The quote farm issue recurs here

I've had a go at reworking this, but let me know if more is required. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a charts section - I included the 1967 single, but let me know whether to remove that one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only notable issue is the overuse of quotes, which should be easy to solve given your Wikipedia expertise. Other than that, a few minor issues scattered here and there. Putting this On hold for seven days. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review, Ippantekina. Reading it back, the quotes were definitely an issue, hopefully better now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it looks better now, but one minor issue comes up with the sourcing format. Could you convert the refs 61 and 62 using {{sfn}}? For now refs 31 and 32 have the following error: sfn error: multiple targets (2×). Ippantekina (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: forgot to tag you, Ippantekina (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that rookie error, Ippantekina. Let me know if anything else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Well done! Ippantekina (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]