Talk:The 1975 (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

I'll try to deliver a thorough review of this before the GAN Backlog Drive ends. --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Remove Stockholm from the infobox since that's not a studio
• Are you sure protest song is a genre in itself?
  • Hmm, I think one could reasonably argue that it is but I've taken it out just for safety.
• "is the opening song of The 1975's fourth studio album Notes on a Conditional Form" → "is a song by The 1975 from their fourth studio album, Notes on a Conditional Form (2020)"
• "while the album was released on 22 May 2020" → "while included on the album as the opening track in May of the following year"
• "used on the band's previous albums" → "featured on the band's previous albums"
• Target climate change to Global warming
  • The link is not broken unless there's a specific exceptional reason here.
• "Extinction Rebellion, the song's release coinciding" → "Extinction Rebellion and the song's release coincided"
  • This makes it an independent clause so I've changed the comma to a semicolon as well (see comma splice).
• "The 1975 with the" → "The 1975, which had the"
• "It received positive critical reception, critics praising the song's" → "The song received mostly positive reviews from music critics, who praised its"
• "its message and the album's transition from this song" → "the message and the transition on Notes on a Conditional Form from the song"

Background

• Change the img alt text to something more relevant and not as generic; also, main text should have a fullstop at the end of it.
• "The first," → "The first album,"
• Remove wikilink to the second album
  • Once in the lead and once in the body is fine per MOS:DUPLINK.
• "was released on 22 May 2020" → "was later released on 22 May 2020"
• "is the first track on Notes on a Conditional Form" → "is the opening track on the album"
  • Went with opening track on the latter just for unambiguity.
• Target climate change to Global warming
  • See my reply to the same comment above.
• "She recorded the song "The 1975" in" → "Thunberg recorded "The 1975" in"
• "Thunberg was the first featured" → "she was the first featured"
• "The 1975 manager Jamie Oborne" → "The 1975's manager Jamie Oborne"
• "claimed that" → "stated that"
• "that he wanted to Thunberg to" → "that he wanted Thunberg to"
• "but this was unsuccessful" → "but he was unsuccessful"

Composition

• Add ref(s) to verify the audio file's info after the text
• "In Notes on a Conditional Form" → "On Notes on a Conditional Form"
• "the album opens with a protest song featuring" → "a protest song opens the album that features"
  • Mixed the two to a protest song opens the album, featuring a spoken word ... because otherwise it sounds more like that album is what features the performance.
• "performance by Greta Thunberg" → "performance by Thunberg"
  • I'll de-link per overlink but I think it's worth repeating the full name for anyone who's jumped into this section.
    • No it's not, since you have already introduced the person earlier in the article's body; you do not need to reinstate the name for each new section. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Removed, since you feel strongly about it. — Bilorv (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wikilink ambient music to itself
• [8][16] can go at the end of the sentence instead
• "by the band to more" → "by The 1975 to more"
• Target political to Music and politics

Release and performance

• Retitle to Release and promotion
• "on the album Notes on a Conditional Form, and" → "on Notes on a Conditional Form, and"
• "its recording in June 2019 it was" → "the recording in June 2019, it was"
• "performances included the" → "performances included at the"
• "where the band planned" → "where The 1975 planned"

Critical reception

• Too many uses of "of" in this section; replace some with terms like "from"
• "Reviews following the song's" → "Critical reviews following the song's"
• "Sean Lang praised that lead vocalist Matthew Healy" → "Sean Lang from the publication praised that Healy"
• "praised the song as" → "complemented the song as"
  • complimented, I think you mean.
• "more hardcore" → "more hardcore track"
• "from the band's former releases" → "from The 1975's previous releases"

Personnel

• "Credits are adapted from" → "Credits adapted from"
• Any specific order here?
  • Alphabetical by surname.

References

Notes

• Good

Citations

• Only wikilink the publishers/works/websites on the first mention for each

• Bilorv you haven't done this; look at WP:OVERLINK to know what I mean. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ah, my apologies, I did miss this one. However, MOS:DUPLINK says if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in [...] footnotes [...]. Indeed it's common practice even among FAs for publishers and works to be linked at every reference occurrence. — Bilorv (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, but it says "may be repeated" and I don't see how it is helpful to continuously wikilink in the citations; just remove the ones after the first because of this. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• A handful of recently promoted pop culture-ish FAs which use the repeated linking style: Drake Would Love Me (e.g. Washington Post), Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. (e.g. Guardian), Stucky (fandom) (e.g. Vanity Fair), Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins (e.g. Coin World). In fact I believe it's considerably more common to use this style than not. You concede that the guideline says "may be repeated" and so your personal preference is not a reason to overturn my personal preference. See also an essay recommending that the GA criteria are not, which opines that a reviewer should not enforce: 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.) — Bilorv (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this now, actually. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Copvio score is at 18.0%; that's good!
• Cite Twitter as publisher instead on ref 7
• Ref 13's publisher should be BBC
• Ref 14 should cite as publisher instead

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold, reviewed on time haha! --Kyle Peake (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, responded to a couple and implemented all others. — Bilorv (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • ✓ Pass time has come! --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)