# Talk:The Queen Is Dead

Given what just happened, it's likely people will be searching on this phrase. Should we put in a temporary hatnote to redirect them to what they might well want to read? Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been done. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


### The Queen Is Dead
I've listed this article for peer review because it just got promoted to GA, and I plan listing it to FA.
Thanks, Cattos💭 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)


#### Pbritti
Below are some comments based on just the Musical style section.

"it offers a scathing anti-monarchist statement" This corresponds with "Searing, six-minute opener that splits venom at the monarchy" in NME 2016. I am hesitant to utilize "scathing" in wikivoice; consider replacing with the admittedly less eloquent "it is strongly anti-monarchist "
Adjacent to the above passage, the quote "useless, taxpayer-funded tabloid fodder" needs to be clearly attributed in-line. The same issue can be observed elsewhere in the same section with "obvious depression", "jaunty pop backing", "sprightly and carefree", "lightning-fast drum rolls", "shot of punk adrenaline" (unlink "adrenaline", as this is a common idiomatic construction), "lashes out at media and the world", "casual dismissal of gender norms", etc.
"Described by critics as one of his most poetic moments" is not supported by the corresponding "Rarely has Moz sounded more poetic" from NME 2016. This source presumably being the opinion of only one critic. The same over-application of a singular opinions as representing critical consensuses is evident elsewhere in this section.
Overall, Marr's primary-source perspectives might be overrepresented in the section. While it is important to consider his views, the extensive quotations are sometimes unnecessary or unrelated to any commentary on musical style.
As it stands, I would say that an overuse of quotations and the failure to adequately attribute subjective opinions/quotes in-line are significant barriers to this article being promoted as an FA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, it is greatly appreciated! :)) Cattos💭 02:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Query from Z1720
@Cathodography: It has been over a month since the last comment on this PR. Is this ready to be closed and nominated to WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

You can close it. I'll re-read the article and then I can nominate it. Cattos💭 13:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
@Cathodography: Instructions on how to close a PR are at WP:PRG. I recommend using the PR script. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)


#### Ceoil
Can this be kept open please - will add comments in next few days. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the prose needs a lot of work: unclear at times and too journalistic. I might spend a week or so copyediting (if that's ok), before listing specific complaints here.
Disappointed to see that the sources are mainly magazine/news paper/website based when there are so many more in-dept books out there. In particular the omission of "The Severed Alliance" gives pause.
The article is not ready for FAC but has potential, and would be delighted to help but it may take a week or so until I go into the weeds and give actionable feedback. ie this is still a placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)