Jump to content

Talk:Getting Older/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 10:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

This will run over the course of the next two days --K. Peake 10:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]
  • WP:OVERLINK of Finneas O'Connell under producer(s)
    • Not done; you probably mean to cite WP:DUPLINK, and even then DUPLINK says "it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes."
      • This is not the case here though, as his name under songwriters and producers is the same apart from the addition of the surname on the earlier instance; also remove the link on Billie Eilish O'Connell under songwriters. --K. Peake 10:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly? That's fair
  • Change the first sentence to mentioning that it was released as the opening track on her "second studio album," with the release year in brackets and removing the exact date as well as labels from prose
    • Done
  • Maybe add a sentence as the second one mentioning what Eilish set out for when writing the song?
    • Added one sentence saying that she had to take a break from writing this song due to its personal lyrics
  • Reword the lyrics sentence to not be worded identically with the body
    • Not done; nothing in WP:LEAD advises this from my recollection
  • "critics compared "Getting Older" to" → "critics compared the song to" removing the album release of Nirvana's song since that's not notable
    • Done the first but not the second - it's customary to include release years when mentioning works like albums for the first time, isn't it?
      • Don't think so when it is not a work by the artist who the article focuses on and also is mentioned in the body. --K. Peake 10:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would argue that apart from that, if we do not include the release year, the sentence implies that the album discussed in the sentence is the only one they released in their entire discography (the opening track of their studio album In Utero).
  • Pipe music critics to Music journalism
    • Not done; "music critics" is such an intuitively easy concept to understand that a link to it seems excessive.
  • "sympathetic experiences such as" → "sympathetic experiences, such as"
  • ""Getting Older" charted in" → "the song charted in"
    • Not done; with the way the paragraph currently is the sentence is fine

Background

[edit]
  • Add a comma after 62nd Annual Grammy Awards
    • Not done - with or without the comma it reads fine
  • "second studio album starting 2020;" → "second studio album in 2020;"
    • Done
  • "that they would appreciate" → "that they would like" to be more specific
    • Removed this part entirely because it's not that relevant to the song's lyrics
  • "Its lyrical themes" → "The album's lyrical themes"
    • Done
  • Img looks good!
  • "Set for release 3 months later, it contains" → "Set for release three months later, the album contains" per MOS:NUM
    • Right
  • "on April 29." → "on April 29, 2021."
    • Not done - context clues strongly suggest what the year for this date is, so this is unnecessary + adding the year drags the article's flow a bit
  • Remove commas around Laura Snapes
    • Removed her name entirely
  • "She was eager but anxious" → "The singer was eager but anxious"
    • Not done per WP:ELEVAR - this kind of writing is more magazine-y or newspaper-y than it is encyclopedic.
  • "more about her as a person," → "more about her personal life," per the sources
  • "she explained, happened" → "Eilish explained, happened"
    • Done both

Music and lyrics

[edit]
  • "is 4 minutes and 4 seconds long," → "is four minutes and four seconds long," per MOS:NUM
    • Right
  • Only two of the music journalists cited have made the Nirvana comparison
    • Actually, Stewart does make the comparison as well - she is just more discreet about it. She writes: "On the opening ballad, 'Getting Older,' her teenage angst has paid off well, and now she’s bored and old, or at least it feels like it to her"
  • "one of which is the amount of" → "including the amount of"
  • Remove the "made them feel like chores instead" part since this is not really sourced unlike the rest
    • Done both
  • Only two of the critics cited have made the "Serve the Servants" comparison
    • See my comment above about Stewart
  • Where are the trauma and consent parts sourced?
    • BBC says "while Your Power and Getting Older both deal with unwanted sexual attention and consent for a MeToo generation demanding accountability" and The Guardian says "Your Power and Getting Older both deal with sexual coercion – the former explicitly, the latter more obliquely." The trauma part is not exactly there, so I have removed that, but the rest are completely sourced so they should remain.
  • "and how that abuse played a role" → "and how it played a role" but not all of this sentence is sourced, also [46] has nothing about the song
    • The SMH source does talk about the song, though. "'Things I once enjoyed just keep me employed now,' Billie Eilish sings on the opening track of her second album. 'I've had some trauma, did things I didn't wanna, was too afraid to tell ya, but now, I think it's time.'" And I think I want to emphasize the fact that the "compelled to do things against her will" bit is abuse, in line with what has been laid out at the Background section.
  • "she exaggerates every possible negative detail," → "she exaggerates the negative details,"
    • Not done (?) - the line in question is "When I retell a story, I make everything sound worse" so I assume both ways of saying it are fine.
  • "In the final verses," → "In the final verse,"
    • Not done - the "wasn't my decision to be abused line" is not in the last verse.
  • "she asserts her" → "Eilish asserts her"
    • Not done - both are ok so a change in wording seems unnecessary
      • Overusage of she when it was used for her identity in the last sentence. --K. Peake 10:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think using she in two consecutive sentences counts as overuse...? Especially considering that "she" is one of those words that are almost invisible when readers go through a sentence that there is no absolutely pressing need to vary it every other sentence
  • "accountability for her mistakes: "I'm" → "accountability for her mistakes, singing "I'm"
    • Not done - why the additional word?
  • "when I'm wrong."" → "when I'm wrong"." per MOS:QUOTE
    • The quotation is a full sentence, so not done
  • "by Tyler the Creator, for" → "by Tyler, the Creator, for" with the wikilink
    • Done

Release and reception

[edit]
  • "the US Billboard Hot 100 record chart alongside" → "the US Billboard Hot 100, alongside"
    • Not done - this is the first time we are mentioning a chart in prose, and we should not expect every reader to recognize what that stuff is. Global 200 does not have a "record chart" attached to it since readers can already infer from context clues that it is one, but it's not the same with the Hot 100.
  • Shouldn't you invoke the ref after prose instead of on the note?
    • I added a note in there because I wanted to list all the other new chart entries from the album, but I also didn't want to put em directly in the prose because it would clutter the paragraph and disrupt the flow.
  • "Many praised it" → "Many praised the song"
  • [44][59][58] should be placed in numerical order
    • Done both
  • "of its themes." → "of the themes."
    • Clarified
  • "labeled it one of" → "labeled "Getting Older" one of"
    • Not done - we already have "Getting Older" in the next sentence so why replace this?
  • The Ringer should not be italicised
    • It's an online website, so it should be. I don't think saying that because the Wikipedia article does not do it that means we should not is strong enough of an argument, IMO
  • [37] should be invoked after both of the sentences using direct quotes from McLevy
    • ...huh? Is this not already the case?
      • Nope, it is not invoked after the one beginning with similarly. --K. Peake 10:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I go by what is outlined here at the essay WP:REPCITE, which says "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." If two (or even three) consecutive sentences contain quotations from the same source, is it really necessary to add a citation after every single sentence? This is concision but for citing your sources.
  • Use something more appropriate for Wiki language than pitfall
    • Replaced
  • Pipe MTV Australia to MTV (Australian and New Zealand TV channel)

Live performances

[edit]
  • "as singing with her older brother Finneas O'Connell" → "as singing with Finneas"
    • Done
  • "in its set list." → "in her set list."
    • Good catch
  • Mention the home videos from the Glastonbury performance per the source
    • Not done - Glastonbury was part of her world tour, so mentioning it again is redundant
  • "[and] ass" and explaining" → "[and] ass", and explaining"

Credits and personnel

[edit]
  • Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel
    • Done

Charts

[edit]
  • Good

Notes

[edit]
  • Good

References

[edit]
  • Copyvio score looks fine at 36.3%!
  • Cite BBC News as publisher instead on refs 1 and 9
  • Pipe Vulture to Vulture.com on refs 2, 29 and 50
  • Cite MTV News as publisher instead on refs 11 and 36
  • Cite CNET as publisher instead on ref 14
  • Cite CNN as publisher instead on ref 20
  • Cite Triple J as publisher instead on ref 22
  • Cite iHeartRadio as publisher instead on ref 23
  • Pipe The Weekend Australian Magazine to The Australian on ref 26
    • Replaced this source
  • Cite Capital FM as publisher instead on ref 27
  • Cite ABS-CBN News as publisher instead on ref 32 and pipe to ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs
  • Cite The Recording Academy as publisher instead on ref 62
  • Cite Kiss 95.1 FM as publisher instead on ref 63
  • Cite The Ringer as publisher instead on refs 64 and 65
  • Cite MTV Australia as publisher instead on ref 66 and pipe to MTV (Australian and New Zealand TV channel)
  • Either pipe NME Japan to NME on ref 71 or remove the link altogether
    • Not done per WP:NOTBROKEN
    • I did not do every comment that went "Cite X as publisher" - per what I said in the GAN for "The 30th": - Well, MTV News isn't a publisher, so it would be weird to brand them as such, plus this says not to "abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= ... in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources". This applies to all the other names that should supposedly be unitalicized, too

Final comments and verdict

[edit]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Getting_Older/GA1&oldid=1129246057"