Talk:False God (song)

False God (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 18, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed

Taylor Swift Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 18 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from False God to False God (song). The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 18 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False God → False God (song) – To distinguish from the religious concept false god and to specify that it is a music recording to avoid ambiguation. Ippantekina (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As being your standard example of WP:DIFFCAPS. "False god" is always in lowercase, therefore it can be distinguished by hatnotes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Generally I'd agree that WP:DIFFCAPS would make this kind of move unnecessary. However, given that God is so often capitalized, I'm not convinced that "False God" and "False god" are reliably distinguishable based solely on the cap — particularly when (as here) we're considering them in the context of a title. With the clarifier, this better meets our WP:CRITERIA. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:Huwmanbeing. 162 etc. (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as mentioned above, God is usually uppercased so DIFFCAPS should be ignored (as pretty much always) because it doesn't take this standard uppercasing into account. Given that, coming upon the song when searching seems a bit surprising. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support its probably best to have a DAB at the base name though as the generic meaning may not be primary either. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clearly needed for clarity reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per User:Huwmanbeing

Lililolol (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Review

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

Nominator: Gained (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 13:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. (reference section):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I will get on with this right away! --K. Peake 13:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Infobox looks good!
Remove close wikilink on riff per MOS:LINKSTYLE
Pipe music critics to Music journalism
"otherwise found it" → "otherwise found the song"
"Commercially "False God" peaked at number 56" → "Commercially, the song peaked at number 59"
List the full name of the ARIA Singles Chart
Mention that the certification was in Australia
"by its musical director" → "by the show's musical director" and mention the years of this performance and her tour
Mention Ryan Hurd's cover version
- I also included James Bay if that's okay. Gained (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release

The "love letter to love itself" quote is not mentioned by the source
"celebrity at the time" is not needed in the sentence since we know the media would be focused on her status and at the time is implied
Wouldn't the chart positions go better in a new para of reception, retitling to simply this word?
- Personally, I think they fit better with "Background and release" and I believe it's too short to a new paragraph for it on "Critical reception". I also think that section is very tightly focused so adding info about chart performance would kinda make it a bit unfocused and forced. Gained (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The correct Australia position is number 59, not 56

Production and music

Audio sample looks good!
"in New York City, and" → "in New York City (NYC), and" per later instances appearing in the article
Pipe Michael Riddleberger to Bleachers (band)
"Sterling Sound in New York City." → "Sterling Sound in NYC."
Either remove the pipe on Evan Smith or send to Bleachers (band), not sure since they are already linked
"considered it "faux-R&B"." → "considered the song "faux-R&B"."
Re-invoke the Lipshutz ref for the slow jam sentence
Maybe only use the dash as 1980s R&B-influenced?
lovers' rock → lovers rock with the wikilink

Lyrical content and analysis

First para looks good!
"using heaven imagery:" → "using heavenly imagery:"
"The couple encounters problems" → "The couple encounters challenges"
"to make amends but" → "to make amends, but"
"Religious imagery continue" → "Religious imagery continues"
"my hips"[31] and ultimately accepts" → "my hips",[31] ultimately accepting"
"the mentions of New York City and" → "the mentions of NYC and"
Maybe it would be suitable to mention "Cruel Summer" is from this album and the other two tracks are from 1989?

Critical reception

"called it a" → "called the song a"
Refinery29 should not be italicised
"to be confident that evoked" → "to have confidence that evoked" or something similar to be clear
"Lipshutz ranked it third among" → "Lipshutz ranked the song third among"
"Some critics regarded" → "A few critics regarded"
"and the New-York references ineffective but" → "and the NYC references ineffective, but"
"somewhat experimental production but" → "somewhat experimental production, but"

Live performances and covers

Img looks good!
The flat shoes are not sourced
"and "vibey" and highlighting" → "and "vibey", and highlighting"
"of the 45th Saturday Night Live season;" → "of the 45th SNL season;"
The one on guitar and one on piano throughout the tour is not sourced as far as I can see
"on the 53 U.S. dates,"
- Sorry what? Gained (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The next year, she performed" → "In 2024, she performed"
Mention that James Bay sang the chorus as falsetto
"on his 2020 Platonic Tour: he replaced the" → "on his 2020 Platonic Tour, replacing the"

Personnel

Looks good!

Charts

Looks good!

Certifications

Looks good!

References

Copyvio score looks great at 28.1%!!!
Should Freezepage really be used for archiving on ref 15?
Cite Refinery29 as publisher instead on refs 34 and 36
- I don't believe I understand.. Gained (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink Taste of Country on ref 48 per MOS:LINK2SECT
Pipe Complex to Complex (magazine) on ref 49 per above

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; completed right on time! --K. Peake 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Kyle Peake! I have addressed all your points except those that I have comments above. Gained (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gained Thank you and regarding the Refinery29 citations, change work to publisher and the 53 U.S. dates was added by accident from me. --K. Peake 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake I believe everything's now addressed! Gained (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Pass now, this is very good sorry I was busy yesterday outside of online usage! --K. Peake 08:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Kyle Peake! Thank you very much for the review but I think you forgot to pass the article? Gained (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]