Talk:I'm Goin' Down/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IndianBio (talk · contribs) 14:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp I will be reviewing the article. Let me know how busy you are for the resolutions. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IndianBio, thanks so much for taking on this article! I should have a pretty good amount of time in the next two weeks for addressing your comments. Thanks again, looking forward to your review. Moisejp (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We generally use {{hlist}} for the writers, producers, formats, genres etc. in the infobox so I suggest you include it also
Would you like to use the mdy preference of dates or you would like to keep the yyyy-mm-dd?
I like the chart table, but would prefer if the {{singlechart}} templates were used, since most of the times the urls for the charts go dead and one correction is enough to rectify them across the board. Not hard-and-fast though :)
Can we have a para break after "At first, Springsteen attempted full-band versions of .... "

Starting points, this article is small but very crisp. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IndianBio, thanks very much for your comments. Let me address these below:

I've added the hlis to the infobox as you suggested.
I broke up the long paragraph that you mentioned.
About the dates, I'm not sure whether you are saying there is currently a problem. I've been consistently using mdy in the main body of the text, and yyyymmdd in the references. Is that OK?
I'm not against using {{singlechart}}, but it looks like a totally different system that it would take time for me to sit down and figure out. I don't know if **I'm fine with having them like this seeing the format that you have chosen and it works for me. Was just a suggestion. But you might wanna have the references against the chart name rather than the chart position because it messes up the plainrows and the sorting. :)

I will have time for that in the next several days. If it's optional, I'd rather keep my current template for now. Or, if you are really comfortable with formatting that template and feel you could do it quickly, by all means, I wouldn't object to you doing so. Thank you again for your comments, and let me know if you have other points to address. Moisejp (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

and the "I'm Goin' Down" single—the album's sixth[22]—came out in August 1985 --> Seems a bit hard to read, why not have it as "and "I'm Goin' Down", the album's sixth single, came out in August 1985"

Done.

The rest of the reception section is pretty good.

Great!

You might wanna use this for the sheet music info and expand the composition a bit.

I have added mention about the chord progression using the source you suggested. Thank you for the suggestion.

For Springsteen's tours since 2009, most of his set lists are available on his official website, Brucespringsteen.net. ---> We really don't need to have this line do we.? Sounds like a promo piece in Marketwatch, lol.

My reasoning for including this sentence is as follows. The main reason is that it acts as a mini-justification for introducing the scope of 2009–2014 when discussing the live performances of the song. The previous sentence mentions that he hasn't played the song much since the Born in the USA Tour (i.e., probably 1985). Then, by mentioning his official website and the years 2009–2014, I'm able (I hope) to suggest that these years are a valid (due to the officialness of the source), representative sample of 1985–2016. Another purpose of the sentence is to include the word "most"—this helps clarify that it is possible there were other performances of the song in the handful of concerts that the website did not publish set lists for. If I take out that sentence I'm not sure that the ideas of above are conveyed as clearly or smoothly. But do let me know if you still feel that the sentence should go, and if you have suggestions to help alleviate my concerns above. (By the way, in case you are wondering, I am planning to update the article whenever future tours get documented on his website.) Thanks.

I'm afraid most of these cover versions do not pass WP:SONGCOVER notability for inclusion, especially in cases where its just a link to the download website like iTunes.

I have removed two of the arguably least notable performances (Razorbacks and Starlight Singers) and have beefed up the references on some of the other ones. Let me know if you still have any concerns about this section. Thank you.

These are all the comments I have on the article. Good luck. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IndianBio, please read my comments and see what you think. Moisejp (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IndianBio. I know it has only been a couple of days or so, but could we possibly finish off this review soon? Or if you require me to make more changes, I'm eager to get them out of the way. I waited several months for the review, and am anxious to do what it takes to pass this. Thanks very much! Moisejp (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp I am extremely sorry, somehow your last responses I missed although the page is in my watchlist. Lol I got 500+ articles watchilisted so I guess thats what happens. I will get to it now and I think not much is needed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]