Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Paint It Black/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Paint It Black edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC and want to see areas for improvement to help streamline the process.

Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor are you still following this peer review, or should it be archived now? PRs are typically archived after a month of no activity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I am following it and it has not been a month since last comment. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John M Wolfson

I'll look into this sometime tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • The song was released as a single on 7 May 1966 in the United States and 13 May in the United Kingdom by London Records and Decca Records, respectively, and included as the opening track on the American version of the band's studio album Aftermath (1966). is too wordy. I don't quite know how to reword it, but perhaps it can be broken into different sentences.
    @John M Wolfson: What would you think of "...respectively. It was..." to break it in two? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if "aped" is appropriate for an encyclopedic context, but I could be wrong.
    It is part of a quote. Perhaps just something else should be used for the lead? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead should be paraphrasing a quote, anyway. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it replaced "Mother's Little Helper", which proved controversial in the UK. If you're talking about "Mother's Little Helper" having been proven controversial in the UK, this should be in the pluperfect (i.e., "which had proved...); otherwise it should be reworded.
    That was the intent. Fixed, thank you for spotting. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Critical reception and legacy" section might be the section that trips up an FAC. I have no qualms about it myself, but be sure to make sure it's copyedited and not "he said, she said."
    I have swapped it around a bit. Do you think it would be best for a GoCE review too, prior to FAC? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in the "Media" section can be merged into the preceding paragraph.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources seem adequate and of high enough quality.

Otherwise, that's basically it, and I think it would fare well at FAC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this. I have asked two questions above but otherwise believe I have resolved your points. Again, thank you!   I am glad to hear that you believe it would have an okay time at FAC. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
zmbro

Hi SandDoctor! I was checking out Template:Infobox song and noticed a few things that might be of use to you:

  • Generally, later releases or in secondary markets, reissues, on compilations, etc., should only be included in the body of the article.

As shown in Aftermath (Rolling Stones album), the infobox's release date and label only display the original ones (For songs, this applies to B-sides as well). With this being known, since the US release came one week before the UK one, do you think only the US info should be displayed in the infobox while the UK info is only shown in the body? I'd love to know your opinion. – zmbro (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Apologies for the delay. That is an interesting point. I don't really agree with it, but won't argue against precedent and have already removed the UK date from the infobox per Aftermath. I just think as a UK group it is kind of lacking to not mention the UK date in both and one could argue that that was essentially the same release, but oh well; this isn't the place for that discussion. Thank you for bringing this up so that I could bring it in line with the template's docs. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D

This is far from my favourite Rolling Stones song, but I'm pleased to see it's a GA. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • (non-nominator comment) As long as the background section covers necessary/relevant information regarding the song's conception, length should not be a priority imo. HĐ (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those articles cover recent pop songs. This is one of the most famous rock songs ever and was released decades ago by a band which has been covered in great detail in multiple high quality sources in an era of British music which has also been extensively covered. There's no way that a single para appropriately covers what the literature discusses in regards to the background to this song. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am digging through more databases, but I am surprised by how little I have been able to locate about the song that isn't just a passing mention saying that they played it during X concert or isn't about entirely unrelated matters (a lot of papers entirely unrelated to it seem to like it as a title etc). JSTOR is basically empty and I've been adding as I find them, but it seems to overall be slim pickings. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wyman's playing clicked with the band and inspired the uptempo and Eastern pentatonic melody." - clunky
    How would you suggest streamlining? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Restructure to avoid "clicked" Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed out. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " By all accounts, the sitar was brought into the mix" - 'By all accounts' doesn't add anything here
    Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richards noted that the conclusion of the track was over-recorded and that a different guitar could have potentially improved the song" - wordy, and 'noted' seems an odd choice of word
    Tweaked and changed "noted" to "believed". How does that look? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Music and lyrics' section seems rather short for such a well known song
    I agree that it could use some beefing up, but sources don't seem to have discussed it much that I can find. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For some basic information, unless I'm misreading WP:WTC, you probably don't need to cite a source since the recording itself can be considered the source. Obviously you should be wary about going into too much depth using the work you are describing as the source, but I would consider it perfectly reasonable to do that so far as saying "the song is recorded in a 4/4 time signature" etc. is concerned. Obviously copyright restrictions mean you can't reproduce large portions of the lyrics or sheet music in the article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HumanBodyPiloter5: Thank you for commenting. Unfortunately, I know absolutely nothing about time signatures or the like. If you do and there is something you think that can be added in that relation etc., please feel free; I do believe that you are correct. I just wish that the song had been covered more (or at least in more readily available sources) than just "stones performed it at X show", which is just TRIVIA for the most part. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HumanBodyPiloter5: do you know about time signatures and, if so, would you be able to add that to the article by any chance? --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some stating in 1966 that the addition of the sitar was merely the band "aping the Beatles"" - the quote marks here indicate that multiple critics used the exact same words, which isn't supported by the source (or likely). Put this in your own words to avoid this confusion.
    That is a direct quote from Rolling Stone though? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. The wording says that "some stated" those words. Put this in your own words to avoid the confusing quote. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meant to comment here some time ago, but changed "aping" to "copying". --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has noted that the influence of Harrison's sitar playing, and, in particular, the Beatles' song "Norwegian Wood" on the Rubber Soul album, draws parallels with "Paint It Black" – most noticeably in Jones' droning sitar melody" - passive voice, and wordy and hard to follow as a result
    Passive voice is definitely a problem for me. That tends to be how I naturally speak/write...hmm. How would you recommend freshening that up? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Critical reception and legacy' section is hard to follow, as it mixes up 1960s reviews with modern reviews. Separate them. For FAC, I'd expect to see dead tree references such as back issues of 1960s music publications cited.
    How do you get your hands on those? Not really familiar with "back issues"? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Libraries, books, online databases, etc. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick-D: Thank you. I managed to get some via newspapers.com during the mother's day free access; my request for the wikipedia library has been approved but is pending Newspapers.com actioning it and has no ETA. Does it look a bit better now sources wise? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abbreviations in the 'Commercial performance' section don't seem necessary
  • For a song this prominent and frequently covered, the 'Cover versions and usage in media' section should include discussion of how and why the song has been covered, rather than just instances of this.
    I will have to review newspapers.com more when I have longer term access to it, but it does not appear to be something discussed by any sources that I have been able to locate to date. This also applies to the below point. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What influence did the song have on the band's career and musical direction? Have they recorded other songs like this? Do members of the band still like the song? Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick-D: This doesn't appear to have been covered in any sources that I have been able to locate to date, period or otherwise. I have increased the number of period sources referenced in the article in general, however. If you are aware of instances where this has been discussed, please let me know so that I can expand this to include it as this would be great to have if it exists. I'll continue looking in the meantime. Thank you for your review. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24 edit

  • By no means necessary, but originally released as "Paint It, Black" is a bit distracting in the prose when the only difference is the grammatical error; I wonder if this would be more appropriate in a note
  • "Eastern pentatonic song" seems a little dubious—unless a source says this specifically—I would recommend "Eastern-style song" or perhaps more clearly, "Eastern-influenced/Asian-influenced". I see later you use "Eastern pentatonic melody" which seems fine, the earlier one is phrased that it appears to be implying the work is an "Eastern song", which well, it's not.
    • I don't know if this will have any affect on the article, but it may be helpful to keep in mind that the Rolling Stones appear to be mixing cultures quite a bit; Indian classical music, which the the sitar is from, does not actively use pentatonic scales (afaik), that's more of an East Asian thing, mainly China, Japan and I think Indonesia as well.
      @Aza24: Reworded using more from the book source in the body. In full, it cites the Indian influence (sitar and vocal melody), Middle Eastern influences, Eastern European rhythmic influences, blues, and pop. Later on on the same page, it states that the song has a "whirling dervish tempo and vaguely Eastern pentatonic melodic direction". --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • its signature sitar sound — perhaps "prominent" is a better word here? Signature almost sounds like its a trademark of the band
  • for words that end in s you have some instances of s's and others with just s' — either is fine just try to be consistent
    Good catch. Resolved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think RCA Studio B is the one in question, but am not sure
    It unfortunately could've been either of them as they both were around by 1966 (according to the times in RCA Studio). Sources just say "RCA Studios". --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything that "over-recorded" can link to? I'm not sure exactly what it means, Overdubbing? Too many instruments/too thick a texture perhaps?
    @Aza24: He would've been concerned with it having distorted playback (and my memory confirmed by lexico) due to it being recorded "using too large a signal". --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a different guitar could have potentially improved the song in addition to the current instrumentation? (if so I'd recommend "an additional guitar") Or in place of something, like the sitar?
    This line was removed and shortened in response to comments above this section.
  • Now that I'm reading what the song is about, I'm thinking maybe the lead should be adjusted to state what type of death/grief we're talking about, since it's a pretty broad subject without specification
  • "It is often claimed"—is this claimed by the band members? If not, I wonder if something like "Commentators often speculate" would make more sense. Up to you though
    Changed to 'Commentators often speculate". That is indeed a better word choice. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • are we talking drone as in Drone (music)?
    Yes. Wikilink added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to claims that he was merely imitating the Beatles, however, Jones responded, not sure that the "however" is needed, and I would think using "In response" and "responded" in the same sentence is less than ideal
    Rewritten slightly. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better Aza24 (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking you add the year to By 20 May since it's been a couple of paragraphs since the reader read the year, but now I wonder if something like "7 days after it's UK release" would be better?
    I like the "seven days" idea. Changed to that. Something feels like it is missing though grammatically? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm well the only fix I could see would be something like "Just seven days..." or "Only seven days..." but this may be too much editorializing; probably fine how it is Aza24 (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if having the "Critical reception and legacy" section after the "Commercial performance" would make more sense, chronology-wise
    Done. I was basing the structure off of Shake It Off and 1989 (Taylor Swift album), but at the time this one didn't have a legacy heading. Moved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (non-nominator comment) The standard structure for Songs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs is often background and release→music and lyrics→critical reception→commercial performance. This however can be adjusted as long as it suits a specific song's case (like I swapped the critical reception and commercial performance sections for Blank Space). HĐ (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look at the sources at a later day, the prose and research is great! I'm not sure I'm able to judge the comprehensiveness/coverage myself Aza24 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't forgotten about this; will get to the source comments sometime tomorrow Aza24 (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24: Have you been able to take a look? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Hi, yes, sorry about that, thanks for the ping. Comments below:
  • there seem to be quite a few page numbers missing (refs 5, 9, 10, 62, 109)
    1. Added page # to ref 5.
    2. Couldn't view ref 9, so removed it as it was verified in a resource that I can access.
    3. Added to ref 9
    More to come. I dont have access to 62, so will have to find a substitute most likely. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent whether you include retrieval dates for books or not (either is fine, just needs to be one or the other)
  • date missing for ref 2
  • publisher locations are also a bit inconsistent with the books (likewise, with the "City, State" vs just state or just city)
  • ref 8 has an author missing
    Good catch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything you can add to ref 15 to make its format clearer? I'm not sure what that is, a booklet, review etc.? (is that a magazine? what issue/volume, any ISSN?)
  • some of your rolling stone refs are formatted differently, refs 1 vs 17 vs 21 for example
  • The linking of publishers/works is rather inconsistent throughout, there seem to be too many to name, I recommend using the find and replace tool and doing find for "=name of publisher/work" and replace with "=[[name of publisher/work]]" or vice versa depending which route you go
    @Aza24: This was mostly by request at the GAN and is consistent with Aftermath (Rolling Stones album). --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand things like linking The Washington Post in ref 82, but not the The Washington Post refs after or before that, likewise with Billboard in ref 51 Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24: With respect to the Washington Post, that was a mistake and now corrected. Billboard's specific wikilink in ref 51 is thanks to Template:Single chart and is behaviour it doesn't look like you can override. I have made ref 5 wikilink Billboard instead of 36. Otherwise, it does not appear to be an issue with billboard. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I see, makes sense, I would then assume your linking approach is to link the first mention of each work? Aza24 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24: That is indeed the approach. Thank you for noting the inconsistencies you have so that I can correct them. I am spot checking others now. Ref 51 is annoying, but that would probably require a template feature to resolve or ref duplication (which resulted in that and was something I was cutting down on to begin with). --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I'll leave some final comments later today or when you get to FAC. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • these are some of my impressions, I will be sure to look closer tomorrow Aza24 (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest adding translated titles with "|trans-title=" to refs with non-english titles
  • The main issue is a lot of inconsistencies with how you're formatting web refs; sometimes you give the website name, sometimes the publisher, sometimes both. Aza24 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, for ref 51 you have Billboard linked as the work, but for ref 52 you have it unliked as the publisher Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s) from HumanBodyPiloter5 edit

  • Regarding an earlier response I made, I think that there is a limited degree to which one can flesh out the "Music and lyrics" section by simply including information which is intrinsically true about the recording. For me the easiest thing to verify is that (unless I have somehow made some grave error in counting the beat) the song Paint It Black as recorded by The Rolling Stones is in 4
    4    . It's worth commenting that as far as I'm aware many musicians consider recordings to be the definitive sources for information about popular compositions, especially when published sheet music can often contain inaccuracies or idiosyncrasies intended to make the song easier for amateur musicians to play. Since I am one of those amateur musicians and my ear for music is relatively poor I will try consulting with musicians I know and see if they can provide any further information. As I said before there is a limit to how much can be stated before we either get into WP:ORIGINAL research territory or start violating the publisher's copyright, but I think WP:WTC's sections about when the work which is the subject of an article is obviously the source of certain information can apply here if there is difficulty finding other sources to describe the song/recording. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example of something fairly easily verifiable as being intrinsically true about the recording would be whether it has been released in stereo or mono, for example.
  • As a further point, there is a degree to which general materials surrounding its release are a primary source. For example if information doesn't come up elsewhere in what may be considered a superior source, the liner notes can be referenced.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also comment that it may be worthwhile for someone who is able to to see if there has been any substantial academic analysis of the song, for example from music theorists or musicologists. Given its stature I would expect there to at the very least be some writing on the matter, although it may require both someone who is able to access such publications (for example through a university library) and who is able to translate the information contained in them into layman's terms suitable for a general encyclopaedia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5: In my searching, there has been surprisingly little coverage in academic texts that wasn't either a passing mention or a false positive. Jonathan Bellman is the only musicologist to comment on it in some detail that I have located so far. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia edit

  • New Musical Express is mentioned and linked, followed by a duplicate link a few paragraphs later to NME, and the acronym NME is never defined.
    Defined. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewrite of "Critical reception and legacy" per the excellent essay WP:RECEPTION would make that section more compelling. Right now it is a "he said, he said" collection.
  • The song has seen widespread commercial use in film, video games and other entertainment mediums. Is "widespread" supported by sources, or is it original research? Let the facts speak for themselves ...
    Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recorded at RCA Studios (Los Angeles) is cited in the text; why not repeat the citation here ?
    @SandyGeorgia: It was sourced, but an IP blanked a good portion of that section. Thank you for pointing it out so that I could revert. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Respectively" is usually a horrible construct, forcing the reader to read back ... instead of ... The song was released as a single on 7 May 1966 in the United States and 13 May in the United Kingdom by London Records and Decca Records, respectively. ... why not ... The song was released as a single on 7 May 1966 in the United States by London Records and 13 May in the United Kingdom by Decca Records.
    I have generally been a fan of the construct, but agree it can be a little clunky. Changed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will take a look through WP:RECEPTION to help aim a rewrite and probably put it up for GOCE as a good measure. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to look at this! --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 edit

Since you commented above that you are still following this PR, I'll post some comments. I know this song, but I am not familiar with music scholarship or theory, so consider me a non-expert.

Infobox

  • You have a lyric video linked in the infobox. Is this the official lyric video for this song? If not it should be deleted.
    Yes, that is official by the label that owns the rights to this era of their material. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an official music video for this song? Can it be added to the infobox?
    Not that I am aware of. Content from that era typically doesn't have music videos. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • "with some music critics believing that its sitar sound was an" Remove "that"?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • This is evident from the sessions for Aftermath (1966), where for the first time, the duo penned the complete track list." I would flip this to say, "This is evident from the sessions for Aftermath (1966), where the duo penned the complete track list for the first time."
    Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, Jones, overshadowed by" Delete "In addition"?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

  • compared to "Songs for Jewish weddings". Should the s in songs be capitalised? MOS:CONFORM
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sitar was brought into the mix when" Are you talking about audio mixing? If not, I think this is jargon and can be changed to "The sitar was introduced when" or "The sitar was used when"
    Yes, it is referring to audio mixing. Added a wikilink. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release

  • "it replaced "Mother's Little Helper", which had proved controversial" remove had?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the comma being an error by Decca, but, nonetheless, stirred controversy among fans over its racial interpretation." Way too many commas. Also, did the comma bring racial controversy to the song?
    Taking a look, it does appear that the comma did bring controversy. Cleaned it up a bit. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Prose looks good, but I want more of an explanation of why the comma brought controversy. Can you explain this in a half-sentence or sentence? Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: Unfortunately, there isn't much to work with here. All that is there is the following "There were some weird letters, racial letters. "Was there a comma in the title? Was it an order to the world?"". --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We should leave as-is then. Z1720 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I agree that it is too bad that they didn't write more on that. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Paint It Black" has further appeared on numerous" Delete further
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • "Harrison's sitar playing, and, in particular, the Beatles' song" Delete in particular. Too many commas again.
    Cleaned up. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was "better than ever". However, Valentine was critical" We can remove the period and short sentence by saying, "was "better than ever" while criticising..."
    I reworded based off of your suggestion a bit as it seemed a little awkward to me. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keith Altham considered the "Paint It Black"" Delete "the"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions

  • "with the 2011 20th" The back-to-back numbers look weird. Can you move the year to the end of the sentence?
    How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song was used as a plot device in the supernatural horror film Stir of Echoes (1999)." How? Can you describe this in a sentence?
    @Z1720: Basically the whole film has characters humming a version of what is thought to be a creepy nursey rhyme, but is revealed at the film's climax to be "Paint It Black." "The song becomes the key to uncovering the dark secret of the film." I will have to think about how to include a concise explanation in the article; I am open to any suggestions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the movie's synopsis on Wikipedia and it doesn't mention the song, so I am unsure how Paint it Black "uncovers the dark secret." Which source are you using for this information? Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is cited immediately following that statement in the article. It is from Amsterdam University Press [1] page 79/80 ISBN 978-94-6298-651-0? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about: "The song was a plot device in the supernatural horror film Stir of Echoes (1999). At the beginning of the film, the song is presented as a nursery rhyme, but the characters discover that the song was loudly played during the victim's murder to drown out her screams." The wording can probably be improved, but I think it is verified by the source. Z1720 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for giving your input! Comments and replies are above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commented above about racial interpretation and Stir of Echoes. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Replied above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to comma and Stir of Echoes. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Done. Thank you very much for taking the time to give your input on this article. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: This PR has been open since January, and hasn't received comments since March. Are you still interested in keeping this open? Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: 3 days ago I asked for some new input from Nick-D but haven't heard back yet. Otherwise, I would say so. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just wanted to make sure it was not forgotten about. Z1720 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isento edit

I would recommend attributing the genre sources by name in the text, in the manner of "[this guy] and [that guy] have described it as [one genre], while [this other guy] calls it [another genre]", and so on. Otherwise, looks great! isento (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

  • I would put the original title as a footnote. I know this is not a song article, but Raiders of the Lost Ark is a good example of how this can be done. The current method is not technically wrong, but I find it takes up a significant amount of space. But after reading the full article, I am uncertain if this title should be referenced in the lead as it was a mistake.
  • I have a question about this sentence: The lyrics are about grief, death, and loss. What is the difference between death and loss in this context?
  • I would avoid the "with x verb-ing y" sentence construction as I have received notes about this in the past. An example of this in the follow bits, with some music critics believing its sitar sound was an attempt to copy the Beatles and with Rolling Stone ranking it one of the greatest songs of all time. I would check throughout the entire article and revise it accordingly.
  • I have a question about this part: To promote the song, the Stones performed it live on The Ed Sullivan Show. Was this performance particularly notable for some reason? It seems rather odd to single out this specific performance in the lead?
    Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, has been the subject of cover versions, I would just say has been covered to be more concise. I think the current version is unnecessarily wordy.
    @Aoba47: What are your thoughts on how that section reads now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember to link Aftermath on its first mention in the body of the article. Brian Jones should also be linked in the first instance (both of the ones that I have mentioned are in the "Background and development" section).
    Done. Thank you, Aoba47! Will tackle rest shorty. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add ALT text to the images.
    Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if both single covers are necessary. I know that it is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimal and I believe having alternate album/single covers is discouraged unless there is something particularly notable to have both (like critical commentary, etc.). However, to me, that does not seem to be the case.
  • I would add the year that "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" was released for context. Also, why is the full song title not used here? I know absolutely nothing about the Beatles so apologies if this is super obvious, but I think the full title should be used.
    Done x2. How does that look now, Aoba47? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything is looking good so far. Thank you for addressing some of my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing critics and their opinions, like in this part Music scholar James E. Perone says that the lyrical content, I believe that it is supposed to be in the past tense and not the present tense.
  • Did Jagger elaborate on what he meant by describing this as "this kind of Turkish song"? I am not really sure what I am supposed to take away from that since it is not really clear what he means by this.
    Unfortunately, it hasn't been elaborated on in any sourcing that I have seen to date. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response here. It probably should be fine as it currently stands since the next sentence picks up on this song having a Middle Eastern sound. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about the word "striking" in this part, The striking motif, as it reads more like praise to me rather than an objective description of the song.
    You're right. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentions that this was performed on several tours, but I do not see that information supported in the article (but I could just be missing it). The article does mention its appearance on concert albums, but I do not think that is really the same.
    Concert albums would cover this as they are from tours, but explicitly mentioning would also be fine. Where would you suggest this? I can provide sourcing for multiple tours that it has been performed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth mentioning very briefly in the lead that this song was performed live on tours. The lead does not mention the concert albums (or at least I am not seeing that there). Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming none of the American Idol covers of the song are notable enough to mention here? I do not think they would be and it is better to be selective since this song has just been covered so much, but it was a thought I had while reading the article so I wanted to ask anyway.
    That's a good question. I just took a look through newspapers.com and only find one (that was the barest of) passing mention of the song ever being performed on American Idol. It appears there haven't been any notable covers...and only 5 results that mention "Paint It Black", "Rolling Stones", and "American Idol". --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for checking this out. That is what I had assumed, but I am glad to know with greater certainty. I would imagine that a majority of the American Idol covers are not notable for mentions in the song's Wikipedia article (with some exceptions of course). I really need to learn more about how covers are treated on Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think both b-sides are worth mentioning in the prose of the "Release" section.
    @Aoba47: It is already mentioned? "The unexpected success of the single in the US caused the Stones to add the song to the American release of Aftermath,[1] where it appeared as the opening track;[2] it replaced "Mother's Little Helper", which proved controversial in the UK.[6]" --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about how "Stupid Girl" and "Long, Long While" are the song's b-sides, but it is only mentioned in the lead and the track listing and not the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are absolutely correct. That was a complete oversight. Fixed. Thanks for raising this, Aoba47. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing it. If it helps, I have made far sillier oversights than this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most song articles I have seen put the commercial performance section after the critical reception one. I am not sure if it is necessary, but I thought it was worth sharing.
    I think it is a flip of a coin; I don't have any Stones examples to reference, but FA Blank Space has it in this config whereas FA Shake It Off has as you suggest. If this point was raised, I'd probably go with whatever was suggested. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that "Blank Space" has that configuration because it combines the commercial performance parts in with the parts on the song's release as a single. I do not really have any issue with the current structure of the article, but this was something I noticed and thought was worth bringing up. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I am actually not familiar with the Rolling Stones and I believe I only know of this song through covers. I look forward to seeing this in the FAC space and hats off to you for tackling such a well-known (and widely-covered) song. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC on a far, far more obscure subject. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Paint_It_Black/archive1&oldid=1034290173"