Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Running Out of Time (song)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2024 [1].

Running Out of Time (song) edit

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A hit Paramore song about time management and social anxiety. Thanks to NØ for a great GA review and for helping to prep this for FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Just wanted to note that I have not looked at this article in a long time. I had posted a list of additional things that the FA criteria would require after passing the GAN but have not gotten the opportunity to see if they have been addressed. Sorry for not being more help with this and best of luck.--NØ 19:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I addressed most of your comments that you made at the time and now that I have two FAs under my belt, I think this is ready for review here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

  • Per WP:CONFORMTITLE, the album title This is Why should be in italics in the citation titles. An example would be Citation 18 (i.e. the Helen Brown review in The Independent).
    • Done.
  • For this part, (which is described as a pop-rock and dance-rock song), I would clarify who is doing the describing. I would assume that it is critics so I'd re-word it to something like, (which critics described as a pop-rock and dance-rock song), but it is unclear and could also mean that either Paramore or fans or someone else entirely described the song this way. I have the same comment for this part, (has been described as a pop-rock and dance-rock song). Just best to avoid any potential misinterpretations.
    • Done.
  • I have a comment on this sentence: (Williams said when writing the song, she "wanted to challenge [herself] to write about ordinary things".) There is quite a bit of repetition of "writing" and various versions of it around this area, which is unavoidable since it is about songwriting, but I think this part could be cut down to (Williams said that she "wanted to challenge [herself] to write about ordinary things".). Previous sentences have already conveyed Williams was one of the songwriters on the song so I find "when writing the song" repetitive and it cuts down on the repetition of "writing" a bit.
    • Done.
  • I am uncertain about the change to the quote, ("mundane thing[s]"). I looked at the source, and it is singular on purpose as Williams is specifically referencing time management as the "mundane thing" she is writing about so I feel that the additional [s] does change the meaning quite a bit as Williams is referencing a specific thing while the Wikipedia article broadens that out.
    • Changed to "ordinary things", which is also quoted in the article.
  • This is just a clarification question, but was there any further information on the remix, such as reviews or coverage on how it differed from the original? I am guessing that this is not the case, but I just wanted to make sure.
    • Not that I have found.
  • I wanted to point out there is at least one area that the citations are not in numeric order (i.e. the first sentence of the "Composition and themes" section). It is not required to put them in order so it does not need to be changed. I still wanted to draw your attention to it just in case.
    • Done.
  • Why is Sowing not attributed in the prose for the Sputnik Music review while other reviewers and publications are explicitly stated in the prose? I would be consistent with that.
    • Done.
  • I would avoid linking pop-punk twice in the "Composition and themes" section.
    • Done.
  • I do not think the "standout tracks" quote is necessary. It could be easily paraphrased without losing any meaning. I have been told in the past to avoid quotes like this as it could take away from the more meaningful ones, and I agree with that sentiment.
    • Done.
  • I would link anacrusis as I could see readers not being familiar with that term.
    • Done.
  • I am uncertain about this part, (and released by Paramore). It is really released by the band and the record company. It was not just a release completely handled by the band itself.
    • Done.
  • Apologies in advance as this is a very random question, but when I was reading about the Alice in Wonderland-themed video, it did remind me a lot of the video for Gwen Stefani's "What You Waiting For?", which also involved a person being pulled from a recording studio into a Alice in Wonderland-themed world. Both even involve time management as Stefani's song is all about the pressures of going solo. Did any critics make these comparisons? I highly doubt it, but it was just something that came to my mind while reading it.
    • I have not seen any critical comparisons, but that's interesting. I guess Alice In Wonderland and time management are part of the cultural milieu.
  • I am not sure about the prose quality for this sentence: (After entering the world through a guitar case, Williams, along with guitarist Taylor York and drummer Zac Farro, navigate through a colorful world that reflects the anxieties of the song's lyrics.) I think it is the repetition of "entering the world"/"navigate through a colorful world", but something about this sentence just seems off to me.
    • Done.
  • Couldn't this part, (then run on a running track), be condensed to (then run on a track)? The current version seems repetitious.
    • Done.
  • Did Adrian Garro go into any further detail on how this video was like those by Nirvana and The Smashing Pumpkins?
    • Nope. Just that the "aesthetics" are similar.
  • The music video's release date is mentioned in the "Background and release" section, in this sentence: (The release of the music video followed on February 16.) It is not mentioned at all in the actual "Music video" section. I'd move this information down there as that is the more relevant section. In its current form, readers who want to learn more about the video would go to the "Music video" section and then have to search for the actual release date in an earlier part of the article.
    • Done.

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure that I have not missed anything. Apologies for the nitpicks and the random Gwen Stefani question. I look forward to reading the article again. I hope you have a great rest of the year! Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I've addressed everything above. Thanks for taking a look. Happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Realized I missed a couple. Addressing those shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. It all looks good to me, and I appreciate that you took the time to respond to everything. I agree with all of your responses. I will read the article tomorrow, but I do not imagine that I will find anything major. Thank you for the kind words. Here's to a great 2024! Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 9 has the title as (This Is Why Review: Paramore Fight for the Present on Sixth Album), but the source's title is (On This Is Why, Paramore Fight for the Present Moment) when I click on it. Also the album title should be in italics.
    • Changed.
  • This is Why should be in italics in Citation 20, Citation 27, Citation 28, and Citation 43.
    • Fixed.
  • Any further information on their performance of this song on the This Is Why Tour beyond the Rodarte clothing?
    • Not that I have found.

This should be everything. Once all of my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FAC based on the prose. I hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Everything should be good. Thank you again for taking the time to review. Happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything and for the kind words. I support this FAC for promotion. Happy New Year to you too! Aoba47 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Link music video in the lead?
    • Why? It's not currently linked anywhere, so it would be useful to link it in both the lead and the body..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per MOS:OL, I think that "music video" constitutes "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". I'm happy to reconsider though if you have a different read or think it's particularly important to wikilink to it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band premiered the song on February 7, 2023, at a concert at the Grand Ole Opry " - I would suggest that "The band premiered the song at a concert at the Grand Ole Opry on February 7, 2023" would flow more naturally
    • Done.
  • "In September 2022, Paramore announced their sixth studio album" - I am British so talk differently and am no expert, but is it not the norm in US English to refer to bands in the singular? So it would be "Paramore announced its".....?
    • Done.
  • "Williams said that "wanted to...." =? "Williams said that she "wanted to...."
    • Done.
  • "She also stated writing about "ordinary things" had" => "She also stated that writing about "ordinary things" had"
    • Done.
  • "Writing for Rolling Stone, Larisha Paul said the song's" => "Writing for Rolling Stone, Larisha Paul said that the song's"
    • Done.
  • "In The Line of Best Fit, Steven Loftin said the song" => "In The Line of Best Fit, Steven Loftin said that the song"
  • "concluding they reflect the song's themes" => "concluding that they reflect the song's themes"
    • Done.
  • "Other critics have noted "Running Out of Time" addresses" => "Other critics have noted that "Running Out of Time" addresses"
    • Done.
  • "Alexis Petridis wrote in The Guardian the song captures" => "Alexis Petridis wrote in The Guardian that the song captures"
    • Done.
  • "Writing for The New Yorker, Carrie Battan said the song" => "Writing for The New Yorker, Carrie Battan said that the song"
    • Done.
  • "Williams has said "Running Out of Time" is about" => "Williams has said thar "Running Out of Time" is about"
    • Done.
  • "Williams said the song was also influenced" => "Williams said that the song was also influenced"
    • Done.
  • "He described it as "a sequel to Afroman's 'Because I Got High'"" - nothing to do with the article, but this amused me as I am not sure anyone would take that as a compliment! :-)
    • "Because I Got High" is a classic!
  • "Writing for NPR Music, Clarissa Brooks said the song" => "Writing for NPR Music, Clarissa Brooks said that the song"
    • Done.
  • "In Paste, Grant Sharples said the track" => "In Paste, Grant Sharples said that the track"
    • Done.
  • "and stated it is "accessible" and a "standout"" => "and stated that it is "accessible" and a "standout""
    • Done.
  • "where it is revealed Williams has been daydreaming" => "where it is revealed that Williams has been daydreaming"
    • Done.
  • "the band's stylist, said Westwood was her" => "the band's stylist, said that Westwood was her"
    • Done.
  • Again, nothing to do with the article, but really surprised it only got to 74 in the UK as I recall BBC Radio 1 absolutely playing it to death
    • That's odd. It's a banger of a song.
  • That's what I got - nice read! Paramore are/is one of my son's favourite bands so he will be pleased to know that I reviewed this one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. I believe I've addressed everything. Happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox edit

  • "fourth single" → not supported in the body
  • praising its playful lyrics and well-balanced composition → praising its lyrics as playful and its composition as well-balanced
    • Done
  • The album's lead single "This Is Why" was released on September 16, 2022 → The sources support September 28, not September 16.
    • Done (I think I must have accidentally used 9/16 since that was the date of the Pitchfork article).
  • paramore.net URLS should be marked as dead
    • Done (must've gone down recently because it was live just a couple of months ago).
  • "Atlantic Records released "Running Out of Time" as a single on May 23, 2023" → seems to be odd to omit the specifics of the release, ie to American alternative radio
    • Clarified
  • "The song was written by..." → three "and" in one sentence doesn't feel nice to read
    • Split into two sentences.
  • YouTube video needs timestamps
    • Done
  • a one-sentence paragraph is discouraged
    • Fixed
  • There should be a sentence or so about where they are in their career, when they're last album was released etc. The background shouldn't just be about the current album.
    • Done.
  • "Other critics have noted", "best on the album and noted" → "noted" implies that something is a fact when it is actually an opinion
    • Changed
  • "Critics positively reviewed "Running Out of Time" for its tone" → I think "'Running Out of Time' received positive critical reviews for its tone" reads better
    • Done
  • critical reception and commercial performance in same paragraph (the third one) is jarring
    • Done
  • "As of December 2023" → is this expected to change? the access dates show July and September 2023.
    • Probably will not change at this point. Removed the as of.
  • should specify that Billboard charts referred to are US
    • Done
  • flexi disc May 29, 2023, release date not supported
    • Removed the date since the only source I can find for that date is Amazon, which I'm guessing wouldn't cut it for FA?
  • release history table needs row scopes, row headers, col scopes per MOS:DTAB
    • Done
  • suggest moving band image to background section, not as music sample image
    • Can I think about this? I put it as a music sample image because I didn't want a huge wall of infobox and then image on the right through the background section.
      • At least for mobile view it would work fine, it's just that there hasn't been an established relevance for the image in the "composition and themes" section

Heartfox (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox Responded above. Still thinking about your last suggestion. Thank you for the review! voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox @Ippantekina: image moved. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Anything else to work on? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the first sentence in "background in release" is supported by the Billboard citation. Is there a mistake here? Heartfox (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does support the sentence: "According to the band, the hiatus — taken after the release of their 2017 record After Laughter — was set into motion by the death of one of York's family friends, which happened while Paramore was filming a music video. 'I just started bawling,” the guitarist shared. 'I didn’t know I had this capacity until that moment. We realized nothing is worth risking our health.' Afterward, Paramore scaled back their touring plans for After Laughter before deciding to take their first-ever break." The article mentions that the band was formed in 2004. I removed the date of the fifth album since I don't think it's important for the background here, and just changed it to 2017, which is supported in that source, and also clarified that they cut their tour short to take their hiatus. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping @Heartfox. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the source support that After Laughter was "critically acclaimed"? Heartfox (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Added a cite to Metacritic. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you are interested, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breakdown (Mariah Carey song)/archive1 would benefit from your comments. Best, Heartfox (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll try to take a look. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina edit

I will do a prose review.

  • "Williams said the song is influenced by her personal struggle with punctuality and was inspired by her friendship with Taylor Swift" convoluted and confusing tense switch; why not "... was influenced by her personal struggle with punctuality and her friendship with Taylor Swift"
    • Done
  • "and it peaked on several music charts in 2023" I'd specify which charts as there are only four anyway
    • Done
  • Is the "See also" link to This Is Why necessary?
    • Nope. Removed.
  • "Atlantic Records released "Running Out of Time" as a single on May 23, 2023" I would add the radio format according to the source
    • Done
  • "The song was written by Paramore's lead singer Hayley Williams, guitarist Taylor York, and drummer Zac Farro, and Carlos de la Garza recorded and produced the song in Los Angeles" suggest splitting into two sentences
    • Done
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs
    • Done
  • I'm confused with the organisation of the "Background and release" section; why are the February performances mentioned after the May single release?
    • Reorganized
  • I would remove the image of Paramore performing per WP:IRELEV
    • My thinking was that showing the band performing on the tour supporting the album/song is relevant to an article on the song itself. Do you feel strongly about removing it?
      • I would leave it for the "Background and release" section instead. Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.. Ippantekina (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina Responded to your suggestions. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions)
  • Repetition: "In May 2020, the band's lead singer Hayley Williams stated that" "The song was written by Paramore's lead singer Hayley Williams," "The music video depicts lead singer Hayley Williams"
    • Fixed
  • "Critical reception"; this section reads a little WP:QUOTEFARM-ish. I would paraphrase some reviews to avoid excessive quoting.
    • Do you have suggestions? I'm not really sure how to paraphrase most of these quotes.
  • Can the Billboard and Consequence reviews be merged into the preceding paragraph?
    • Done
  • Inconsistent tenses: "The song had peaked at number 18 [...] The song ranked 43rd"
    • Removed "had".
  • Repetition: "The music video for "Running Out of Time", directed by Ivanna Bori [...] The music video depicts lead singer Hayley Williams being pulled"
    • Fixed
  • Repetition: "Williams, along with guitarist Taylor York and drummer Zac Farro" (these people are already introduced in the "Background" section)
    • Fixed
  • Redundant: "In the "Running Out of Time" music video, Williams wears several outfits"
    • Done.
  • "British designer Vivienne Westwood" adding the to fix false title
    • Done (although I don't think false titles are an issue, and I appear to be in the minority of editors).
  • Suggest adding rowheaders for the "Release history" table.

— Ippantekina (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: A couple of questions above RE paraphrasing and row headers. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the row headers; any feedback on those quotes you asked me to paraphrase? I included those quotes as is because I found them difficult to paraphrase without significantly changing the meaning. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I agree that paraphrasing is a challenge; couldn't have done it better myself. Great work on this article :) By the way, it would be great if you could leave some comments at my current FAC for Wildest Dreams (Taylor Swift song)-- Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will try to take a look in the coming days. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review edit

Licence, rationale, use, ALT and image placement seem fine. Source-wise I am reviewing this version, spot-check upon request. Looks like most of the sources are magazines which are somewhat prominent but which I am for the most part not very familiar with. I wonder if Sputnik Music has any affiliation with the Russian newsgroup notorious for disinformation. It seems like source formatting is consistent throughout. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No relation to the Russian Sputnik. They're professional music journalists (with reviews indexed by Metacritic) and the website has been around since 2005. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK, with the caveat of no spot check and little familiarity with sauces. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 04:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll take a spot check to be on the safe side given the error that @Heartfox found. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, using this version:
  • 2 Not sure what this supports.
    • It supports that After Laughter was critically acclaimed. Moved to the first sentence of that section.
  • 3 OK
  • 14 OK
  • 20 Where it is said that these views are generally held by critics?
    • Rephrased body text; I didn't mean to imply that it was generally held by critics, but that some critics have said that, which I now realize is an attribution issue.
  • 22 Not sure what this supports in its first use.
    • Removed; the first cite supports the sentence without it.
  • 23 Not sure that this is exactly what the source means.
    • Changed.
  • 26 OK, but it's not paywalled for me.
    • The New Yorker paywalls after a few free articles.
  • 28 OK, but assuming it's representative.
  • 29 I don't see any COVID-19 reference.
    • The sentence immediately preceding the quoted portion: "Across the album, the band longs for an acknowledgement of the fever dream we have all been experiencing post-pandemic."
  • 30 OK
  • 33 OK
  • 34 Where does it say third best?
    • It's a list ranking the songs and it's at number 3.
  • 36 OK
  • 39 OK
  • 41 OK
  • 42 OK
  • 43 Where does it say "daydreaming"?
    • Removed part about daydreaming.
  • 44 OK
  • 46 Does it say it was the "This is Why tour"?
    • It doesn't expressly say that, but it's discussing the tour and it's established earlier in the article that their current tour is called the This Is Why tour. I can remove that if you think necessary.
  • 47 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review. I believe I've addressed everything. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, just wanted to check in. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some overview source that can be used to support ""Running Out of Time" received positive critical reviews for its tone."? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, there's no overview source that I've found describing the overall landscape of critical reviews of this particular song. That sentence is intended as an intro sentence for that particular paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's fine, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks. Anything else to address? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I remember, but there is my usual caveat about unfamiliarity with the subject. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you for the source and image review! voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments edit

I have made some changes here. Please check to see if I accidentally changed the meaning of something or messed something up. I have two comments that I would like some clarification on before I consider closing.

  • "and cut their fourth world tour short" - do we know why?
    Per this Billboard article, the immediate cause appears to be a death of a family friend, which then lead into the broader mental health concerns, but none of that is expressly stated.
  • "Hayley Williams wears vintage Vivienne Westwood (pictured in 2011) in the song's music video." The sentence sounds a bit strange because it implies that Hayley Williams is wearing Vivienne Westwood herself, as if she is physically wearing the designer rather than the clothing designed by Vivienne Westwood. While it's clear to most readers that the intention is to convey that Hayley Williams is wearing clothing designed by Vivienne Westwood, the sentence structure could be clearer to avoid any ambiguity. Something like "In the song's music video, Hayley Williams wears vintage Vivienne Westwood (pictured in 2011) clothing." FrB.TG (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed.
@FrB.TG: Thank you for the MOS edits. Those look good. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Running_Out_of_Time_(song)/archive1&oldid=1200871901"