Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The 1975 (2019 song)/archive1

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review, thanks for taking the time. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now, unless there is a big old issue someone else picks up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱

A song named "The 1975" with Great Thunberg?... Oh, it's not about sex. Thank god. Otherwise, I would've sworn the song was about a sex doll of her....... I'm not kidding, that exists.

Great work on 1975 articles. I find they get bloated at points, but they're great nonetheless, although that's for another discussion. This article looks really well put together, as the prose is understandable and most of the sources are reliable. However, I have a few major issues:

• The first paragraph of "Background and recording" has no place in this article. It doesn't connect to anything else, and the only relevant point is that it's the first track on a single album. Readers have the respective album articles if they want to learn more about the history of those.
  • I'm going to push back on this: it's normal to give surrounding context to minor works within a broader context e.g. on the Black Mirror articles I've been working on, they all have a paragraph about the series they're within (example: top of San Junipero#Production). Odd coincidence in that series 3/4 of Black Mirror were originally commissioned as series 3 and then split into 2, and Music for Cars was originally album 3 and then split to albums 3/4. Another example that springs to mind is the Boat Race individual articles, number of GAs must be in the three digits by now (example: The Boat Race 1909#Background). As for the connection here, a lot of the secondary coverage about this song talks about how it was used on Notes on a Conditional Form (transition into "People", used to set the tone for the album), and it connects to a lot of "Release and promotion" content. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am well aware (and have written and edited) many articles have background sections to establish context. However, these sections usually cover the parts of a wider context that most affect or relate to the rest of the article. I see zero how an album being split into two affected how this song was made, released and promoted. Am I missing it? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • How the song was made—as part of the Music for Cars "era" of the band's music, which means that its production cycle overlapped with other songs in that era and they used the recording studios that they were using at the time and perhaps (depending on who you ask) there's a common musical style. The article later mentions some ideas about this being part of how both albums marked a transition to more overtly political messaging. (And the background ambient music in this song is the same sort of stuff they use on A Brief Inquiry... and elsewhere on NOACF, so clearly written/produced as part of the same sessions, but that's
        original research on my part.) How it was released—the initial early date that Healy promised followed by continual rescheduling led to a lot of the NOACF album music being released prior to the album dropping. If it had been one album or released on time then this song would be part of another album, or never recorded, or would have been recorded several months earlier. How it was promoted—promoted on tours for Music for Cars (including tours for the first of the two albums). In essence, the production cycle was not of two consecutive albums (in which case I wouldn't mention the previous album). The production cycle was two albums at once. Maybe I can draw out some of these connections in the paragraph in some way? — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Point taken. I didn't catch that connection at first when writing. I just thought sentences said the songs of both albums were more political than previous albums, and that they had four tracks from Notes ready as of 2019. I didn't connect or catch those were a result of the album split. I can't tell if I didn't read closely enough or if the article could've made this clearer to the reader, but I would do what you're suggesting nonetheless to be safe. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, see what you think about the newer iteration of this paragraph. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now removed the paragraph entirely as initially suggested per feedback below. — Bilorv (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't the type= feature in the Infobox template be "Promotional single"? It obviously wasn't first released as part of the album release.
  • Talked about this above—would be
    original research to call it a promotional single, in my view. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Point taken 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reception section, although well-paraphrased, suffers from having that "A argued B" thing
  WP:RECEPTION
  frowns up.
  • Can you give an example or two? I have actually used
    WP:RECEPTION actually didn't redirect there even though listed as a shortcut, but I've boldly changed that). They say "Avoid 'A said B'. ... Variants include 'A of B said C' and 'A said that B'." I've aimed to use a good mixture of those and vary sentence rhythme and combine reviewers' points where possible, but at a certain point I think summaries of reviews are a bit constricted in possible formats so feel a bit repetitive. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Actually, on a second closer look, this is actually well done. I suspected it used a "A said B" format because the first half of the section seemed to be just a list of opinions. The opinions are actually consolidated in the first paragraph, in that they're about how the song handled Greta's message. I'll admit I rushed to judgement when I made this statement. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, I feel this part is pretty quotefarm-ism despite being about the same topic: "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car.[55] Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine described it as "soul-stirring".[24] A PopMatters reviewer saw it as "evocative and gripping", while Madison Feller of Elle said that the "pretty stunning" track gave her chills.[18][56] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack analysed the speech as "intelligent and stirring".[57]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this was a weaker passage. I think fewer examples can get the point across so I've gone with: A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car, and Madison Feller of Elle, who got chills from the song.[57][58] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack and Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine found it stirring.[59] I think it's an appropriate amount of weight to one of the most major axes of feedback, but if it's still belabouring the point then maybe I could even just contract it to just mentioning the two reviewers who found it stirring, and the rest as additional references. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally, I wouldn't use an opinion from the Washington Examiner, a conservative publication that, like other far-right publications, is filled with climate denialism. If he's writing that "climate change was not the issue that should be sparking global protests" and the journalist that wrote that also prominently appears on Fox News, it's very likely he's denying the issue of climate change, or trying to bullshit his way looking like he thinks it's an issue while writing for a source that doesn't. I would not give validity to such an questionable claim as that.
  • Alright,
    WP:FRINGE have pushed me to remove it. But to clarify a couple of the facts, I'll note that Schultz is a woman, and I don't see any connection to Fox News. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

👨x🐱 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's (CA)Giacobbe you have to thank for the other articles, by the way, didn't mean to claim credit for the GT nom so I've adjusted the wording. Replies to these comments coming now. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, let me know what you think. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• ""The 1975" is a protest song, where Thunberg delivers a spoken word performance" Neither CNN or The Guardian cites categorize the song as these two genres. Speaking of CNN, the cite as well as ref 3 (BBC) categorizes it as ambient music track. I would suggest using that alongside the PopMatters cite to further confirm its genre as ambient. The Guardian also categorizes it as "minimal" which I don't see in the article.
  • Telegraph source was originally there for "protest song" but got lost in a reshuffle—fixed. Insider added as "spoken word" as you suggest below. Ambient music mentioned and on its next mention we now say "minimal" with the Guardian ref. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting, and unique criticism of the song in ref 3 that I don't see in Reception: "The essay is direct in its message but short on actual practical measures which she thinks should be put in place." That same cite also attacks the 1975 for flying on airplanes for touring which I think strongly relates the subject matter of this song: "The 1975 are currently on a world tour, and will play gigs in Italy, Korea, Romania, Singapore, Ukraine, Dubai and Australia in the coming weeks. It is likely they will fly to many of those countries, despite air travel being a significant contributor to climate change."
  • Now mentioned the plane thing just before the measures they announced they were taking to reduce negative environmental impact. Added a sentence to Reception: A writer for the BBC viewed the song as light on concrete suggestions, but direct on messaging. I don't think it's clear that it is criticism specifically, as the BBC haven't marked it under a byline and they have at least the claimed position of not making value judgements in the organisation's own voice ("impartiality", as they call it). — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• AllMusic is not a work and its name should not be formatted as such in the citation template and prose.
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I just found the Insider album review categorizes the song as spoken word. Use that cite for the categorization.
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if any of these issues haven't been resolved sufficiently or if there's anything more. I think the article is looking better from these changes. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: Are you feeling able to either oppose or support this nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've noticed on a re-read this article suffers from fluffy prose:
  • "measures by the band which had the aim of reducing their environmental impact." Couldn't it just be presented as "to reduce their environmental impact".
    • Done in both the lead and body. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she was the first featured artist on a recording by the 1975 other than the band members;"
    Featured artist
    is by definition someone who is on a track by an act they are not a part of, so saying "other than the band members" is redundant.
    • Very good point. Done and linked the term in case anyone doesn't understand its definition. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was founded" Why is "which was"
    • My knowledge of grammar isn't brilliant but the term for that would be something like dangling modifier—"The song was produced under the label Dirty Hit, founded by the 1975's manager Jamie Oborne" could be misread as saying the song was "founded by" Oborne, as the subject isn't "Dirty Hit" unless you add the "which was". — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the band had previously criticised their perceived convention of guest appearances in music being primarily intended to improve chart positioning" Does the fact that the band criticized their past criticism add anything? Why can't you just say that before, they criticized guest appearances as a method to improve commercial performance?
    • That's not what the sentence means. It's all one thing: they previously said that guest appearances in music were primarily intended to improve chart positioning. It previously read "a perceived convention" but another reviewer recommended "their perceived convention". In line with your confusion, I've tried something new: the band had previously criticised that guest appearances in music were primarily intended to improve chart positioning. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The musical styles of each version set the tone for that album" Odd sentence, plus the source only states each album starts with "a self-titled prelude that sets the mood for what's to come". It doesn't talk about "style" setting the mood.
    • This has been added based on feedback from others about how to best communicate the context of the first three albums' title tracks. "Musical style" is simple rephrasing as it can refer to any aspect of the music other than its title and lyrics, both of which are literally identical for the first three albums and hence not what the source means. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "*Al Horner of The Daily Telegraph observed that the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers—who previously voted against initiatives to limit carbon emissions—became the UK Environment Secretary on the day of the release." Is the attribution really necessary? Isn't it fact that she was elected on that day?
    • The fact wouldn't be neutral to mention without the attribution. It would violate
      synthesis. Take the canonical The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. This would be the same with the subtext here: "The 1975" is about climate change not being taken seriously. Ironically, the Environmental Secretary appointed on the day of the release opposed climate change action. Attributing this to Al Horner of The Daily Telegraph shows you that this comparison isn't coming from Wikipedia, but that a reliable source is making this point, and that it's only Horner's view that this is relevant. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: All responded to. Thank you for the additional comments. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find fluff anywhere else? You sure you went beyond my examples? 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article again, top to bottom, here and made things as concise as I can without harming readability. — Bilorv (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Missed a ping—what do you think, HumanxAnthro?) — Bilorv (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort, but I still feel there are some things that could be improved?

• Aren't Sean Lang and Laura Snipes' opinions equivalent? It seems like both have the same praise of the band allowing Thunberg to present herself fully without anything distracting it (whether it's through Healy speaking or the music being overpowered). Why state in two sentences their similar opinions? Seems repetitive

• No, Lang's is about Healy not being egotistical or speaking on a topic he's not got specialist knowledge on. Snapes is about Healy not being sexist or mansplaining. The opinions are related, hence their consecutive placement and the connective, but not the same. I don't feel that fewer words can be used to describe the two opinions without violating
  synthesis, as none of the points enumerated are the same. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ah, OK. My apologies, I didn't catch that first. I do think you were trying to suggest Snapes' opinion was related to gender by using the phrase "highlight a woman's voice", but I don't imagine a casual reader getting this at first, especially since Greta was under 18 at the time of the song's release, not exactly a woman, ya know? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "On 27 July 2019, Consequence of Sound named the song their favourite of the week" As much as it's dumb when people do
  WP:WHOCARES
  arguments... Is this really needed? We're presenting the general consensus of all critics, and I don't think a random music blog giving a "song of the week" badge that other blogs do is that significant.

• Consequence is one of the most significant indie publications worldwide (I gave evidence for this in the source review). It's not a blog and that it named it the song of the week is no less significant than a good proportion of the reception in this section. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Praise" is used five times in the "Critical reception" section.

• Yep, this is a problem. Now three (no two in the same paragraph). — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the critical reception prose needs a copyedit because it's choppy and occasionally feels like a set of random short sentences. "Insider's Callie Ahlgrim lauded that "the effect is exquisite"" "Horner found the track inspiring and "brutally, rebelliously stark"." "Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine and The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack found it stirring". "At the Reading and Leeds Festivals, the song was followed by "Love It If We Made It". Adam White of The Independent found this continuation to bring "greater potency" to "The 1975".[60]"

• I've made a number of changes in line with Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, "Vary sentence rhythm". However, that does not mean removing all short sentences (rather, it requires maintaining some of them). — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Matt Collar of AllMusic reviewed the song as a heartfelt start to the album." This is not an opinion on the song, it's a tone description. Plus, "reviewed [song] as heartfelt" just sounds awkward.

• Removed the sentence. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: I've addressed each point in turn. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great work on a song article given the sources you had to work with. I've seen, even in reputable HQ sources, opinions of pop songs getting covered in very simplistic, non-analytical terms, so I understand if the only opinions to present in critical reception of pop songs like this aren't too substantial. I think the prose does the best job it could in presenting that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I would avoid one-word quotes like "failing" and "heartfelt" as I do not think they are particularly beneficial to the reader and it may detract from other quotes. I have received this note in a past FAC so I just wanted to raise this to your attention as well.
  • Before I do this, just to clarify: is the suggestion here to say the words but without quotation marks, or to use a near-synonym/paraphrase/rephrase to avoid the quote? — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that either option would be appropriate.
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Alright, done a mixture in the end depending on what I think worked best. — Bilorv (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that is the best way to address this.
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In the "Background and recording" section, the 1975 should be linked on the first instance. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately so the band should be linked on the first instances in both.
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note, but the FAC instructions discourage the use of the done graphic as it could "slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives".
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is a super nitpick-y note, but for this part, a perceived convention of guest appearances in music being, I would say their perceived convention to more so emphasize that this was coming from them (if I am reading this part correctly).
  • Correct interpretation, Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is probably a very dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. I am uncertain about this part, The song was produced by the label Dirty Hit. How can a song be produced by a record label? I have mostly seen the word "produced" associated with the song's producers and not the label.
  • Not a dumb question at all. After some thought I think "produced under the label Dirty Hit" might solve your issue with this. Daniel and Healy are the credited producers, but (at least if it's anything like the normal music production process) they're utilising the label's resources and working with them at the various tasks that make up production. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "produced under" sounds better so that works with me.
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The article repeats that this song is the first on the album (Notes on a Conditional Form opened with a track titled "The 1975". and "The 1975" is the first song on the 22-track Notes on a Conditional Form.) and it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive rather than helpful. I would only say this information once. I would recommend keeping it where you think it is the most relevant.
  • Alright, fair enough, kept in "Background" only. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am uncertain about the link in the part, more explicitly
  Easter egg. I do not think that it is immediately clear that the "political" link would lead to the article on music and politics
  . If you want to keep the link, I think more clarification in the prose would be necessary.
  • Removed (I think someone else added this as I also find these quite EASTER-y). — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For this part, the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers, please link Conservative as it would be helpful for unfamiliar readers, particularly those living outside the UK.
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• In the note, the four citations seem like an example of
  bundling the citations
  to avoid this.
  • I think bundling loses the link with the original reference, so that I have to make a copy (undesirable as changing one won't change the other and you then can't see all of the source's usages from the reference "^ a b c"s, right?). So not ideal for references used elsewhere. I've just named the publications and given the references after the name mention. Or maybe I could take one out and leave us with three citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The separation of the citations behind each of the publications solves this problem for me at least so I think it should be fine.
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is not required for the FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your citations to avoid link rot and link death.
  • IABot was down when I tried this last, but now done. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IABot can be quite temperamental at times so I understand that lol. Thank you for addressing this.
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is more of a clarification question, but has there been any scholarly articles written about this song? It looks like most of this citations are online sources, which is understandable since this song is relatively recent. I was just curious about the scholarly coverage as this seems like the type of thing that would invite that kind of attention and study.
  • No, I did search for this but I couldn't find anything with a non-trivial mention. I think you're right about it maybe being too recent. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments are helpful. I have focused on the prose and will leave the sources, images, and media to other editors. Once everything is addressed, I will support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend!

Yep, absolutely they're helpful. One clarification requested and the rest I've made an attempt at addressing. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for address everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC and have a great rest of your weekend!
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks, enjoy your weekend too. :) — Bilorv (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note--I replaced the graphics with plain text, cue FAC advice: "Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." HĐ (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about that, HĐ. I have read that before but it's a habit from GA and I completely forgot. — Bilorv (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • • No worries. Good luck with the nomination! HĐ (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Giacobbe

Great work on this article. It's a great read, informative, and meets all the FA criteria. I can't think of any issues that haven't already been addressed by the above posters, so it's a support from me! Giacobbe ^talk 15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, (CA)Giacobbe, I appreciate it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tom

After reading the article several times, I think that the prose looks great, the references are very well organized, and the media is appropriately used throughout the article. The only thing I think is a little bit redundant and not directly related to the article itself, is the first paragraph of the 'Background and recording' section. It seems to be more appropriate for the album article. Nevertheless, I will Support, and leave the decision of removing or not removing the section to the nominator. — Tom^(T2ME) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the second person to raise this, consider it done. However, I have moved the sentence saying it's the opening track of Notes on a Conditional Form to "Release and promotion" as I think it wouldn't make sense without it. Let me know if you think this change introduces any problems or confusion. — Bilorv (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I think the article is in great shape now. Congrats! This most definitely deserves the golden star. :) — Tom^(T2ME) 12:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:The 1975 - The 1975 (2019 song).jpg: Use, licence and rationale seem fine for me except for the broken Spotify link.
• File:Greta Thunberg at the Parliament (46705842745) (cropped).jpg: Licence and use seem fine for me.
• WP:NFCC#8
  and the other inclusion criteria.
• File:Extinction Rebellion, green placard (cropped).jpg: License and use seem OK for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the Spotify link with a magazine that uses the exact cover art (at a higher resolution than we do) and a permanent archive link. Not sure where the ALT text is missing—don't think the audio needs one (though it does have captions). — Bilorv (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is missing from File:The 1975 - The 1975 (2019 song).jpg. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: the current alt text for that image reads, Song cover: horizontal and vertical text reading The 1975 and Notes on a Conditional Form., no? As seen here. — Bilorv (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

My bad on the "felt emotional" bit, and this is now something I can support for FA following its improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• Who is the host of Sound Like A Plan?
  • Greg Cochrane, a journalist who's written for NME, the BBC and The Guardian. Also the musician Fay Milton (of Savages). Reliable coverage of the podcast in NME and Kerrang!. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• FN13 is missing author
• What makes pedestrian.tv a high-quality reliable source? Dork? Consequence of Sound?
  • (1) Pedestrian.tv is used as a primary source interview, and it's a video, so they just need to be reliable enough that we're confident the video hasn't been falsified, tampered with or selectively edited. You can read a bit about the publication in MediaWeek (a trade magazine) and Sydney Morning Herald—it's published by Pedestrian Group, associated with lots of reliable sources in Australia. It's journalists are paid professionals and it has a way to submit corrections. (2) Removed Dork. (3) Consequence of Sound just needs to be significant for opinion, as it's used with attribution under "Reception". It's one of the most significant indie music publications worldwide, and as such is cited very frequently by some of the most widely-distributed music publications: three recent examples from NME, Rolling Stone and the BBC. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Fn29 has the date in the wrong parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two fixes and two replies—thanks for your review. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Nikkimaria, are you happy with this, especially the comments re pedestrian.tv? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced about that source, but am not opposing over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

• Comment: @WP:FAC coordinators: as this has fallen onto the "Older nominations" pile, I thought I'd ask if there's anything still required from this nomination. We've had four batches of comments, all addressed, five supports on prose, and an image and source review. — Bilorv (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think just sit tight for a bit and one of the coords will take a closer look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Gog the Mild after a support from HumanxAnthro, reply from Nikkimaria and reply from me in response to your three queries. — Bilorv (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gog the Mild: sorry to pester, but I notice you made an edit to the article. Any thoughts on the status of this candidacy? — Bilorv (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had thoughts the first tie you pinged, and they haven't changed since. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]