Template:Did you know nominations/The 1975 (2019 song)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The 1975 (2019 song)

(

)

Greta Thunberg, activist featured on "The 1975"

... that the fourth eponymous song by The 1975 does not feature the same lyrics used by the band since their first eponymous song, instead containing a message from Greta Thunberg (pictured) about climate change? Source: [1]

Reviewed: Berlekamp's root finding algorithm

Converted from a redirect by Bilorv (talk). Self-nominated at 11:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - ? - little bits of issues like the A Brief Inquiry release date - dealt with
Neutral: - ? - uncertain - dealt with
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - n - close paraphrasing of the environmental impact part, - dealt with

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - ? - Thunberg's message yes, but the same lyrics as the first three albums I'm not 100% sure. See below. (Addressed by nominator, stereogum source has both parts).
Interesting:
Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ~~hook is above 200 characters~~ oversight on my part. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Article is new and well over 1500 bytes (4000+). Hook is interesting, hook picture is free, used and clear. QPQ is done. However, the hook itself is over 200 characters (208 characters). I recommend either focusing on either the eponymous song not being the same as the previous three, or on Thunberg's climate change message. The current hook focuses my attention into two separate directions, so one of them could be an ALT hook (provided if a citation is included too in the nomination). Also, I'm not 100% sure about the hook itself as the Pitchfork ref doesn't explicity state that the eponmyous song on the band's first three albums were exactly the same. Yes it says "As per tradition", but it doesn't say specifically all of the first three albums had the exact same lyrics. On the other hand, this article was created from a redirect on the 27th, so the nomination would need to be updated to reflect that. I'm working on the rest of the criteria, but this is an overview so far. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The hook is under 200 characters discounting the "..." and the "(pictured)", which is what WP:DYKHOOK says is the correct metric. I believe both parts are important: they deviated from the lyrics because of the importance of the message. Omitting the first half would leave out the contextual significance in the band's action and omitting the second half leaves out what they actually did (telling you only what they didn't do). As for the hook verification, I believe this source says what you're looking for: Every album that the 1975 have released opens with a self-titled intro track called “The 1975.” It’s become a tradition. So far, each one has had the same lyrics — “Go down/ Soft sound/ Midnight/ Car lights” — surrounded by a different arrangement. But the latest “The 1975,” the one that opens Notes On A Conditional Form, is different. Fixed the "redirect" bit of the nomination. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 06:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

On reconsideration, hook seems fine now as both halves are needed and the stereogum source supports it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Overall review of the article:

Lead:

"positive critical reception" - would need to be updated per the addition to the New Statesman pan recpetion
Currently 5/6 positive reviews; I'd definitely class the reception as "positive" (which is a step down from "universally lauded" or "critically acclaimed"). — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but not mentioning the negative review doesn't seem to summarize the lead. How about "generally positive"? Minor point.
Sure. — Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Y

Background

Needs citation for A Brief Inquiry release date. Not included in Dork source.
Added. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Y
"as the clock ticked over into Thursday (25th July)," in the Dork ref seems to suggest a 25th release day, not 24th. But YouTube and other sources says 24th. I'm confused.
Good catch. The Dork source is wrong about when the video was released (as the YouTube video proves). I've consulted a few more sources and they confirm that the band deactivated their accounts early on 24 July and the video was then released late on 24 July. I've changed the deactivation wording from "24 hours before" to "shortly before" and added those sources. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Y
"school strike for climate movement in November 2018" - no mention in the three cited sources, especially with this specific date.
Added ref ([2] In November 2018, following the United Nations Climate Change Conference, then 15-year-old Greta Thunberg initiated the school strike for climate movement). — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Y
"said the group and the label were making efforts to minimise their environmental impact" close paraphrasing that I don't think passes WP:LIMITED
Changed to "said that the record label and the group were beginning to make changes to reduce their environmental impact". — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Y
"The song was produced by the label Dirty Hit, founded by The 1975 manager Jamie Oborne," - think it should be two sentences for grammar (does not effect nomination).
I still don't think having Extinction Rebellion's comments is neutral, whether its in the background or reception.
Why not? If it were just the SPS I would understand, but there's an entire NME article which is solely about their response. This article demonstrates due weight. I can't see any neutrality issues because the quotations are attributed and XR's relation to the subject acknowledged in the previous sentence. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, right now there's three quotes from XR. The quote about the song seems ok but the other two seems promotional? If i had to pick, i'd say the first part is fine, given NME quoted it.
NME quoted all three parts, otherwise I wouldn't have. Nevertheless, I've removed the other two. — Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Y
To me, the 2nd and third paragraph overall don't sound netural. If there's disagreement, I can request a second opinion.
In what way? What about them do you believe to be non-neutral? — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Paragraph two: I'm not sure if mentioning her nomination for a Nobel prize or the inspiration quote is necessary. Originally I didn't think giving a background on Thurnberg was necessary, but I guess it is because she is the one singing the song with her speech.
Removed the Nobel Peace Prize mention, but yes the inspiration quote is necessary. It's standard to include description of how collaborators found the experience of working with each other and the quote falls into that category. — Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I looked over other articles that had similar anecdotes about the collaborators like If I Never See Your Face Again. This one seems very small and verifiable, so I'm willing to tick it.Y

Paragraph three: The band's reducing their environmental impact, maybe if the source said the track led to this decision. Mentioning Extinction Rebellion's comment doesn't seem like a suitable background/recpetion of the song. These two parts don't seem related to the background of the song.
The band reducing their environmental impact is used to analyse the song by New Statesman, as well as covered in The Guardian, and it's obviously related that the band started trying to reduce their environmental impact at the same time they recorded a song about how people need to reduce their environmental impact. — Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I was concerned that this part didn't fit chronologically. But, since the New Statesman article said "have admirably taken some practical steps", either that means they did before or at the time of the song's release (as the article was a day after the song's release). So I think this is fine now.Y
Healy said the first single would be released on 31st May, but it ended up in July (if this even is classed as a single). I noticed this isn't explained. Any particular reason why this happened? - it doesn't need to be added, I'm just wondering why. This is regards to the Feb 2019 Dork ref
No idea, and we're not likely to find out. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Was curious. If no ref exists, then that's fine. Y

Composition

"society's fault" - is it possible to slightly reword or is it limited?
Well I've changed it to "about contemporary political events" (more in line with how we summarise it at Love It If We Made It, and still something mentioned by the source, but not the same wording). — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Y
Which source did you use for the length of the track?
The track itself. I've added the YouTube video as a source — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay. The infobox would need to be updated to reflect that.
Yep. — Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Y
Self Note: i need to access a full copy of Horner's and Kerridge's Telegraph sources. - Received copies from the RX and both checks outY

Reception:

Some grammar check is needed at the Consequence of Sound part but does not effect the nomination.
Done anyway. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Y
"gave her chills" WP:LIMITED?
Yes, I think it's fine under WP:LIMITED. Is there a problem here? — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't 100% sure on it so that's why the question.Y
"amplify a woman's voice" Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing that I feel does not pass WP Limited.
Rewritten. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Y
Kerridge's sentences I think has too much quotations, is close paraphrasing per the sentence order (sample and explanation of what Two Tribes is about) and isn't netural as it's currently written to move the focus away from the song to Thunberg.
Rewritten a bit. I don't see how coverage of Thunberg has anything to do with neutrality—if it's what the reviewer comments on then it's what we comment on. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Y
I don't think mentioning reception from Extinction Rebellion is neutral as they are receiving proceeds from the song.
Fair enough; moved to background. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Y
Overall, in this section, there seems to be a lot of quotations. Therefore I don't think this section would satisfy MOS:QUOTE or Close paraphrasing.

This part now has primarily short quotes with only one long quote, plus includes summaries.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, the section's been given a rewrite. (I've also responded to your points inline; hope that's okay.) Let me know if you still feel there's any issues. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: Parts of the article have been changed while I've been reviewing it. I.e. the addition of the new statesman article, and the question of whether or not this is a single or a song. I've adding this part in just in case the review looks off. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Rest of review is done. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've replied to each comment. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Replied to the latest set of comments. — Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: not sure what issues remain for me to address after the latest batch of ticks. Can the hook be approved yet? — Bilorv (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Well, I had to get access to online copies of both Guardian sources, which I was gratefully provided at the RX. And I had to think over the inspiration quote. I've added an extra grammar one about the Oborne sentence, but that doesn't hold up this nomination. Nice job for the amount of work you've put in this past week! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)