Talk:The River (Bruce Springsteen album)
 | The River (Bruce Springsteen album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 2, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Single Album?
edit"Originally, the album was going to be a single set..." Anyone able to verify this statement and the suggested playlist? Jubilee♫clipman 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
editSince Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
--CactusBot (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed.--Michig (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The River (Bruce Springsteen album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130724191559/http://brucebase.wikispaces.com:80/The+River+-+Studio+Sessions to http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/The+River+-+Studio+Sessions
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Expand
editI am not good at writing whole sections but feel like this album deserves more even in the first paragraph and a critical reception section. --Jennica✿ Talk 08:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"Sole" double album?
editI'm not sure how this is Springsteen's "sole" double album when The Rising, Devils & Dust, Working on a Dream, Wrecking Ball and High Hopes were all issued (at the time of their initial releases) as 2-LP sets. Everyone But You (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The River (Bruce Springsteen album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130506001015/http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_S.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_S.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124042306/http://infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O2.php?debut=750 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O2.php?debut=750
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031002051730/http://www.brucespringsteen.net/albums/river.html to http://www.brucespringsteen.net/albums/river.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The River (Bruce Springsteen album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Zmbro (talk · contribs) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tavantius (talk · contribs) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | None. It certainly fulfills this criteria. The language is kept relatively simple with more complex words linked. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No immediate Manual of Style failures. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | No complaints here. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | No problems here. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | No issues here. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | No issues. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No issues. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No real issues, so far. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Stable enough. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | No issues. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No issues. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Earwig isn't working for me so I'll have to wait until it cooperates to see what the deal is. In the meantime, I'm going to need a little more specifics than just "tweak portions of the article". – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Tavantius – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Somehow, when I checked it again, Earwig instead stated that instead of the alarming 88% I saw yesterday, there is a 41.5% copyvio in this site. It seems like that copvio is possibly exaggerated as well, with many of the alleged ones being mere quotes and simple sentences. With that in mind, and the general quality of this article, I'll accept it. Tavantius (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)