Living in a Ghost Town was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is part of the Reggae WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the coverage of articles relating to ska and reggae. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.ReggaeWikipedia:WikiProject ReggaeTemplate:WikiProject ReggaeReggae articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
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
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.
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
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.
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.
"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
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
"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"
"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
"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
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
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
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.
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
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
It's an article about a British subject so should use the variant more widely used in British English. While the OED accepts both variants, criticise is by far the predominant spelling in Br. English and -ize is generally viewed, correctly or otherwise, as US English (it isn't, but -ise the widely used form). Oxford is something of an outlier in this respect, as with things like the Oxford comma; almost any publication, company or newspaper style guide in the UK would require -ise. Wikipedia's MoS makes it clear that language in articles should be consistent (Br. spelling is used elsewhere in the article) and that articles with a tie to a specific country should use the style of that country. My contention is that while both variants are accepted, the version with the (by far) wider use in Britain should be used.Neilinabbey (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Now that you've both had your say it would be a good idea to stand back and let others have their say. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Either spelling is perfectly acceptable, but per MOS:RETAIN the long standing use of 'criticizing' should be retained until there is a consensus to change it on the talk page. Personally I would prefer to change it, but not strongly: Oxford spelling is a perfectly acceptable variant but a slightly unusual one, even within the University of Oxford (which I know well). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Given the far greater majority of -ise usage in UK English I would prefer to see it be changed, especially since we are talking about one occurrence of a single word, which I don’t think is capable of establishing “consistency” as discussed in MOS:RETAIN. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
They're both correct for British English, and -ise should not be enforced as the One True Spelling. In fact, they're both still productive. This must have been hashed out on the manual of style talk pages several hundred times, by now, surely? Special:Diff/617099087 seems to bear out that we've had this discussion at least once. If the person actually doing the article writing work has decided upon Oxford spelling (which is a bit of a misnomer since it isn't confined to Oxford), don't go style-warrioring it to something else. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
Not done Why would this be better?
Done Excellent point.
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)
