Talk:The '59 Sound (song)/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Alon Alush (talk · contribs) 11:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PSA (talk · contribs) 02:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Taking. It is nice to be working with you in GAN for the first time. Please give me a moment within the day to finish the review ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course👍 Alon Alush (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	See #Prose comments.	On hold
(b) (MoS)	Just a minor gripe, but you should discuss what the song is about in the lead.	On hold

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Some references are repeated (please replace , and one citation has the wrong link.	On hold
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Why do some sentences have so many citations? Seems like overkill. Guitar.com, Sonichits, Genius, YouTube, and Musicbrainz do not inspire confidence; either remove them or replace them.	On hold
(c) (original research)	See #Spotchecks. A few issues.	On hold
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Ran Earwig on the article and found no glaring issues. Highlighted texts are either quotations or phrases nigh impossible to paraphrase. However, you can paraphrase some quotations.	On hold

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Has everything a song article should require for a GA.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Good enough.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Okay.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Cover art is obviously justified, and so is the sample... on paper. See next comment.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The sample will technically be justified if there were critical commentary on the music beyond just the genre. Find a way to insert commentary using RS, or remove the sample entirely and tag it for deletion.	On hold

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	I believe this can be fixed within a week.

Discussion

Spotchecks

Refer to this version for the ref numbers.

2 - I don't see this verified?

4 - no issues

7 - doesn't say that the amp is where the song gets its title. The Rolling Stone source does, though. Recommend removing the other citations.

5/11/19 - doesn't say that the amp is where the song gets its title. No mention of the car accident. Quotations verified.

8/14 - no issues

21 - no issues I guess? The page uses a different title but that's on them. Readers will benefit from getting a full date for the radio release.

23/33 - this is not the Spin source?  Fixed

25 - no issues

30 - no issues

32 - no issues

34 - no issues

36 - no issues. If you were to remove the other citations for the statement you used for this, I recommend keeping this source.

40 - no issues

43 - no issues. If you were to remove the other citations for the statement you used for this, I recommend keeping this source.

47 - no issues found

Prose comments

Comments will be based on concision.

• "for the band's 2008 album, also titled The '59 Sound" -> "for the band's album The '59 Sound (2008)"  Done
• The background gives the impression that the song was self-written (only by one person) but the entire band wrote it; this should be clarified.
• It is definitely possible to paraphrase the quotations in the background section.
• "The song's themes are mixed with punk rock and classic rock" doesn't really make sense considering this is under a "Lyrics" section, plus this takes somewhat of a journalistic tone. Split the part about the themes away from the part about the genres. Try to add additional information about the music and change the header accordingly.
• No need for the "lyrically"  Done
• You already namedropped Fallon earlier so no need to repeat his first name  Done
• "Brian Fallon said the song is about growing older; and 'carrying on'" make the tense consistent. remove the first name and the semicolon. You can paraphrase the quotation to "healing from trauma"  Done
• You can also paraphrase the next quotation; suggest removing the "not a kid anymore" bit and merge "people are going to start leaving" with the previous sentence like: "Fallon said the song was about growing older, healing from trauma, and accepting that loved ones eventually die"  Done
• Be consistent with italicizing music publications (Why are Billboard, Spin, PopMatters, and Pitchfork not italicized?)  Done
• "released by record label SideOneDummy" no need for "record label"  Done
• "was generally well received" -> "was well-received" Done
• "said the song is 'all about the exhilaration that goes along with raw, driving rock'" not quite what the source conveys. The source meant to praise the song's raw, energetic soundscape  Done
• Do not give readers a list of random names to say a critic compared the song to the music of certain acts, because 9 times out of 10 they don't know how those acts sound. I recommend foregoing the comparison entirely; this critic also praised the song's raw, energetic soundscape, which is more insightful to readers. Suggest summarizing both critics' thoughts within one sentence.
• The Rolling Stone listicle also comments on this. Suggest writing: "Other critics praised the song's raw, energetic soundscape," with citations to the three sources I mentioned.
• "nuanced and assured" how does this help readers understand the song?

@Alon Alush: thank you for your patience. Please take the time to fully digest my comments, and ping me once you are done addressing these ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alon Alush over a week has passed and many of these have yet to be addressed. I am giving you five more days to address everything, or the review will be closed. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alon Alush apologies, but since five days have passed without any action towards the remaining suggestions, I will have to fail the nomination. Feel free to renominate once you have addressed the pending issues outside GAN. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2024 (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.