Wikipedia:Peer review/I'm Goin' Down/archive1

I'm Goin' Down

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

Hi, friends. I'm preparing this article for FAC and would be thrilled to get any and all feedback.

Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DMT

The Boss' wake.

"...one of several of the album's tracks..." - I'm sceptical of how relevant this is given that this is article concerns only this song.

"The release of these full-band tracks was put into question when Springsteen used solo material for his September 1982 LP, Nebraska, and considered doing the same for his next album, which would become Born in the U.S.A. He later decided to use several of the May 1982 recordings on Born in the U.S.A." - This feels like too much depth for this article's lede, somewhat off-focus. Maybe a summarization? Malleable in nature, I propose: The composition of Born in the U.S.A was contentious and the track-listing in flux; "I'm Goin' Down" beat out "Pink Cadillac" for a spot on the album.

DMT Biscuit, thank you so much for your thorough review including source review and spot checks. The two comments above I'm very open to implementing. But this would shorten an already short lead. Before I chop this bit out, I would like to go through the article and identify other details I may be able to add to the lead. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: If I had to recommend any areas that could bolster the lede I'd maybe think to look towards reception and M,L,&T. Per your discretion.

"contains themes including" → contains themes of - Flows better and the usage of including implies an aside of sorts which isn't the best the prose could be.

"that some critics have heard in the track or witnessed in Springsteen's concert introductions to the song" - do you think this would be best as summarised: that some critics have observed...?

Thanks, I have made the above two changes. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"whose set lists his official website has published" - This seems best as a note; it's a notice people like me appreciate, for easy verification and context but the average reader simply doesn't care.

I see your point and I'm also open to removing this part but have to be careful because I don't believe the statement of 7% is necessarily true if the disclaimer is removed. It's not shown in this May 2017 archived link, but later in 2017, Springsteen did a slew of Springsteen on Broadway concerts where the website didn't list the set lists. Maybe I can make the statement a little vaguer or remove the entire "between 2002 and 2017, he played it at about seven percent of his concerts whose set lists his official website has published" statement. I will mull this in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it'll cause any issues, then it's fine to keep around. Save ourselves some headaches.

'"Born in the U.S.A.", "Glory Days", "Downbound Train", "Darlington County", "Working on the Highway", and "I'm on Fire"' - This can also be smushed into a note. It's helpful to note (pun intended) as the May batch is mentioned later on but the article's prose divvying should reflect majority "I'm Goin' Down", in my opinion.

Yes, I'm going to do this, thanks. I just need to figure out the exact wording in and outside the note. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do Jean-Michel Guesdon and Philippe Margotin have more specific credentials? Musicologists, Music critics...etc. Even noting that they wrote a book on Springsteen is good. Many people are writers; I wouldn't personally inquire on or cite Hunter S. Thompson's opinion on Silver Apples.

"Themes in the song of loneliness" → "The song features themes of loneliness..." - the current wording is a little clunky; "song of loneliness" threw me for a loop. It, funnily enough, reminded me of the Key of Life.

"Love relationships" is a bit clinical. Given the preceding material, I think excluding love is just fine.

"heard" → "interpret", more clear.

"in 1984" → "from 1984", flows better.

Done the five comments above, thanks.

Considering there's already an audio sample, I'm sceptical of the inclusion of these lyrics: "I'm sick and tired of you setting me up / Setting me up just to knock-a knock-a knock-a me down" and "You used to love to drive me wild / But lately girl you get your kicks from just driving me down". There's no analysis of them and so copyright issues are brought into the mix; I'd err on the side of caution.

I see your point, and am open to doing so, but I want to keep mention of "The lyrics later turn into a stream of gibberish syllables", and right now the quoted lyrics serve as a bridge that this sentence flows nicely from. I'm going to try to find where there's another place I can possibly put the "gibberish" sentence. If it happens I can't, would you be open to me keeping the quoted lines for the purpose I mention above (i.e., being a bridge)? Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: I agree that the mention of the gibberish is a valuable piece of commentary; could the audio sample be a suitable place?

For accessibility purposes, shouldn't the audio file have subtitles?

OK, I have copied "alt=refer to caption" from "Real Death" in A Crow Looked at Me. I think that's what you meant. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"12" Maxi has this" → "12" Maxi has "I'm Goin' Down"..." - More formal and in a dense section–not by any fault of the prose, just the nature of the beast–it's best to clarify as much as we can.

Done, thanks, good suggestion. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

What makes the following reliable sources?

JamBase
Razorcake
Nugs
TimeTimeBomb
The Awl

I replaced JamBase, with Billboard. Nugs I thought was OK because it's the website Brucespringsteen.net uses to sell live recordings; but in the end I removed it because it was the third ref supporting the statement it supported, so in a way superfluous, and it's likely someone would mention it again in the FAC, a hassle. :-) I also removed The Awl which now that I look at it seems less reliable than I thought. TimTimeBomb.com I figured was Tim Armstrong's official site, and hence reliable, but I have removed Razorcake and mention of the Armstrong's subsequent release of the song on Special Lunacy. If you still feel uncomfortable with TimTimeBomb.com, I could remove mention of Armstrong's recording altogether (it's not the most notable of the covers, anyway). Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave TimTimeBomb for the official FAC process; greater insight and perspective.

Spotchecks

Sources checked were good and accurate; slight issue below.

Miller (1984) mentions the "huge backbeat" as an aspect of "I'm Goin' Down"'s "wonderfully exuberant" spirit. Not exactly the deciding factor - I elect that "due in part", in the audio sample's caption, be removed.

Done, thanks, good suggestion. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DMT Biscuit, I think I've done everything you mentioned. If I've missed anything or if any of my edits don't work for you, just let me, thanks. By the way, I also created a new sound clip to match the new caption we discussed. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble getting the new sound clip to catch and have asked for help. Hopefully it will be resolved soon. Moisejp (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

The WP:FUR is incomplete for File:"I'm Goin' Down" by Bruce Springsteen.ogg.

Hi Aoba47, thanks a lot for your feedback! For this one, I think you mean there were two places where it said "n.a." I looked at File:FoxyBrownCandyAudioSample.ogg for inspiration, and I noticed there are actually fewer fields in it than in File:"I'm Goin' Down" by Bruce Springsteen.ogg. Not sure if it this is arbitrary? I copied over your description for Respect for commercial opportunities. But the other one that I had n.a. for, Not replaceable with free media because, you have "It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted sample of comparable educational value", which just seems to restate the question? I'm totally open to expanding the FUR but not sure the best way. Or maybe I can just remove "Not replaceable with free media because"? Dunno what the best way forward is. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I have added a part of the replaceability field. I put in a relatively simple explanation, but it should work. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the File:Springsteen 05051981 01 200.jpg caption, would it be possible to say where he is performing? It would be nice to have some additional context, like if he was performing on a tour or something.

Done, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may just be me so take this with a grain of salt, but I find the File:I'mGoinDownMeadowlands052109.JPG caption to overly long. I understand why the information is put there since it shows the sign request, but I am uncertain if it would be better suited in the prose instead.

I see what you're saying, but I kind of really like how this photo really comes together with the five refs talking about him taking requests by signs and playing the song at these concerts, as well as the funny statement "rarely played and even more rarely requested". I'm afraid the section won't be quite as tight if it's removed from the caption. I'd like to maybe leave it as it is for now and see if anybody else mentions it. But if you decide you feel strongly that it should be changed (i.e., removed from the caption), let me know. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point as well. After reading your explanation, I have a better appreciate for the current structure and formatting. I do not see any reason why it would need to be changed so I believe it should be more than okay in its current format. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a super nitpick-y note, but the lead says the Power Station music studio and the article says the Power Station studio. I think it would be beneficial to be consistent with one way or the other.

Done. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worthwhile to link LP in the lead since some readers may not be familiar with the exact term (despite the vinyl revival). It may not be necessary, but I just wanted to ask.

I may be reorganizing the lead greatly based on DMT's comments above. If so, this mention of LP may be removed. I actually used "LP" to remove the repetition with "album" that comes shortly after it. But strictly speaking this might not be good as an LP is only a record, while an album could (in 1984) also be cassettes, possibly 8-tracks and CDs? In the old old days when everybody only bought records, "LP" and "album" were synonymous and even after this was no longer true for a long time music writers used the two interchangeably. But it would not be good if the reader were to think the article was only talking about LPs, not albums in general. So I will probably get rid of "LP" in any case. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Bruce Springsteen should be linked and his full name should be used on the first instance in the article (i.e. in the "Background and recording" section).

Done, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments so far. I will do a more thorough read-through of the article either later today or tomorrow. It is an interesting and engaging read, and I found the Clear Channel memorandum part to be fascinating as I was honestly unaware of this. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments, and I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's interesting about the Clear Channel memorandum. I stumbled on mentions of this while researching, and like you hadn't heard about this before either. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a clarification question, but should the song's producers be mentioned in the lead?

I will definitely consider that as a good candidate to add when I likely reorganize the lead. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, "I'm Goin' Down" was recorded over May 12–13, I would include the year. 1982 was mentioned in the previous paragraph, but I still think it would be beneficial to make sure the reader does not get confused.
For this part, Clinton Heylin writes that throughout the ten recorded takes of the song, I think it would be beneficial to include some further context for Heylin (i.e. that he wrote it on a 2012 book on Springsteen).

Both done (the top one I did a slight variation to what you suggested). Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this. I think your variation works better. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, it is now discouraged to use MusicNotes.com (i.e. citation 24) in a FAC/FA context. I believe there was doubts cast upon using sheet music to support this information. It's a shame because I know that this resource was used in past FACs/FAs (and I have used in one of my FAs), but I just wanted to pass along this note that things have changed regarding this.

Argh, that's really unfortunate. Can you direct me to where such discouraging has been talked about, and have alternate sources for chord progressions been mentioned? If not, are you suggesting I get rid of the mention of the chord progression altogether? Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I first saw this discussion during a FAC review. I cannot remember which one it was so apologies for that. I believe the concern/argument was that sheet music may not be entirely accurate to the original recording of the song and that changes could have been made so others could play it. There have been discussion on the WP:RSN and the WP:SONG talk page about it (although they are admittedly quite old at this point). I would recommend keeping this citation for now and waiting to get more feedback about it. I think this is a matter that would benefit from further discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would link 7-inch single and 12-inch single in the Release and reception section to help readers who may be unfamiliar with these release formats.
For the Italian citation, should there be an English translation for the title?

Done both those, thank you! Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the rest of my review. I hope these comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. That is it for me. The article is in very good shape. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I had a lot of fun reading through this article. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Aoba47! (I'm done reorganizing the lead and also created a brand new FUR to match a new caption that DMT and I discussed, in case you're interested.) Moisejp (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]