Talk:Darkness on the Edge of Town/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 03:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one, which appears to be in decent shape. I'll go through the sources first, then do some spotchecks, and then work on prose, though I may make minor copyedits along the way. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure to see an article with an evident depth of sourcing. Just a few notes on source reliability:
I don't love seeing sources to a film/documentary, as it's much harder to verify; but it's not prohibited, so I cannot hold you up over it. There's several instances where it's used alongside a print source; are those necessary?
The documentary is directly cited in Margotin and Guesdon's book so I wanted to use the direct source rather than a secondary one that happens to have the quotes. If you think it's best I can just cite the book? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would slightly prefer that; it's much easier to verify, and less likely to disappear. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed

Where you are using Springsteen's autobiography as a source, I think you should make it clear it's retrospective; for instance, his explanation of the sound.
Fixed

I would remove the dropbox link; if it's just a random person on the internet hosting it, I don't think it adds much.
Which are you talking about here?– zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ARIA charts link, FN113.

Ohh I checked on that and it looks like the link is apart of the template so I'm not sure how to remove it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not very consistent with location formatting in the sources; I would include province for all or none (and would slightly prefer omitting locations altogether, but that's not required).
How's that look? In previous FACs I was told locations were required so that's why they're there. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. My understanding is that FAC requires consistency, but not necessarily full locations; and in the modern era I don't think the location listed inside the book means a whole lot. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor formatting note; it can make it easier for reviewers if you reorder any set of multiple footnotes such that they are in numerical order.
I remember there used to be a tool or something you could use to fix those. Not sure what happened to it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had replied here...I've been reminded by a discussion on the GAN talk page that I should flag suggestions that aren't GA requirements, and this is definitely one of those :) The easiest way to fix it is to search for "][" in read mode, which will let you scan through every instance of multiple footnotes, and have the edit mode opened up on another tab.
Spotcheck notes to follow. I'll note that the use of multiple sources, some inaccessible, makes full spot-checks tricky: if this is to be taken to FAC, I strongly suggest reviewing source use such that either each footnote supports all the content it's placed after, or that only a single source is used for a fragment of text.
FN1 & 2 don't make explicit mention of worldwide fame, but I think it's implied, so likely okay.

FN10a checks out.

FN13a+14a check out, though the link on 14a only goes to the first page of a multi-page source; I don't think it's a huge problem.

FN13b+16a are just about okay, but you could avoid any synthesis issues by rephrasing and reordering. "Van Zandt also had a hand in the arrangements [16], and received a production assistance credit on the album[13]." As it is, "helping tighten the arrangements is implied only so far as that's what all production assistance is for.
Fixed

FN13c: cited page has nothing to say about specific songs. Why is it being used? The content is supported by FN10c, so there's no OR concern.
Fixed

FN18a checks out.

FN18b checks out.

FN23a (in combination with many others) supports the piece of the cited text that I believe it's being used for, but this is a perfect example of where splitting the citations up would make a reviewer's life easy.

Partially separated here – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN23b+24 essentially checks out, but as with others above, is on the edge of SYNTH; it's not referring to the whole body of songs referred to in the text.

FN28d+32d+52c are essentially okay, though I could quibble with the use of "benchmark"; the text I'm reading is saying its a harbinger of his music to come, not a standard to judge it by.
Reworded in both the lead and body – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN28e checks out.

FN32b checks out.

FN32c checks out.

FN32a+16b+14c: I'm not seeing where four corners is in the source; I'm also not seeing what 16b supports here. 32a does cover the rest.
Reworded per the sources (both don't mention a "four corners" thing but they mention a corresponding song so we'll leave it at that). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN52a and 52b check out.

FN56a and 56b check out.

FN62a, 62b, and 62c check out.

I'm not sure how 68a supports anything about Springsteen's voice sounding clearer; if it's used only for the first part of that sentence, I suggest splitting it.
Ditched

FN68b does not support lyrical evolution specifically as far as I can see, though I may be missing something.
I believe I interpreted this: "As he himself put it a couple of weeks ago, the scenes may look the same, with the same characters and the same frames of reference, but actually they've evolved over the past three years." to the statement currently in the article. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's close to okay, but I would drop "lyrical". Scenery can be musical, too...

FN72 checks out.

FN86 checks out.

FN88 checks out.

FN89 checks out.

FN91 does not verify the first half of the sentence it's used for.
I'm unable to find the 2012 list online (2003 exists fine) for whatever reason so we're going to go straight from 2003 to 2020. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN92 checks out.

FN96a checks out.

FN98 isn't okay; the source is dated earlier than the fact it's referencing, and makes no mention of a date or the phrase "box set".
Corrected. I replaced it Greene dated 8/26/10 and added two AllMusic sources that verify the release date and all the info that comes with it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN100 isn't ideal either; it does mention all the details, but is still looking forward, and doesn't say that the release happened.
Fixed (I hope)

FN87b+96b+101 is another that's okay but is best split up; 101 is used for the grammy, the others for the rest.
Fixed

Overall, I'd say this is okay on verifiability and copyright spotchecks, but when three or more references are used the verifiability is getting fuzzy. If this were at FAC, I would want that to be dealt with a little more carefully. I'll move on to prose in the coming days.
If you wouldn't mind; when replying, could you use colons after the asterisk? Look at the diff of this addition if you're confused. Interleaving two forms of indenting messes up the layout.

Yep that's my bad. I fixed the one I messed up above. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments to follow. I'll make minor copyedits as I go.
"Songs that took shape at this time included "Don't Look Back", "Something in the Night", "Badlands", "Streets of Fire", "Prove It All Night", and "Independence Day".[10][13][7] "The Promised Land" took shape around late October and early November." The "this time" is ambiguous, and without a timeframe for the other songs, the October/November for Promised Land is strange. I think this could be condensed a little into "songs that took shape at Record Plant between September and November included..."
Fixed (I struggled with this problem on other articles)

"running eight tracks long like Born to Run" we've listed more than eight...
Many of them were outtakes. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a Born to Run-esque number" the suffix sounds awkward to me, and to an unfamiliar reader it doesn't mean much. Could you be more specific?
I can't figure out a good way to so we'll just ditch it – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall the source correctly, "The Fast Song" wasn't a whole song, just music without a title; can you clarify that?
Is "incomplete number" not good enough? Jw – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still get the impression it's a titled piece, as it's formatted like all the others; how about "an untitled piece referred to as "The Fast Song"..."?

Fixed – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

""Fire" to Robert Gordon and the Pointer Sisters" One song to two groups?
Fixed. It was technically to just Gordon but the Pointer Sisters recorded it in 1979 and it reached number 2 in the UK. Clarified that in a note. Springsteen was apparently upset he yet to have a really big hit like that so he wrote "Hungry Heart" (if I recall correctly). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Springsteen was influenced by numerous outside sources," this is written as though it's unusual, but this is routine; every musician has influences. I suggest trimming it: I've made one edit that could do the job and self-reverted, feel free to use that or tweak as you please. [1].

Reworded to match your edit :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's accurate to describe Woody Guthrie only as a Country musician...
I agree, but that's how he's described in the source... (plus, Darkness is not folk rock) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just drop the "country" to avoid upsetting readers?

Changed to "country/folk"; not having the genre in this instance would miss the point of why he took inspiration from those artists – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's some confusing material about the album's release. You say it had a sleeve and a title, and the latter changed; presumably the former did too? And later you say the release was delayed; but we've never been told it was scheduled?

I removed the delayed part, added a note on what the mockup sleeve looked like, and added "With Springsteen still unsatisfied" before "the sessions continued into November and December" to give the impression that Badlands was scrapped – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Several songs emphasize choruses compared to earlier songs" "earlier" is ambiguous; earlier on the album, or on previous albums? Or something else?
Fixed

Can you find a link for "anthemic"?
Like Anthem rock? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.

Added – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Four corners" material is repeated in two sections; you could choose either, but both is not ideal.
Fixed

"Partially influenced by punk rock and country,[32] Michael Hann" As written, this says Hann was influenced. I assume you mean Springsteen, but this needs adjusting.
Reworded

You have two successive paragraphs beginning "according to": I suggest mixing it up.
Fixed

"warns the listener of the price one pays when time is wasted, yet one endures the badlands until they treat you good." I'm sorry, but I don't know what this means; also, "treat you good" is colloquial.
My bad I was poorly paraphrasing the actual lyrics; partially reworded and replaced with the actual lyrics – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Garnishment is the word meant where it is used.
Oops. So it's not too close to the source ("fancy clothes and diamond rings") I changed it to "exquisite materials" does that work better? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about "gifts" in place of materials? Just a suggestion though.

Done – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting ten songs, different from the eight mentioned previously...
That was the idea in October 77 (when the album was going to be called Badlands) before more recording took place and the tracklist was expanded – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's not entirely clear; see above comment about having planned album details but not actual.

Clarified that here – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"More optimistic in tone" more than what?
Removed the 'more'

"following the media backlash of Born to Run " so far we have only heard Born to Run was very successful; what backlash?
(As I'm learning about right now actually), there was a huge media backlash when Springsteen got big with Born to Run. Publications were basically wondering things like if he deserved his success, if he was worth the hype, or he if was simply another industry-created artist. Since all that explaining would interrupt the flow of the article, I think it's best to add some context in a note. What do you think? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's news to me too. I honestly feel you could afford a sentence of explanation, perhaps elaborating in a footnote. Needn't be long: "despite the financial success of Born to Run, Springsteen had experienced a critical backlash, questioning whether the album deserved its popularity..."

How's that look? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sectioning of the reception feels a little odd to me. The first section works well, but then you have another subsection for rankings, and reappraisal really is part of critical reception, because you're not discussing wider influence, just its place in Springsteen's larger ouvre. That said, this isn't a policy issue as such. So, optional suggestion; combine the two sections into a single one titled "Critical reception", and split it into subsections on contemporary, reappraisal, and ranking.
Done

The first two paragraphs of reappraisal feel thematically scattered to me. Here is a suggested reorganization [2] but as above, feel free to adjust it yourself in a different way.
Good for me :-)
I assume the track listing and lengths are taken from the liner notes, but can you specify that? It's not uncommon for sources to differ on track length...

Fixed

Conversely, if you cite the liner notes for credits, adding two book cites feels odd.

Clarified

That's everything I have. This is a very solid piece of work. I don't bother putting these on hold: just please ping me when you're done. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 Thanks for reviewing! I posted a few questions above that need to get answered before I can proceed further. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: Apologies for the delay. Replied to everything, I believe, and there were two original comments that you perhaps hadn't gotten to yet? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 Sorry for the delay, I've had a pretty busy week. All my replies are above and I believe everything should now be taken care of. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: No problem. Looks good, passing now. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.