Talk:Sex (The 1975 song)

Two versions

@RazorEyeEdits: I would really appreciate some discussion first, as I feel that a lot of information was removed with your edits, or at least blurred – for example which version of the song charted where and when.
Here's how I see it: First the song was released as a single some time in 2012, and charted on Billbord Alt and UK Indie. Then, the song was re-recorded (so it sounds differently, and that's what I mean by a different version of the song – you can compare them eg. on YouTube), and released in August 2013 as the lead single promoting the band's debut album. When I was writing the article, I was deciding whether to create one infobox, and to include information about both versions in it, or maybe create two infoboxes and split the entire article into two sections: EP version, Album version. I went with the first option, as I thought it was much clearer. If we were sticking to only one version of the song being mentioned in the infobox, I'd say it probably should be the EP version, as it was released first, and per {{Infobox single}} the earliest known date of release should be included there.
I don't have a problem with the release history section, but I have some doubts about the "maxi single track listing", as it's already included in the Sex (The 1975 EP) article. We should reach some consensus if it should stay here, or there – it's one way, or another.
— Mayast (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no single release in 2012 as far as I can tell. There was only a promo single release in November 2012 to UK radio. I'd imagine this is the release you're talking about, though, since it's an easy mistake to confuse promo singles and singles. The article should only be split if there's another recording of the song by another artist, not the same artist. On the Maxi-DD, you can tell straight away that the two Sex EPs are not the same release. They have different track listings, and the 2013 release should be considered a Maxi single because it's a tie-in to the single, and "Sex" features as the first track (or A-side).

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 15:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sex (The 1975 song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KyleJoan (talk · contribs) 11:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Happy to be reviewing this. I must say I'm not entirely familiar with the 1975's work pre-I like it when you sleep, so I'm excited to learn some new things. Feel free to leave graphics such as  Done and  Fixed as a response, and don't hesitate to challenge any of my suggestions. Comments will come shortly. Let's get into it! KyleJoan^talk 11:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

First round

Overall

• Copyvio – Y; "Violation Unlikely" per Earwig's Copyvio Detector
• Image – Y; fair use artwork in infobox
• Sound sample – Y; please add Template:Non-free audio sample as part of the file's licensing  Done

Infobox

• Looks good. Genres are sourced in the body.
• Is there any available information about when or where the song was recorded?

• Nothing concrete, unfortunately, besides the studio where the EP version was recorded. Giacobbe ^talk 16:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• That's adequate. Thanks for looking! KyleJoan^talk 01:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "The song was written by George Daniel, Matthew Healy, Adam Hann and Ross MacDonald." Say that these are the band's members.  Done
• "Centred around sex and relationships..." It seems superfluous to explain that a song titled "Sex" is about sex (lol). A different term or euphemism might work better here. In addition, "sex" is such a broad term. Anything in the realm of "sexual intercourse" would be more descriptive.  Done
• "Three music videos were released to accompany the song, including an acoustic version and a black and white version." This sounds like there is an acoustic version of the music video. It would be better to specify that one of the music videos is set to the acoustic version.  Done
• "The album version, directed by Adam Powell..." I believe it would be neutral to state that this is the main version, no? Since it's essentially the official video.  Done

Background and development

• "After being rejected by all major record labels..." "All" seems like an exaggeration here. It would be more appropriate to specify that it was a number of them that did.  Done
• "The 1975 were introduced to producer Mike Crossey, who aided..." → "The 1975 were introduced to producer Mike Crossey, who aided them..."  Done
• "The 1975 became recognized as a breakthrough act in 2013..." → "The 1975 was recognised as a breakthrough act in 2013..." British spelling.  Done

Music and lyrics

• Stellar summary of the sources.
• Specify which version of the song readers are going to hear when they play the file.  Done
• ""Sex" also incorporates..." Use a different verb here to avoid saying it in two consecutive sentences. Something like "draws influence from" would work.  Done
• "Thematically, "Sex" explores sex and relationships..." Again, a different term or euphemism might work better.  Done
• "Elsewhere, the singer discusses relationship allegiances and spontaneous sexual intercourse..." Maybe "sexual intercourse" could replace the other general "sex" descriptions, and a euphemism could be used here. Just an idea.  Done
• Link fellatio, as it's not a common term. (I never thought I'd ever type that on here.)  Done

• Hahaha, trying to write this article with a straight face was difficult. Giacobbe ^talk 13:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• It's confusing to read the terms "original version" and "EP version" and have to infer that the two are interchangeable in this section. It would be more appropriate to choose one.  Done
• "Amanda Koellner of Consequence wrote that "Sex" is the "attention-grabbing centerpiece" of Sex." → "Amanda Koellner of Consequence wrote that "Sex" is the "attention-grabbing centerpiece" of the EP Sex." For clarity.  Done
• "...for their melodic quality, while also praising..." Remove the comma.  Done
• "In her review of the Sex..." → "In her review of the EP Sex..." I would be mortified to read anyone's review of anyone's sex...  Done

• Lol, whoops. Giacobbe ^talk 14:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• "...she was favourable toward the track's "catchy" hooks and pop-influenced production..." Another critic a few sentences prior already praised the catchiness, so it would be a smoother read if the description is removed here.  Done
• "Tom Connick lauded..." → "...the list's curator, Tom Connick, lauded..."  Done
• "Pitchfork's Jayson Greene described the song as..." You just used "described as" in the previous sentence.  Done
• "Caryn Ganz of Rolling Stone compared "Sex" to the Killers..." → "Caryn Ganz of Rolling Stone compared "Sex" to the work of the Killers..."  Done
• "The Line of Best Fit's Laurence Day also compared the track to the work of the Killers..." Rephrase to differentiate from previous sentence. Maybe "the Killers' sound"?  Done
• "In the 1975's native United Kingdom, "Sex" peaked..." This should be the start of a separate paragraph to differentiate the song's critical response and commercial performance. Space out the three reviews into three different paragraphs. I would recommend including all of the comments that were part of reviews of the EP into one paragraph. The other two paragraphs could be organized in any manner you deem appropriate.  Done

Music video

• The sources don't specify that there is a first, second, and third music video, so state neutrally that the acoustic version came out, then another came out that was in black and white, then another came out that was set to the album version.  Done
• "The music video for the album version of "Sex" contains themes of love, crime, performance and sex." The description works in this context because it describes the visual and not the song, which is titled (what?) "Sex".
• "...taking drugs and having sex." This would work if the next sentence doesn't say "sex scene", so it would be better replaced.  Done

Charts

Certifications

Credits and personnel

All look good.

References

• Archive all archivable references.  Done
• Add access dates where applicable.  Done
• Make spaced hyphens in the "title" parameter en-dashes.  Done
• Maintain consistency regarding whether publications' names are linked (where applicable), so at this point, it seems as if it would be easier to link those that are bare.

• I typically link at its first usage only, with the exception being templates that auto-cite themselves such as tables/certs. However, per WP:GACN, mistakes to avoid notes: "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA." Giacobbe ^talk 16:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• My point about consistency was to address that exact essay. Since I'm fairly well-versed in music-centric publications, I almost have to conduct the review from a more general standpoint and consider users and casual readers who may only be familiar with the likes of The Guardian and Rolling Stone. On the other hand, it would also be unfair to ask you to verify the editorial standards of the few mega obscure sources when I already have a general sense. It's just about balance. In any case, linking at first usages works great. KyleJoan^talk 01:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref #7 raised a red flag because you included Last.fm as a publisher. Since the interview seems suitable as a reference (on top of not actually being from the Last.fm website), I would fill in the parameter with a link to CBS Interactive, which owns Last.fm, to be safe.  Done
• Ref #39 does not verify the analysis of the video. Since it's not a "plot summary" section, the music video itself cannot be used as a source to verify what happens in it. Can you find another source? The video can remain a ref, though, as it verifies the release date.  Done

Other than that, it's in pretty good shape. Please let me know if I need to clarify anything! I listened to all three versions of the song while writing these comments and actually got into it; not as much as I'm into "Menswear", but into it nonetheless. The article is now  On hold. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 13:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• @(CA)Giacobbe: Per WP:TPO, please don't strike out text that you did not write yourself. Simple replies would suffice. KyleJoan^talk 13:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• @KyleJoan: Thank you for the very speedy review I believe I've implemented/addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Menswear is a top pop! A man of good taste Giacobbe ^talk 16:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Final round

Thank you for your timeliness in implementing the changes! A few final things:

• In the infobox: "Rose Cottage, Wilmslow, Cheshire, England" → "Rose Cottage (Winslow, Cheshire, England)".  Done
• "The 1975 was recognised as a breakthrough act in 2013..." → "The 1975 were recognised as a breakthrough act in 2013..." I forgot the article was in British English. That was my bad.  Done
• "Larry Fitzmaurice compared it to Jimmy Eat World and LCD Soundsystem's "All My Friends" (2007), while writing that retrospectively, the song is "remarkable" for being "a practical blueprint for the type of passionate, immediately catchy melodies that Healy would prove himself so adept at on future releases"." This quote is a touch too long. It'd be more appropriate to end the quote after "catchy melodies" and paraphrase the rest. I would also find a different adjective to avoid quoting "remarkable". Also, remove the comma before "while".  Done
• Not a major thing, but put the refs in the "credits and personnel" in order.  Done

Almost there! KyleJoan^talk 02:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• @KyleJoan: All done! Giacobbe ^talk 11:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• All looks good! Happy to pass now. Nice work on this, Giacobbe. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 12:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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.