Talk:Living in a Ghost Town/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 05:45, 3 October 2020 (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

Nice to see such a recently released song in the nominations list; I will review this soon! --K. Peake 05:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Change recorded date to 2019–2020 in the infobox

Not done Why would this be better?

Because not only is the exact date of the months not fully sourced, but it was recorded between 2019 and 20. --K. Peake 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Excellent point.

Where are the studios sourced from? If it is part of the credits/personnel, then add that to the section.

Done Removed as unsourced.

Remove wikilink on Matt Clifford since his article does not exist

Not done Valid WP:REDLINK

Target The Glimmer Twins to Jagger–Richards

Done

Remove [1] from the infobox since you do not add refs; however, I notice that The Glimmer Twins are the only producers not included in the personnel; mistake here?

Done Matt Clifford was not sourced but the personnel section explicitly says that Jagger and Richards produced the song.

Link to the music video on YouTube

Not done I am not going to link someone to Google's surveillance network. Why would I do that?

There is literally a template for embedding music videos in infoboxes, look through so many GAs and you will see it. --K. Peake 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is. I'm not going to add that.

See Template:Infobox song --K. Peake 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there says that music video links are obligatory and certainly nothing about YouTube. I am not going to add a link to YouTube: why are you insisting on this?

The lead is currently too short since it is missing a good amount of information such as the genres of the song and chart performance; I will order how to add this appropriately below and it should be two paragraphs instead of one para.
The second sentence should instead be "The song was produced by..." but this needs to be written out in the first section since the sources are there for it

Not done I don't understand you.

I mean to write out who the song's producers are in prose --K. Peake 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that needs to be in the lead, especially since there isn't any running text about Don Was.

The lead is currently too short, that's the issue --K. Peake 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It now covers some material about every section below.

"released on 23 April 2020 through" → "released for digital download and streaming as a single on 23 April 2020, through" with the appropriate targets

Done

"making it the first Rolling Stones single" → "This made the song the Rolling Stones' first single" with this being a new sentence instead

Not done

Should not be part of the sentence and do not have too many uses of it --K. Peake 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you. If this is a small thing, please just amend it yourself.

Done --K. Peake 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The four year statement in this sentence is not sourced in the body; fix this

Done

You should follow this with a new sentence about the genres of the song and add lyrics information if you can sourced that in the body first

Done

Start a new para here and the opening sentence should start as ""Living in a Ghost Town" was recorded during..." since this should not only come before the critical reception, but should be a different sentence

Not done

This is how things are supposed to be ordered --K. Peake 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

Well think about it, the lead has things ordered in a very similar way to the order of sections and recording obviously comes before reception --K. Peake 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranged

"for a forthcoming studio album that the band has been working on since 2015." → "of the Rolling Stones in 2019, ultimately being finished the following year."

Not done I don't understand you.

I mean to change that part of the sentence --K. Peake 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if this is some small thing, I can't understand what you want: just change it yourself.

Done --K. Peake 15:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The song has received positive reviews from critics" → "The song received generally positive reviews from music critics" with the appropriate target and add what was praised/commented on

Done

The following sentence should mention some of the notable chart positions of the song

Not done this is arbitrary

No it is not, since the lead is too short currently --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the lead is short is one thing but the remedy is not to insert original research.

I literally never said that... --K. Peake 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are objectively "notable chart positions"? This is the point I'm making.

Last sentence of this para should be about the accompanying music video

Done

Recording and composition

Retitle to Background and composition

Not done No need

This is more about background on the song than recording, though they are very similar so change to background and composition --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If this matters so much, someone else can change it.

"Since 2017, the band had been" → "Since 2017, the Rolling Stones had been"

Done

"but had to stop" → "but had to stop touring in 2020"

Done

"to raise money" → "helping raise money"

Done

"during the crisis." → "during the pandemic."

Not done: overuse of the word "pandemic"; no need to repeat it over and over again

"On 23 April, the band released 'Living in a Ghost Town' online." → "On 23 April of that year, the band released "Living in a Ghost Town" as a single." with the target

Not done I have no clue why you keep writing "with the target"...?

When I write "the target", that refers to directing word(s) to a certain Wikipedia page --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes less sense: what are "directing words"?

I mean the words being DIRECTED to a Wikipedia article, it is like a wikilink basically. This should not be hard to understand... --K. Peake 09:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you include this language and sometimes you just write "finished remotely and is their" → "finished remotely, marking their" so that makes it confusing. I have never seen anyone refer to "directing words" in Wikipedia.

"finished remotely and is their" → "finished remotely, marking their"

Done

"Jagger claims to have" → "Mick Jagger, a founder member of the Rolling Stones, claimed to have" with the appropriate wikilink

Done mostly

"to social distancing as a method" → "to social distancing, which has been used as a method"

Done

"being a ghost existing after" → "being a ghost after"

Done

"labeled 'Living in a Ghost Town' as" → "labeled "Living in a Ghost Town" as"

Not done this is written in British English

You are supposed to use the same speech marks ("") in British English --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation_mark#In_English

"'gentle blues-rock number'." → ""gentle blues-rock number"."

Not done en-GB

"'a slow-paced chug with a tint of reggae'," → ""a slow-paced chug with a tint of reggae","

Not done en-GB

"Alexis Petridis of The Guardian" → "Alexis Petridis from The Guardian"

Done

"'vintage reggae flavour' in" → ""vintage reggae flavour" to"

Not done en-GB

"'stabbing, echoing organ'," → ""stabbing, echoing organ"," with the target

Not done en-GB, common term

Target Louder Sound to Metal Hammer

Not done Valid redirect.

It does not meet MOS:LINK2SECT, since it is a redirect to a main article so I am disputing you here --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not under the "Metal Hammer" brand or at that domain name.

You are supposed to have it directed to the non-redirect... --K. Peake 09:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:TARGET say that? Where are you getting this?

"calling it 'a relaxed piece of reggae-infused rock'." → "called it "a relaxed piece of reggae-infused rock"." with the target

Not done everyone is familiar with rock music and adding links inside of quotations is discouraged

It is fine in this context and genres are supposed to be targeted to themselves --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "rock" is a very common term.

In the context of it being the specific genre, this target is appropriate --K. Peake 09:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add some info about the lyrical content of the song after this genre description

Not done There already is some, I don't have anything else sourced to add here.

Release and reception

"The initial release was digital-only, accompanied" → "The song was initially released for digital download and streaming as a single on 23 April 2020, being accompanied"

Done

Wikilink music video

Done

"with footage taken from across the world of empty city streets." → "with footage of empty city streets that was taken from across the world."

Done

"The band have plans to resume No Filter once the pandemic subsides" → "Once the pandemic subsides, the Rolling Stones plan to resume the No Filter Tour"

Done

"the single is a means of keeping" → "the single was done to keep"

Not done This is less clear: it's the release not the "doing" of the single that is relevant.

"promoting the album's worth of new material" → "for promotion of their upcoming album"

Done

"and purple vinyl single exclusive" → "and purple vinyl, both of which are exclusive" with the target

Done

"online store and an orange vinyl single for" → "online store, and an orange vinyl for sale by"

Done

Are you sure the releases are still forthcoming since they are apparently out now?

No.

Make sure this is updated in prose then --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"Writing in The Guardian, Alexis Petridis gave" → "Petridis rewarded"

Done

"it 'their best new song in years', with" → "it the Rolling Stones' "best new song in years", placing"

Done

Remove wikilink on reggae

Done

"Writing for The Irish Times, Will Hodginkson of The Times gave" → "Hodginkson gave"

Done

"that the pacing and mood" → "that the song's pacing and mood"

Done

"of being in lockdown." → "of being in lockdown during the pandemic."

Done

"agrees that the single" → "opined that the single"

Done

"'right on time'" → ""right on time","

Not done en-GB

The NME review should come last in this para since it is the most critical review

Not done How does that make sense?

Because reviews come in order from most positive to most negative if it is generally positive, or the other way around if generally negative --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections#Example 2: True Detective (season 1) --K. Peake 09:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an essay, there is nothing normative here.

"a 'a rushed and half-baked comment on our current predicament'," → ""a rushed and half-baked comment on our current predicament","

Not done en-GB

"as 'Jagger perhaps doesn’t" → "noting that "Jagger perhaps doesn't"

Not done en-GB

"fishnet safety packages'." → "fishnet safety packages"."

Not done en-GB

"of the week and" → "of the week, and"

Not done en-GB

The comma is needed here grammatically --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point: sorry for that.

"recommended this track." → "recommended the track."

Not done en-GB

It is more encyclopaedic to write "the track" --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but my reasoning above was faulty again.

"Announcing the release for Stereogum, Tom Breihan" → "For Stereogum, Tom Breihan"

Done

"but it 'rocks harder" → "but "rocks harder"

Not done en-GB

The word "it" is not needed here --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Again, I was just wrong.

"song to rock'." → "song to rock"."

Not done en-GB

"On 3 July," → "On 3 July 2020,"

Done

Target German singles chart to GfK Entertainment charts

Done

"after the song was released on vinyl in several different special editions," → "after several different special editions were released for the song,"

Done

"on this chart and the artist with the" → "on the chart and giving them the"

Done

"after "Jumpin' Jack Flash" reached" → "following on from "Jumpin' Jack Flash" reaching"

Done

"than in the past few weeks" → "than they were for the past few weeks"

Done

"in the German Charts is purely sales-dependent and does" → "for the German Charts being purely sales-dependent; it does"

Done

Add more chart positions that are notable here, such as Scotland and Hungary

Not done How are some "more notable"? Where is any narrative text about the Hungarian charts?

No, but you can write out in prose about the song reaching positions on charts --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's redundant and doesn't give any meaningful context. The German charts one does but I don't have any for the Hungarian charts.

The chart positions are obviously notable when they are a high ranking, this should be clear --K. Peake 09:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's still nothing to write.

Personnel

Where are the studios?

Not done I don't know and studios aren't persons

There is no source for the Rolling Stones credits; add at the top of the section "Credits adapted from..." and then provide the appropriate source there

Done

Where are the mentions of the Glimmer Twins members?

Done

Remove redundant wikilinks

Not done: it's fine to link to someone's name in a list; otherwise, the list would look unbalanced

Target engineering to Audio engineer

Done

Charts

Chart performance for 'Living in a Ghost Town' → Chart performance for "Living in a Ghost Town"

Not done en-GB

Remove Adult Alternative Songs per WP:USCHARTS

Done

Release history

Release formats for 'Living in a Ghost Town' → Release dates and formats for "Living in a Ghost Town"

Done

The region col is missing, which should be the first one

Not done "Missing"? "Should"? Based on what?

This is how release history tables are supposed to be laid out, look through many GAs and you will see this; it is important to list where the releases were --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

Look at the release tables throughout articles; it looks messy in the state you currently have but needs fixing --K. Peake 09:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing messy about this table. Adding a useless column would make it more messy.

Ref col is missing too, which should be the one after the label col

Not done That is ugly, unnecessary, less accessible and I will never do that: the rows are properly sourced.

This is outdated format that you are using now, though --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Format → Format(s)

Not done

There are multiple formats in the same rows so this must be done --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

Formats for the first release should be Digital download and streaming, with the targets

Done

10″ vinyl single → 10" vinyl, with the target

Not done

It is not currently written correctly --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I copied and pasted what you wrote above.

Make sure the appropriate refs are invoked in the col

Not done What are you talking about? There is nothing to be references in "in the col"???

This is for when you have adding the col --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even parse that sentence. What are you talking about "when you have adding the col"? I sincerely can't even read that.

Col means column in a table, I thought this was an obvious abbreviation --K. Peake 09:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that "col" means "column": "when you have adding the column" is nonsense. What does "when you have adding the column" mean?

References

Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool

Not done: what are you talking about "using the tool"?

Click on "Fix dead links" under Revision history

Done

Copyvio score looks fine at 32.9%

Done

WP:OVERLINK of The Guardian on ref 5

Not done: it's fine to link to the source in the citation

For all instances that I put this, it is because sources should only be wikilinked to once

Source?

Overlink page discourages linking again for sources --K. Peake 09:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source (again)?

Zane Lowe should be authorlinked on ref 7, and lay his name out in the same manner as the other authors

Not done: this is not an improvement

It needs to be laid out with last followed by first name for consistency and any authorlinking is good to provide more context --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even sure why I wrote that, since I did what you asked.

Authorlink Will Hodgkinson on ref 9

Done

Target Louder Sound to Metal Hammer on ref 10

Not done: valid redirect

Addressed this earlier in the article review

See above

WP:OVERLINK of GQ on ref 11

Not done: it's valid to link to the source

WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on ref 12

Not done: it's valid to link to the source

Remove redundant wikilink on Super Deluxe Edition for ref 13

Not done: redundant to what...?

WP:OVERLINK of Vulture on ref 14

Not done: it's valid to link to the source

Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 17 and cite Stereogum as website instead

Done: for quotation, why use "website" instead of "publisher"?

Because Stereogum is italicised as its article makes clear, so should not be cited as a publisher --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then it should be in the running text as well, which I changed

Are you sure ref 38 is required; if yes, then target AllMusic Guide to AllMusic

Done

External links

Remove AOTY, MusicBrainz, RYM and MSN.com

Not done: why would I do that?

See WP:EXTERNALLINKS to understand why they are useless --K. Peake 07:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is MusicBrainz "useless" but Discogs isn't? You aren't explaining yourself.

Final comments and verdict

On hold after I finished my comments today easily just like I set out to do, hopefully this can become a GA on this very day and I understand the numerous mistakes since you are not a heavily experienced editor! --K. Peake 11:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, ..."not a heavily experienced editor"...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf It looks like you do not have much experience in GANs, that was not meant as a diss. And I have made responses to your comments above. --K. Peake 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, I didn't think you were being disrespectful: it is just one of many things that is unintelligible to me on this page. Responded myself, including several changes. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf Sorry but I am going to have to ✗ Fail this article because not only has it been on hold for too long, but you have not implemented numerous changes properly even after I have gone through them on the review page. --K. Peake 08:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, Well, you left several items above outstanding. It's unfortunate that you think that this article can't be good without a link to YouTube but I'm never going to include that, so c'est la vie. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]