Talk:Notes on a Conditional Form

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 15 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tarynrollins.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So does the title mean anything specific or w h a t...?

(NBT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.0.164 (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

Add a review from the Weekend Australian 'Review': https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/the-1975-rages-against-the-machine/news-story/353794c22bc0129a112f9b371090c60f 42.241.25.143 (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Writing credits

I'm making this a topic here because it's... surprisingly confusing, and I think this is the best location to expand on it.

Basically, the writing credits for this album are a bit hard to determine.

The first source that one would seek out to find them would, of course, be the album's liner notes, which introduced the first issue I had with the page as I found it on the 23rd: it claimed to cite the album's liner notes while actually not representing the credits as shone there. That important page of liner notes can be seen on this discogs page for the CD and this discogs page for the vinyl (click "More images" on both) and this unboxing of a different edition of the vinyl (timestamp is in the link). They all give the same credit, which I will elucidate in due course: "ALL TRACKS WRITTEN BY GEORGE DANIEL & MATTHEW HEALY, EXCEPT 'TONIGHT (I WISH I WAS YOUR BOY)' WRITTEN BY GEORGE DANIEL, MATTHEW HEALY & GUENDOLINE ROME VIRAY GOMEZ, 'DON'T WORRY' WRITTEN BY TIM HEALY & 'THE 1975' WRITTEN BY GEORGE DANIEL, MATTHEW HEALY & GRETA THUNBERG." The credits on the page currently (and on the page I discovered on the 23rd) claim to be sourced from the "inlay cover", while clearly not matching the credits actually given on the inlay cover. If my findings are discounted by some different release of the album with different liner notes included, I would be eager to see them.

The credits as they are on here bear a suspicious similarity to the credits given on this pitchfork article, which were included in a note on previous versions of the page before being axed from the sources in later revisions. These credits differ from the liner notes most radically in that they credit band members Adam Hann and Ross MacDonald as writers alongside Daniel and M. Healy, along with a few additional credits given for samples/interpolations on "Tonight", "Shiny Collarbone", and "Bagsy Not in Net" and the addition of the band members as writers on "Don't Worry". Though possibly more "accurate" in some aspects, this article is, notably, not the liner notes, at least anywhere I've seen, and its contents being noted as such is erroneous.

What complicates the matter even further is that another distinct set can be found at another reputable source, this time the band’s publisher, BMI, whose repertoire is publicly searchable. One night spent searching on my own part on the BMI repertoire revealed this. As with Pitchfork, most of the tracks credit the four members of the band as writers, and additional credits are given to sampled/interpolated writers— in fact, even more sampled writers are credited than on Pitchfork. The entry for “Tonight” adds credits for Lorraine Feather (the co-writer of the Hiroshi Sato song), Barrett Strong, and Norman Whitfield (the latter two co-writers of that blatant Temptations sample). The repertoire’s depiction is also interesting for what additional writers it doesn’t credit: there’s no listing of a song called “The 1975” co-written by Thunberg anywhere, only the one written by the band. “Don’t Worry” actually is in the repertoire, but its writing is also credited exclusively to the band. Also, “Shiny Collarbone” is credited only to Daniel, M. Healy, and Cutty Ranks, as opposed to Pitchfork’s crediting of the whole band and Cutty Ranks.

These credits are also, I hate to say it, not the liner notes. Which comes back to the issue posed here: which do we go with? I personally feel uncomfortable picking and choosing from whichever seems “most correct” on a song-by-song basis, which is why in my own edit I put the credits as they appeared in the liner notes along with an extensive note describing the writing credits as they appeared in other sources (which has apparently been maintained). I think all sets have some degree of truth to them and deserve to be shown.

I appreciate the changes made to the “Samples” section I added— I was thinking that the writing credits I put there might have cluttered it a bit, and it is correct that they’re uncredited everywhere aside from interviews. Were it up to me, that bit would remain as is.

Thanks for reading. Again, if I'm noticeably wrong about something or have missed anything, please let me know. SomethingOfYore (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)SomethingOfYore

@SomethingOfYore: Thank you for taking it to the talk page! I agree, this is a very confusing circumstance. I am the one who removed them. I am not sure what version the person in the YouTube video has (I am guessing it's this one). I am going off of this one, which includes the foldout posters for the songs (here is an example). My assumption is that "writer" and "lyricist" are used interchangeably by the band. Once again, I am just assuming, but based on my research bringing their articles to GA status, it appears almost 100% likely that Healy and Daniel are the only members who write the lyrics. Hann and MacDonald are credited as "writers", but I believe this is more about composing the song's themselves, not the lyrics. I have no way to prove this though. I think this is why there are so many different versions. But I am just going off the copy that I own. Giacobbe ^talk 17:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Genres

@(CA)Giacobbe: I can't believe I have to explain why sourced genres should be included in the infobox. There are two sources for experimental and one source for pop, rock, and electropop. That's not a big difference. I say we list experimental first and the three genres after that. Why is that such a big problem? Bowling is life (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: Thank you for taking it to the talk page, I honestly appreciate your dedication to the article and I'd much rather have a constructive dialogue and be able to talk this out. There are four sources that deem it experimental. If we include Fitzmaurice's review (one critic's opinion), then we'd also have to include synth-pop, techno, indie-pop, folk, art rock, nu metal, jungle, Britpop, lo-fi house, rock, ambient music, etc., since those all have at least one source. I'd be happy to work with you and find more sources to build a consensus, but I'm sure you can see the issue with giving undue weight to one reviewer. This album is stylistically all over the place (and the reviews reflect that, lol). Giacobbe ^talk 00:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@(CA)Giacobbe: Sorry, I didn't realize what I added was already in the article. I also didn't realize how many other genres were sourced in the article. Plus, my argument sounds illogical. Sorry, for the edit war, I was wrong. I can't really work on this with you right now, but maybe later on a day where I have less going on. I do feel more genres other than just experimental should be listed. With this being in the process of becoming a Good Article, a consensus should probably be reached on the genres. I would be glad to help reach a consensus with the genres when I have more time. Reaching a consensus on the genres won't be easy per the reasons you stated. Reading the music section of the article makes my head spin. Lol. But maybe other broad genres this album may be described as such as rock, pop, electronic, and folk should be included, if we find more sources for them. Bowling is life (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: Dude no worries! I can totally see your perspective. Just hit me up on my talk page when you got time! We'll plan out something. Giacobbe ^talk 18:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Notes on a Conditional Form/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 21:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let's take the plunge. I'll be reviewing this as soon as possible. I notice that at around 75,000 characters of prose, WP:SIZERULE would suggest there is too much content for one article here so I'll be considering carefully whether cutting down the level of detail, splitting some topic to another page, rewriting for concision or something else are necessary. — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thank you for volunteering to review the article. It's fitting, as you promoted "The 1975" (the first GA in the topic), and will now be reviewing the last article. Looking forward to it. Cheers! Giacobbe ^talk 14:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That is funny. Is the plan a good topic nomination after this? Looks like it'd be suitable. — Bilorv (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the plan! Giacobbe ^talk 16:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, you mention below two more could be notable. I think you'd be advised to get those to GA first and then nominate (this would save you one or two renominations anyway). — Bilorv (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Length

It's painful for me to say it so I can imagine it'll be a lot more painful to hear, but I think the "Songs" section needs to be cut in its entirety. I've sampled some (last 5 years-ish) WP:ALBUM FAs and GAs and they're all well within the bounds of WP:SIZERULE. Most don't have a "Songs" breakdown, and the only one I could find that does—Abbey Road—has it instead of "Music and structure"&"Themes and lyrics" (or similar). If Abbey Road only gets 6000 words then there's no reason that NOACF should get 12,000. Feel free to incorporate details from "Songs" that would fit into "Recording and production"/"Themes and lyrics"/"Music and structure" but bear in mind that most of the aim here is to cut the word count considerably—between half and two-thirds of what it is now (at the end of all the changes). We shouldn't be aiming for a song-by-song breakdown, particularly as it's a 22-track album, but just to communicate the musical styles and lyrical themes. I know that's hard as there's such a diversity, but shorter content is read more deeply by viewers. Even if the length wasn't an issue, I think five non-free audio clips for one article is too many, and two is already the right amount. If you want somewhere to port the content to, I know the singles pages will already cover those songs in more detail and you might consider Fandom Wiki or Genius annotations.

Artists Respond to NOACF is also too long. The only two secondary sources are Rolling Stone and NME, and I've searched for others but can't find anything. I think the maximum appropriate length here would be for a one-paragraph introduction to the background and a one-sentence description for each art piece. For instance, "MacInnes' contribution for "Streaming" used images from international imageboards such as 4chan, while Agusta YR produced a film within a film for "Then Because She Goes"" and "Satterwhite's art for "Having No Head" is an animated tribute to Breonna Taylor." I like the three images, though, so they could stay beside the text or in a gallery view.

There's two songs here that meet WP:NOTE and could foreseeably be ported over into their own articles, so some of the info can be spared. In terms of the Songs section, I based the formatting of the article on Coexist (along with Melodrama and Pure Heroine to a lesser degree). I believe I can trim much of it down to still warrant an inclusion, focusing solely on a brief description of the songs, rather than the elaborate detail behind them. In terms of Artists Respond to NOACF, I quite like that idea! Giacobbe ^talk 16:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Those three articles all have 20–25K characters of prose, while NOACF started at above 75K. So keeping the Songs could be possible, but then I might want trimming down of "Recording and production"/"Music and structure"/"Themes and lyrics" further, in the same style as the suggestions below but more extreme. Particularly you'd want to cut all redundancy between the sections. — Bilorv (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I've just been doing now. There's a lot of unnecessary quotes within the prose that can either be paraphrased or honestly just removed entirely. Giacobbe ^talk 19:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyediting (block 1)

General

• The article is written in American English, right? But for a UK band, I think MOS:TIES applies so British English should be used. Search for "izi" and "ize" for spellings to change (to "isi", "ise"; but check in every instance whether it is a genuine case). If I find any other major issues I'll change them myself or highlight them, but so far I'm finding surprisingly few cases where Brit/Am Eng would differ.  Done
• Quotes with parts omitted should use "First bit{{nbsp}}... second bit" rather than "[...]" per MOS:ELLIPSIS.  Done

Lead

• "a maximalist experimental album that subverts the finality of its predecessor, contrasting its tighter, more calculated format" – I think the sentence can be cut at "predecessor" and it still implies the rest of the information.  Done
• "incorporating sounds, styles and textures extrapolated from a diverse set of scenes and eras" – This will be implied by the first sentence of the third paragraph, so cut for length.  Done
• "Unlike the 1975's prior records, the album features several guest vocalists" – Just list the five of them with possibly a brief descriptor (e.g. "climate change activist Greta Thunberg") but no more detail.  Done
• Fourth paragraph omits that "The 1975" was released in advance. Whether it's a single, a promotional single or something else is a matter I couldn't figure out when writing that article.  Done

• @Bilorv: I think I wordsmithed my way out of this one, lol. Giacobbe ^talk 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• "a digital creative space for users to access exclusive literature, music and artwork" – Reads too much like a press release. Can you say more succinctly the main functionality of Mindshower?  Done

• @Bilorv: Just removed it from the lead entirely. Giacobbe ^talk 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Will return to the lead again after assessing all of the body, so I can put it in full context.

Background and release

• "The 1975 released their second studio album ..." – I don't get the point of this paragraph at all. I can see that it may make sense to have, say, a single sentence with the names and release dates of the first two albums, but not a paragraph for the second's singles and charting data.  Done

• My intention with this paragraph (well, actually the whole section) was to give some background context to explain how Notes on a Conditional Form was created as a follow-up to I Like It When You Sleep, for You Are So Beautiful yet So Unaware of It, and not A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships, despite being released after it. I will trim it up accordingly. Giacobbe ^talk 16:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The 1975 wanted to create ..." – Attribute just to Healy, as it's only him that said this.  Done
• "However, the band's manager Jamie Osborn stated ..." – Drop "However" (the fact isn't really in tension with anything before it).  Done
• "Regarding the multiple delays, Healy said they were caused by giving interviewers arbitrary release dates" – Perhaps you're better at Healy-to-English translation than I am, but I don't understand how you get this from: I did three or four interviews where I’d said I was going to do an album and by the third interview, they go: ​‘Well, is it going to be six months to a year?’ By the third interview, I had a fucking proper date.
• "took up residence together" – The "together" is redundant and can be dropped.  Done
• "Regarding this portion of the album's creation, Healy said: "[Notes on a Conditional Form is] the first record I suppose that's just us in a room."" can be said just as "Healy said that the album was "the first record ... that's just us in a room."  Done
• "Ultimately, the 1975 submitted the album two weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic forced most of the world into lockdowns" – Can't find this in the given source. What's the relevant passage? Additionally, the lockdowns didn't occur simultaneously, but at a slightly different time for each country, so saying a date e.g. "in early March" would be better. (Lead will have the same issue.)

• All it says in the source is "They kept pushing back release dates, endlessly tinkering before finally turning in the album only weeks before the virus overtook the planet". Unfortunately they didn't give an exact date, but I rewrote the prose to better align it with the source! I can add the "early March" if you still feel that's appropriate as well. Giacobbe ^talk 18:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• No problem, I think that this has been suitably addressed. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The singer refers to their working relationship ... what the singer calls ..." – Better to stick with "Healy", I think, as this confused me. Also use "called" – always past tense for a quote from a past interview.  Done
• In the "Having No Head" sample caption, give an inline citation to the interview. Also, I can't hear piano until the last 5 seconds – is that just me not recognising what the instruments are? If I'm right that that riff is the piano then 30 seconds from near the start of the piece might be better, to illustrate the piano part (as that's what makes the sample NFCC-acceptable).  Done

• I added the citation to the caption, I'll upload a new sample once I finish trimming this part up. Giacobbe ^talk 20:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• New sample uploaded. Giacobbe ^talk 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• "more collaborative compared to" – Change to "more collaborative than".  Done
• Bridgers paragraph needs much shortening.  Done
  • "Healy called her debut studio album, Stranger in the Alps (2017): "One of [his] favourite female vocals that [he had] heard in so long."" can be cut (next sentence mentions them talking about each other's music).  Done
  • "He exchanged internet memes and "mutually appreciative" Instagram messages" can be reduced to "He exchanged messages".  Done
  • "Discussing their collaboration in greater detail, Healy said that working with other artists usually gives him anxiety. This feeling did not manifest itself with Bridgers, which the singer said was akin to playing an instrument." could be "Healy said that he did not experience his usual collaboration-related anxiety when working with Bridgers, describing it as akin to playing an instrument."  Done
  • "first teased in 2017" is already mentioned above, so drop it.  Done
  • "Fucking hell, if it sounds that good, every harmony that I don't like, I'm gonna get [Bridgers] to do it." can be paraphrased down to a few words.  Done

Music and structure

• "Owing to the sonic variety and experimental concept of the album, the band decided to include it, with Healy saying: "We were just really into the culture of house music."" – Drop the quote (that fact is better illustrated by what comes before it) and rephrase/shorten the rest.  Done
• "which he called the genre the "engine" of" – Unclear grammar.  Done
• Quote can be cut at ""It just commands you how to feel"" and I think it gives the same message.  Done
• "having made to feel intimidated" – Think a word is missing here or something.  Done
• "purposely subverts the finality of its predecessor" – Not clear to me what "finality" means as a description of A Brief Inquiry. (Same comment about the lead.)  Done
• "Similarly, Douglas Greenwood ..." – I think this quote could be removed; already several on the same theme but this one is more praise than musical analysis.  Done
• "This opinion was further bolstered ..." – Too long, could just say "For this reason, Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine deemed it genreless".  Done

Copyediting (block 2)

• "The former artwork would only used for the digital version" – Wording slip here.  Done
• Can't see "super-extended" in any of the sources at the end of the sources I can access, so I'm assuming it's in the other one, the inlay cover? However, the source for the previous sentence mentions they're in Northamptonshire at that time and moving to L.A. Just want to check the timeline adds up, not necessarily an issue. And would the Guardian source be good to use to establish the rough dates for the LA recording (e.g. "from around late July, the band spent four months...").  Done

• The "sessions" part is in [33] (Shortlist), I'll add it to the end of the prior sentence as well. Giacobbe ^talk 12:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• "the song began after listening to" – Subject missing here (e.g. "the song began after they listened to").  Done
• "Healy said the prior omittance of other vocalists came from disliking modern features" – Not a big issue, but maybe there's a rewording that can make this clearer e.g. "... came from his dislike of the modern culture of features". Or link (maybe to Guest appearance) or use a synonym of "features".  Done
• "which impressed Healy, who asked her to record harmonies for other songs" – Might flow better as "which impressed Healy enough for him to ask her to record harmonies..."  Done
• "to record harmonies for" – Can drop "harmonies" the second time to avoid repetition in quick succession.  Done
• I don't like the link [[woke|wake up]], as "woke" is specifically slang and a different vernacular (initially AAVU, now slang about social justice; but "wake up" as an idiom predates all of this).  Done
• "Containing only four syllables" – Don't see that Guitar World is needed here  Done and this comes from Healy's: With songs like Yeah I Know, the room I’ve got is four syllables. But he's really talking about something more specific about expression. Sure, there's several four-syllable lines to fit with the rhythm, but there's also more extended lyrics (e.g. "Time feels like it's changed"), so this doesn't seem true as written.

• @Bilorv: Removed Guitar World. Regarding the "syllable" part, would you suggest rewording or just outright removing? Giacobbe ^talk 12:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Outright removing, unless there's some other fact about the lyrics you'd want to replace it with.  Done — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• ""Roadkill", an upbeat alternative rock and country song, it draws influence" – This is a comma splice, I think. Split into two sentences or use a semicolon.  Done
• "and contains an electropop breakdown one minute" – Think this needs to be "and it contains..." (otherwise subject is "the majority of "I Think There's Something You Should Know"" rather than just "I Think There's Something You Should Know").  Done
• "and is the oldest track on ..." – Similar subject problem. Changing "and" to "which" would solve, I think.  Done
• "was written as an answer song" – As such songs are usually/often about other artists, specify that "Guys" is by the 1975.  Done
• "purged their social media accounts" – I don't think the meaning of "purged" is clear to an outsider. Maybe "temporarily deactivated"?  Done
• "The tour was postponed on 18 March 2020" – Mention that the pandemic was the reason (it's mentioned in the next sentence but 20 years from now readers will likely not immediately make the connection between "March 2020" and "initial worldwide lockdown").  Done
• "... to relaunch Mindshower as an AI-powered website" – Source doesn't mention it and it's not clear what purpose/functionality AI would bring.  Done
• "... robotics and others" – "... robotics and other technologies", maybe, to establish the type of the thing in discussion.  Done
• The Artists Respond piece for "Jesus Christ 2005 God Bless America" might be worth mentioning, at least the information that it was explicit and soon removed.  Done
• I don't mind the "Commercial performance" section as prose, but it is more normal to see them as tables, right? Like for +. Just wanted to see if you'd considered that as an option.

• @Bilorv: I completely agree with you. My only issue is that I've been asked to include a "Commercial performance" section for the album's singles. When I nominate this for GT, I have a strong feeling that will be a comment if it's missing. Giacobbe ^talk 12:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, no problem with this staying as prose then. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• "selling 34,000 album-equivalent units" – in what time period?  Done
• "becoming the sixth act in history" – Subject is the album, but the fact is about the band.  Done

Copyediting (block 3)

• Can you mix up the wording of the introduction of critics a tiny bit? I think currently they're all "Jane Doe of Magazine Regularly" format. But you can use "Magazine Regularly's Jane Doe" or "Writing for Magazine Regularly, Jane Doe" or "Jane Doe, reviewing for Magazine Regularly" etc.  Done
• Rivers gives the album 6/10, which I think is worth mentioning as well as or instead of "mixed review". Also, there's a missing "Joe Rivers of No Ripcord" on first mention, I think, and "In a mixed review of Notes on a Conditional Form" doesn't need to specify again the name of the album (clear in the context).  Done
• In "Accolades", would it be better to sort "N/A" so that it's at the bottom of the ranking rather than the top? I expect to see "1"s as the first listing rather than all the "N/A"s. I think this can be achieved technically by using "data-sort-value" (see e.g. this table).  Done
• More pedantically, you might wish to use "data-sort-value" so that all the accolade names sort without the "The" e.g. "The Best Albums of 2020" should be under "Best Albums of 2020".  Done
• "Notes on a Conditional Form was the 43rd most-discussed album of 2020, according to Metacritic" – Is this a metric of audience/users on the website/critics? And do you know how the metric is determined?

• @Bilorv: I think it's based on user reviews, but I'm not entirely sure. Clicking on the button brings you to a list of the "most discussed" albums. I went through the first five to see if it was based on critic and/or user reviews. To me, it seems that the top albums have several thousand user reviews, so I'm assuming it is based on that (which is why I didn't think it should be included it in the table), but I can't say with 100% certainty. Giacobbe ^talk 20:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• The ping didn't work here because it sees you as replacing the time rather than removing a signature and signing (you'd have to remove and then add in a separate edit), but I wouldn't have seen this sooner in any case. User/public reviews are very rarely good Wikipedia content—there's really big stuff like Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards—but in this case it's just user-generated content and therefore not worth including, inside the table or out. (This sort of thing is particularly susceptible to review bombing and similar effects, and then the number reflects such a selectively biased sample that it's meaningless.) — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remove that too then. Giacobbe ^talk 23:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• In the "Charts" section, the captions are good for accessibility, but if you want to remove them from the default visual view, you can wrap them in {{sronly}} so that they only appear to screen readers.  Done
• "To promote Notes on a Conditional Form, the 1975 released ..." – I think that's a slightly odd way to describe the standard release cycle for songs prior to the album drop. Perhaps "Prior to the album's debut, the band released "The 1975" and the singles ..."  Done
• All the fair use content has sufficient fair use rationales, and the free images used are good too.
• Spotchecking didn't turn up anything of concern.

Overall

More comments to come when I can. I appreciate there's a lot here but this is a big topic, and when I get to the later sections like "Personnel" there might be few or no criticisms as they look very good already. — Bilorv (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

These changes are looking great. Will need another full pass over the article because it's so different but it's looking like a good length and good level of information. Some busywork while I'm waiting: the references should ideally use a consistent linking style (though it's not mandatory for GA). I think the style you're using is to link on the first occurrence only, but you might want to do another runthrough with the new text as I can see at least a couple of extra Billboard linkings (not counting Billboard Japan, which is fine as a separate link). — Bilorv (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thank you! I've gone through the refs to remove duplicates and add ones that were missing links. Regarding the Billboard and Official Charts Company links, I can't figure out how to remove them. The 'Chart' section automatically formats them. Is there a way to change this? Giacobbe ^talk 22:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Annoying. No, it looks like there isn't. I'm not a fan of these sorts of templates as you can't really get "under the hood" and see what's happening—not being able to unlink is a perfect example. Your choice, as I guess you could change the style throughout to link on every occurrence, but I'm definitely happy if you just leave this how it is. — Bilorv (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: As appealing as reformatting all the charts sounds, I think I'll take up your offer and leave it as is, haha. Giacobbe ^talk 22:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, after a proper look, this is now right in the sweet spot of balancing detail with conciseness. Appreciate all the work that went into both building it up and cutting it down. I'm up to (but not including) the "Reception" section in my reading and it's all looking good so far. Not much left and then it'll just be spotchecks on sources (but I've been doing some as I go along). — Bilorv (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Awesome! I'm glad that it was possible to keep the bones of the article without sacrificing the content, I think it looks a lot better! Giacobbe ^talk 12:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff, I'm agreed. One more set of notes (on Notes) above and after that I'll be happy to promote. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thank you!! Giacobbe ^talk 12:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is now a well-deserved pass for GA. Thanks for the hard and prompt work on this lengthy review. The article is now looking excellent! — Bilorv (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your hard work as well! I really appreciate it. Giacobbe ^talk 01:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)