Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Darkness on the Edge of Town/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 19 October 2023 [1].

Darkness on the Edge of Town[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's "samurai record", at least how he puts it. Darkness on the Edge of Town, his fourth studio album, is my personal favorite of his. Not only capturing the essence of who Springsteen is and what he's about, it has solid music and lyrics that made an interesting but innovative follow-up to Born to Run. Following a pretty solid GA review, I believe the article is in better shape than my previous FACs This Year's Model and The Next Day were when I nominated them and is ready for the star. I'm looking forward to reading comments/complaints. Happy editing :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • I agree that this is a fabulous album, and I will do a full review later. One drive-by comment for now - one of the footnotes says that the Pointer Sisters' cover of "Fire" got to number 2 in the UK. This isn't true, it actually got to number 34, per The Official Charts Company, the compilers of the UK chart (I also have several UK charts books which confirm this). If the source used for the ref against that sentence says it got to 2 then unfortunately that source is in error...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Just noticed that I could check the source via the Internet Archive, and it doesn't actually say it got to number 2 in the UK, it just says it "got to number 2". This refers to the Billboard Hot 100 in the US (see here)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That is my mistake I must have mistyped. Fixed it :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was particularly influenced by works of fiction that focused on individuals confronted by adversity; these included the John Steinbeck novels The Grapes of Wrath (1939) and East of Eden (1952) and their respective film adaptations directed by John Ford and Elia Kazan; westerns such as Ford's The Searchers (1956); and country/folk artists" - you say the works of fiction included, but the last item in the list is two people, not a work of fiction. I suggest amending to "and the songs of country/folk artists"
  • "Several songs emphasize choruses compared to songs" => "Several songs emphasize choruses more than songs"
  • "the majority of Darkness are less characterized by a specific place and refer" => "the majority of Darkness is less characterized by a specific place and refers"
  • "depicting a factory-worker father, whose life is consumed by his job, but works to provide for his family" => "depicting a factory-worker father, whose life is consumed by his job, but who works to provide for his family"
  • "Highly anticipated, the album sold less than its predecessor" - these seem to contradict each other, so maybe "Despite being highly anticipated, the album sold less than its predecessor"
  • "Some felt they were overly serious, bleak, and not as uplifting as Born to Run" => "Some felt the songs" were overly serious, bleak, and not as uplifting as those on Born to Run"
  • In the weekly charts tables you missed the final S off US Billboard Top LPs & Tapes
  • It actually was Tape (singular) (if not it's probably wrong on this entire site) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - you are of course right about the chart name (I double-checked old issues of Billboard via Google Books). I'd never noticed that before - how odd -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise[edit]

Hi Zmbro, hope you're well! I somehow didn't realize you'd been working on this particular article at this particular time. :-) Comments will be coming soon. Moisejp (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Springsteen used outside sources when writing the album's songs": I'm not sure that "outside sources" is very clear here (outside relative to what?). I'm not sure what to suggest for better wording. Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey there! You as well :-) From what I understood when reading through sources it meant compared to prior releases. How about "Sources Springsteen used when writing..."? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds better I think! :-) I'll get some more comments down soon. You'll have seen I've also been making some suggested edits as I've been reading through. Moisejp (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Springsteen assigned engineer Jimmy Iovine to create a combination": Does this mean a combination of Landau's and Van Zandt's ideals? Whatever it means, I feel it's not very clear, and would be good to reword for clarity. Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zmbro, just wanted to let you know this next one week looks like it's going to be super busy and I may likely not get in any Wiki time until about next weekend. But don't worry, I'll be back with a bang to this review before you know it! Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, am back and continuing working my way through.

  • "Author Marc Dolan states that the song's themes are essential to the project": Could another word be substituted for "project"? It doesn't seem very clear to me.
  • Changed to 'album'
  • Is there information about in what way Margotin and Guesdon found "Racing in the Street" to be the "equivalent" of the Chuck Berry and Beach Boys songs? Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They say "in a sense" so we're going to remove that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Springsteen structured the setlists the same way as the Darkness album": If Springsteen was only playing the songs from the album, I'd interpret this to mean that he played the songs in the same order as the album. But because he played 74 different songs, I'm not sure what this means. Could it be rewritten to clarify? Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditched this point and reworded some stuff. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin my second read-through this weekend, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Springsteen wrote new material on the road and at his farm home in Holmdel, New Jersey, reportedly amassing between 40 and 70 songs" / "Springsteen had accumulated a large number of songs while touring": seems repetitive and would be good to use one or the other. Moisejp (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut
  • "The intention to record most of the backing tracks live with minimal overdubs was thwarted by the studio's carpeted floors." Consider explaining further how the two are related. (Presumably the carpets affected sound quality or something, but it would be good to spell out the exact cause and effect.) Moisejp (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified
  • "The album displays heartland rock,[39] with punk rock and country influences." The second part of this sentence seems to have already been established a couple of paragraphs earlier. Moisejp (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • Four of the sentences in "Side one" and "Side two" begin with "Musically,"; could maybe be good to rephrase about a couple of them. Moisejp (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • The "Retrospective reviews and legacy" section seems a little too all-positive. It's probably true that these days there not much negative commentary about the album, but would it be worthwhile to try to find an example or two to add for balance? Surely there must be some critics out there who don't love the album. Moisejp (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the exact same thing. You can find lots of blogs and forums online that review Darkness but most I doubt WP would call reliable sources: Subjective Sounds, Vinyl Reviews, chorus.fm, vintage rock.com, Audiooxide, Americana UK, Medium, you get the idea. Most of these I wouldn't call reliable and from what I remember most of the reliable online sources mostly just say positive things. I can investigate again. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you use Newspapers.com for a couple of 1978 reviews. I was going to suggest scouring it a bit for negative or neutral mentions of the album from 2000 or so onwards, if you haven't already. I was going to try to have a peek for you, but I don't seem to have immediate access right now. Moisejp (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moisejp How's that look now? I got a few mixed things in the final paragraph. Might need some ce though... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is my last comment, by the way. Moisejp (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, have had a busy week. Will be working on this over the weekend. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great prose and detail. Everybody's comments have helped make this a lot more polished and cohesive over the course of the FAC. A couple of small comments I leave you with that don't affect my support:

  • Any additional info on why Springsteen defaced the billboard? Enquiring minds may want to know.
  • For some reason Carlin's book is no longer available on the Open Library or archive.org so I can't provide any info on that rn. I'll most likely buy a copy since I intend on continuing the Springsteen journey... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed this in ref 58, but not sure whether there may or not be other instances of this. When I'm doing articles, I find it's friendlier to future editors to always put the ref info at the first instance of the ref. Here for ref 58 it's at the third instance. If future editors want to make a change, and they have to hunt down which instance the ref info is contained at, it's extra work. It's about maintaining integrity of the backend and not just the frontend. Anyway, this is possibly just personal preference, but it's something you can think about if you like. :-) Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Have read thorough once, good impressions.

lead

  • Recorded following a period of legal disputes It was recorded after a series
  • Fixed
  • The sessions yielded a large number of outtakes, several of which were given to other artists while others later appeared on compilations. - Would put this later down in the lead. What does "outtakes....were given" mean
  • Where specifically? It's here because that's where it is in the body. He gave several songs to other artists to record. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chronologically, would put near the end of the third para. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How's that look? Did some rearranging and clarified that some appeared on The River – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • sold less well - did not sell as well
  • Fixed
  • Sources Springsteen used when writing the album's songs included - Sources Springsteen is alliteration. Maybe Springsteen was inspired by...
  • How about "Springsteen was inspired by several sources when writing the album's songs, including..."? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, "Springsteen took inspiration from sources as diverse as John Steinbeck novels..." your examples show that they were several.
  • the characters are more mature - older?
  • Fixed
  • while its singles performed modestly - name them here
  • Done
  • promoted it on the successful Darkness Tour, his largest tour up to that point - successful = largest tour to date, so some redundancy there. maybe "promoted it on the Darkness Tour, his largest to date"
  • Removed successful but I'd rather keep "up to that point" as I feel some readers would (without context) mistake "to date" meaning today – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree re "up to that point". Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • less geographically tied to the Jersey Shore area
  • Fixed
  • best works and one that anticipated many of his later works. - the word "works" x 2
  • Changed the second to "records" – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More minor quibbles to follow. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General points

  • Nice work on the references (both in terms of quality and formatting); see that this was a focus of the GA, so no concerns.
  • Thank you very much! :-)
  • Re the "Sound and mixing" sect - strictly speaking guitar and drum sounds are achieved during the recording / engineering stage rather than when mixing, although that can vary depending on the cross-over on duties (some producers also engineer). So not sure the section title "Sound and mixing" is right, as I say sound is really "production"...and that "Mixing extended into May 1978" was more that they couldn't agree on the production rather than the mix. It's a technical point, not a problem for me if you regig to differentiate or not; you have at least the essence of the process. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sect header "Packaging" - would re-title this as "album art" or "sleeve art". "packaging" implies delux box sets etc
  • Changed to 'Cover artwork'
  • "Critical reception" - the sect header "Reappraisal and legacy" - was it reappraised? The preceding section details almost unanimous acclaim. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Retrospective reviews"

Reappraisal and legacy

  • In later decades, Darkness on the Edge of Town has received critical acclaim as one of Springsteen's finest works - Darkness on the Edge of Town has become widely considered one of Springsteen's finest works
  • Fixed
  • Reviewers have recognized Darkness as the harbinger for Springsteen's future career Critics view it as a harbinger for his later career
  • Fixed
  • Some even said the album embodies both Springsteen himself and what he stands for. - I know what you are going for but would spell out more Springsteen's everyman appeal "and what he stands for".
  • Fixed
  • would drop which Debra Filcman of Ultimate Classic Rock found "verbose yet tedious" - the earlier more accessible lyrics covers the point.
  • Done
  • Am enjoying reviewing this article and relistening to the album. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other general points

  • Avoid overly formal words like "stated" (have removed), "upon", "noted", "Commentators" (they are critics), etc
  • Took care of most of them (might have some stragglers) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Reduce the length of quotes as far as possible. Eg not sure what Cameron meant by "but in order to resolve life's eternal dilemmas requires a journey to the heart of the Darkness on the Edge of Town". It seems to me like the tagged on / trying to be romantic last sentence of a review. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to reply here. Removed the Cameron part you mentioned and made some other paraphrasing. Lmk if there are any other quotes you feel could be shortened. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After another read through, leaning support, when o/s issues above are resolved/refuted. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final grumble - Reviewers recognize Frank Stefanko's cover photograph of Springsteen as representing a physical manifestation of the album's songs. - doesn't ring through to me as written, given that the cover poto is just a nothing special portrait pic? Also "Reviewers recognize" is kind of awkward alliteration. Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed it to simply say "The cover photograph of Springsteen was taken by Frank Stefanko in his New Jersey home." – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. Please nom Young Americans next. Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • In the lead's first paragraph, the second and third sentence both start in a similar way (i.e. "It was released" and "It was recorded"). Would there be a way to avoid this?
  • Fixed
  • I have a suggestion for this part, (Springsteen had disagreements with his manager, Mike Appel, over his plans). I do not think the "over his plans" part is necessary and it could be removed as the next sentence goes into further detail on these disagreements. The "plans" part does not add much in my opinion.
  • Done
  • This part, (in which Springsteen bought out his contract with Appel and Appel received a lump sum), is rather repetitive, specifically the "Appel and Appel" part. I think that this could be avoided by saying something along the lines of "Appel who received a lump sum and a share of royalties from Springsteen's first three albums".
  • Fixed
  • I have a clarification question about this part, (By September 1977, Springsteen grew frustrated with Atlantic's environment). Is there any further information on what about the studio frustrated him?
  • Clarified it was the studio's sound that annoyed him. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a suggestion for this sentence: (Springsteen reportedly scrapped the title to avoid confusion with a Bill Chinnock album of the same name.) I think it would be helpful to mention that this album was released only a year before this one and reissued the same year as this one. That would make the potential confusion clearer to unfamiliar readers like myself as I was not sure when Chinnock's album was released based off the prose alone.
  • Clarified and added a reference.
  • I would link mixing on the first instance, which I believe is this part, (Mixing extended into), to be consistent with how other music production jargon like mastered is linked.
  • Done
  • There are a few spots where there are four citations used, which could run into citation overkill and may benefit from citation bundling. There spots are (i.e. "which appear on only three of the ten tracks" and "in both positive and negative lights").
  • Grouped
  • This part, (Displaying heartland rock, author Marc Dolan), is not grammatically correct as it is saying that Dolan is the one who is displaying heartland rock, not the album.
  • Adjusted
  • I would link American heartland and Asbury Park as non-American readers may be less familiar with these terms and would also be more consistent with how other items, specifically Utah and Louisiana, are linked. I would also link Middle America later in the article for the same reasons.
  • Added links
  • I think this part, (A partial tribute to Springsteen's father, Springsteen has said), could be revised to (A partial tribute to his father, Springsteen has said), to avoid repetition and it would be clear from context that this is about Springsteen's father.
  • Done
  • I have a question about this part, (with the catalog number JC 35318). Apologies if this is obvious, but is the catalog number notable enough to mention in the prose?
  • I usually have these types of things in prose as I tend to not use release history sections. But if it's not important enough I can remove it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understandable. I will leave this up to other reviewers. I do not have any issue with it remaining in the prose, and I could understand the argument of keeping it so it could be easily verifiable with the citation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was confused by this part, ("Prove It All Night" backed by "Factory"), specifically the "backed by" wordage. I was not sure if this referenced a B-side situation so I looked at the citation used here and unless I am overlooking it, I could find a mention of "Factory" there. The phrase "backed by" is used later in the same paragraph and it is not entirely clear to me what it means.
  • Meaning B-side; reworded the first instance
  • For this part, (the production exposed "a remarkably malleable voice" in the singer-songwriter), I would avoid using "the singer-songwriter" as a way to avoid repeating Springsteen's name.
  • Done
  • The "Track listing" section only mentions that the songs were all written by Springsteen, but it does not mention the producers (and I am guessing that all tracks were produced Springsteen and Jon Landau). I would clarify this point.
  • Most track listing sections for albums in this era do not list producers as they were all the same. They usually just mention writing credits. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

Great work with this article! I hope these comments are helpful. Just for clarification, I have focused my review mostly on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just so I do not miss anything, but I doubt I will find anything major. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Replies above. Thanks for reviewing :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93[edit]

  • I gave this a pretty thorough review at GAN, including a spot-check, so I expect to support. There is a considerable depth of sourcing here, so I don't have comprehensiveness concerns as such; but doing a sweep for sources, as is my wont at FAC, I found these, that may be worth working into the analytical content. [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanamonde93 Damn. I wish I had access to those. I know there's currently an article analysis just like those in the article (here) but I know that was already cited before I started expanding. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zmbro: I have access to the three journal articles; send me an email via WP, and I'll reply with the pdfs. Perhaps try RX for the chapter? It's directly about this album, so it would be a shame not to use it. Also, I don't think you need to do major reworking of the text; the amount of detail in the scholarly material far exceeds the scope of this article. I'm visualizing a few sentences overall, summarizing any substantial analysis that isn't already included. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just sent. Thank you! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanamonde93 Hey there. I was able to add a few sentences in music and lyrics using your sources. Might make the last paragraph a little long, but I think it adds a little more analysis. (I skipped the Eraserhead one as I think that would turn into a little WP:FANCRUFT). Thanks again! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I haven't had a moment to check in, but I hope to do so tomorrow. Apologies, I didn't expect to be the limiting factor and so did not prioritize this over the weekend. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No rush Vanamonde93, I didn't mean to hassle you. The nom isn't going anywhere without you, so as and when is fine. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There's a lot written about this album; one could easily conceive of a spinoff article about the lyrics or themes. But we have eight paragraphs of analytical content, using most if not all of the most prominent sources: any more, and we would likely run into length and focus issues. Support on all criteria besides image copyright and source formatting, which I have not examined, and thanks to Zmbro for their hard work. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Done. Updated the FUR with a proper one for album covers. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band 1977.jpg the ebay link is dead and the archived link links to wikimedia(?) Suggest keeping the original ebay link but indicating that it is permanently dead if an alternative cannot be found. The photobucket links suffice I guess.
  • Done
  • Yes, I would just add an archive url showing the image in the article like this. Also, NYT says the photo is 1948 not 1951

I am not an expert on images, if other people can comment please do! Best, Heartfox (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This passes the image review. Heartfox (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot checks not done. The refs are all mostly OK, but the following need a tweak or two:

Formatting
  • Some capitalisation has gone awry "Of" doesn't need to be capitalised, neither does "To" or "On" etc
  • Fixed
  • You need to decide how you're dealing with titles of articles etc. There is no consistency overall – compare the following, which are just examples:
    FN 7 has "If There Hadn't Been a Bruce Springsteen, Then the Critics Would Have Made Him Up; The Invention Of Bruce Springsteen".
    FN 96 has "Bruce Springsteen's albums – ranked!".
There is no single 'right' way, according to the MOS, but CONSISTENCY is the key.
  • FH61: p=1,021 – the comma isn't needed for a page and makes it look like there are two pages listed there. Just p=1021 will suffice
  • Fixed
  • FN 86: Why do all the Rolling Stone show the publication day except this one, which has "December 28, 1978 – January 11, 1979"?
  • here is where I got the info (includes a page scan). The scan itself lists "December 28, 1978 – January 11, 1979". I wanted to be truthful. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your rationale on linking newspapers/magazines?
  • Linked on the first instance unless the paper doesn't have a page. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thought that was the case. Three minor issues with this:
Ultimate Classic Rock is linked at FNs 3, 39 and 60.
The New York Times is linked at 7 and 79.
AllMusic is linked at 31, but not at 23
All fixed – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • What's the rationale with some books in the references but most in the Sources? (FN 87, 88, 101, 106, for example)
  • Fixed
  • Not everything has to be wikilinked, particularly as many of these are done in an inconsistent (or haphazard) manner. Locations and publisher are sporadically linked or not, so best to reduce the sea of blue and unlink all of them.
  • Fixed
  • Standardise the ISBNs to the same length (13 digit is the preferred version nowadays). This is an excellent tool for converting to the longer form.
  • Fixed
  • "via the Internet Archive. (registration required)" isn't needed on any of the sources (if you really want to use it, then use it on all the sources from the IA for the sake of consistency)
  • Removed

That's all – all minor formatting points. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat Replies above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat All set :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass the source review. Thanks for being so quick on the sorting. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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/Darkness_on_the_Edge_of_Town/archive1&oldid=1180966877"