Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paint It Black/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [1].

Paint It Black

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1966 song by the Rolling Stones that was a top-ten hit and remains popular and a favourite on tours. It spawned an entire subgenre of minor-key psychedelic music and was a surprise hit after the band initially almost scrapping it entirely. While I think it's ready for the bronze star, I'm open to any suggestion concerning possible improvements so that the article could reach its full FA potential. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

I have participated in peer review for this article and I am very happy to see it at the FAC level. My comments are below:

Apologies if this was already discussed, but is it entirely necessary to have both single covers in the infobox? I thought it was encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimal and from my understanding, alternate covers are only included if they are notable or have received separate critical discussion. It just seems unnecessary to me.

Sorry for the additional comment. I still support the FAC for promotion, but could you explain the need to have both single covers in the article? Aoba47 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I missed this. Not sure how to proceed here. The US release was first, but the UK cover is a clearer resolution(?) photograph/scan. I worry swapping them around and removing the UK cover would be a disservice. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. Thank you for the response. I am not sure either to be perfectly honest. I would wait and leave this matter up to whomever does the image review. As I have said above, this does not change anything with my support, and the article still looks great to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a comment for this part, with Rolling Stone ranking it one of the greatest songs of all time. I have seen notes that discourage the use of this sentence structure (i.e. with X verb-ing Y). I do not have strong opinions about it either way, but I think it would best to avoid this structure when possible.
@Aoba47: A GOCE copyedit was conducted by Twofingered Typist and this wasn't flagged. Twofingered Typist, any thoughts? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not have any strong thoughts about it, but it is something that I have noticed in reviews so I just wanted to pass along the note. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally know of no such rule, and if there is one it's stupid. Same with people saying "don't say '2020 saw the release of few films' because years can't literally see" humbug. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that this part, as far back as 1961, is somewhat misleading. The "as far back as" bit makes it sound like this was a significant time back, but this song was recorded in 1966 and I would not consider five years to really be that far back.
@Aoba47: Would "since 1961" resolve concerns or do you have another preferred wording? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Since 1961" would be much better. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, Following a discussion with the Beatles' George Harrison, I think it would be beneficial to add that Harrison was the Beatles' lead guitarist. I just I think it would be helpful to give this additional context for readers who are not familiar enough with the Beatles to immediately recognize Harrison and his relationship with the band.
Added that he was lead guitarist. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For this quote,"songs for Jewish weddings", would it be helpful to link Jewish wedding? It may be overkill, but since the thought crossed my mind, I thought I should still ask it.
Wikilink added. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few invisible comments in the article. What are their purposes? Apologies if this is super obvious. I am just not used to invisible comments.
They were added in the GOCE. I will go through and review them and clear out as needed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my initial comments from a first read-through. I believe the prose is in very good shape. If it matters, I know very little about the Rolling Stones and I first heard this song through covers (with the Ciara version being my favorite). Once all my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again. I do not think I will find anything further, but I want to make sure I give this review its proper time and attention. Have a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I can help. I just have one more note for now. For featured articles on songs, I have more often seen the critical reception put before the commercial performance. Is there a reason the reverse is done here? I could see a rationale for the information on the charts closer to the information on the song's release, but I still wanted to ask for your opinion on this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: No particular reason that I can remember. Swapped it around; it can easily be swapped back if needed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "Best of ..." lists, I rewrote and masked the fourth para of the Critical reception and legacy section which removed that wording and suggested you might want to consider using it instead. You've deleted it. The choice is yours. It's hard to know in advance what a reviewer will find fault with. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: I totally misunderstood the intent then. I thought what was commented out was stuff from the article to delete. I’ll take a closer look at it. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist and Aoba47: Restored and done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me. Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Aoba47! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick suggestion. Since this FAC has received a good deal of support, I would put in a request for an image review and a source review here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Requested. Thank you! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

I also participated in the peer review, where modifications were made to my satisfaction. Looking at this again I see no need for further work. Good job! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ~Riley

Having read the article in length and read through the modifications made based on the suggestions provided in the the peer review, I believe this article is good to go. It has been through extensive revision as part of the GA and DYK process while also being sourced to great length. ~riley (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, ~riley! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman

Just a minor nitpick, the Music & Lyrics section talks about the lyrics first and then the music. 웃O O 22:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@100cellsman: Addressed. Could you please take another look? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@100cellsman: Thank you for your review! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose

I think this article satisfies Criterion 1a. I made a few edits rather than list nit-picks here. Graham Beards (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support, Graham Beards! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Will conduct soon. Hog Farm _Talk 19:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Alterman, Loraine (15 July 1966). "Stones Really Nice Guys". Stones Really Nice Guys. Detroit Free Press." - why is "Stones Really Nice Guys" in there twice?
Fixed. Appears it was added as both the title and "magazine" parameter for some reason. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Musiccityoutfitters and sixtiescity.net - there's got to be a better way to cite those charts. One of those sites literally points to Wikipedia for further information, and the other
Rock backpages and newspapers.com don't have any results for this, so we may just need to omit it. It doesn't appear that they have been digitized. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Salaverri 2005 needs the translated titles in brackets in the citation as well
Like this or did you mean something different? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works.
"Alterman, Loraine (15 July 1966). "Stones Really Nice Guys". Stones Really Nice Guys. Detroit Free Press."
Addressed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Flavour of New Zealand a high-quality RS?
Not sure. It looks like there is a book that could replace this that would have it in it ("The complete New Zealand music charts, 1966-2006 : singles, albums, DVDs, compilations / compiled by Dean Scapolo") but it doesn't exist digitally and is only available -- from what I've found -- physically for in person viewing in Australia. Google Books, despite not letting you see the full page, does have two hits for "Paint It Black" though (both on page 23). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda wonder if we'd consider it a WP:BADCHARTS nowadays - the Flavour of NZ source states Not sales based music charts; rather, they were based on voting by NZ Listener readers, so not the best methodology as just polling magazine subscribers. Hog Farm _Talk 04:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: That is a good question and potentially something that should be put to an RfC to be listed. What do you think (RfC)? Should we just cut the charting mention for this article atm while that is sorted out? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super familiar with music RfCs. I'd recommend cutting it; I don't think it's a significant poll. Hog Farm _Talk 04:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Cut. What do you think about Record Retailer? Wondering how to proceed on that one. Cutting it seems like it would be a loss for the article (given it's the band's home market etc.), but I really do wish that there were better sources. Too bad the Official Charts Company didn't exist until several years later. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Record Retailer says that the OCC recognizes the Record Retailer as the official chart from 1960 to 1969, so if that's true, then it should certainly be included for a 1966 record. Hog Farm _Talk 05:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I meant relating to the sources backing up the listing for year-end as mentioned above. I have been unable to find other sources online for their 1966 year end charting as it appears that they haven't been digitized (Rock Backpages and Newspapers.com come up empty). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It's clearly relevant information for something that isn't easily verifiable elsewhere. Hog Farm _Talk 05:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Insider is the same source as the Business Insider listed as no-consensus at WP:RSP, so I'm not sure that it meets the higher FA sourcing standard
I tried starting an RfC regarding this for music in general, but it fell flat on its face. Removed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Started a specific RfC for it at Talk:Westworld (TV series) related to that article. Hopefully this RfC goes a tad better haha. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reliability/formatting checks. Will do some spot-checks once these are addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review, Hog Farm! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some spot checks, no issues detected. I'm undecided on the one source transcribing the year-end chart, and will leave that to other reviewers to decide. Pass further work. Hog Farm _Talk 03:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your source review, Hog Farm! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24

I left some rather extensive comments at peer review and find the article in even better shape than then. Full support in promotion. Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Aza24! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Editorofthewiki

Overall this is looking pretty good, and I am glad that you put the work in on this. I just have a few points:

I feel like you could expand the critical reception section, though it currently looks pretty good. There are many critics who have reviewed Rolling Stones songs, and I know Vulture.com ranked them. Perhaps this could be included.
Vulture is mentioned? Some content was cut per comments at this FAC. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Why did you delete all this? Some useful information, including Rolling Stone's ranking of the song. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorofthewiki, Aoba47, and Twofingered Typist: Vulture mention -- nor that of Rolling Stone -- was deleted. The content was trimmed down based on comments that can be seen at the PR and further up on this page, specifically pointing out how the sentence structure was discouraged and best summarized as was proposed at the GOCE edit. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point in trimming is to avoid having an X listed it at Y format. If someone absolutely needs to know R.S.'s ranking they can check the source. There seems to be no consensus on this and each FAC reviewer has their own opinion. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There really aren't any pictures. Perhaps a photo of the Stones from 1966?
@Editorofthewiki: There aren't many of the band from 1966 on Commons that I can find, with only one of those being them on stage and it is unclear what they are playing etc. I don't think just a random photo of the band would be of value for the article. However, I am open to suggestions. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a photograph of the band from that era would be useful to illustrate. Of the Commons images from 1966, File:Kungliga Tennishallen Stones 1966a.jpg is probably the best. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is justifying its inclusion though. Adding it in would just be a random photograph from 1966 that actually predates the song's release. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any more on the writing process besides "Jagger and Richards wrote "Paint It Black" while on tour with the Stones in Australia."?
Unfortunately not. Billboard is the only source I've come across in my rather extensive searches for info on the song to mention where it was written (even then, a one-sentence passing mention); I just re-read the section for the song, which has three pages -- most just have one -- on it in The Rolling Stones All The Songs and it just starts at the recording of it. If you know of any sources that cover it and add more, please do feel free to add. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could incorporate this article somewhat. Jagger was asked about the writing of the song, and replied, “I don’t know. It’s been done before. It’s not an original thought by any means. It all depends on how you do it.” [2]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the reliability of farout magazine; it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, isn't at WP:RSP, nor is it at WP:A/S. Do you know of its use in any featured articles where it was present at promotion? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if you had more info on the song's lasting legacy in rock. This is a minor point, as there are best of lists, but maybe it influenced psychedlic rock or subsequent bands were formed because of the song?
This is an area that really isn't covered that much by sources on this song, much to my confusion. A lot of the coverage out there -- on newspapers.com etc -- is basically "this song exists" or a false positive. That said, I just added a tidbit that I discovered reading the All The Tracks section on this song; however, it is probably actually best in the "Live performances and other versions" section. There really isn't much though reported on the legacy side, period or modern. That said, if you know of anything, please do suggest. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the best with this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro

I assisted in this article's expansion a while back and am happy to see where it is now. Happy to support. – zmbro _(talk) 19:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Zmbro! —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DMT

This is a very well written article. Few qualms below; all resolved and I happily support.

This is more a suggestion than anything, but, given Jagger and Richards' famous songwriting prowess do you think: "Written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards" should be changed to: A product of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards' songwriting partnership...?

Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...features a sitar part played by multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones." This, I feel, could be exchanged for including the lyrics in this sentence; a singular sentence is a bit rigid. Considering the sitar is mentioned when summarising the reception that could be its introduction: "some music critics believed its usage of a sitar was an attempt to copy the Beatles."?

@DMT Biscuit: I don't really follow how you are suggesting this be integrated. Could you please include some of the surrounding material as you envision it laid out? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: "...it is an uptempo song with Indian, Middle Eastern and Eastern European influences and lyrics about grief and loss...Reviews at the time were mixed and some music critics believed its usage of a sitar sound was an attempt to copy the Beatles.

@DMT Biscuit: Thank you for clarifying. Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the song remains notable as the first number one hit featuring a sitar" - this feels rather trivial; the defining song of the 'Stones doesn't really need explanation in regards to its notable, in much of any contexts, and first of [blank] is a treasure trove for insular details - excluding more foundational aspects like race, gender, sexuality, religion...etc.

You are probably right here. Would you suggest removing the line? I do think mentioning it was the first number one hit featuring a sitar should be covered somewhere though. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really only object to its mention in the lede. Elsewhere is fine.

@DMT Biscuit: Removed from lede. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Perone..." - I think Perone is getting a little ahead of himself; he's referred by surname here yet his introduction comes later. Best to switch that around.

That is a great way of describing it hehe. Probably emerged during a restructuring. Fixed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a note outlining the differences of the American edition would be beneficial to readers - such as myself - not well-versed in the 'Stones' output, considering this article will be read by many casual fans or onlookers.

@DMT Biscuit: Where would you recommend this be included? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: "...established the concept for Aftermath's American edition, with the following songs offering insight into "the darkness of his psyche".[6][a]/or[note1].

@DMT Biscuit: Pings only work with signatures. The only difference between the two is already covered in that "Paint It Black" replaced "Mother's Little Helper" as the opening track. Otherwise, some of the songs are re-arranged, but reviewing the source again it does not appear that that is critical. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

~~Who killed Laura Palmer~~ Who's David Palmer? Journalist - freelance or tenured - academic, fellow musician...?

Had to look it up, but good joke haha. As for the real "David Palmer", he is the editor of The Cullman Times. Fixed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

All sources checked were good and accurate.

Thank you for your review, @DMT Biscuit:! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

Both cover images have good FURs. I would strongly recommend editing both of the file pages and adding which cover it is that is being depicted (UK/US), as that isn't clear. I think they are sufficiently different to justify the use of both despite the NFR restrictions. The audio grab FUR is also fine, especially as it features the sitar, which is discussed in the article. I don't see the need for another photo of the band (as mentioned above), as the band members are on the covers. I can't think of any other photograph that might be appropriate except one of Jones playing the sitar (preferably performing this song), but I couldn't see one on Commons, and the one of him playing the sitar alongside Wyman pre-dates this song's release. Ping me when the file pages are tweaked and I'll sign off on this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for this review and for commenting on the other picture request. My attempts to override the descriptions on the two covers haven't proven fruitful so far as the description is generated by Template:Non-free use rationale album cover. As an interim solution, I have renamed the files themselves to have far more descriptive names ("RStones-PiB-Decca.jpg" became "Paint It Black UK sleeve.jpg" and "Paintitblack.jpg" became "Paint It Black US sleeve.jpg"). Is that sufficient? If not, can the template be substituted or how would you recommend approaching this? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do, TheSandDoctor. Images all good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review, Peacemaker67! I am pleased to see how this is looking like it will turn into my first successful solo FA

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.