Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I'm Goin' Down/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 October 2021 [1].

I'm Goin' Down

edit
Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first foray into FAC in 2.5 years, I brought this article about the Bruce Springsteen song to GA in 2016 and have expanded it in the last nine months, largely from Newspapers.com as well as some online books, etc. The article was recently peer reviewed. Special thanks to DMT Biscuit, Aoba47, Ojorojo, and Ceoil, who all provided comments there or elsewhere and/or copy-edits. Looking forward to all feedback. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images are appropriately licensed (or have appropriate fair use rationales) and are used in accordance with image policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

edit
  • This is a rather nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. The two subsections the Personnel section presents the information slightly differently. The Musicians subsection puts the names first followed by what they played, while the Technical team subsection puts the role first and then their names. I would think it should be consistent one way or the other.

I only have one minor comment. Great work with the article. I had participated in the peer review, where my comments have already been addressed. Let me know when this point has been addressed, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DMT

edit

Support by Nick-D

edit

I really like this album, but this song isn't one of its high points. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The last sentence of the lead's first para reads awkwardly
  • "lyrical themes of sexual frustration and loneliness; these topics contrast with a humorous slant that some critics have observed." - awkward, not least as it's not clear why these topics contrast (lots of accounts of sexual frustration are humorous)
  • I'm very happy to change the above two but am still thinking of the best way to handle them. If any suggestions happen to jump out at you, I'd be glad to hear them, but otherwise, no worries, I'll figure something out, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " such that "I'm Goin' Down" and other band tracks from May were temporarily shelved" - also awkward
  • Changed. Better?
  • Do we know why Springsteen picked this song over Pink Cadillac?
  • No, we don't. The impression we get from Marsh's account of the recording sessions and the selection process of the track-listing is Springsteen was undecided until the last minute about which song he liked better, and at one point he had tentatively decided on "PC" and then at the very last minute he changed hi mind and went with "IGD". Except for "No Surrender", which was added at the very minute for a different reason, I guess these were the two songs he was the least sure he wanted to include—but that's not stated explicitly anywhere, that's just the impression one gets. Moisejp (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and by other critics, a rockabilly feel" - awkward wording
  • There's quite a bit of over-use of semi colons. I've fixed three sentences so far that were over long, and best split into separate sentences. The second sentence of the 'Legacy and cover versions' is a particularly bad offender, but I'd suggest splitting every sentence where you've used this construction as the material will work better as shortish sentences.
  • What's the story behind this being picked as a single? It seems unusual to release six singles from twelve song album. Presumably the label was looking to get as many sales out of what was a huge hit as possible.
  • Well, Born in the U.S.A., Thriller and Hysteria had seven singles each, and Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 had eight. As you say, I think it's normal when an album is selling really well for the record company to just try to keeping the momentum going as long as is sustainable. If I scour my sources, I might be able to find some commentary about that somewhere in relation to Born in the U.S.A.. Let me know if you think this would be worthwhile to pursue. Moisejp (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like the 'Live performances' section, and wish that this approach was more common (it's much better than the usual tedious list of live TV shows the song has been performed at that turn up in articles).
  • Each sentence in the 'Legacy and cover versions' discussion of assessments should cover a single assessment. Lumping multiple assessments together separated by commas or semi colons doesn't work, and makes this heavy going to read.
  • I have broken them all up, except tentatively have left the Rolling Stone and June Skinner top-100 rankings together, as these feel strongly related and good to join together for occasional variety of sentence structure. But if you would like to see this broken up as well, just let me know. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Reduced radio airplay following September 2001 attacks' section could be covered in a sentence somewhere - it uses a lot of words to not say much, to be honest.
  • Sure. I have no particular attachment to this content and agree it's the most peripheral section. But if I'm going to chop it down, I'd be inclined to remove it altogether instead. I'm worried it would be hard to include enough context to make this part of the story self-sufficient in one sentence. And if the content is not in its own section, I honestly don't know where I'd put it without it being a little out of place. Let me know if you agree removing the entire section is the best solution. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Springsteen discussed this song in any depth? It seems that he's not keen on it from how infrequently it's played at concerts (despite his famously long set lists).
  • I haven't been able to find any in-depth discussions by him about "I'm Goin' Down". "Not keen on it" may be strong, but the author of this article notes briefly that Springsteen seems "somewhat ambivalent" about it [[2]]. Interestingly in his introduction to Born in the U.S.A. in the lyrics book Songs [[3]], Springsteen talks (in most cases admittedly briefly) about all the songs on the album except two, one of which is "I'm Goin' Down". Marsh [[4]] describes how midway through the two years of recording sessions for the album, it was one song that Springsteen had seemed to forgotten about or at least lost interest in, but manager Jon Landau's insistence that it (and "I'm on Fire" and "Cover Me") were great songs helped to bring these back into the pool of tracks eventually considered for release. These are hints of his ambivalence. If you think such kinds of hints would be useful details to include, I could do so (not the detail about him not talking about it in Songs, but the other two details above, and anything else I might be able to find along this vein). Moisejp (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's sourcing seems almost entirely limited to news stories and websites. Is there really no coverage of this topic in journal articles and books? Such sources might be useful in fleshing out the material on the song's role in the album and Springsteen's views on it. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the song has its fans, the song itself was not a cultural phenomenon, but the album it came from was. So I think it's normal that the commentary available for the song is widespread (lots of mentions) but mostly short descriptions in each, and these are especially common in newspaper reviews that came out at the time of the album's release, and on websites. Among book authors, Marsh, Himes, Heylin, Guesdon, and Sawyer do give a limited amount commentary about the song, but it's not in-depth discussions. OK, yesterday I looked in JSTOR and found two journal articles that mention the song. "Where Is the 'Promised Land'?: Class and Gender in Bruce Springsteen's Rock Lyrics" has three or four sentences about the song as part of a larger discussion about "the disillusionment wrought from failed relationships contributes to [men's] dashed dreams. 'I'm Goin' Down' illustrates the deterioration of a desirable sexual relationship. The man feels he is being 'set up' by the woman just so she will be able to reject him. In a sexual sense, the man failed; in a class sense, the woman acted as an obstacle in his quest for the liberation of the tedium of a working class existence." I can try to fit in something about that in the Lyrics and themes part, but I'm not sure how well it will add to (or disrupt from) the current flow of ideas. Then there is only one sentence mentioning the song in the journal article, "Rebuilding the "Wall of Sound": Bruce Springsteen and Early 1960s American Popular Music": "'I'm Goin' Down' is four-chord double-entendre with an infectiously catchy chorus, on which Springsteen utilizes the clearer 'pop voice' used to such hit-making effect on 'Hungry Heart.'" I will try to fit something about this as well. Moisejp (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • About "the song's role in the album and Springsteen's views on it", Springsteen says in the book Songs that "Born in the U.S.A." is one of the best songs in his career and that "there was something about the grab-bag nature of the rest of the album that probably made it one my purest pop records". Also "many of these songs found themselves in concerts with my audience. My heroes, from Hank Williams to Frank Sinatra to Bob Dylan, were popular musicians. They had hits. It was a direct way you affected culture. It lets you know how powerful and durable your music might be." Marsh also gets into lots of details about that, about how Nebraska was a very personal album for Springsteen, and (the "IGD" article vaguely hints at this) Springsteen felt close to that album circa 1983 and was considering going in that direction again for his next album. But it was Plotkin and especially Landau that convinced Springsteen that seeking a wider audience and affecting culture had value, even if the songs were not as directly personal or meaningful to him as the Nebraska songs were. So that's the role of "IGD" (but most of the other songs too) as parts of "the grab-bag" of pop songs, and as potential hits that directly reached and appealed to his audience. But of course it's not just "IGD" that that's true for, and this article is about "IGD". But if you think it's helpful to provide more of this background hinting at the song's role, along with the other songs, I can. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D, thanks so much for looking at the article, and for your comments and copy-edits. :-) I'm going to work through responding in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Nick-D, I believe I've replied to all of your comments above. Let me know you know if you have any additional thoughts in response to my replies. You asked whether there was no analysis in journal articles. As I say in my reply above, I've found one journal article ("Where Is the 'Promised Land'?: Class and Gender in Bruce Springsteen's Rock Lyrics") that only has three sentences strictly about "I'm Goin' Down" itself, within the context of a larger analysis of themes in Springsteen's work as a whole. I've tentatively added a short paragraph to the end of Lyrics and themes about this. I'm not sure it's not undue weight for one person's views, but I've put it in for now in case you think it benefits the article. I'm also happy to take it back out if it's not beneficial. (The mention of "IGD" in the other journal article I mentioned above—"Wall of Sound": Bruce Springsteen and Early 1960s American Popular Music"—is so short that I haven't added it. The only detail that might be worthwhile there could be the mention of Springsteen's using a "pop voice" for the song.) Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment:

Hi Nick-D, thanks for your replies and additional comment.

  • I've reworked the "rockabilly" bit. If it happens you don't like this version, I have two more alternate versions at User:Moisejp/sandbox11#Rock,_country,_rockabilly. Or happy to rework it some more if need be.
  • I vastly shortened the Clear Communications part and put it in the Legacy section. It's two sentences, not one, but it's still much shorter than before, and I feel the details that are there are all useful for explaining context. If you feel it's still too long I think I really will just remove the section altogether—partly because any shorter would make the context less clear, but also because I'm a bit against one-sentence paragraphs, and I don't think it fits at all in any of the existing paragraphs.
  • I think when you wrote "That looks fine" above you meant the amount of commentary I currently have is fine, and no additions needed. But let me know if you meant it sounded like a good idea about my suggestion that I could theoretically add something about the role of "IGD" (and other songs) as being "a grab-bag of pop songs" and potential hits that directed reached out and appealed to his audience—as "a direct way you affected culture. It lets you know how powerful and durable your music might be". Moisejp (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've read through the changes again, and made some tweaks. While I suspect that there's scope to further polish the prose, I think that the FA criteria are now met. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

edit

I've checked the sources, they seem to be adequate although I note the wide use of generic news sources. I was wondering about the lack of academic sources but I see that Nick-D already asked and got a convincing answer. Source formatting seems to be consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

Only just reading through - a third of the way there.

  • Lead: maybe "undecided" rather than "in flux", which is very 1980s phrasing
  • The caption for File:I'mGoinDownMeadowlands052109.JPG is ridiculously long for a very narrow image.
  • Under pressure and to buy time, by May 1982 the band had begun to record other material he had written - out of curiosity, earlier of more recent material?
  • From memory, I believe "Darlington County" was originally written in 1978?; "I'm on Fire" was a new song improvised in the studio in May, and "Glory Days" and "I'm Goin' Down" were also new songs. Actually versions of "Working on the Highway" (originally called "Child Bride"), "Born in the U.S.A." and "Downbound Train" were on the January 1982 cassette. (And he recorded a bunch of other songs in May that weren't released on BITUSA.) The impression is that "Working on the Highway" and "Born in the U.S.A." were somewhat substantially reworked; about "Downbound Train" I don't know. But also the impression is that even if they were on the cassette, "Working on the Highway" and "Downbound Train" were not among the core, personal songs that were part of the statement that he was trying to make with Nebraska. Anyway, do you think what I have right now is misleading by possibly suggesting none of what he recorded in May was from the Nebraska pool of songs? Hmm, but I'd argue it doesn't actually say "the Nebraska pool of songs", it says "the Nebraska songs", with three examples on that album ("Atlantic City", "Nebraska", and "Mansion on the Hill"). So I think "other material he had written" is probably safe to mean "other material, which was not on the Nebraska album". Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8Didnt make it to, not written by? Ceoil (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a really strong opinion, but I'm concerned that might break the timeline, because the article says a bit later "temporarily shelved "I'm Goin' Down" and other band tracks from May" to clarify that the songs didn't make it onto Nebraska. But, that being said, there may already be examples of mini-breaks in the timeline due to the complicated nature of the events that happened, I'm not sure. I don't know, if you feel strongly that your suggestion would be an improvement, I'll trust your judgment. Moisejp (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his 2012 book detailing the singer's recording history, Clinton Heylin wrote that
  • Eventually, Springsteen decided to release ten songs from the January cassette directly as the Nebraska album. Tense. Eventually Springsteen released...and drop "directly", unless you mean on an indie label or under DIY ethos
  • A rock song,[6][19] would drop this completely, and re tense, has been described by Uncut contributor John Lewis - is described
  • Have changed "has been" to "is".
  • I added "rock song" because I was worried readers not familiar with the album/song might take away from the next two sentences that it was essentially a country song, or essentially a rockabilly song. But it's a rock song even if it has country/rockabilly influences. Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fine, but would rephrase to move the two! citations away from those three words, as it looks like overkill. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dropped one of the two refs, does that help. :) I kind of don't want to make it any longer, like "'I'm Goin' Down' is a rock song" or anything, and if I can keep the idea expressed in three words, I'd really like to. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ceoil, it would be easy to add "Essentially" to the start, that's definitely no problem. I'm not sure whether you're also proposing to condense the next two sentences. I'm open to it except, the current two sentences were the result of lots of back-and-forth between me and Nick-D. I'm a little bit hesitant to break the careful balance the two of us reached. But, if you have some awesome specific wording you are quite keen on and would like to throw in there, I wouldn't stop you. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewers have commented on the contrast between the song's upbeat music and sad lyrics - can you tie-in "upbeat music" with the tonality of the "A–E–F#m–D" chord progression in the preceding claim. Enough has been written about this; eg check guitar mags etc
  • Hi Ceoil, pinging you about this one even though I haven't finished all the other comments, because I'm a bit stuck on this one. Is this [[5]] the kind of information you're talking about? I'm not a musician myself and am really not very confident about music theory. If you have a pretty clear idea in mind of what you want, and it sounds like for you it would be to easy to find, could I possibly ask you to maybe add the info you'd like to see?🙏 Or else baby-walk me through how to get the information and specifically what to say about it? I'm truly not trying to "pass the buck" or avoid doing the work on this nomination, but I'm really not confident about this point. (I usually ask User:Ojorojo for advice when there's anything music-related that's even slightly technical.) Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was one of a record-tying seven top 10 singles to be released from Born in the U.S.A.[n 3] - "to be released from a single album"? Or what. This whole para is very stats heavy and 36 odd years later can surely be better contextualized...eg wide international hit rather than charted in x, y,z territories.
  • Used your "from a single album" idea. And summarized the rest as "It also charted in Canada,[54] and in multiple European countries."
  • Thanks so much for your review, Ceoil, and your edits. I've responded to some of your comments so far—will get to the rest soon—and am looking forward the continuation of your review. Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Live performances": the centered but collapsed 2002–2017 performances of "I'm Goin' Down" template is frankly annoying in the middle of the short text. Would but at the end, or loose.
  • ""For his tours between 2002 and 2017, many of the set lists were in the past published" - were in the past is totally confusing...grrr ;)
  • Changed to "have been published". I think I was trying to make the point that most of them are no longer available (except in archived form), but "have been" is simpler and doesn't exclude this scenario. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • has received various rankings or ratings in lists and overviews that consider all of Springsteen's songs - or, or (rankings/ratings; lists/overviews). "is highly rated". bty, the phrase "131st best Springsteen track" is seruously dry; lol'd
  • To keep explaining short: "In Uncut magazine's 2015 Ultimate Collector's Edition: Springsteen, "I'm Goin' Down" is rated four stars out of five" - in 2015 Uncut ranked.
  • .Just after we have "Other praise for "I'm Goin' Down" appears in retrospectives of Born in the U.S.A." Redundant, remove. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, am leaning support here and very much into the realms of nit-picking. Will try and close out before Sunday night, as maybe gone for a while after that. 00:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/I%27m_Goin%27_Down/archive1&oldid=1048435996"