Talk:Born in the U.S.A./GA1

GA Review

Passed. Lazman321 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (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

Nominator: Zmbro (talk · contribs) 14:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 21:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Bug me if I don't comment within the next few days. Lazman321 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

Suggestions listed down below. Feel free to address them as I work through the article. Lazman321 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: One thing I intended to do but got distracted with life was read through the rest of Steven Hyden's book and add stuff if necessary (I had about half of the book done before stopping). If it's alright with you I'm going to do that before you're done with the review. I apologize if this is annoying but I started adding his book content back in like November and after no one picking the GAN up after six months I just moved on, but I'd still like to see if his book has any other good content (which I'm sure it does). I hope that's alright. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyden discusses the album's impact on Springsteen's career and influence on other artists at length so expect the legacy section to lengthen. Again, I'm sorry if this causes annoyance, I just want the article to be the best it can be. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Anything to improve this article is welcome. I can hold off on reviewing the legacy section until your finished expanding it. Lazman321 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns addressed. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"...originated from the same demo tape that yielded Springsteen's previous album..." to "...originated from the demo tape for Springsteen's previous album..."

Removed 'same' but kept "that yielded" because 'for' to me sounds like not enough – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...while others were written after that album's release." to "...while others were written afterward."

Done

"...The cover photograph of Springsteen's behind against a backdrop..." to "...The cover photograph of Springsteen turned from the camera against a backdrop..."

How about "...Springsteen from behind..."? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...the E Street Band supported the album on the Born in the U.S.A. Tour." to "...the E Street Band supported the album with the Born in the U.S.A. Tour."

Bands and artists go on tour. Albums can be supported with singles/videos/etc. but artists themselves go on tour. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless, retrospective assessments consider Born in the U.S.A. one of the best albums of Springsteen...of all time, appearing on such lists by Rolling Stone and NME" to "Born in the U.S.A. has ranked by publications such as Rolling Stone and NME one of the best albums of Springsteen...of all time."

Changed to "In later decades, publications such as Rolling Stone and NME rank Born in the U.S.A. one of the best albums..." – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"which affected him more and inspired the writing..." to "which in turn inspired the writing..."

Done

The footnote could be incorporated into the body of the article.

Done

"...the lyrics and music of "Vietnam" and used the film's title..." to "...the lyrics and music of "Vietnam", using the film's title..."

Done

"...demoed the track and the others he had written during the period in the bedroom..." to "...demoed tracks he had written during that period in the bedroom..."

Done

Recording history

"Springsteen subsequently wrote Summer another song, 'Protection', and recorded a version with the E Street Band." - version of what? "Protection"?

Yes, clarified

"...he considered releasing another solo acoustic album before scrapping the idea." to "...he considered but ultimately dismissed releasing another solo acoustic album."

Done

"...should begin with 'Born in the U.S.A.' and end with 'My Hometown', and include 'Working on the Highway'..." to "...should begin with "Born in the U.S.A.", end with 'My Hometown', and include 'Working on the Highway'...."

Done

"With Springsteen still unsatisfied..." to "With Springsteen still unsatisfied with the album..."

Done

Question for you: Do you think I went overboard with the excess song titles? I feel like it's a little much for WP. If so I can remove them or add some to a footnote. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice a lot of track titles in the recording section. Perhaps it's a bit much, but my concerns about them are relatively minor. I'll leave it up to your discretion on what to do with them. Lazman321 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It'll likely receive pushback if I choose to take this to FAC so I went ahead and removed some and condensed others into a note. I kept the main ones that are repeated elsewhere but removed others that were one and dones. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

"...rock and roll song, driven by synthesizer..." to "...rock and roll song driven by a synthesizer..."

Done

"...several have also noted the song's supposed 'jingoism'." to "...several critics also noted how the song could be misconstrued in favor of jingoism."

Done

"...said the song 'steeped in countrified..." to "...said the song was 'steeped in countrified..."

Done

"...is a minimalist rock ballad featuring synthesizer." to "...is a minimalist rock ballad featuring a synthesizer."

Done

"The song's narrator is similar to other tracks on Nebraska..." to "The song's narrator is similar to the one on Nebraska..."

Changed to "the ones" as in this case the sentence is talking about Nebraska the album, on which there were many narrators – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"... in which the heroine expresses an obsessive and uncontrollable desire for the narrator." - I guess not related exactly to the article's writing, but having listened to the song and looked at its lyrics, are you sure this is accurate?

Yea you're right that definitely should be flipped. Fixed. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The narrator's girlfriend's former passion is lost and turned to indifference." to "The narrator's girlfriend has lost her passion and turned to indifference."

Done

"...dance-rock song led by synthesizer." to "...dance-rock song led by a synthesizer."

Done

"a folk ballad driven by synthesizer." to "a folk ballad driven by a synthesizer."

Done; Note: I intended to have these instances mean synth the instrument itself and not a specific one. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...containing themes of centered on working-class life..." to "...with themes centered on working-class life..."

Done

Artwork

"...a former photographer for Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair magazines." to "...formerly of the magazines Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair."

Done

Perhaps move the sentence "The cover was designed by Andrea Klein." to near the beginning.

How's that look? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...the picture of my face' and there was no..." to "...the picture of my face' and that there was no..."

Done

"The cover is considered iconic and appeared on..." to "The cover is considered iconic, having appeared on..."

Done

To add: Expanded this section decently if you want to take another look :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saw no further problems when relooking at the section. Good job. Lazman321 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

"...in the United States for commercial release, and was manufactured by..." to "...in the United States for commercial release. It was manufactured by..."

Done

"...and Sony Music at its newly opened plant..." to "...and Sony Music at their newly opened plant..."

Done

"The album debuted at number nine..." to "Born in the U.S.A. debuted at number nine..."

Done

"...two weeks later on July 7, it stayed in the top 10..." to "...two weeks later on July 7. It stayed in the top 10..."

Done

"...commercial success in Europe and Oceania; in the United Kingdom..." to "...commercial success in Europe and Oceania. In the United Kingdom..."

Done

Move the sentence "Born in the U.S.A. was the best-selling album of 1985 and of Springsteen's career." to the second paragraph.

Done

"The success of Michael Jackson's Thriller (1982) ensured record labels..." to "Following the success of Michael Jackson's Thriller (1982), record labels..."

Done

"Springsteen and Landau had only envisioned one or two singles from Born in the U.S.A., but Columbia felt the album contained "at least half a dozen" possible singles, each accompanied by dance remixes and music videos to broaden airplay, both on the radio and in clubs." to "Springsteen and Landau envisioned one or two singles from Born in the U.S.A.. Feeling otherwise, Columbia planned "at least half a dozen" possible singles, each accompanied by dance remixes and music videos to broaden airplay, both on the radio and in clubs."

Done, also moved the mid-sentence ref to the end

"...while the later ones continued promoting the album and tour." - Going to be honest, this confused me (were the earlier singles not promoting the album and tour?), and it doesn't even seem to be supported by the source in question.

Removed the sentence

"...in Saint Paul, Minnesota on June 28..." to "...in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on June 28..."

Done

"...replacement guitarist Nils Lofgren, and new backing vocalist..." to "...his replacement guitarist Nils Lofgren, alongside new backing vocalist..."

Done

Critical reception

"...drew particular attention, Miller saw Springsteen..." to "...drew particular attention; Miller saw Springsteen..."

Done

"...perfecting his craft' that meant Born in the U.S.A. was his best work yet." to "...perfecting his craft', making Born in the U.S.A. his best work yet."

Done

"...on his list, and in 1990 named..." to "...on his list and in 1990 named..."

Done

Tour

"The lineup was Bittan, Clemons, Tallent, Federici, Weinberg, Nils Lofgren, who replaced Van Zandt as a second guitarist, and Patti Scialfa. who was hired by Springsteen as a backing vocalist four days before the tour began." to "The lineup included returning members Bittan, Clemons, Tallent, Federici, Weinberg; Nils Lofgren, who replaced Van Zandt as a second guitarist; and Patti Scialfa, who was hired by Springsteen as a backing vocalist four days before the tour began."

Fixed

"Will published a column about Springsteen the following month" - Where?

Clarified (WashPost)

"...attendance in Ireland, and three sold-out shows..." to "... attendance in Ireland and three sold-out shows..."

Done

Impact and influence

"...the album's power and impact. He names artists such as..." to "...the album's power and impact, such as..."

Done

Legacy

"...writing in his 2003 book Songs: 'I put a lot of pressure..." to "...writing in his 2003 book Songs, 'I put a lot of pressure..."

Done

"...for the rest of the 1980s and the 1990s" to "...for the rest of the 1980s and 1990s..."

Done

Something about the first sentence of the second paragraph feels off, but I don't know how to phrase it. I don't know if it's because it seems like a run-on sentence or if it's because something is missing from it. Idk, I'm open to suggestions.

How's that look? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Actually, I decided to edit it myself. What do you think? Lazman321 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"He scaled back for 1987's Tunnel of Love..." - Scaled back what exactly?

Simplified it to just "For" and reworded the sentence accordingly. It works better since "scale back" already opens the paragraph. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...it was not until he and the E Street Band's..." to "...it was not until his and the E Street Band's..."

Done

"...that Springsteen reestablished himself as a cultural force." - Did he stop being a cultural force before then? Did his attempt at changing his persona lead to a drop in popularity?

I wasn't exactly sure how to put this. Here's the source: "More than The Rising, Live in New York City makes the case for Bruce Springsteen reclaiming his supremacy as the greatest rocker on the planet some fifteen years after he retreated from the center of pop culture." I didn't want to use a direct quote but wasn't sure how else to word it. To answer your question, yes. Hyden talks in his book about how throughout the 1990s, Springsteen did not align himself with the current music trends (i.e. grunge, alt rock, etc.) and fell out of popularity quite significantly. His albums during this period (Human Touch, Lucky Town, and The Ghost of Tom Joad), also did not perform the best commercially and aren't viewed that well critically and with fans (especially compared to what came before them). Springsteen himself even admitted that Ghost "was the result of a decade-long inner debate I'd been having with myself since the success of Born in the U.S.A." His 2002 album The Rising was marketed as his first album with the E Street Band since Born in the U.S.A. and was his first chart topper since Tunnel of Love. So in a sense, yes, he did fall out of popularity quite a lot. I apologize for the ramble but that's the context needed to explain it lol. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Thank you. Maybe you could add some of this context to the section. Lazman321 (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling on this third paragraph as I'm unsure why details to put in and what to leave out. A lot happened to him in the time between '87 and '00 (i.e. a divorce, a new marriage, a son, moving to LA, recording HT and LT with in LA with session musicians, Ghost and that long-ass tour before the E Street Reunion and Rising. I'd like to incorporate this Rolling Stone interview but again, I'm very stuck on what details to include here on this specific album article. Do you have any ideas? Lazman321 – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got something there. Took almost an hour to write but hopefully it works. Let me know what you think. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lazman321 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"While one critic felt the album has aged well into the 2000s, others have felt its production dates it to the 1980s, but maintained that it adds "historical value" and that the quality of the songs makes up for it." to "While one critic felt the album aged well into the 2000s, others felt that its production dated it to the 1980s, but maintained that it added "historical value" and that the quality of the songs made up for it."

Done

Reissues

"...Columbia on CD in 2000. This was followed by..." to "...Columbia on CD in 2000, followed by..."

Done

"...and a lithograph, to mark its 40th anniversary." to "...and a lithograph to mark its 40th anniversary."

Done

Notes

"Springsteen reported saw..." to "Springsteen reportedly saw..."

Fixed

Note a and k could be incorporated into the artwork section.

Done for k but note a?? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that confusion. I believe, note a could be incorporated into the background section Lazman321 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just removed it. It's a little too much detail for this article; I think it could work better on the "BitUSA" song article instead. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

WP:GACR requires compliance with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, MOS:FICTION, and MOS:LIST.

LEAD: I think the lead is, for the most part, great. However, I do believe more information about the album's influence could addressed in the last paragraph.

Added – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LAYOUT: The artwork section, the tour section, and the reissues section could be subsections of the release and promotion section due to them being related respectively to the publishing and the promotion of the album. The influence and impact section could be merged into the legacy section due to the legacy section essentially continuing the narrative of the influence and impact section. Finally, the paragraph about the Grammys in the release and promotion section is probably best placed in the critical reception section.

I would put artwork with release but since there's quite a lot of content there it works better as its own section. I did the same for other Bruce FAs Darkness and Born to Run
Same with the tour section. There's too much content there for it to be a sub-section.
Keeping consistent with the other articles, I've kept reissues last to still with a more chronological flow (i.e. you shouldn't mention a 40th anniversary re-release before discussing critical reception in 1984).
I will move impact and influence to legacy as that makes sense. And the Grammy bit. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WTW: Most of what could be words or statements to be cautious are statements like "some critics say", but most of the time in this article, it's supported by sources. Even the one time that the word "widely" was used was supported by sources. The one statement that I feel does need addressed under this guideline is the statement that the album cover is considered one of the most iconic; the two lists used as sources for the statement do not support, making it potentially puffery and weasel words.

Removed iconic – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FICTION: The one time that I feel this guideline might be applicable is when the article is describing each of the songs. However, each song is already situated in their real-world context, so nothing needs addressed.
LIST: All lists and tables used in the article are standard for music articles; nothing further needs addressed.

Lazman321 (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns addressed. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

There is indeed a list of references that follows guidelines. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2b - Reliable sources

How are Classic Rock Review, uDiscoverMusic, and Super Deluxe Edition reliable? Classic Rock Review and Super Deluxe Edition have no credentials as far as I'm aware, and uDiscoverMusic is operated by the record label Universal Music Group, making it a poor source for music critique. Besides that, all the other sources, including the books, appear to be fine. Lazman321 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a. I had previously used CRR on Born to Run and it passed through the source review on that article's FAC. The website has an editor-in-chief, Ric Albano, who is a web developer, musician, and writer in his own right. It looks like he founded River of Rock Network which operates other websites such as Keystone Rock Review and Roots Rock Review. It doesn't mention other writers but it has an editor-in-chief so I think that would mean it's ok for reliability.

b. Removed uDM.

c. Super Deluxe Edition also has an editor-in-chief, Paul Sinclair. In my times using the website, he gets his information accurate; when I do comparisons with other sources (in this case Springsteen's website), the info is always accurate. The website only covers reissues of older music releases so I've never found it to be a problem. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it managed to pass through FAC, I guess I can let it slide. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2c - No original research

Will be conducting a spotcheck here. Lazman321 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, for articles with at least 100 citations, I would try to check at least 50 citations to gain a good overview of what text-source discrepancies need to be addressed. However, given how little I actually found this time around and your prior experience with music articles, I feel I don't need to go beyond 25. I found, like, one or two discrepancies, and they weren't even that major. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2d - No copyright violations

No copyright violations found during spotchecks. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

As a broad overview of an album as big as this one, this article already passes this criterion. However, I feel you have gone above and beyond in this article, with a level of documentation rivaling a featured article, with extensive information on this album's background, recording, and legacy along with each of the songs. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3b - Focused

There's not a single moment where the article strays off-topic; its all about the album, its songs, and its context. I also didn't feel like much of the article felt like it was providing too much detail about a specific element of the album aside from maybe the listings of individual songs from sessions, which I think is fine for the most part. I do feel some of the notes do provide unnecessary detail though; I'd suggest removing notes H and O, as their information is probably better suited for the articles on Plotkin and "Dancing in the Dark" respectively. Lazman321 (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4 - Neutral

At no point does the article state opinions as facts, and I feel the opinions presented in the article are given sufficient due weight. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 - Stable

No content disputes or edit wars appear to be occurring. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

The copyright tags on each of the images are valid. The one I was most suspicious of, File:Springsteen 05051981 01 200.jpg, does appear to be legit after some digging into the user. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6b - Relevant media

All the images are relevant to the article, with most being of relevant personnel. Perhaps it would be useful to include an excerpt of a song from the album to illustrate its sound, but I won't require it. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7 - Verdict

@Zmbro: Great work so far! Based on your statements and your work, I can tell you're very passionate about Springsteen and his work, including this album. To address the final points I have left in this review, I will be placing it On hold for seven days. Ping me once you're done. Surprised I didn't see more of @Moisejp: during this review considering he was a co-nominator. Lazman321 (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zmbro: and @Lazman321:, sincerest apologies. I did not actually see that this review was on until Lazman pinged me a few days ago (and then I somehow didn't get an email notification, and only saw it when I happened to open Wikipedia—not sure if that was a one-time glitch or if I may have recently inadvertently unsubscribed from Wikipedia email notifications). Zmbro, again apologies for leaving all of this to you until now, but is there anything you need help with? Moisejp (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp I think everything is in a pretty good spot, but if you think my additions to legacy need improving then be my guest. I also think retrospective reviews needs more adherence to WP:RECEPTION and would likely receive pushback during an FAC review. If you wanted to help with that I'd appreciate it :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: and @Zmbro: I am honestly impressed with the hard work that went into this article, both before and during the review. Great job to both of you! If you do decide to nominate it for FAC, good luck.

Passed Lazman321 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (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.