Talk:The '59 Sound (song)
 | The '59 Sound (song) is currently a Songs good article nominee. Nominated by Alon Alush (talk) at 11:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: 2008 single by the Gaslight Anthem band |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | A fact from The '59 Sound (song) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 December 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The '59 Sound (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Alon Alush (talk · contribs) 11:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: PSA (talk · contribs) 02:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Taking. It is nice to be working with you in GAN for the first time. Please give me a moment within the day to finish the review PSA 🏕️ (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Of course👍 Alon Alush (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Criteria[edit]
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Notes
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Review[edit]
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | See #Prose comments. |  On hold
|
| (b) (MoS) | Just a minor gripe, but you should discuss what the song is about in the lead. | On hold
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | Some references are repeated (please replace , and one citation has the wrong link. | On hold
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | Why do some sentences have so many citations? Seems like overkill. Guitar.com, Sonichits, Genius, YouTube, and Musicbrainz do not inspire confidence; either remove them or replace them. | On hold
|
| (c) (original research) | See #Spotchecks. A few issues. | On hold
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | Ran Earwig on the article and found no glaring issues. Highlighted texts are either quotations or phrases nigh impossible to paraphrase. However, you can paraphrase some quotations. | On hold
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | Has everything a song article should require for a GA. |  Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | Good enough. | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Okay. | Pass
|
| Comment | Result |
|---|---|
| Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Cover art is obviously justified, and so is the sample... on paper. See next comment. | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The sample will technically be justified if there were critical commentary on the music beyond just the genre. Find a way to insert commentary using RS, or remove the sample entirely and tag it for deletion. | On hold
|
Result[edit]
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| On hold |
I believe this can be fixed within a week. |
Discussion[edit]
Spotchecks[edit]
Refer to this version for the ref numbers.
2 - I don't see this verified?
4 - no issues
7 - doesn't say that the amp is where the song gets its title. The Rolling Stone source does, though. Recommend removing the other citations.
5/11/19 - doesn't say that the amp is where the song gets its title. No mention of the car accident. Quotations verified.
8/14 - no issues
21 - no issues I guess? The page uses a different title but that's on them. Readers will benefit from getting a full date for the radio release.
23/33 - this is not the Spin source? 
Fixed
25 - no issues
30 - no issues
32 - no issues
34 - no issues
36 - no issues. If you were to remove the other citations for the statement you used for this, I recommend keeping this source.
40 - no issues
43 - no issues. If you were to remove the other citations for the statement you used for this, I recommend keeping this source.
47 - no issues found
Prose comments[edit]
Comments will be based on concision.
- "
for the band's 2008 album, also titled The '59 Sound
" -> "for the band's album The '59 Sound (2008)"
Done - The background gives the impression that the song was self-written (only by one person) but the entire band wrote it; this should be clarified.
- It is definitely possible to paraphrase the quotations in the background section.
- "
The song's themes are mixed with punk rock and classic rock
" doesn't really make sense considering this is under a "Lyrics" section, plus this takes somewhat of a journalistic tone. Split the part about the themes away from the part about the genres. Try to add additional information about the music and change the header accordingly. - No need for the "
lyrically
" Done - You already namedropped Fallon earlier so no need to repeat his first name Done
- "
Brian Fallon said the song is about growing older; and 'carrying on'
" make the tense consistent. remove the first name and the semicolon. You can paraphrase the quotation to "healing from trauma" Done - You can also paraphrase the next quotation; suggest removing the "
not a kid anymore
" bit and merge "people are going to start leaving" with the previous sentence like: "Fallon said the song was about growing older, healing from trauma, and accepting that loved ones eventually die" Done - Be consistent with italicizing music publications (Why are Billboard, Spin, PopMatters, and Pitchfork not italicized?) Done
- "
released by record label SideOneDummy
" no need for "record label" Done - "
was generally well received
" -> "was well-received" Done - "
said the song is 'all about the exhilaration that goes along with raw, driving rock'
" not quite what the source conveys. The source meant to praise the song's raw, energetic soundscape Done - Do not give readers a list of random names to say a critic compared the song to the music of certain acts, because 9 times out of 10 they don't know how those acts sound. I recommend foregoing the comparison entirely; this critic also praised the song's raw, energetic soundscape, which is more insightful to readers. Suggest summarizing both critics' thoughts within one sentence.
- The Rolling Stone listicle also comments on this. Suggest writing: "Other critics praised the song's raw, energetic soundscape," with citations to the three sources I mentioned.
- "
nuanced and assured
" how does this help readers understand the song?
@Alon Alush: thank you for your patience. Please take the time to fully digest my comments, and ping me once you are done addressing these PSA 🏕️ (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)