Talk:Living in a Ghost Town

Latest comment: 10 months ago by Uncle G in topic Criticizing or Criticising
Former good article nomineeLiving in a Ghost Town was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 13, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Living in a Ghost Town/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 05:45, 3 October 2020 (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

Nice to see such a recently released song in the nominations list; I will review this soon! --K. Peake 05:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Infobox and lead

edit
  • Change recorded date to 2019–2020 in the infobox
  •   Not done Why would this be better?
  •   Done Excellent point.
  • Where are the studios sourced from? If it is part of the credits/personnel, then add that to the section.
  •   Done Removed as unsourced.
  • Remove wikilink on Matt Clifford since his article does not exist
  •   Done
  • Remove [1] from the infobox since you do not add refs; however, I notice that The Glimmer Twins are the only producers not included in the personnel; mistake here?
  •   Done Matt Clifford was not sourced but the personnel section explicitly says that Jagger and Richards produced the song.
  •   Not done I am not going to link someone to Google's surveillance network. Why would I do that?
  • I know there is. I'm not going to add that.
  • Nothing there says that music video links are obligatory and certainly nothing about YouTube. I am not going to add a link to YouTube: why are you insisting on this?
  • The lead is currently too short since it is missing a good amount of information such as the genres of the song and chart performance; I will order how to add this appropriately below and it should be two paragraphs instead of one para.
  • The second sentence should instead be "The song was produced by..." but this needs to be written out in the first section since the sources are there for it
  •   Not done I don't understand you.
  • I don't think that needs to be in the lead, especially since there isn't any running text about Don Was.
  • It now covers some material about every section below.
  •   Done
  • "making it the first Rolling Stones single" → "This made the song the Rolling Stones' first single" with this being a new sentence instead
  •   Not done
  • I don't understand you. If this is a small thing, please just amend it yourself.
  • The four year statement in this sentence is not sourced in the body; fix this
  •   Done
  • You should follow this with a new sentence about the genres of the song and add lyrics information if you can sourced that in the body first
  •   Done
  • Start a new para here and the opening sentence should start as ""Living in a Ghost Town" was recorded during..." since this should not only come before the critical reception, but should be a different sentence
  •   Not done
  • Source?
  • Rearranged
  • "for a forthcoming studio album that the band has been working on since 2015." → "of the Rolling Stones in 2019, ultimately being finished the following year."
  •   Not done I don't understand you.
  • Again, if this is some small thing, I can't understand what you want: just change it yourself.
  • "The song has received positive reviews from critics" → "The song received generally positive reviews from music critics" with the appropriate target and add what was praised/commented on
  •   Done
  • The following sentence should mention some of the notable chart positions of the song
  •   Not done this is arbitrary
  • Saying that the lead is short is one thing but the remedy is not to insert original research.
  • What are objectively "notable chart positions"? This is the point I'm making.
  • Last sentence of this para should be about the accompanying music video
  •   Done

Recording and composition

edit
  • Retitle to Background and composition
  •   Not done No need
  • I disagree. If this matters so much, someone else can change it.
  • "Since 2017, the band had been" → "Since 2017, the Rolling Stones had been"
  •   Done
  • "but had to stop" → "but had to stop touring in 2020"
  •   Done
  • "to raise money" → "helping raise money"
  •   Done
  • "during the crisis." → "during the pandemic."
  •   Not done: overuse of the word "pandemic"; no need to repeat it over and over again
  • "On 23 April, the band released 'Living in a Ghost Town' online." → "On 23 April of that year, the band released "Living in a Ghost Town" as a single." with the target
  •   Not done I have no clue why you keep writing "with the target"...?
  • That makes less sense: what are "directing words"?
  • I mean the words being DIRECTED to a Wikipedia article, it is like a wikilink basically. This should not be hard to understand... --K. Peake 09:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Sometimes you include this language and sometimes you just write "finished remotely and is their" → "finished remotely, marking their" so that makes it confusing. I have never seen anyone refer to "directing words" in Wikipedia.
  • "finished remotely and is their" → "finished remotely, marking their"
  •   Done
  • "Jagger claims to have" → "Mick Jagger, a founder member of the Rolling Stones, claimed to have" with the appropriate wikilink
  •   Done mostly
  •   Done
  • "being a ghost existing after" → "being a ghost after"
  •   Done
  • "labeled 'Living in a Ghost Town' as" → "labeled "Living in a Ghost Town" as"
  •   Not done this is written in British English
  •   Not done en-GB
  • "'a slow-paced chug with a tint of reggae'," → ""a slow-paced chug with a tint of reggae","
  •   Not done en-GB
  •   Done
  • "'vintage reggae flavour' in" → ""vintage reggae flavour" to"
  •   Not done en-GB
  • "'stabbing, echoing organ'," → ""stabbing, echoing organ"," with the target
  •   Not done en-GB, common term
  •   Not done Valid redirect.
  • It's not under the "Metal Hammer" brand or at that domain name.
  • Does WP:TARGET say that? Where are you getting this?
  • "calling it 'a relaxed piece of reggae-infused rock'." → "called it "a relaxed piece of reggae-infused rock"." with the target
  •   Not done everyone is familiar with rock music and adding links inside of quotations is discouraged
  • Again, "rock" is a very common term.
  • Add some info about the lyrical content of the song after this genre description
  •   Not done There already is some, I don't have anything else sourced to add here.

Release and reception

edit
  • "The initial release was digital-only, accompanied" → "The song was initially released for digital download and streaming as a single on 23 April 2020, being accompanied"
  •   Done
  •   Done
  • "with footage taken from across the world of empty city streets." → "with footage of empty city streets that was taken from across the world."
  •   Done
  • "The band have plans to resume No Filter once the pandemic subsides" → "Once the pandemic subsides, the Rolling Stones plan to resume the No Filter Tour"
  •   Done
  • "the single is a means of keeping" → "the single was done to keep"
  •   Not done This is less clear: it's the release not the "doing" of the single that is relevant.
  • "promoting the album's worth of new material" → "for promotion of their upcoming album"
  •   Done
  • "and purple vinyl single exclusive" → "and purple vinyl, both of which are exclusive" with the target
  •   Done
  • "online store and an orange vinyl single for" → "online store, and an orange vinyl for sale by"
  •   Done
  • Are you sure the releases are still forthcoming since they are apparently out now?
  • No.
  •   Done
  •   Done
  • "it 'their best new song in years', with" → "it the Rolling Stones' "best new song in years", placing"
  •   Done
  • Remove wikilink on reggae
  •   Done
  •   Done
  • "that the pacing and mood" → "that the song's pacing and mood"
  •   Done
  • "of being in lockdown." → "of being in lockdown during the pandemic."
  •   Done
  • "agrees that the single" → "opined that the single"
  •   Done
  • "'right on time'" → ""right on time","
  •   Not done en-GB
  • The NME review should come last in this para since it is the most critical review
  •   Not done How does that make sense?
  • Source?
  • This is an essay, there is nothing normative here.
  • "a 'a rushed and half-baked comment on our current predicament'," → ""a rushed and half-baked comment on our current predicament","
  •   Not done en-GB
  • "as 'Jagger perhaps doesn’t" → "noting that "Jagger perhaps doesn't"
  •   Not done en-GB
  • "fishnet safety packages'." → "fishnet safety packages"."
  •   Not done en-GB
  • "of the week and" → "of the week, and"
  •   Not done en-GB
  • Good point: sorry for that.
  • "recommended this track." → "recommended the track."
  •   Not done en-GB
  • I disagree but my reasoning above was faulty again.
  •   Done
  • "but it 'rocks harder" → "but "rocks harder"
  •   Not done en-GB
  • Wow. Again, I was just wrong.
  • "song to rock'." → "song to rock"."
  •   Not done en-GB
  • "On 3 July," → "On 3 July 2020,"
  •   Done
  •   Done
  • "after the song was released on vinyl in several different special editions," → "after several different special editions were released for the song,"
  •   Done
  • "on this chart and the artist with the" → "on the chart and giving them the"
  •   Done
  •   Done
  • "than in the past few weeks" → "than they were for the past few weeks"
  •   Done
  • "in the German Charts is purely sales-dependent and does" → "for the German Charts being purely sales-dependent; it does"
  •   Done
  • Add more chart positions that are notable here, such as Scotland and Hungary
  •   Not done How are some "more notable"? Where is any narrative text about the Hungarian charts?
  • That's redundant and doesn't give any meaningful context. The German charts one does but I don't have any for the Hungarian charts.
  • There's still nothing to write.

Personnel

edit
  • Where are the studios?
  •   Not done I don't know and studios aren't persons
  • There is no source for the Rolling Stones credits; add at the top of the section "Credits adapted from..." and then provide the appropriate source there
  •   Done
  • Where are the mentions of the Glimmer Twins members?
  •   Done
  • Remove redundant wikilinks
  •   Not done: it's fine to link to someone's name in a list; otherwise, the list would look unbalanced
  •   Done

Charts

edit
  • Chart performance for 'Living in a Ghost Town' → Chart performance for "Living in a Ghost Town"
  •   Not done en-GB
  •   Done

Release history

edit
  • Release formats for 'Living in a Ghost Town' → Release dates and formats for "Living in a Ghost Town"
  •   Done
  • The region col is missing, which should be the first one
  •   Not done "Missing"? "Should"? Based on what?
  • Source?
  • There is nothing messy about this table. Adding a useless column would make it more messy.
  • Ref col is missing too, which should be the one after the label col
  •   Not done That is ugly, unnecessary, less accessible and I will never do that: the rows are properly sourced.
  • Format → Format(s)
  •   Not done
  • Source?
  •   Done
  •   Not done
  • I copied and pasted what you wrote above.
  • Make sure the appropriate refs are invoked in the col
  •   Not done What are you talking about? There is nothing to be references in "in the col"???
  • I can't even parse that sentence. What are you talking about "when you have adding the col"? I sincerely can't even read that.
  • I realize that "col" means "column": "when you have adding the column" is nonsense. What does "when you have adding the column" mean?

See also

edit
  •   Not done: this is not an improvement
  •   Not done: this is not an improvement

References

edit
  • Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
  •   Not done: what are you talking about "using the tool"?
  • Click on "Fix dead links" under Revision history
  •   Done
  •   Done
  •   Not done: it's fine to link to the source in the citation
  • For all instances that I put this, it is because sources should only be wikilinked to once
  • Source?
  • Source (again)?
  • Zane Lowe should be authorlinked on ref 7, and lay his name out in the same manner as the other authors
  •   Not done: this is not an improvement
  • Not even sure why I wrote that, since I did what you asked.
  • Authorlink Will Hodgkinson on ref 9
  •   Done
  •   Not done: valid redirect
  • Addressed this earlier in the article review
  • See above
  • WP:OVERLINK of GQ on ref 11
  •   Not done: it's valid to link to the source
  • WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on ref 12
  •   Not done: it's valid to link to the source
  • Remove redundant wikilink on Super Deluxe Edition for ref 13
  •   Not done: redundant to what...?
  • WP:OVERLINK of Vulture on ref 14
  •   Not done: it's valid to link to the source
  • Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 17 and cite Stereogum as website instead
  •   Done: for quotation, why use "website" instead of "publisher"?
  • If so, then it should be in the running text as well, which I changed
  • Are you sure ref 38 is required; if yes, then target AllMusic Guide to AllMusic
  •   Done
edit
  • Remove AOTY, MusicBrainz, RYM and MSN.com
  •   Not done: why would I do that?
  • How is MusicBrainz "useless" but Discogs isn't? You aren't explaining yourself.

Final comments and verdict

edit

Criticizing or Criticising

edit

Which is the correct spelling. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article uses Oxford spelling, which is -ize. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling/Words ending with "-ise" or "-ize". ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's an article about a British subject so should use the variant more widely used in British English. While the OED accepts both variants, criticise is by far the predominant spelling in Br. English and -ize is generally viewed, correctly or otherwise, as US English (it isn't, but -ise the widely used form). Oxford is something of an outlier in this respect, as with things like the Oxford comma; almost any publication, company or newspaper style guide in the UK would require -ise. Wikipedia's MoS makes it clear that language in articles should be consistent (Br. spelling is used elsewhere in the article) and that articles with a tie to a specific country should use the style of that country. My contention is that while both variants are accepted, the version with the (by far) wider use in Britain should be used.Neilinabbey (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
cf. {{Use Oxford spelling}}, MOS:VAR, and MOS:RETAIN. It is unacceptable to change English varieties that are established without prior consensus. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Now that you've both had your say it would be a good idea to stand back and let others have their say. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Either spelling is perfectly acceptable, but per MOS:RETAIN the long standing use of 'criticizing' should be retained until there is a consensus to change it on the talk page. Personally I would prefer to change it, but not strongly: Oxford spelling is a perfectly acceptable variant but a slightly unusual one, even within the University of Oxford (which I know well). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Given the far greater majority of -ise usage in UK English I would prefer to see it be changed, especially since we are talking about one occurrence of a single word, which I don’t think is capable of establishing “consistency” as discussed in MOS:RETAIN. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

They're both correct for British English, and -ise should not be enforced as the One True Spelling. In fact, they're both still productive. This must have been hashed out on the manual of style talk pages several hundred times, by now, surely? Special:Diff/617099087 seems to bear out that we've had this discussion at least once. If the person actually doing the article writing work has decided upon Oxford spelling (which is a bit of a misnomer since it isn't confined to Oxford), don't go style-warrioring it to something else. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply