Talk:Paint It Black/GA1

GA Review

Passed.

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.

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 18:56, 13 January 2021 (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

Love this song, so I thought it would be an absolute honour to take it on for review! --K. Peake 18:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I look forward to your review.

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor To elaborate, the review will start later today. --K. Peake 06:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: All good! Take your time

. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor Thank you, I have completed the review and I do find it confusing working with book sources on Wiki during reviews; could you give me some advice please? --K. Peake 16:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately with books, you mostly have to AGF unless you happen to have the book in your possession. I am a massive stones fan who happens to have several, which puts me at an advantage for working on these articles. My latest acquisition was a 704 page behemoth detailing (as in having full minibios, listing credits etc) every track the band has produced up to (and including) A Bigger Bang. While I did get it for basically this article, it is definitely going to come in handy for working on others in the future.

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

The lengths listed in the infobox are not sourced anywhere, but the body sources the song's length as 3:46
Good catch. I reduced it to just the 3:46 portion as that is sourced and I don't know where the others came from. Do you think that the B-sides should be listed there or no? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target London to London Recordings
That was already done before I started doing anything today on it? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target to London Recordings, not London Records
It is though, unless you are seeing another instance. in the United Kingdom by [[London Recordings|London Records]] and [[Decca Records]]. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Audio sample should be in the body instead, as you can then add relevant info about the music and lyrics to its text
I agree. Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change the template for the lyric video; see "All Mine for example
@Kyle Peake: {{External music video}} is already used? I'm sorry, I don't follow on this one. Could you please elaborate? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take another look at "All Mine"; you are supposed to use the header template to stop it otherwise saying music video --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a song recorded by the" → "a song recorded by"
The current way is consistent with Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) (FA). I don't think this needs to be changed? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I was not fully aware of that, it is fine I guess then just not really common grammatically to put "the English rock band" followed by their name --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Paint It Black" is an" → "it is an"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The info about the music in the lead is a neat addition, but shouldn't you write about the genres?
How would you suggest? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe mention it having been "classified" as "raga rock, psychedelia, and psychedelic rock"? --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? "...The song, which has been classified as raga rock, psychedelia, and psychedelic rock, was released as..."? Seems to lose some focus though there. Wouldn't fit any other paragraph in the lead in my reading though. Hmm. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"and sex" part is not sourced, but the body does mention about the loss of a partner so a relationship of sorts is sourced; reword this bit and I'll probably take another look
Changed to "and loss". How does that look, Kyle? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better, good job! --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target single to Single (music)
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add release year of Aftermath in brackets and maybe mention it being their sixth studio album in the US?
Done for the former. As for the latter, do you have an idea of how it could fit? Mentioning it as the sixth when the UK release isn't mentioned as their fourth seems a bit lopsided/undue and a better fit for the album's article since this is about the single. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right to be honest, this would probably lack focus and maybe just change "the band's album" to "the band's studio album" for context? --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"with some critics believing that its" → "with some music critics believing that the song's" with the target
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ape should not be in speech marks since the quote says "aping"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Paint It Black" was a chart success for the Stones, spending eleven weeks" → "The song was a chart success for the Rolling Stones, spending 11 weeks" because you should not abbreviate, as it is a band name not someone's full name, and see MOS:NUM
~~See the below (references to aftermath) and MOS:NUM explicitly says either may be used. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
"number one – on the" → "number one – on the US"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"at number one" → "at the summit" to avoid stating "number one" too close to the previous instance
That wording seems awkward to me. Changed to "atop the chart" as there is precedent for (limited) use of "atop" in this context (see FA Blank Space). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The single received Platinum certification from the British Phonographic Industry" → "It received a platinum certification in the UK from the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)" plus swap this sentence with the Canada and Netherlands one since chart positions come before certifications
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gold should not be capitalised either, plus add (FIMI) in brackets and mention Italy as the country
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Paint It Black" also topped" → "The song also topped"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove wikilinks on the countries
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"first number-one hit" → "first number one hit" but where is it sourced that this was in connection to the UK – the body only seems to do so for the US
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~"the Stones performed it" → "the Rolling Stones performed it"~~
""Paint It Black" has been included on" → "The song was included on"
Changed to "The song has been..." as it is still in tours when they tour (currently delayed due to covid). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"of multiple Stones tours" → "of multiple tours by the Rolling Stones"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Retitle to Background and development
Isn't "development" the same as "Composition and recording"? Blank Space (FA) has a background section just titled "Background". --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is going info about the song being developed, not the sepcific recording of it; basic melodies "morphed into the one featured", so to quote --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove target on Richards
Done, assuming you mean wikilink. If not, please let me know and clarify. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"from the sessions for the album" → "from the sessions for" since we know it's an album from the lead introduction
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add release year of Aftermath in brackets
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"for the first time the duo" → "for the first time, the duo"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"more specifically the sitar," → "most specifically the sitar,"
@Kyle Peake: I made the change but "most specifically" doesn't sit right with me. How about just dropping "most"? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be fine. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the group's musical texture" → "the band's musical texture"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning though that Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) uses both "the group" and "the band" interchangeably. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, plus you should use only one for consistency depending on how the performer has been classified, approrpiately --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Jones had a background" → "he had a background"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Introduce who George Harrison is
Done, but happy to expand if you figure "of the Beatles" to be insufficient. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a satisfactory introduction. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and recording

Even though this is a separate section from music and lyrics, I recommend that you reorganize the content of these two into a writing and recording section to begin, followed by the music and lyrics one since it the content is jumbled at the moment and composition is the same as music, plus writing and recording info should come before them
I can't fully access the sources, so I will assume good faith mostly, but are you sure everything here is backed up by them?
From everything I can access, yes. I don't have Wyman's book or the book called "Keith Richards". --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"with the Stones in Australia." → "with the Rolling Stones in Australia."
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[6] should be solely at the end of the sentence before [7] and [8] since it does not come past any piece of punctuation currently
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"consecutive sixteen-bar verses" → "consecutive 16-bar verses" per MOS:NUM
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target key to Key (music)
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~"However, the Stones were" → "However, the Rolling Stones were"~~
~~See my comment in a section lower down about the prevalence of "the Stones" even in Aftermath itself, let along the Rolling Stones. I doubt all mention of it needs to be erradicated.~~
"clicked with the group, and" → "clicked with the band and" since the article is in British English
Done. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should write uptempo instead for consistency, as that is how it's supposed to be stylised
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"by Jagger's droning, and" → "by Jagger's droning and"
Done. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove target on singing
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove target on drumming and the comma afterward
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"was over-recorded, and" → "was over-recorded and"
Done. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[11][3] should be put in numerical order
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"of the rest of the band." → "of the rest of the Rolling Stones."
This could probably be "the Stones" per the above and below? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe it could, truth be told your referencing of the band as "the Stones" at parts is understandable because it would be tedious to write the full name all of the time --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

Music/comp info should come before the lyrical stuff
I had based this layout off of Shake It Off#Music and lyrics (FAC) and Blank Space#Lyrics and music (FA). I know I reference these two articles a lot, but both have been responsible for the layout of this and I am a co-nominator of the former for FA status. Do you know off hand of any FAs that reverse it? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you can have it in this order, I was not aware of articles like those ones using it and there is no MOS rule I'm aware of that objects. Also, the music/comp info needs to be rearranged so it's all together rather than having part of it with recording when it discusses the song's actual sound/structure. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: I'm happy with that. You mean moving the "...striking motif on the sitar is complemented by Jagger's droning and slight nasal singing...." and the rest of the paragraph (after that point) down, correct? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, that is info about the song's sound and not really the recording even if it is of relevance. --K. Peake 16:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved with Special:Diff/1000879646. How does that look to you, Kyle Peake? I feel it could be better integrated, but am open to suggestions. Likewise open to any from Zmbro et al. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor Nice switch, apart from how the part about soon after the recording session should be in the previous section and retitle that to Writing and recording. --K. Peake 08:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: Fixed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It was the" → ""Paint It Black" was the"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"to peak No. 1" → "to peak at number one" but doesn't this sentence belong in release or commercial performance?
Fixed. As for the second half: that is a good question. It does sort of tie into the music of it and isn't really that suited for "release". Not really sure where this fits in. Do you have any suggestions? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably in commercial performance, as it shows the song is the first to feature a certain instrument that peaked at number one and it's fine to repeat info later in articles if it is to re-introduce a relevant stat --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done with Special:Diff/1000879000. How does that look to you, Kyle Peake? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's really good, I would request for the ref to be moved since it's not after a grammatical pause but this is fine here since the sentence has a large number of citations. --K. Peake 08:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"more than India."" → "more than India"."
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"for Aftermath's American edition," → "for the album's American edition," to avoid overstating the title of the album
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release

Retitle to Release and promotion, as live performances are mentioned
Formatted following Shake It Off#Release, which also had a single debut performance mentioned in that section. No other references (in Paint It Black) in the section are made to performances, so changing the title could be potentially undue weight? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target London Records to London Recordings
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in the UK by" → "in the United Kingdom by" since this is the first time the country is referenced
Done. It is mentioned in full in the lead, but I agree a refresher in the body is needed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in the United States caused the Stones" → "in the US caused the Rolling Stones"
Doesn't this fall victim to the above point though? Assuming "US" is known as an acronym does fall into making it too US focused. MOS:US covers this. Shouldn't it in fact mean "single in the US on 7 May 1966" becomes "single in the United States on 7 May 1966" (and then this suggestion implemented)? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:US says, "When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal", and it is not mentioned in the same sentence. If you end up moving the sitar number one sentence, then the opening sentence of this section should be changed to the only one in the body saying "the United States" instead. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: Done per your original suggestion, but modified to be "the Stones". Is that okay? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is here, just the US part was the issue really. --K. Peake 16:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"where it appeared as the opening track;[22] it replaced" → "with it appearing as the opening track;[22] "Paint It Black" replaced"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Stones performed" → "The Rolling Stones performed"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"on 11 September." → "on 11 September 1966."
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"on numerous Stones compilations," → "on numerous compilations by the Rolling Stones,"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception and legacy

"by critics was mixed," → "by music critics towards "Paint It Black" was mixed," with the target
Good catch, done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"was merely the group" → "was merely the band"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"draws parallels in" → "draws parallels with"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"utter rubbish!", comparing" → "utter rubbish"; he compared"
Done. Did you mean to shorten the quote? If so, I can do that too. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target musicologist to Musicology
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove wikilink on psychedelic music
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mention the name of the Melody Maker review; if not known, identify as the staff
Unfortunately, that is not known as Billboard didn't identify it. How would you suggest identifying that in prose? Saying Rolling Stone gave something X stars isn't uncommon either though? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does happen on some occasions, but those instances are mistakes since the publications aren't people; just identify as "the staff" if you don't know the name(s) of the reviewer(s). --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"stating that the song was" → "calling it"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"another hit for the Stones," → "another hit for the Rolling Stones,"
@Kyle Peake: Done, but "the Stones" is common reference in The Rolling Stones, which is probably how it ended up here. Even Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) (FA) makes prolific use of it. I don't think it needs eradication. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"an "eerily insistent classic" that" → "an "eerily insistent" classic that" to avoid misquoting, as it is identified as classic but separately from the rest of the quote
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target rock to Rock music
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Writing for the song's 50th anniversary" → "Writing for the 50th anniversary" to stop from writing "the song"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target punk music to Punk rock
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"calling the song the Stones'" → "calling the song the band's"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"on its list of" → "on the magazine's list of"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it is the 115th" → "the track is the 115th"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are more rankings from reputable publications listed by Acclaimed Music like NME's greatest songs of all time; couldn't you add some of them here?
I wasn't aware of acclaimedmusic. More can certainly be added. How many would you suggest? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, I would recommend adding the lists that are all time, century-end, decade-end and similar ones I missed any from my list; don't add the best Rolling Stones songs lists since they are too many and a bit trivial. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added NME and Pitchfork lists. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

Why are the US stats before the UK ones when the Rolling Stones are an English band? Remember, you do not order by how soon it was that a song charted.
Reordered. Does that look better, Kyle? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor Yes, things are a lot better now! --K. Peake 07:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"for the week of 14 May" → "for the week of 14 May 1966"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the later part of the sentence since that is not notable, as a lot of songs chart the week after they were released
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It took three weeks for it to" → "The song took three weeks to" for avoiding being too wordy
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"weeks[52] – making it the band's third number one in America" → "weeks,[52] becoming the band's third number one in the US."
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the number three stat per WP:CHARTTRAJ
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It remained on" → ""Paint It Black" remained on"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a total of eleven weeks." → "a total of 11 weeks."
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Hot Canadian Digital Song Sales chart position is sourced, but re-issues not individually charting is not backed up by any sources
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Hot Canadian Digital Song Sales to Canadian Hot 100
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is ref 7 the one being used to back up Canada and the Netherlands? If yes, it can remain in the current position; I am just fact-checking things.
Ref 7 just backs up the US and UK number one. I am not sure how to copy the citations out of the charts section as they are generated by a template. I guess I should just generate one anyways and have the duplicate? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor Regarding your comments here and elsewhere about refnames from templates, you can cite them rather than create duplicates; take my GAN "Clique" for example. --K. Peake 07:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That is so cool! I didn't know you could do that. Thank you for pointing that out, Kyle Peake! I think I've addressed all of these now for sourcing. Could you please double check? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In the United Kingdom, it" → "In the UK, it"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a ten week stay, becoming the band's" → "a 10 week stay, becoming the Rolling Stones'" per MOS:NUM
Done, though MOS:NUM says either is fine. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[58] should be solely at the end of the sentence
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"1 million units." → "1 million units sold in the country."
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no citation for the BPI certification; use a ref name from the certifications table
The certification table is template generated, meaning we can't see/set those, unfortunately. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the single re-entered the UK Singles chart" → "the song re-entered the UK Singles Chart"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"peaked at number one in" → "peaked at number one on"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Official German Charts to GfK Entertainment charts
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"by the Bundesverband Musikindustrie (BVMI)." → "by the Bundesverband Musikindustrie (BVMI) in the country."
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The single was a top-five hit" → "The song was a top five hit"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List the 1990 re-issue's position with the rest of the UK stats, plus remove the repetition of the 2007 one since you have already listed that
The OGC and France 2007 one were not mentioned anywhere else. I have moved them up to be with the Europe portion though. The 1990 re-issue is a complex one to untangle that requires some further thought and copyedits as it doesn't fit elsewhere that I can see off hand and only the UK portions are repeated. Sadly, the others seem rather awkward shoved in there. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor You can keep the other countries' reissue positions where they are, but the UK ones shouldn't be repeated like they are currently. --K. Peake 07:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"number 30 in the UK." → "number 30 on the UK Singles Chart." because the article mentions the top charting songs and that is the lead chart
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove repetition of the UK Singles Chart position for the 1990 re-issue in the third para
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other singles charts from the Netherlands onwards are not sourced
It is, but they are again in templates in the chart section. I guess I just need to create duplicates? Not sure how to get around them being template created without duplication of refs. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done per your guidance. Thank you! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"charted number 127" → "charted at number 127"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions and usage in media

Remove the opening sentence, as this is evident by the section's existence
Removed, though was copying structure from Shake It Off#Cover versions and usage in media (FAC) where it has not raised any concerns. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to any chronological order in the first para
There wasn't any. Fixed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mention what year the minute was played
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mention that The Last Witch Hunter is a film
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target B-side to A-side and B-side
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and again with" → "and did so again with"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"anniversary rerelease of" → "20th anniversary rerelease of"
Done. Do you think that mention of 2011 should be moved or is it fine where it is? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target funk-rock to Funk rock
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Eric Burdon and War to War (American band)
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"which reached No. 31" → "which reached number 31"
Done. Caught that before I even made it to this point hehe ;) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in film, video games, and" → "in films, video games and"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add release years of the films in brackets
Done. Good idea. :) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink supernatural horror film
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stir of Echoes should be italicised and add the release year in brackets
Done x2. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add running year(s) of both series in brackets; however, with the exception of Major League Basketball, none of this and the rest of the para is sourced
The former series is now sourced, but I fear this could potentially be citogenesis. I might just remove the line about the series (plural). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is now resolved through removal and the addition of sources. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduce Call of Duty: Black Ops III and The Mummy, plus add the release years in brackets
Done and now sourced for both. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"as background in a TV spot" → "as background in TV spot"
N/A per above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add release years of the second para's games in brackets
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Guitar Hero Live,[72] and" → "Guitar Hero Live and" since it is British English
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[72] should be solely at the end of the sentence before [73]
Shouldn't 71 (now 74...subject to change...let's just say Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock ref) also be then? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings

All songs are written by → All songs written by

Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

Retitle to Credits and personnel
That was the original title, but based off of Shake It Off (FAC) I had changed it to "Credits". Based off of Blank Space (FA) I switched it back. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the wikilinks/target are needed for sitar, Hammond organ and producer?
A sitar is indeed an unusual instrument that would probably need it, likewise with the specific organ type. Until now, I did not know of a hammond organ. Producer is wikilinked in Shake It Off#Credits, which is why I wikilinked here. I am aiming to replicate FAs and soon-to-be FAs structure wise as a guide for how to bring this up to that standard. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charts and certifications

Add "for Paint It Black" at the end of all the chart captions
@Kyle Peake: Could you please give an example? I am not 100% sure what you mean. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the recently-passed GA "Poppin" to understand what I mean about putting that part at the end of the captions. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly charts

No further comments

Year-end charts

UK → UK Singles (OCC)
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

Sales certifications for "Paint It Black" → Certifications for "Paint It Black"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Copyvio score looks very good at 19.4%!
Top job on the archiving too!!
Thank you! I am rather aggressive in archiving as you never know when something may go offline haha. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any citations with .com in the work/website parameter should cite the same but as publisher instead, unless noted below
Done. How does that look, Kyle Peake? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Backbeat Books to Rowman & Littlefield on ref 3
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target ABC-CLIO to ABC-Clio on ref 4
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink Running Press on ref 6
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink St. Martin's Press on ref 7
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite AllMusic as publisher instead for ref 8, with the wikilink
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scrarecrow Press Inc → Scarecrow Press Inc on ref 9, with the wikilink per MOS:LINK2SECT
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink Cambridge University Press on ref 10
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink Universe Publishing on ref 12 per MOS:LINK2SECT, plus fix the archive since the current one shows up as blacklisted on my laptop
@Kyle Peake: Done for the first part. Wayback sees archives of that URL but won't load them... --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any wiki to target Futura to on ref 13?
Other than updating it to "Futura Publications" per goodreads, unfortunately not. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Dorling Kindersley to DK (publisher) on ref 14
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Plume to Plume (publisher) on ref 15
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite MPR News as publisher instead for ref 16 and target to KNOW-FM
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Praeger to Greenwood Publishing Group on ref 18
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target McGraw-Hill to McGraw Hill Education on ref 19
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK of Ultimate Classic Rock on ref 23
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Hal Leonard Corporation to Hal Leonard LLC on ref 24
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Guinness Superlatives Ltd to Guinness World Records on ref 25
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Authorlink Robert Greenfield on ref 27
Done. That's a cool new trick I just learned. Thank you! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite Ed Sullivan Show for ref 28 instead, removing it from the title
@Kyle Peake: What do you mean? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor You should add the website parameter and cite Ed Sullivan Show, plus remove the show from the title of the ref. --K. Peake 19:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: Done. Thanks for clarifying. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK of AllMusic on ref 30
That's the only one that links to AllMusic? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite BBC as publisher instead for refs 32, 34 and 35 but only with the wikilink for 32
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Billboard to Billboard (magazine) on ref 36
Done, I think. These are getting confusing due to the fact that all the ref numbers have changed greatly. It is easier when they are unique citations where I can ctrl F and look around them somewhat. I should've started with this section haha. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink The Guardian on ref 37
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Viking Penguin to Viking Press on ref 38
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink The Journal of Musicology on ref 39
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on ref 40
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite Acclaimed Music as publisher instead for ref 46 with the wikilink
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite Grammy as publisher instead for ref 47 and target to Grammy Award
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 54 should be replaced by a ref name that cites the chart history from the table, as it does not directly display the history of "Paint It Black"
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove or replace ref 56 per discussion
I wasn't aware of that discussion. However, it was written by a subject matter expert in his field, the late Richard Havers. The discussion also does not call it unreliable, merely one to use with caution. I think that this would fall potentially into WP:SELFPUB's section on how subject matter experts can be considered reliable regardless. I don't want to lose the expert input, which would probably help at FAC. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
officialcharts.com → Official Charts Company as publisher instead on refs 57 and 59, only wikilinking on the former
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 66 is missing the publisher
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink PC Gamer on ref 67
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink University of New Mexico Press on ref 68
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink Amsterdam University Press on ref 69
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
M.mlb.com → MLB.com on ref 70 with the wikilink
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fix MOS:CAPS issues with ref 73, plus remove 2K from the title and set 2K as the publisher, targeting to 2K (company)
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Black Dog & Leventhal to Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers on ref 74
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK of Black Dog & Leventhal on ref 75
Fixed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Flavourofnz.co.nz from ref 82 and cite New Zealand Listener with the wikilink
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 84 is missing the publisher
Removed as I couldn't find a reliable source for it. It appears that that was a SELFPUB of sorts. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Target Fundación Autor-SGAE to Sociedad General de Autores y Editores on ref 85
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the duplicate ref name issue with ref 86
Done, though not sure when or by whom. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Good

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed, which shouldn't be too long based off your recent response rate and I hope to get this great song to GA status! --K. Peake 16:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've run out of time tonight and shall have to pick this up tomorrow. Thank you for picking up this review. Though we may disagree one some points, don't for a moment think that this review isn't highly appreciated. I look forward to continuing this review and discussion over the coming few days . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor That is totally understandable since this article is massive, but I have left replies above for you! --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: Are we at an agreement to leave "the Stones" alone where it remains? Just want to clarify and ask as a single Q rather than in multiple spots. If so, could you strike the remaining ones mentioned above? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Yes, I did express agreement above by saying "it would be tedious to write the full name all of the time", though I apologise if that was unspecific due to only being under one point. I will strike them off now to avoid confusion, apart from any ones where you have implemented the change or my comments need to stay up for some reason. --K. Peake 16:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Kyle Peake. I have tackled Commercial performance and added some comments. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment – Hey guys. I highly recommend incorporating this review into the article. It's probably the longest AllMusic review I've stumbled upon. – zmbro _(talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added mention. Thank you for suggesting this, @Zmbro:! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
zmbro Very nice catch on your part and thank you TheSandDoctor for adding this review to the article! To the latter of the two: when do you think you'll have this article done? --K. Peake 20:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake What else needs fixing? (I've barely looked through this) – zmbro _(talk) 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: The last point in "Critical reception and legacy", which details some more sources and information that can be added still is something that needs going through. Otherwise mostly odds and ends above (the unanswered bullets). @Kyle Peake: I think we are almost wrapped up here. Mostly just down to the references section, which has become convoluted as the article has undergone changes and refs moved/replaced since the review was posted. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references section has become difficult to navigate due to the other sections being tackled and refs added etc. I have addressed most that I could definitively locate. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor You can see the revision of the article at the time of review here to make things a lot easier; refs often get moved around once review changes are implemented but the comments themselves stay relevant. --K. Peake 08:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor Great to see you are making strong progress on the music and lyrics section as well as the references one, notify me when everything is done! --K. Peake 18:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are pretty well done, Kyle Peake. Thank you for linking the diff. Feel free to take a look and let me know if you spot anything else. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor I could tell I'd made the right catch with the link to the diff, but you still need to target London to London Recordings in the infobox and fix the lead's commercial performance sentence that says "Paint It Black" at the start instead of the song, plus retitle the second section to writing and recording. --K. Peake 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor ✓ Pass, it is great to have got this article to GA status after all of the work put in by me and you as the reviewer and nominator, respectively! --K. Peake 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am glad that we were able to work together on this and am forever grateful for zmbro's work as well. How far off from FA do you both think it is now? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to assist :-) – zmbro _(talk) 23:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's too far off and I would be really happy to see the song become a FA, not only because I'm the one who was responsible for the GA review to help it along the path but also since it is one of my favourite Stones tracks! --K. Peake 07:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Thank you! Would you be willing to collaborate on getting it there? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor Do you mean would I leave comments on the FAC page? If so then yes, I will collaborate on the process. --K. Peake 14:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Sorry, I meant if you would like to help get it to FA quality or point out areas you think need improvement. Based on prior experience, I am hesitant to just jump directly to FAC from GA unless others think it is ready haha. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:47, 18 January 2021 (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.