# Talk:People (The 1975 song)

MelanieN, I know there's an iter to follow to add infos on wikipedia pages. I'm the one who stubbornly changed many times the genres as hard rock and hardcore punk. Now, I created an account just to answer to you because I can't figure out another way to contact you. I know I'm not a reviewer, I haven't written any article on wikipedia or such, plus I'm just an italian stranger. You quote, as it should be on an academic paper or dissertation, references. "Music critics" say it's dance-punk... Have you listened extensively to the transformation of the dance punk genre from the 70 till today solely in the UK (but let's add the american scene too, just to give a wider perspective)? The song has little to no trace of such genre in its style (no dance rhythms, no keys, no synths, no disco influences on the hi-hat which is almost totally absent in the song). Try instead to listen on modern hard rock production and to read the english wikipedia page about hardcore punk, focusing on the singing style and the theme of the song's lyrics. I'm just pointing out that my several changes on the song's genre are fact related, and not only based on how I'd like to categorise the song. Hoping to receive an amswer from you.
Kind regards LucaJelson (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @LucaJelson:! Wikipedia has policies of Verifiability and No original research, which mean that every genre we quote needs to be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Our own analyses are not sufficient. — Bilorv (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bilorv following this process, even the page for Hardcore Punk should be erased almost in its entirety. If all research is necessary but not sufficient, why does Wikipedia exist? We should rely only on what technicians tell us, just because they have an established name, work in important magazines and have a verified reliability for this. That doesn't mean that they are automatically correct, especially in such a grey-zone field as that of music and music genres, which are subjective. That doesn't help my thesis, but if Wikipedia is based on the previously mentioned points, the results are: a) I followed what the Hardcore Punk page of wikipedia says, so I trust on its verifiability and sources and am right. Or, b) verifiability is only a matter of taste and preferences, as such you are wrong, MelanieN is wrong and Wikipedia is wrong. Its own principles must be respected either at any time or never. Hope to receive your answer Bilorv, I might be wrong. If so, let me know why. Thank you LucaJelson (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:People (The 1975 song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

After your amazing response to my last review, I will take this article on! --K. Peake 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wooo thank you! Giacobbe talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
List the producers under their full names in the infobox since this is not a track listing  Done
"on 22 August 2019 through" → "on 22 August 2019, through"  Done
Wikilink lead single instead  Done
Target heavy rock to Hard rock  Done
Target chords to Chord (music)  Done
"and sonic departure from" → "and the sonic departure from the band's third studio album,"  Done
"In the band's native" → "In the 1975's native"  Done
UK Singles chart → UK Singles Chart  Done
Shouldn't the above chart be mentioned before the rock & metal one since it is the UK's main chart?  Done
"in Scotland, and" → "in Scotland and"  Done
"and received comparisons to" → "and was compared to"  Done


### Background
Retitle to Background and recording  Done
"21 February 2020 and later for" → "21 February and later for" to avoid writing the same year twice in one sentence  Done
"Minor Threat, and" → "Minor Threat and" because the article is written in British English  Done
"revealed its origin stemmed" → "revealed the song's origins stemmed"  Done
Target controversial ban to Abortion in Alabama  Done
"yelling obscenities" the source mentions them booing, so reword accordingly  Done
"at the band." → "at the 1975."  Done
Remove capitalisation for open carry  Done
"was furious, and wrote" → "was furious and wrote"  Done
Remove release year of "The 1975" from brackets since you have stated it earlier in that very sentence, plus none of the other songs of the title are mentioned  Done
[14] only shows the music video, which does not back up the song's release as a single; try this instead, which is already used in the comp section  Done


### Composition
Retitle to Composition and lyrics  Done
Sample looks good!
Thank you! Giacobbe talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"two minutes and forty seconds" → "two minutes and 40 seconds" but the length is not sourced; add Tidal at the end of the sentence preferably  Done
I added the Apple Music link since I've already got an archived version of it. Giacobbe talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"heavy rock instrumentation built upon" → "heavy rock instrumentation, built upon" with the target  Done
Target chords to Chord (music)  Done
"breakneck drums and "renegade" percussion" are not backed up by [23] and cannot be viewed since even [24]'s oldest archive does not load  Done
musicOMH has a pseudo-adblock/paywall pop-up lower down on the page. It won't let you search until you clear it. I've removed the entire ref, though. Not sure why it was there. Giacobbe talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"Death From Above, and" → "Death From Above and"  Done
"that its use of" → "that the song's use of"  Done
"Queens of the Stone Age, and said" → "Queens of the Stone Age and saying"  Done
Target pop to Pop music  Done
Remove wikilink on Death From Above  Done
"His vocal delivery on" → "Healy's vocal delivery on"  Done
"with a screaming rallying call" → "with a screaming call" since the rallying part is unsourced  Done
"Healy condemns personal" → "Healy condemns both personal"  Done
The first letter of the quotes should be capitalised since it's a full line  Done
"are funny / But we" the source presents these as being part of the same line
@Kyle Peake: It contradicts the lyrics published in the liner notes. I've already sourced it in the "Credits and personnel" section. Should I cite it here as well? Giacobbe talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
(CA)Giacobbe Yes you should cite it here too; that is not violating WP:REPCITE. --K. Peake 13:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)  Done
"embraced the angst" → "embraces the angst"  Done
"was to: "[tell] listeners" → "is to "[tell] listeners"  Done


### Critical reception
Retitle to Reception, as everything in the lead needs to be written out in the body so the commercial reception should be added here  Done
"received positive reviews from" → "was met with positive reviews from"  Done
"from the band's fanbase" → "from the 1975's fanbase"  Done
[24] is not needed since [30] is enough to back the fanbase info up  Done
"sounded like: "he's" → "sounds like "he's"  Done
Are you sure Euphoria is reliable per WP:SELFPUB?
Yes. It's a (new-ish) digital magazine, but has already amassed an impressive and diverse portfolio. I forgot to italicize. Giacobbe talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"saw it as a radical departure from the band's" → "saw the former as a radical departure from the 1975's"  Done
"breaking a skateboard"." → "breaking a skateboard."" per MOS:QUOTE  Done
"debate to rest"." → "debate to rest.""  Done
"Cerys Kenneally of" → "Cerys Kenneally from" to avoid repetitiveness  Done
"Smith said it was:" → "Smith said it is,"  Done
"a revolution, man"." → "a revolution, man.""  Done
Create a third para for chart positions, as that is not enough to warrant its own section  Done


### Music video
Wikilink music video on the img text  Done
"designed the band's hair" → "designed the 1975's hair"  Done
"To make Healy look "toxic"," → "To make Healy look real and "a bit toxic","  Done
"used in the video, meant to" → "that are used in the video, with them being meant to"  Done
"the second is shown scanning the band's" → "while the second is shown scanning the band members"  Done
The small part for the cube is not backed up  Done
Target LED to LED display  Done
The lights are not described as flashing  Done
"yellow suits. Kirsten Sprunch" → "yellow suits; Kirsten Sprunch"  Done
"Chris DeVille of Stereogum compared Healy's" → "DeVille compared Healy's"  Done
"a sentiment shared by" → "with the latter sentiment being shared by"  Done
"Koltan Greenwood of the" → "Koltan Greenwood of"  Done
"Moreland of Pitchfork compared Healy's" → "Moreland compared Healy's"  Done
"saying the video" → saying the visual"  Done


### Credits and personnel
Good


### Charts
See MOS:TABLECAPTION  Done


### References
Copyvio score may look too high at 47.1%, but this is mostly due to the titles listed in the article so ignore it
Top job with the archives!
Thanks! Finally got it working lol. Giacobbe talk 14:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
British Broadcasting Corporation → BBC on ref 11  Done
Cite YouTube as publisher instead for ref 14
I believe this is this ref replaced with the NPR one. Giacobbe talk 14:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears so, as there are no refs directly from YouTube now you have used the NPR citation for the single release. --K. Peake 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK of Pitchfork on ref 17  Done
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 18  Done
Remove wikilink on Pitchfork for ref 21 and fix MOS:QWQ issues  Done
Remove or replace ref 24 since the original URL does not work and even the oldest archive is not accessible  Done
WP:OVERLINK of NME on ref 26  Done
IHeartRadio → iHeartRadio on refs 28 and 31  Done
Cite Euphoria as publisher instead for ref 33
I forgot to italicize in the prose. It is indeed a magazine. Giacobbe talk 14:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that, I was unsure whether it should be italicised or not initially! --K. Peake 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


### External links
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until everything is fixed, after a review that was quite quick! --K. Peake 11:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
That was indeed a very quick review, always appreciated! Giacobbe talk 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: I believe I've resolved all of your comments. Anything that I missed? Giacobbe talk 14:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@(CA)Giacobbe: This looks very good now, but shouldn't you introduce A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships in the lead like how I suggested? --K. Peake 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Must have missed that. It is fixed. Giacobbe talk 15:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
(CA)Giacobbe You missed the comma, but that is very minor so I added it for you.  Pass now and I did notice in the background section that you have bared in mind my comments for your previous GAN when editing this article; I tip my hat to you for this! --K. Peake 15:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Whoops, thank you for fixing that. Awesome! Another great review. In regards to the previous GAN, I certainly did utilize the advice from your comments there in this article. I always strive to grow as an editor by incorporating tips, advice, and experience from every reviewer. It helps not only myself, but Wikipedia as a whole to have strong, well-written articles! Cheers! Giacobbe talk 15:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)