One might expect The 1975's fourth song titled "The 1975" to be a difficult search term, but unlike the other three—which are about... um, oral sex—this one has the keyword "Greta Thunberg", who delivers this protest song about climate change. If promoted, this will be the first green plus from the nominated Good Topic Notes on a Conditional Form (for which all credit goes to (CA)Giacobbe) to turn into a gold star. I'm confident that the article is comprehensive and look forward to suggestions for further tweaks and improvements. — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
Check the footnote on this—"People" is now acknowledged as the lead single (implying that "The 1975" wasn't a single, because of the way it was/wasn't released), though some news reporters at the time of "The 1975"'s release were a bit lazy and threw the word "single" around. It's possible you could call this a promotional single but I looked for sources saying such and in their absence, I think that's original research. Let me know if the footnote placing isn't the best it can be to draw attention to this. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The band previously opened each of their albums with an eponymous song featuring the same lyrics; however, the fourth version deviates from this set of lyrics. - I don't know what this means? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could tell what it means. Unlike the band's other opener of albums that are self-titled, this one is not about oral sex. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "featuring the same lyrics" bit that has poor wording... Same lyrics as what? I realise the answer is "same lyrics as each other", but on first reading this wasn't clear at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, there are four albums, and all four start with a song called "The 1975", the first three have the same lyrics as each other, but this one was different? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion abounds. In my copy of No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference, the title is capitalised (minus "Is", but our style is to capitalise it), though you can find examples and non-examples of capitalised/uncapitalised speeches on Wikipedia e.g. Ain't I a Woman? vs Never was so much owed by so many to so few. I do think caps is right (it's a title of a work). There's also an italics/quotes question but I think the No One article is just wrong to be using both quotes and italics(!) and it seems like most articles are using quotes. So I'm defaulting to no change but let me know if you feel strongly. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is not how it appears on the track, it's the capitalisation of the speech. I'm happy if that is how RS's describe the speech (and not the derivative work). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The body mentions that the donation was at Thunberg's request, but though Thunberg and XR are conflated by news commentators, or perhaps part of the same phenomenon, I can't see any formal ties. She's spoken at an XR speech but hundreds of other organisations too—no more relation to XR than she has to the UK parliament. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The band opened their encore with "The 1975" before the COVID-19 pandemic halted their touring. - probably worth mentioning "When touring in 2020, the band opened their encore with the song...." or it's confusing what we are talking about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay how about just On 31 May 2018, the band announced that they were splitting the planned Music for Cars content into two albums.? — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1975" is the opening track on the second of these two albums - this might be a litle confusing, because "The 1975" is also the title of the opening track of the first of these two albums. Perhaps change this around, and say "The second of these two albums opened with a track titled "The 1975". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closing lyrics are: "So, everyone out there, it is now time for civil disobedience. It is time to rebel. - it's not really my favourite to say "these are the lyrics", without making commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this bit is more to explain what the song is about but civil disobedience is mentioned at the start of the paragraph. I've replaced it with She says that the rules in place need to be changed and urges rebellion because it's a fair part of the speech in which she argues that rules in place are insufficient and acting within them is insufficient. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Healy described the song as "quite beautiful superficially", but also "quite sad, quite pretty" and "quite ominous" - do we need to quote here? Couldn't we say "song as superficially beautiful but also sad and ominous." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A song named "The 1975" with Great Thunberg?... Oh, it's not about sex. Thank god. Otherwise, I would've sworn the song was about a sex doll of her....... I'm not kidding, that exists.
Great work on 1975 articles. I find they get bloated at points, but they're great nonetheless, although that's for another discussion. This article looks really well put together, as the prose is understandable and most of the sources are reliable. However, I have a few major issues:
The first paragraph of "Background and recording" has no place in this article. It doesn't connect to anything else, and the only relevant point is that it's the first track on a single album. Readers have the respective album articles if they want to learn more about the history of those.
I'm going to push back on this: it's normal to give surrounding context to minor works within a broader context e.g. on the Black Mirror articles I've been working on, they all have a paragraph about the series they're within (example: top of San Junipero#Production). Odd coincidence in that series 3/4 of Black Mirror were originally commissioned as series 3 and then split into 2, and Music for Cars was originally album 3 and then split to albums 3/4. Another example that springs to mind is the Boat Race individual articles, number of GAs must be in the three digits by now (example: The Boat Race 1909#Background). As for the connection here, a lot of the secondary coverage about this song talks about how it was used on Notes on a Conditional Form (transition into "People", used to set the tone for the album), and it connects to a lot of "Release and promotion" content. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware (and have written and edited) many articles have background sections to establish context. However, these sections usually cover the parts of a wider context that most affect or relate to the rest of the article. I see zero how an album being split into two affected how this song was made, released and promoted. Am I missing it? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How the song was made—as part of the Music for Cars "era" of the band's music, which means that its production cycle overlapped with other songs in that era and they used the recording studios that they were using at the time and perhaps (depending on who you ask) there's a common musical style. The article later mentions some ideas about this being part of how both albums marked a transition to more overtly political messaging. (And the background ambient music in this song is the same sort of stuff they use on A Brief Inquiry... and elsewhere on NOACF, so clearly written/produced as part of the same sessions, but that's original research on my part.) How it was released—the initial early date that Healy promised followed by continual rescheduling led to a lot of the NOACF album music being released prior to the album dropping. If it had been one album or released on time then this song would be part of another album, or never recorded, or would have been recorded several months earlier. How it was promoted—promoted on tours for Music for Cars (including tours for the first of the two albums). In essence, the production cycle was not of two consecutive albums (in which case I wouldn't mention the previous album). The production cycle was two albums at once. Maybe I can draw out some of these connections in the paragraph in some way? — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I didn't catch that connection at first when writing. I just thought sentences said the songs of both albums were more political than previous albums, and that they had four tracks from Notes ready as of 2019. I didn't connect or catch those were a result of the album split. I can't tell if I didn't read closely enough or if the article could've made this clearer to the reader, but I would do what you're suggesting nonetheless to be safe. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reception section, although well-paraphrased, suffers from having that "A argued B" thing WP:RECEPTION frowns up.
Can you give an example or two? I have actually used Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections immeasurably often over the last few years and it's what I was going for here (assuming this is the page you meant—WP:RECEPTION actually didn't redirect there even though listed as a shortcut, but I've boldly changed that). They say "Avoid 'A said B'. ... Variants include 'A of B said C' and 'A said that B'." I've aimed to use a good mixture of those and vary sentence rhythme and combine reviewers' points where possible, but at a certain point I think summaries of reviews are a bit constricted in possible formats so feel a bit repetitive. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on a second closer look, this is actually well done. I suspected it used a "A said B" format because the first half of the section seemed to be just a list of opinions. The opinions are actually consolidated in the first paragraph, in that they're about how the song handled Greta's message. I'll admit I rushed to judgement when I made this statement. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, I feel this part is pretty quotefarm-ism despite being about the same topic: "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car.[55] Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine described it as "soul-stirring".[24] A PopMatters reviewer saw it as "evocative and gripping", while Madison Feller of Elle said that the "pretty stunning" track gave her chills.[18][56] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack analysed the speech as "intelligent and stirring".[57]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was a weaker passage. I think fewer examples can get the point across so I've gone with: A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car, and Madison Feller of Elle, who got chills from the song.[57][58] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack and Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine found it stirring.[59] I think it's an appropriate amount of weight to one of the most major axes of feedback, but if it's still belabouring the point then maybe I could even just contract it to just mentioning the two reviewers who found it stirring, and the rest as additional references. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I wouldn't use an opinion from the Washington Examiner, a conservative publication that, like other far-right publications, is filled with climate denialism. If he's writing that "climate change was not the issue that should be sparking global protests" and the journalist that wrote that also prominently appears on Fox News, it's very likely he's denying the issue of climate change, or trying to bullshit his way looking like he thinks it's an issue while writing for a source that doesn't. I would not give validity to such an questionable claim as that.
Alright, WP:RSP notes some disputes over the reliability of the source but this comment and the idea here of avoiding WP:FRINGE have pushed me to remove it. But to clarify a couple of the facts, I'll note that Schultz is a woman, and I don't see any connection to Fox News. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's (CA)Giacobbe you have to thank for the other articles, by the way, didn't mean to claim credit for the GT nom so I've adjusted the wording. Replies to these comments coming now. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""The 1975" is a protest song, where Thunberg delivers a spoken word performance" Neither CNN or The Guardian cites categorize the song as these two genres. Speaking of CNN, the cite as well as ref 3 (BBC) categorizes it as ambient music track. I would suggest using that alongside the PopMatters cite to further confirm its genre as ambient. The Guardian also categorizes it as "minimal" which I don't see in the article.
Telegraph source was originally there for "protest song" but got lost in a reshuffle—fixed. Insider added as "spoken word" as you suggest below. Ambient music mentioned and on its next mention we now say "minimal" with the Guardian ref. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and unique criticism of the song in ref 3 that I don't see in Reception: "The essay is direct in its message but short on actual practical measures which she thinks should be put in place." That same cite also attacks the 1975 for flying on airplanes for touring which I think strongly relates the subject matter of this song: "The 1975 are currently on a world tour, and will play gigs in Italy, Korea, Romania, Singapore, Ukraine, Dubai and Australia in the coming weeks. It is likely they will fly to many of those countries, despite air travel being a significant contributor to climate change."
Now mentioned the plane thing just before the measures they announced they were taking to reduce negative environmental impact. Added a sentence to Reception: A writer for the BBC viewed the song as light on concrete suggestions, but direct on messaging. I don't think it's clear that it is criticism specifically, as the BBC haven't marked it under a byline and they have at least the claimed position of not making value judgements in the organisation's own voice ("impartiality", as they call it). — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic is not a work and its name should not be formatted as such in the citation template and prose.
Let me know if any of these issues haven't been resolved sufficiently or if there's anything more. I think the article is looking better from these changes. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed on a re-read this article suffers from fluffy prose:
"measures by the band which had the aim of reducing their environmental impact." Couldn't it just be presented as "to reduce their environmental impact".
"she was the first featured artist on a recording by the 1975 other than the band members;" Featured artist is by definition someone who is on a track by an act they are not a part of, so saying "other than the band members" is redundant.
My knowledge of grammar isn't brilliant but the term for that would be something like dangling modifier—"The song was produced under the label Dirty Hit, founded by the 1975's manager Jamie Oborne" could be misread as saying the song was "founded by" Oborne, as the subject isn't "Dirty Hit" unless you add the "which was". — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the band had previously criticised their perceived convention of guest appearances in music being primarily intended to improve chart positioning" Does the fact that the band criticized their past criticism add anything? Why can't you just say that before, they criticized guest appearances as a method to improve commercial performance?
That's not what the sentence means. It's all one thing: they previously said that guest appearances in music were primarily intended to improve chart positioning. It previously read "a perceived convention" but another reviewer recommended "their perceived convention". In line with your confusion, I've tried something new: the band had previously criticised that guest appearances in music were primarily intended to improve chart positioning. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The musical styles of each version set the tone for that album" Odd sentence, plus the source only states each album starts with "a self-titled prelude that sets the mood for what's to come". It doesn't talk about "style" setting the mood.
This has been added based on feedback from others about how to best communicate the context of the first three albums' title tracks. "Musical style" is simple rephrasing as it can refer to any aspect of the music other than its title and lyrics, both of which are literally identical for the first three albums and hence not what the source means. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"*Al Horner of The Daily Telegraph observed that the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers—who previously voted against initiatives to limit carbon emissions—became the UK Environment Secretary on the day of the release." Is the attribution really necessary? Isn't it fact that she was elected on that day?
The fact wouldn't be neutral to mention without the attribution. It would violate synthesis. Take the canonical The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. This would be the same with the subtext here: "The 1975" is about climate change not being taken seriously. Ironically, the Environmental Secretary appointed on the day of the release opposed climate change action. Attributing this to Al Horner of The Daily Telegraph shows you that this comparison isn't coming from Wikipedia, but that a reliable source is making this point, and that it's only Horner's view that this is relevant. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good effort, but I still feel there are some things that could be improved?
Aren't Sean Lang and Laura Snipes' opinions equivalent? It seems like both have the same praise of the band allowing Thunberg to present herself fully without anything distracting it (whether it's through Healy speaking or the music being overpowered). Why state in two sentences their similar opinions? Seems repetitive
No, Lang's is about Healy not being egotistical or speaking on a topic he's not got specialist knowledge on. Snapes is about Healy not being sexist or mansplaining. The opinions are related, hence their consecutive placement and the connective, but not the same. I don't feel that fewer words can be used to describe the two opinions without violating synthesis, as none of the points enumerated are the same. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. My apologies, I didn't catch that first. I do think you were trying to suggest Snapes' opinion was related to gender by using the phrase "highlight a woman's voice", but I don't imagine a casual reader getting this at first, especially since Greta was under 18 at the time of the song's release, not exactly a woman, ya know? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"On 27 July 2019, Consequence of Sound named the song their favourite of the week" As much as it's dumb when people do WP:WHOCARES arguments... Is this really needed? We're presenting the general consensus of all critics, and I don't think a random music blog giving a "song of the week" badge that other blogs do is that significant.
Consequence is one of the most significant indie publications worldwide (I gave evidence for this in the source review). It's not a blog and that it named it the song of the week is no less significant than a good proportion of the reception in this section. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Praise" is used five times in the "Critical reception" section.
I think the critical reception prose needs a copyedit because it's choppy and occasionally feels like a set of random short sentences. "Insider's Callie Ahlgrim lauded that "the effect is exquisite"" "Horner found the track inspiring and "brutally, rebelliously stark"." "Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine and The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack found it stirring". "At the Reading and Leeds Festivals, the song was followed by "Love It If We Made It". Adam White of The Independent found this continuation to bring "greater potency" to "The 1975".[60]"
"Matt Collar of AllMusic reviewed the song as a heartfelt start to the album." This is not an opinion on the song, it's a tone description. Plus, "reviewed [song] as heartfelt" just sounds awkward.
Support. Great work on a song article given the sources you had to work with. I've seen, even in reputable HQ sources, opinions of pop songs getting covered in very simplistic, non-analytical terms, so I understand if the only opinions to present in critical reception of pop songs like this aren't too substantial. I think the prose does the best job it could in presenting that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid one-word quotes like "failing" and "heartfelt" as I do not think they are particularly beneficial to the reader and it may detract from other quotes. I have received this note in a past FAC so I just wanted to raise this to your attention as well.
Before I do this, just to clarify: is the suggestion here to say the words but without quotation marks, or to use a near-synonym/paraphrase/rephrase to avoid the quote? — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Background and recording" section, the 1975 should be linked on the first instance. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately so the band should be linked on the first instances in both.
Just a note, but the FAC instructions discourage the use of the done graphic as it could "slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives". Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a super nitpick-y note, but for this part, a perceived convention of guest appearances in music being, I would say their perceived convention to more so emphasize that this was coming from them (if I am reading this part correctly).
This is probably a very dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. I am uncertain about this part, The song was produced by the label Dirty Hit. How can a song be produced by a record label? I have mostly seen the word "produced" associated with the song's producers and not the label.
Not a dumb question at all. After some thought I think "produced under the label Dirty Hit" might solve your issue with this. Daniel and Healy are the credited producers, but (at least if it's anything like the normal music production process) they're utilising the label's resources and working with them at the various tasks that make up production. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article repeats that this song is the first on the album (Notes on a Conditional Form opened with a track titled "The 1975". and "The 1975" is the first song on the 22-track Notes on a Conditional Form.) and it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive rather than helpful. I would only say this information once. I would recommend keeping it where you think it is the most relevant.
I am uncertain about the link in the part, more explicitly political messages, as I believe it comes across as an Easter egg. I do not think that it is immediately clear that the "political" link would lead to the article on music and politics. If you want to keep the link, I think more clarification in the prose would be necessary.
For this part, the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers, please link Conservative as it would be helpful for unfamiliar readers, particularly those living outside the UK.
I think bundling loses the link with the original reference, so that I have to make a copy (undesirable as changing one won't change the other and you then can't see all of the source's usages from the reference "^ a b c"s, right?). So not ideal for references used elsewhere. I've just named the publications and given the references after the name mention. Or maybe I could take one out and leave us with three citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The separation of the citations behind each of the publications solves this problem for me at least so I think it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not required for the FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your citations to avoid link rot and link death.
This is more of a clarification question, but has there been any scholarly articles written about this song? It looks like most of this citations are online sources, which is understandable since this song is relatively recent. I was just curious about the scholarly coverage as this seems like the type of thing that would invite that kind of attention and study.
No, I did search for this but I couldn't find anything with a non-trivial mention. I think you're right about it maybe being too recent. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my comments are helpful. I have focused on the prose and will leave the sources, images, and media to other editors. Once everything is addressed, I will support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for address everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note--I replaced the graphics with plain text, cue FAC advice: "Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." HĐ (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on this article. It's a great read, informative, and meets all the FA criteria. I can't think of any issues that haven't already been addressed by the above posters, so it's a support from me! Giacobbetalk15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article several times, I think that the prose looks great, the references are very well organized, and the media is appropriately used throughout the article. The only thing I think is a little bit redundant and not directly related to the article itself, is the first paragraph of the 'Background and recording' section. It seems to be more appropriate for the album article. Nevertheless, I will Support, and leave the decision of removing or not removing the section to the nominator. — Tom(T2ME)17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the second person to raise this, consider it done. However, I have moved the sentence saying it's the opening track of Notes on a Conditional Form to "Release and promotion" as I think it wouldn't make sense without it. Let me know if you think this change introduces any problems or confusion. — Bilorv (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the Spotify link with a magazine that uses the exact cover art (at a higher resolution than we do) and a permanent archive link. Not sure where the ALT text is missing—don't think the audio needs one (though it does have captions). — Bilorv (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing from the attributed ref supporting "the band had previously criticised their perceived convention of guest appearances in music being primarily intended to improve chart positioning", which sounds like a rather contentious claim.
Yep, that's because I'm getting confused between the two main Guardian sources used. It comes from this one: The 1975 have never done a feature before, and have criticised it as a shameless grab for chart positions. Now cited. Went through all the instances of Guardian sources and fixed one more case where I cited the wrong one.
"humankind is failing to solve the problem"..... I feel humans are would be a better choice of words
"David T.C. Davies" should have a space between the initials
Two reviews alone doesn't seem like much to support the "A number of critics" portion of "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song"
This is meant to be a "topic clause", so to speak, so that the four references and quotes following—Gigwise, Elle, Atwood and The Big Issue—are evidence of the statement. There were other reviews which said a similar thing but I didn't want to ref bomb and I don't usually reference the statements which just summarise what is to follow. But if it's confusing, maybe I could add a note at this point with the references, "Critics who found it emotional include ...". — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the "stirring" bit is supposed to mean in this context, but I couldn't find Mitch Mosk here at all, only Malcolm Jack.
Just the literal meaning of the word "stirring"—that it brought about strong feelings—as both of the critics used that word. It's just missing the Atwood cite inline (the source is used elsewhere in the article), which I've added. — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes pedestrian.tv a high-quality reliable source? Dork? Consequence of Sound?
(1) Pedestrian.tv is used as a primary source interview, and it's a video, so they just need to be reliable enough that we're confident the video hasn't been falsified, tampered with or selectively edited. You can read a bit about the publication in MediaWeek (a trade magazine) and Sydney Morning Herald—it's published by Pedestrian Group, associated with lots of reliable sources in Australia. It's journalists are paid professionals and it has a way to submit corrections. (2) Removed Dork. (3) Consequence of Sound just needs to be significant for opinion, as it's used with attribution under "Reception". It's one of the most significant indie music publications worldwide, and as such is cited very frequently by some of the most widely-distributed music publications: three recent examples from NME, Rolling Stone and the BBC. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @FAC coordinators: as this has fallen onto the "Older nominations" pile, I thought I'd ask if there's anything still required from this nomination. We've had four batches of comments, all addressed, five supports on prose, and an image and source review. — Bilorv (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}