Jump to content

Talk:Paint It Black/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.


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

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Composition and recording

[edit]
  • 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]

Music and lyrics

[edit]

Release

[edit]

Critical reception and legacy

[edit]

Commercial performance

[edit]

Cover versions and usage in media

[edit]

Track listings

[edit]
  • All songs are written by → All songs written by
Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]

Weekly charts

[edit]
  • No further comments

Year-end charts

[edit]

Certifications

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
  • Good

Final comments and verdict

[edit]
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]
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]
  • 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: 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.