Also, each and every thought in an article, particularly in a non-sci/tech article like this one, does not require a citation. Many, like "Extraordinary Machine", conflate original prose with "original research" and are on a mission to destroy their mistaken target. Thank goodness we have writers willing to stand up to this sort of Sophist browbeating and to go on including interesting, insightful original prose. If Wikipedia writers were to robotically adhere to these injunctions (which, by the way, are almost all subjective guidelines, *not policies*) no one would read our articles because they would have all the personality and sparkle of printouts produced by machine and proofed by hidebound comittees. Extraordinary Machine 12:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Totally disagree. Some of these statements introduce original research issues, like "He sang his songs with an arrogance and aggression that was anathema to the music industry of the time." Many of these need citations, and many need to be removed completely. There are also several statements, such as "A successful mix", "a highlight of the album", "accurately but prosaically titled" et al, that are unquestionably POV. This article contains a lot of weasel terms ("acclaimed as perhaps the best American concert film yet produced", "considered his finest album by many fans" etc.), and without inline citations they look rather POV. By having a long article now, readers are less motivated to add small pieces of information then they would be if there were, say, six shorter articles detailing seperate periods of Mr. Infromed readers would take it upon themselves to expand each article and provide new information, so the articles would blow up at a quick rate. If you think that breaking it up keep the fragments short, think again. It was all broken up into different periods, so instead of just reading one long article, I had to read four long articles. I just had a bad experiance with the John Smith entry on Wikipedia.
![larry zimmerman music collector brooklyn larry zimmerman music collector brooklyn](https://miraclemusicinc.larrydvoskin.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/elementor/thumbs/02-KeithRichardsAlJardine-with-larry-osixshskefxkkp9w2t8p33pq3sh6k29fp73ir9bxy8.jpg)
Mick gold 10:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I also don't agree. One comment by administrator Marskell was that some one sentence paragraphs should be eliminated, not that paragraphs were too long. Review looked at structure, quality of prose etc. Consensus verdict was ‘keep’ (by a slim majority). This article has just been through exhaustive review whether it’s still worthy of Featured Article status. I agree, a Dylan scholar needs to come in and make breaks at once. Doing so would make the article more aesthetic and easier to read. Also, some of the paragraphs are EXTREMELY long and could possibly be broken up into subparagraphs.
![larry zimmerman music collector brooklyn larry zimmerman music collector brooklyn](https://cloud10.todocoleccion.online/discos-vinilo/tc/2011/12/11/29661777.jpg)
Dylan but in my opinion I feel that it should be condensed. I feel that this is a very exhaustive article regarding Mr.
![larry zimmerman music collector brooklyn larry zimmerman music collector brooklyn](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/be/05/c3/be05c34e958b1cb1f84a83e597256f69.jpg)
It doesn't talk about Dylan's move to Judaism after Christianity. 40 From the (now merged) Talk:List of people likened to Bob Dylan page.34 Problem with Compare selected versions?.23 The Grateful Dead added in "Associated Acts" section.4 were there any important non-white songwriters?.