Talk:Kings and Queens (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Prism (talk · contribs) 17:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

General overview

Disambiguation links (per Dablinks)

• Not present.

External links (per Checklinks)

• It denotes some indeterminate and broken-class external links to correct, though, the Amazon links have given me some problems in the past and I'm not surprised if they can't be corrected here either.

Fixed BlackBook reference. Every single reference I use for Amazon and Pandora have that issue but they work. Can I leave them?

Yes, you can. prism △ 19:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Original research

• Audio sample description: "featuring layers of guitar overdubs influenced by arena rock." → OR, not supported in the body of the article.

The arena rock influence is supported by multiple sources in the Critical reception section.

You don't specifically say "arena rock" in any part of the article though. Epic rock maybe?

I will be more specific in the Composition section.

 Done

• Infobox lists alternative rock as a genre, though, that isn't supported in the body of the article either?

That should be included in a Composition section.

You should include it when you complete the text I'll provide then, OK?

I will do it, of course.--Earthh (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done, I've just completed the composition section.--Earthh (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

References

• One recurring problem here, with the references, is that when you have more than one references linking to the same website/magazine, you always wikilink the names (repeatedly and mistakenly). You can't. Leave the wikilinking in the first reference and then eliminate it from the others. This problem occurs in the following references:

R6/R7/R57/R58;

R1/R16/R20/R21/R22/R28;

R4/R27/R29;

R5/R23;

R43/R44;

And probably more, but please correct them all.

 Done.

• Kerrang! references need publisher parameter (Bauer Media Group); and so do the Billboard references R6 and R7.

 Done.

Prose, redundancies and visual aspect

Lead section

• This Is War is missing date. It should be like This Is War (20??).

 Done.

• "The melody of the song resembles the musical works of U2, and contains several qualities similar to that of 1980s adult contemporary musical works" → Reword a bit so it doesn't repeat musical works twice in the same sentence.

 Done.

• "premiered on Kevin and Bean's radio show of KROQ in Los Angeles on October 6, 2009" → Unnecessary.

Why is it unnecessary?

That information belongs on 'Background' section, the important thing here is the single release date/service date.

Moved to the Background section.

• As I requested you to remove the part about the premiere, add ',2009 to October 13.

 Done

• Remove the first paragraph citations.

Why should I remove it?

An experienced user has reccomended me to either cite everything in the lead or remove all citations. prism △ 19:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done.--Earthh (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Background

• Nothing to address.

Suggestion: Couldn't you possibly find information to create a Composition section? I even found a reliable sheet music for the song (http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdFPE.asp?ppn=MN0088856&), from which you could retain some valuable information, like: the song is set in a 4/4 time signature, how many beats per minute has it, what notes do the vocals range from and to what? If you want to, I can write down that info.

It will be very helpful if you start that section. However some informations are in the Background and Critical reception sections

You'll have to write specific informations about genres and other valuable information though. I'll give you the initial prose for the section though. prism △ 19:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will do it. Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Critical reception

• Nothing to address.

Music video

• Nothing to address.

Cover versions and media usage

• This section also contains a sentence about a live performance of the song by the band. Wasn't the song performed in any of their tours since then? It probably did... can't you find a reliable source and include it here, proving that it was performed in one of their tours (at least one), please? If you do so, change the section title to "Live performances, covers and media usage".

Created a Live performances section. Let me know if something is wrong.--Earthh (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Track listing

• UK 7" vinyl repeats... I checked the urls and they clearly state one is a 'normal' single while the other is a maxi single. Please insert that information there.

 Done

Suggestion: If you can find information (extra) about the single's commercial performance, peak dates and etc could you create a 'Commercial performance' section? It's in almost every single section. And per WP:Songs, popular songs should have such information in greater detail. And this is certainly part of that.

I've written something but we don't have enough material for a separate section. The only significant chart performance is the one of the Alternative Songs.--Earthh (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• This article looks very good, its prose is decent too, though those sections I pointed out are necessary and I need you to create them, therefore I will put this on hold for 1 week. Let me know if you need more. If these sections are not created in the time you asked for, I will fail this nomination, but I'm sure that won't happen. Good work! 17:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• The new Composition section looks good. prism △ 21:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Second read-through; verifying changes

• No further problems detected on second read-through.
• Changes made successfully.
• Congratulations! prism △ 18:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)