Talk:Bruce Springsteen/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Notified: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs), David in DC (talk · contribs), Sillyfolkboy (talk · contribs), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As part of GA Sweeps, I am reviewing this article. This article is currently in grave danger of being delisted from WP:GA as a result of my preliminary analysis as follows:

The primary concern that will likely cause this article to be delisted according to failure to meet the criteria at WP:WIAGA is its lack of in-line referencing. Numerous paragraphs, often in succession, are without a single citation. At a minimum, each paragraph should have at least one citation.
Eliminate the links to disambiguation pages Done Sswonk (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the deadlink Done Sswonk (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the citation needed templates
Reorganize the article so that one-line paragraphs are incorporated into larger paragraphs.

Start with these comments and if I see progress within the next week I may add more. Otherwise, I will delist the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the #1 editor by frequency on the article, and I completely agree – the GA does not belong. In addition to what TonyTheTiger mentions, I see the article as having other significant problems as well:

the lack of citing is not just a conformance problem; I've got my doubts about some of the facts claimed in the article – a real checking against the best biographical sources is required
inconsistent levels of detail throughout the article
recentism, especially in the "Recent events" section (I've tried battling this, but it never ends)
the "2002–present" section doesn't go to the present and "Recent" is a terrible word to have in a header
the "Personal life" material should be integrated with the chronology, where some of it already is; it and his career are intertwined
for the cites that are present, the formatting is often very poor (no publisher, no date, no author, no accessdate, etc)
a better level of musical and critical analysis is needed; a lot of critical and academic work has been published on Springsteen (more even than is listed in the "References" and "Further reading" section), which the article almost completely ignores

Overall, the state of this article is one of my main WP regrets (I've long said as much on my user page). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist unless Per the nomination and comments of main editor Wasted Time. Also broadly suspect is the tone of the lead section, which tends to read more like an opening to an allmusic.com page or magazine article rather than an encyclopedia article. A specific concern there is the sentence which begins "Much of his status stems from the concerts and marathon...", which forces a couple of questions in my mind: what status, do you mean stature? and what is the definition of "much" here? Overall the lead suffers from borderline if not definite WP:WEASEL problems. The recent history of the article Pink Floyd which lost FA status (review) points to an overall referencing problem shared by this article. Kate Bush and AC/DC are FAs which show a more fact-based approach to their lead sections. While this review concerns GA status, those two articles can serve as an example of where to start here. This article is on a par with B class article Eric Clapton and approaches B class Led Zeppelin in its overuse of WP:PROSELINE style. Wasted Time understands this, and I hope his regrets aren't unnoticed by other editors. I think delisting as was done with Pink Floyd may serve as a "wake-up call" to others who can then get together to participate in a major overhaul that is necessary, which I will help with - I got the call when this discussion showed up in my watchlist under the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music. Sswonk (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]