Jump to content

Talk:All of the Dead Girls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TJMSmith (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Carbrera (talk). Self-nominated at 19:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - I'm confused by ALT0: the article just says that the performance recording was planned to be the music video, not that it was. Additionally, I'm not able to find any music video released for the song online. What happened in the end?
    As for ALT1, the hook says inspired by a lyric penned by American actor Josh Richman but the article and source beats around the bush a bit more: it came from the concept of the lyric “dead girls,” which was informed by ... Josh Richman ... It wasn’t a direct quote, but it was a comment about me. So I think "lyric penned by" Richman is not strictly true.
  • Interesting: No - Pending rewording for factual accuracy, or another hook suggestion.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: [[Music journalism|Music critics]] is an overlink that can be removed. There are two "quotes from nowhere": The addition of keyboards provided "layering [of] majestic swaths of synths" and which Havok repeatedly "begs". I'd like these to be attributed to their source (e.g. "according to X", "X said that") in prose. — Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv – thank you for reviewing both of my DYK nominations. I have adjusted the article to your comments accordingly and (hopefully) improved ALT1. Could you let me know what you think now? Thanks again, Carbrera (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
ALT1 approved with the new wording. Other comments I made have all been addressed. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:All of the Dead Girls/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RunningTiger123 (talk · contribs) 16:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting song – I feel like I should check out this band. I'll be back with my review in a little while. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·
Comments
  • Calling the band a "side project" seems like a misrepresentation of source 1, which never calls it that. I would just call it a "new project".
  • Reworded.
  • "Long-time collaborator" is not supported by source 2, so find a different source or drop that descriptor.
  • Removed this descriptor.
  • Source 8 is a self-published source, and its information is covered by source 9, so I would cut it.
  • Removed this reference.
  • Source 10 does not mention any release to modern rock stations, so a better source is needed.
  • I understand that Young does not explicitly say "modern rock" in the interview, but in the interview's context it is what he's referring to. If you think it is a violation of WP:NOR, I can remove it.
  • I suppose this is a reasonable assumption, so I'll allow it.
  • "Its sound is reminiscent to..." → "Its sound is reminiscent of..."
  • Reworded appropriately.
  • The line "The song's instrumentation is provided solely by Dreamcar" contradicts the following sentence noting Gabrial McNair's involvement. As a result, I would cut that line.
  • Removed.
  • "...set in the time signature of common time..." → "...set in common time..." (sounds more natural, removes unnecessary words, and wikilinks a potentially unfamiliar term)
  • Reworded appropriately.
  • Is there a way I can see source 19? I want to make sure all of the information it's citing is supported directly by the sheet music.
  • Unfortunately, I accessed this source through the sheet music library at my university. I am afraid I do not have access to it at the moment (as I'm currently away from campus) but I would at a later date.
  • I'll trust that the information is valid – you've worked on several GAs in the past and have a good track record, so the existing citation is good.
  • Source 20 does not seem notable enough to warrant discussion of its review. If the site doesn't have a Wikipedia page and doesn't use its reviewers' actual names, it's probably not significant enough for inclusion here.
  • Per WP:RSMUSIC, Punknews.org is considered a reliable source if the author of the article is tagged as a staff member, which Renaldo69 is. I, too, wish the critic's real name was used, but I do believe this review meets Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.
  • Fair enough, I'll follow the WikiProject's rules.
  • Source 25 is no longer available on Twitter. Is there an online archive with the tweet?
  • It seems that TomDumont's Twitter has since been changed to a private account. I apologize as I didn't know this was the case; I cannot see the Tweet either. However, it must still exist, as Template:Cite tweet still automatically generates the correct published date. I could not find an archived version of the Tweet, but I did find this site that mentions it briefly. I am afraid I could not find anything else.
  • The date comes from the tweet's ID number, which doesn't prove what the tweet actually said. I couldn't find any other sources mentioning the tweet, so unfortunately, I think this needs to be removed to prevent issues with WP:V. I would suggest deleting the sentence and rewording ...performance would be recorded and used as... to ...performance would be recorded and was planned to be used as.... This carries a different implication more in line with what happened, but it doesn't introduce any information from outside the existing sources.
  • For source 27, the Spotify URI didn't help me find the source. If possible, I would suggest a URL instead so readers can quickly access the source.
  • Added accompanying URL.

Overall, this is well-written and covers all key elements, and I really enjoyed reading it. Just a few small fixes and this should be good to go. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two more quick notes that I forgot to mention (my apologies for missing them earlier):

  • The alt texts are problematic. For the single cover, it's too long and includes unsourced information regarding the artwork's origins. A simple description will suffice. For the image of McNair, the alt text does not match the image at all.
  • Reworded both alt descriptions.
  • McNair's alt text still says "performing live in 2007", which contradicts the caption.
  • Shouldn't the release date in the infobox be April 14, 2017? While I'm not an expert with music articles, I'm assuming the release date refers to its first release in any form, not necessarily its release to radio.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123 – Thank you very much for taking on this review. I have addressed all of your comments above and left a few replies. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thanks again, Carbrera (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Carbrera: I've added some follow-up comments above. Most of the changes are good; there are just a few more things to fix before this is finished. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RunningTiger123 – Thanks for the replies. I have since removed the Tweet, reworded its info, and corrected the image's alt date. Carbrera (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Everything looks great! Passing shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sentence in the lead may need a copyedit?

[edit]

This sentence: {{xt|Music critics provided mixed reviews of "All of the Dead Girls", who were indifferent towards the song's lyrics.}} doesn't seem to make grammatical sense, and I'm not sure how to edit it. It reads like the dead girls were indifferent toward the song's lyrics? Is that really what we mean here? —valereee (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:All_of_the_Dead_Girls&oldid=1204714933"