Talk:Paint It Black/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.lasso?id=474 states that John Lennon called this the "Greatest composition of the 20th century" Can anyone confirm?

Covers

Helloween has never covered this song, the Glenn Tipton's cover is often misused as Helloween's cover.--Hectorcaire (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Utada Hikaru , "Amai Wana: Paint It, Black" , must be put in other versions please , Utada Hikaru it's the best japanese superstar. ( Amai Wana :Paint It Black - Album: First Love (1999)

Are there any sources for the covers? E.g. I searched for Einherjer and found one website ([1]) which said "Forever Empire" covered the guitar part - and I dont even see the match --Drohhyn 09:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just heard a cover of this song that said it was done by The Animals. The list at the bottom of the page lists Eric Burdon and War as having covered the song. Does anyone know if the version I heard was Burdon with the Animals or with War? Thanks.

--Spout 20:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure The Residents have covered this song? Juryen 23:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rammstein has never covered this song, this was just another fake cover song! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.117.80.2 (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Paint It Black or Paint it Black

...does this matter? --Cammoore 04:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Was the song Paint it Black part of the film Interview with the Vampire, and if so, which version was it? I really like Ian McCulloch's voice.

I think it was Sympathy For the Devil in Interview, not Paint It Black. And it was a cover, by G'n'fn'R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.136.0 (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

VNV Nation techno?

I know, musical genre names come and go, but VNV nation isn't techno but futurepop

VNV didn't do a cover of this song. --PrisonerOfPain (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mondegreen?

The "misheard" lyrics also appear on the official website of the Rolling Stones: http://www.rollingstones.com/discog/?v=so&a=1&id=49 so it does not seem to be a case of mishearing so much as a case of a mismatch between the lyrics as they are sung and the lyrics as they are officially published.

I disagree. All the different versions of this song I could find matched the official lyrics. Maybe the american version difers from the european one? --Pnwk 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, correction: After listening carefully to the song on 40 Licks I changed my mind. The song does actually say "I must have it painted black". Pnwk geitweol 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pnwk (talk • contribs).
How is "and it has been" a mondegreen of "and I want it"? I'm pretty understanding when it comes to hearing deficiencies, but I don't think anyone in their right mind could hear "it has been" as "I want it". This sounds not only like original research, but BAD original research.

Fair use rationale for Image:RStones-PiB-Decca.jpg

Image:RStones-PiB-Decca.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Rolling Stones - Paint It Black.ogg

Image:The Rolling Stones - Paint It Black.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

Anyone else find it a travesty that over half of this article is made up of trivia which has no actual bearing on the song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.188.169 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I suggest that the trivia should be reduced to those that are interesting or noteworthy. In its present form, the article is, unfortunately, not of encyclopedic quality. And as I am a Stones fan, that is a sad thing to see. AussieBoy (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a swedish film called Joa, degen and Daver? I sure can't find any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KitanoX42 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References

Ian Rankin named one of his Rebus novels after this song —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.229.151 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Helloween

As stated before, Helloween has never covered this song. It's by Judas Priest guitarist, Glenn Tipton. It is found on his Baptizm of Fire album. SenorFronz (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Paint it Black novel

Would someone please add a link at the top for the novel by Janet Fitch, as was done for the band of the same name? It would be very appreciated.EthanLeon (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Ethan LeonEthanLeon (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Title

Wouldn't "Paint It Black" make more sense? I'm not sure what the policy is, but if Keith Richards said the comma was a mistake, I guess it was meant to just be Paint It Black Gamerunknown (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It may have been a mistake, but it is the title. --JD554 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Paint It Black redirection

Further input is needed at Talk:Paint It Black over whether it should redirect here or to Paint It Black (disambiguation). --JD554 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, page not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Paint It, Black → Paint It Black — WP:COMMONNAME PatrikR (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - This is the name of the song. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Most utterly ridiculous article name I've seen yet. This is a rock standard and the comma is just never used in the song title. Dunno how it survived this long. A quick Google confirms; Wikipedia is unusual if not unique in using the comma. Andrewa (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Normally, go with what the song was titled ("Paint It, Black") but, since a bandmember disputes this title and subsequent releases haven't used it, then support per WP:UCN. (cf. Pencil Thin Mustache). — AjaxSmack 01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the title of the song, per the cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose This is definitely the correct song title, people! Anyone familiar with the Stones' discography can tell you that! PatrikR, Beyond My Ken & Andrewa are obviously not. Utterly ridiculous indeed! Especially since the single sleeve is there for all to see (as noted by Justin (koavf) above) - an inexcusable oversight by these Supportees! (For a recent example of "Paint It, Black"'s unusual, but enduring, typography see the back cover of Forty Licks. Also Live Licks - but I couldn't find a convenient picture. Try eBay.) "Dunno how it survived this long"??!!! Do your homework! The people who wrote this article weren't stupid... And btw, COMMONNAME? Are you serious? Whatever happened to CORRECT NAME...?? This is an encyclopedia after all, not some trend-chasing social site. Wikkitywack (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The concept of CORRECT NAME begs the question: Correct according to whom? That's one of the many reasons that using the common name is Wikipedia policy. Record cover art is not a good indicator of common usage, to say the least. Sure we've all seen the record conver. It's no oversight. As to being familiar with Stones discography, I've lost count of the number of versions of this song I've played live with various bands, let alone the number of other bands I've heard cover it, and I've yet to see the commma in a playlist. It's just not there! No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah...sorry about the overreaction. But tell me: why is record cover art not a good indicator of common usage? Btw, aren't playlists notoriously unreliable when it comes to correct song titles? -Aren't they usually abbreviations of the actual song titles (like on the back cover of Dave Matthews Band Live at Red Rocks '95 - see eBay for a picture)? Wikkitywack (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Stones' official website still uses the comma; just follow the external link in the article to verify this. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:COMMONNAME is a policy - it is not decided by a local poll, but by looking at what reliable sources use.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think you should've filed a new WP:RM rather than boldly overturned the above discussion. There was also non-trivial history and talk page discussion at Paint It Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As such, I've reverted the bold move for now. –xenotalk 17:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I completely follow your rationale here. You don't disagree, yet you revert because you feel process hasn't been followed? If I had read the above poll I would have closed it as move because not only are there four supports to three opposes, but also because there have been previous attempts to put this article right, and the WP:COMMONNAME policy directs us not to have a discussion first but to look at reliable sources, and the reliable sources - as I have shown above (including the Rolling Stones own website) - plus common usage (as I have shown above), plus all the sources used in the article, all indicate "Paint It Black". The move was compliant with Wikipedia:Move and WP:COMMONNAME. It is only when there is some doubt about which name to use, do we need to have a discussion. When most reliable sources, including the writer of the song, and most readers use one version, we go with that version. I'd welcome you doing some research of your own into the title, and if your findings are different to mine that would be the time to have a discussion. If you find that your findings match mine, then I would hope you'd do the right thing and move it back to "Paint It Black". SilkTork *YES! 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Just playing devils advocate, but COMMONNAME is only part of the article naming policy, it's not the cardinal rule.
In my opinion, another RM is required here, so I won't move it myself as you suggest.
I still think the above shouldn't be simply unilaterally overturned; however, I won't consider it wheel-warring if you re-implement your bold move (but I advise you against it). However, on a strictly procedural note, you'll need to move the redirect with non-trivial history and talk page content currently living at "Paint It Black" somewhere first (perhaps "Paint It Black (Rolling Stones song)"). –xenotalk 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced lists

Embedded lists and trivia are discouraged per Wikipedia:Embedded lists and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. Unsourced material is discouraged per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The list is moved here as it may be used by editors to refer to as the basis for constructing a sourced prose section. SilkTork *YES! 16:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Other versions

"Paint It Black" has been covered by many other bands and music artists, including:

References in popular culture

In recent years, the song was used in the ending credits of Full Metal Jacket and the opening credits of Tour of Duty. It was also used in 2004 in an episode-ending montage in the NBC television show American Dreams, when a major character went missing in Vietnam. In the BBC Top Gear Vietnam special, aired in December 2008 the song is played briefly after an American decorated motorbike is unveiled as a threat to the presenters.

Its other film appearances include For Love of the Game and 1997's The Devil's Advocate, played during the closing credits. The pilot of Nip/Tuck TV show also uses the Rolling Stones' version of the song. The song, as covered by Gob, was also featured in the film Stir of Echoes. The Gob cover also plays over the end credits of the 2004 mini-series of Salem's Lot. A French version of the song, recorded by Marie Laforêt, appears in both The Devil's Advocate and the 2006 film Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, and an alternative version appears on commercials for The Sopranos on A&E.

"Paint It Black" was also used in six video game titles. Conflict: Vietnam used the song during the opening sequence, while Twisted Metal: Black used the beginning of the song in the opening screen, then the whole song again in its end credits, and inserted into level music throughout moments of gameplay. A version of the karaoke game SingStar also features "Paint It Black". The song is also featured in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock as a playable track, with an extended ending to avoid fading out like the original did (the game makes use of the master track). However, it is unable to be played in Co-op mode, as the bass and guitar tracks could not be separated (this can be heard in single-player mode also; when one makes a mistake, both the guitar and bass cut out). It is also heard playing on some static radios in the Eve of Destruction total conversion for Battlefield 1942, Battlefield: Vietnam and Battlefield 2. In addition, it was used in the television commercial for Vietcong: Purple Haze. Karaoke Revolution Presents: American Idol Encore 2 allows players to sing it and unlock a video of it being performed on American Idol.

Isaac Brock's indie side project Ugly Casanova has referred to the song in "Barnacles".

American Idol Top 6 covered a short version of this for the Ford music video.

At 0:48 in the song "At This Hour" on the Spin Doctors' Turn It Upside Down album, they sing "You see a red door and you want to paint it black", a reference to this song.

The 1972 song "Thirteen" on the Big Star album #1 Record contains the lyrics "Won't you tell your dad to get off my back/Tell him what we said about 'Paint It Black.' "

Prior to being banned from The Howard Stern Show, Crazy Cabbie was often introduced to his own theme song, a variation of "Paint It Black", although with lyrics mocking Cabbie.

In the Stephen King series The Dark Tower, "Paint It Black" is heard by several characters as they pass the same music shop in New York at different time periods.

The Kaiser Chiefs' song "Heat Dies Down" is loosely based on the guitar riff of "Paint It Black".

In Good Charlotte's song "All Black", from their fourth album Good Morning Revival, the line "...like the Rolling Stones wanna paint it black" refers to the song.

In "The Jeep Song" by The Dresden Dolls, Track 10 on their 2003 self titled debut album, Amanda Palmer sings "I see a red jeep and I want to paint it black" in reference to the "Paint It Black" line "I see a red door and I want to paint it black".

The second chapter in Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume III: Century is set in 1966 and titled "Paint it Black".

The song "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance makes reference to it in the line "... so paint it black and take it back..."

Japanese pop star Hikaru Utada revamps the first line at the end of "Amai Wana: Paint It, Black".

Janet Fitch's 2006 novel Paint It Black is named after the song; also, the quote before the first chapter is the first four lines of the Rolling Stones song.[1]

The music website Last.FM has two skins, Simply Red and Paint It Black.

The Lee Mead version of "Paint It Black" was used by Vincent Simone & Louisa Lytton due to represent the United Kingdom at the 2008 Eurovision Dance Contest[2].

The web comic Order of the Stick, strip #635[3], is entitled, "I See a Red Robe and I Want to Paint it Black", clearly in reference to this song.

In “The Christmas Show” episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Studio 60 co-executive producer Matt Albie (Matthew Perry) is complimenting Studio 60 cast member Harriet Hayes (Sarah Paulson) on being cast as Anita Pallenberg in a new movie about the Rolling Stones. He says “…you’re great casting for that…It’s a great part. Brian, Keith, Mick Jagger – they all considered her a musical confidante. ‘Paint It Black’ was all her.”

The song was once used in a promotional campaign for the All Blacks by one of their corporate sponsors, Steinlager beer, in the late 1990s.

The song was used as the entrance song for Johny Hendricks at UFC 101.

The third book in the Sonja Blue series (Midnight Blue: The Sonja Blue Collection), by Nancy A. Collins, is titled Paint It Black.

Siobahn Magnus and Gina Gloksen sang this song on American Idol. Each performance was one of the best for the singers.

I am not positive, but I am 99% certain that this song was used in the TV series "China Beach". Anyone else remember this, or have references to it? Zargon2010 (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Books by Janet Fitch". Literati.net. Retrieved 2010-03-17.
  2. ^ "Vincent Simone & Louisa Lytton - Paint It Black - United Kingdom 2008 | Eurovision Dance Contest - Glasgow 2008". Eurovisiondance.tv. Retrieved 2010-03-17.
  3. ^ "Giant In the Playground Games". Giantitp.com. Retrieved 2010-03-17.

Paint it black written by the Rolling Stones!

This was written by the Rolling Stones. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have openly discussed it. According to the introduction James Taylor disputes it. Well James Taylor never wrote a song called 'paint it black'. He wrote a song called rainy day man, in late 1966, (not released until 1971), after Paint it Black had been released. I would correct this article, as connecting James Taylor to the song, is bordering on fantasy. Wikipedia should be more focused on facts than fiction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.211.196 (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Must be another cover

The Deep Six version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toeXM4lywDQ&feature=related) must be a cover, I consider. Does anybody know it for sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.189.105.199 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh?

"More literally, it is about using the visual trick of painting everything black in the mind's eye." Anyone care to hazard a guess what this sentence might mean? CulturalSnow (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Paint It, Black → Paint It Black – Per WP:COMMANAME WP:COMMONNAME. It has already been demonstrated on this talk page, especially by SilkTork, that the form without the comma is more common among reliable sources; to those already listed above, we can add The Atlantic, the official Stones archive, and AllMusic. And while the comma may have been deliberate, it's still an error. It's quite clear from the lyrics that the title is not an exhortation to a person or thing named Black to "paint it," but about the idea of painting things black. BDD (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Normally, go with what the song was titled ("Paint It, Black") but, since a bandmember disputes this title, subsequent releases haven't used it, and a majority of sources eschew the comma, then go with the common name rather than the official name. (cf. Pencil Thin Mustache). —  AjaxSmack  05:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Key and Guitar style

Many years ago, I was in a music store, flipping through a Rolling Stones transcription book (staff music and tablature). According to this book, the song is in F minor, and is played on the acoustic with a capo on the third fret, playing as if the song were in D minor (which is much easier, from a guitarist's perspective, than F minor). I satisfied myself that this was correct when the intro, with its rapid little runs (D-E-F-G, F-E-D-E) proved much easier to play than in standard tuning, particularly the high G string that was once an E. Moreover, no guitarist with a brain in his head will play in a "guitar-unfriendly" key like F minor, when a capo (or a retuning) will make it easier, and allow for ringing open strings here and there. So, I believe it, but the only source I actually have a copy of, the Hot Rocks 1964-1971 "Piano/Vocal/Chords" book, only confirms that the song is in F minor, and doesn't mention the capo at all. And the book in general is a piece of shit full of errors, though "Paint It Black" seems to have escaped such a fate. Can any of this go in the article? I'm not going to waste the effort of an edit AND a reference just to establish the song's key. If I can add the bit about the capo, however, I'd be happy to, because it's so very, obviously true. I have a feeling this would be considered Original Research. --Ben Culture (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Music video

How come there is no mention of the Rolling Stones Music Video to this song? Mobile mundo (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Release date

"Paint It Black" was already on the WLS playlist during the last week of April 1966,[1] meaning the release date cannot be in May 1966.98.149.97.245 (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Silver Dollar Survey". WLS. 1966-05-14. Retrieved 2020-06-19.
The album was out in April, so the song was already familiar.
Your source is dated May 13 which does not conflict with a May release date. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Funeral?

The lyrics: "I see a line of cars and they're all painted black, With flowers and my love both never to come back" suggest a funeral cortege. A hearse and a line of black cars and flowers and his dead love, never to come back. That might explain all the blackness and his having to turn his head when he sees other young women dressed in summer clothes. Acorrector (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Acorrector: Sources do support this. I have implemented a generalized mention of this. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Paint It Black/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 18:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Love this song, so I thought it would be an absolute honour to take it on for review! --K. Peake 18:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I look forward to your review. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor To elaborate, the review will start later today. --K. Peake 06:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: All good! Take your time . --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor Thank you, I have completed the review and I do find it confusing working with book sources on Wiki during reviews; could you give me some advice please? --K. Peake 16:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately with books, you mostly have to AGF unless you happen to have the book in your possession. I am a massive stones fan who happens to have several, which puts me at an advantage for working on these articles. My latest acquisition was a 704 page behemoth detailing (as in having full minibios, listing credits etc) every track the band has produced up to (and including) A Bigger Bang. While I did get it for basically this article, it is definitely going to come in handy for working on others in the future. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

  • The lengths listed in the infobox are not sourced anywhere, but the body sources the song's length as 3:46
    Good catch. I reduced it to just the 3:46 portion as that is sourced and I don't know where the others came from. Do you think that the B-sides should be listed there or no? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target London to London Recordings
    That was already done before I started doing anything today on it? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Target to London Recordings, not London Records
    It is though, unless you are seeing another instance. in the United Kingdom by [[London Recordings|London Records]] and [[Decca Records]]. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Audio sample should be in the body instead, as you can then add relevant info about the music and lyrics to its text
    I agree. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Change the template for the lyric video; see "All Mine for example
    @Kyle Peake: {{External music video}} is already used? I'm sorry, I don't follow on this one. Could you please elaborate? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Take another look at "All Mine"; you are supposed to use the header template to stop it otherwise saying music video --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done. Thanks. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "a song recorded by the" → "a song recorded by"
    The current way is consistent with Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) (FA). I don't think this needs to be changed? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Oh I was not fully aware of that, it is fine I guess then just not really common grammatically to put "the English rock band" followed by their name --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • ""Paint It Black" is an" → "it is an"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The info about the music in the lead is a neat addition, but shouldn't you write about the genres?
    How would you suggest? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe mention it having been "classified" as "raga rock, psychedelia, and psychedelic rock"? --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Like this? "...The song, which has been classified as raga rock, psychedelia, and psychedelic rock, was released as..."? Seems to lose some focus though there. Wouldn't fit any other paragraph in the lead in my reading though. Hmm. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and sex" part is not sourced, but the body does mention about the loss of a partner so a relationship of sorts is sourced; reword this bit and I'll probably take another look
    Changed to "and loss". How does that look, Kyle? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Looks a lot better, good job! --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you! --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target single to Single (music)
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Add release year of Aftermath in brackets and maybe mention it being their sixth studio album in the US?
    Done for the former. As for the latter, do you have an idea of how it could fit? Mentioning it as the sixth when the UK release isn't mentioned as their fourth seems a bit lopsided/undue and a better fit for the album's article since this is about the single. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    You are right to be honest, this would probably lack focus and maybe just change "the band's album" to "the band's studio album" for context? --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "with some critics believing that its" → "with some music critics believing that the song's" with the target
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ape should not be in speech marks since the quote says "aping"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • ""Paint It Black" was a chart success for the Stones, spending eleven weeks" → "The song was a chart success for the Rolling Stones, spending 11 weeks" because you should not abbreviate, as it is a band name not someone's full name, and see MOS:NUM
    See the below (references to aftermath) and MOS:NUM explicitly says either may be used. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "number one – on the" → "number one – on the US"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "at number one" → "at the summit" to avoid stating "number one" too close to the previous instance
    That wording seems awkward to me. Changed to "atop the chart" as there is precedent for (limited) use of "atop" in this context (see FA Blank Space). --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The single received Platinum certification from the British Phonographic Industry" → "It received a platinum certification in the UK from the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)" plus swap this sentence with the Canada and Netherlands one since chart positions come before certifications
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Gold should not be capitalised either, plus add (FIMI) in brackets and mention Italy as the country
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • ""Paint It Black" also topped" → "The song also topped"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove wikilinks on the countries
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "first number-one hit" → "first number one hit" but where is it sourced that this was in connection to the UK – the body only seems to do so for the US
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Stones performed it" → "the Rolling Stones performed it"
  • ""Paint It Black" has been included on" → "The song was included on"
    Changed to "The song has been..." as it is still in tours when they tour (currently delayed due to covid). --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "of multiple Stones tours" → "of multiple tours by the Rolling Stones"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Background

  • Retitle to Background and development
    Isn't "development" the same as "Composition and recording"? Blank Space (FA) has a background section just titled "Background". --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    No, it is going info about the song being developed, not the sepcific recording of it; basic melodies "morphed into the one featured", so to quote --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove target on Richards
    Done, assuming you mean wikilink. If not, please let me know and clarify. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "from the sessions for the album" → "from the sessions for" since we know it's an album from the lead introduction
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Add release year of Aftermath in brackets
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "for the first time the duo" → "for the first time, the duo"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "more specifically the sitar," → "most specifically the sitar,"
    @Kyle Peake: I made the change but "most specifically" doesn't sit right with me. How about just dropping "most"? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, that would be fine. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the group's musical texture" → "the band's musical texture"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    It is worth mentioning though that Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) uses both "the group" and "the band" interchangeably. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, plus you should use only one for consistency depending on how the performer has been classified, approrpiately --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Jones had a background" → "he had a background"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Introduce who George Harrison is
    Done, but happy to expand if you figure "of the Beatles" to be insufficient. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    No, that is a satisfactory introduction. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Composition and recording

  • Even though this is a separate section from music and lyrics, I recommend that you reorganize the content of these two into a writing and recording section to begin, followed by the music and lyrics one since it the content is jumbled at the moment and composition is the same as music, plus writing and recording info should come before them
  • I can't fully access the sources, so I will assume good faith mostly, but are you sure everything here is backed up by them?
    From everything I can access, yes. I don't have Wyman's book or the book called "Keith Richards". --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "with the Stones in Australia." → "with the Rolling Stones in Australia."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • [6] should be solely at the end of the sentence before [7] and [8] since it does not come past any piece of punctuation currently
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "consecutive sixteen-bar verses" → "consecutive 16-bar verses" per MOS:NUM
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target key to Key (music)
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "However, the Stones were" → "However, the Rolling Stones were"
    See my comment in a section lower down about the prevalence of "the Stones" even in Aftermath itself, let along the Rolling Stones. I doubt all mention of it needs to be erradicated.
  • "clicked with the group, and" → "clicked with the band and" since the article is in British English
    Done. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You should write uptempo instead for consistency, as that is how it's supposed to be stylised
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "by Jagger's droning, and" → "by Jagger's droning and"
    Done. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove target on singing
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove target on drumming and the comma afterward
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "was over-recorded, and" → "was over-recorded and"
    Done. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • [11][3] should be put in numerical order
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "of the rest of the band." → "of the rest of the Rolling Stones."
    This could probably be "the Stones" per the above and below? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes I believe it could, truth be told your referencing of the band as "the Stones" at parts is understandable because it would be tedious to write the full name all of the time --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

  • Music/comp info should come before the lyrical stuff
    I had based this layout off of Shake It Off#Music and lyrics (FAC) and Blank Space#Lyrics and music (FA). I know I reference these two articles a lot, but both have been responsible for the layout of this and I am a co-nominator of the former for FA status. Do you know off hand of any FAs that reverse it? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Actually you can have it in this order, I was not aware of articles like those ones using it and there is no MOS rule I'm aware of that objects. Also, the music/comp info needs to be rearranged so it's all together rather than having part of it with recording when it discusses the song's actual sound/structure. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Kyle Peake: I'm happy with that. You mean moving the "...striking motif on the sitar is complemented by Jagger's droning and slight nasal singing...." and the rest of the paragraph (after that point) down, correct? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes I do, that is info about the song's sound and not really the recording even if it is of relevance. --K. Peake 16:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Moved with Special:Diff/1000879646. How does that look to you, Kyle Peake? I feel it could be better integrated, but am open to suggestions. Likewise open to any from Zmbro et al. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    TheSandDoctor Nice switch, apart from how the part about soon after the recording session should be in the previous section and retitle that to Writing and recording. --K. Peake 08:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Kyle Peake: Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "It was the" → ""Paint It Black" was the"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "to peak No. 1" → "to peak at number one" but doesn't this sentence belong in release or commercial performance?
    Fixed. As for the second half: that is a good question. It does sort of tie into the music of it and isn't really that suited for "release". Not really sure where this fits in. Do you have any suggestions? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Probably in commercial performance, as it shows the song is the first to feature a certain instrument that peaked at number one and it's fine to repeat info later in articles if it is to re-introduce a relevant stat --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done with Special:Diff/1000879000. How does that look to you, Kyle Peake? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    That's really good, I would request for the ref to be moved since it's not after a grammatical pause but this is fine here since the sentence has a large number of citations. --K. Peake 08:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "more than India."" → "more than India"."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "for Aftermath's American edition," → "for the album's American edition," to avoid overstating the title of the album
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Release

  • Retitle to Release and promotion, as live performances are mentioned
    Formatted following Shake It Off#Release, which also had a single debut performance mentioned in that section. No other references (in Paint It Black) in the section are made to performances, so changing the title could be potentially undue weight? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target London Records to London Recordings
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "in the UK by" → "in the United Kingdom by" since this is the first time the country is referenced
    Done. It is mentioned in full in the lead, but I agree a refresher in the body is needed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "in the United States caused the Stones" → "in the US caused the Rolling Stones"
    Doesn't this fall victim to the above point though? Assuming "US" is known as an acronym does fall into making it too US focused. MOS:US covers this. Shouldn't it in fact mean "single in the US on 7 May 1966" becomes "single in the United States on 7 May 1966" (and then this suggestion implemented)? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    MOS:US says, "When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal", and it is not mentioned in the same sentence. If you end up moving the sitar number one sentence, then the opening sentence of this section should be changed to the only one in the body saying "the United States" instead. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Kyle Peake: Done per your original suggestion, but modified to be "the Stones". Is that okay? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes it is here, just the US part was the issue really. --K. Peake 16:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "where it appeared as the opening track;[22] it replaced" → "with it appearing as the opening track;[22] "Paint It Black" replaced"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Stones performed" → "The Rolling Stones performed"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "on 11 September." → "on 11 September 1966."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "on numerous Stones compilations," → "on numerous compilations by the Rolling Stones,"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception and legacy

  • "by critics was mixed," → "by music critics towards "Paint It Black" was mixed," with the target
    Good catch, done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "was merely the group" → "was merely the band"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "draws parallels in" → "draws parallels with"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "utter rubbish!", comparing" → "utter rubbish"; he compared"
    Done. Did you mean to shorten the quote? If so, I can do that too. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target musicologist to Musicology
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove wikilink on psychedelic music
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mention the name of the Melody Maker review; if not known, identify as the staff
    Unfortunately, that is not known as Billboard didn't identify it. How would you suggest identifying that in prose? Saying Rolling Stone gave something X stars isn't uncommon either though? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes it does happen on some occasions, but those instances are mistakes since the publications aren't people; just identify as "the staff" if you don't know the name(s) of the reviewer(s). --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "stating that the song was" → "calling it"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "another hit for the Stones," → "another hit for the Rolling Stones,"
    @Kyle Peake: Done, but "the Stones" is common reference in The Rolling Stones, which is probably how it ended up here. Even Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) (FA) makes prolific use of it. I don't think it needs eradication. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "an "eerily insistent classic" that" → "an "eerily insistent" classic that" to avoid misquoting, as it is identified as classic but separately from the rest of the quote
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target rock to Rock music
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Writing for the song's 50th anniversary" → "Writing for the 50th anniversary" to stop from writing "the song"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target punk music to Punk rock
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "calling the song the Stones'" → "calling the song the band's"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "on its list of" → "on the magazine's list of"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "it is the 115th" → "the track is the 115th"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There are more rankings from reputable publications listed by Acclaimed Music like NME's greatest songs of all time; couldn't you add some of them here?
    I wasn't aware of acclaimedmusic. More can certainly be added. How many would you suggest? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Good question, I would recommend adding the lists that are all time, century-end, decade-end and similar ones I missed any from my list; don't add the best Rolling Stones songs lists since they are too many and a bit trivial. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Added NME and Pitchfork lists. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Commercial performance

  • Why are the US stats before the UK ones when the Rolling Stones are an English band? Remember, you do not order by how soon it was that a song charted.
    Reordered. Does that look better, Kyle? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    TheSandDoctor Yes, things are a lot better now! --K. Peake 07:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "for the week of 14 May" → "for the week of 14 May 1966"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the later part of the sentence since that is not notable, as a lot of songs chart the week after they were released
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "It took three weeks for it to" → "The song took three weeks to" for avoiding being too wordy
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "weeks[52] – making it the band's third number one in America" → "weeks,[52] becoming the band's third number one in the US."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the number three stat per WP:CHARTTRAJ
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "It remained on" → ""Paint It Black" remained on"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "a total of eleven weeks." → "a total of 11 weeks."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Hot Canadian Digital Song Sales chart position is sourced, but re-issues not individually charting is not backed up by any sources
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target Hot Canadian Digital Song Sales to Canadian Hot 100
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is ref 7 the one being used to back up Canada and the Netherlands? If yes, it can remain in the current position; I am just fact-checking things.
    Ref 7 just backs up the US and UK number one. I am not sure how to copy the citations out of the charts section as they are generated by a template. I guess I should just generate one anyways and have the duplicate? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    TheSandDoctor Regarding your comments here and elsewhere about refnames from templates, you can cite them rather than create duplicates; take my GAN "Clique" for example. --K. Peake 07:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done. That is so cool! I didn't know you could do that. Thank you for pointing that out, Kyle Peake! I think I've addressed all of these now for sourcing. Could you please double check? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the United Kingdom, it" → "In the UK, it"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • a ten week stay, becoming the band's" → "a 10 week stay, becoming the Rolling Stones'" per MOS:NUM
    Done, though MOS:NUM says either is fine. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • [58] should be solely at the end of the sentence
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "1 million units." → "1 million units sold in the country."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no citation for the BPI certification; use a ref name from the certifications table
    The certification table is template generated, meaning we can't see/set those, unfortunately. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the single re-entered the UK Singles chart" → "the song re-entered the UK Singles Chart"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "peaked at number one in" → "peaked at number one on"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target Official German Charts to GfK Entertainment charts
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "by the Bundesverband Musikindustrie (BVMI)." → "by the Bundesverband Musikindustrie (BVMI) in the country."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The single was a top-five hit" → "The song was a top five hit"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • List the 1990 re-issue's position with the rest of the UK stats, plus remove the repetition of the 2007 one since you have already listed that
    The OGC and France 2007 one were not mentioned anywhere else. I have moved them up to be with the Europe portion though. The 1990 re-issue is a complex one to untangle that requires some further thought and copyedits as it doesn't fit elsewhere that I can see off hand and only the UK portions are repeated. Sadly, the others seem rather awkward shoved in there. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    TheSandDoctor You can keep the other countries' reissue positions where they are, but the UK ones shouldn't be repeated like they are currently. --K. Peake 07:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "number 30 in the UK." → "number 30 on the UK Singles Chart." because the article mentions the top charting songs and that is the lead chart
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove repetition of the UK Singles Chart position for the 1990 re-issue in the third para
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The other singles charts from the Netherlands onwards are not sourced
    It is, but they are again in templates in the chart section. I guess I just need to create duplicates? Not sure how to get around them being template created without duplication of refs. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done per your guidance. Thank you! --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "charted number 127" → "charted at number 127"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Cover versions and usage in media

  • Remove the opening sentence, as this is evident by the section's existence
    Removed, though was copying structure from Shake It Off#Cover versions and usage in media (FAC) where it has not raised any concerns. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There does not seem to any chronological order in the first para
    There wasn't any. Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mention what year the minute was played
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mention that The Last Witch Hunter is a film
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target B-side to A-side and B-side
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and again with" → "and did so again with"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "anniversary rerelease of" → "20th anniversary rerelease of"
    Done. Do you think that mention of 2011 should be moved or is it fine where it is? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target funk-rock to Funk rock
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Target Eric Burdon and War to War (American band)
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "which reached No. 31" → "which reached number 31"
    Done. Caught that before I even made it to this point hehe ;) --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "in film, video games, and" → "in films, video games and"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Add release years of the films in brackets
    Done. Good idea. :) --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikilink supernatural horror film
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Stir of Echoes should be italicised and add the release year in brackets
    Done x2. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Add running year(s) of both series in brackets; however, with the exception of Major League Basketball, none of this and the rest of the para is sourced
    The former series is now sourced, but I fear this could potentially be citogenesis. I might just remove the line about the series (plural). --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    This is now resolved through removal and the addition of sources. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Introduce Call of Duty: Black Ops III and The Mummy, plus add the release years in brackets
    Done and now sourced for both. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "as background in a TV spot" → "as background in TV spot"
    N/A per above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Add release years of the second para's games in brackets
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Guitar Hero Live,[72] and" → "Guitar Hero Live and" since it is British English
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • [72] should be solely at the end of the sentence before [73]
    Shouldn't 71 (now 74...subject to change...let's just say Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock ref) also be then? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Track listings

  • All songs are written by → All songs written by
Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Credits

  • Retitle to Credits and personnel
    That was the original title, but based off of Shake It Off (FAC) I had changed it to "Credits". Based off of Blank Space (FA) I switched it back. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you sure the wikilinks/target are needed for sitar, Hammond organ and producer?
    A sitar is indeed an unusual instrument that would probably need it, likewise with the specific organ type. Until now, I did not know of a hammond organ. Producer is wikilinked in Shake It Off#Credits, which is why I wikilinked here. I am aiming to replicate FAs and soon-to-be FAs structure wise as a guide for how to bring this up to that standard. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Charts and certifications

  • Add "for Paint It Black" at the end of all the chart captions
    @Kyle Peake: Could you please give an example? I am not 100% sure what you mean. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    See the recently-passed GA "Poppin" to understand what I mean about putting that part at the end of the captions. --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Weekly charts

  • No further comments

Year-end charts

Certifications

  • Sales certifications for "Paint It Black" → Certifications for "Paint It Black"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

References

External links

  • Good

Final comments and verdict

  •  On hold until all of the issues are fixed, which shouldn't be too long based off your recent response rate and I hope to get this great song to GA status! --K. Peake 16:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've run out of time tonight and shall have to pick this up tomorrow. Thank you for picking up this review. Though we may disagree one some points, don't for a moment think that this review isn't highly appreciated. I look forward to continuing this review and discussion over the coming few days . --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    TheSandDoctor That is totally understandable since this article is massive, but I have left replies above for you! --K. Peake 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Kyle Peake: Are we at an agreement to leave "the Stones" alone where it remains? Just want to clarify and ask as a single Q rather than in multiple spots. If so, could you strike the remaining ones mentioned above? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    @TheSandDoctor: Yes, I did express agreement above by saying "it would be tedious to write the full name all of the time", though I apologise if that was unspecific due to only being under one point. I will strike them off now to avoid confusion, apart from any ones where you have implemented the change or my comments need to stay up for some reason. --K. Peake 16:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying, Kyle Peake. I have tackled Commercial performance and added some comments. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment – Hey guys. I highly recommend incorporating this review into the article. It's probably the longest AllMusic review I've stumbled upon. – zmbro (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Added mention. Thank you for suggesting this, @Zmbro:! --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    zmbro Very nice catch on your part and thank you TheSandDoctor for adding this review to the article! To the latter of the two: when do you think you'll have this article done? --K. Peake 20:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Kyle Peake What else needs fixing? (I've barely looked through this) – zmbro (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Zmbro: The last point in "Critical reception and legacy", which details some more sources and information that can be added still is something that needs going through. Otherwise mostly odds and ends above (the unanswered bullets). @Kyle Peake: I think we are almost wrapped up here. Mostly just down to the references section, which has become convoluted as the article has undergone changes and refs moved/replaced since the review was posted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The references section has become difficult to navigate due to the other sections being tackled and refs added etc. I have addressed most that I could definitively locate. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • TheSandDoctor You can see the revision of the article at the time of review here to make things a lot easier; refs often get moved around once review changes are implemented but the comments themselves stay relevant. --K. Peake 08:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • TheSandDoctor Great to see you are making strong progress on the music and lyrics section as well as the references one, notify me when everything is done! --K. Peake 18:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we are pretty well done, Kyle Peake. Thank you for linking the diff. Feel free to take a look and let me know if you spot anything else. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor I could tell I'd made the right catch with the link to the diff, but you still need to target London to London Recordings in the infobox and fix the lead's commercial performance sentence that says "Paint It Black" at the start instead of the song, plus retitle the second section to writing and recording. --K. Peake 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • TheSandDoctor ✓ Pass, it is great to have got this article to GA status after all of the work put in by me and you as the reviewer and nominator, respectively! --K. Peake 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I am glad that we were able to work together on this and am forever grateful for zmbro's work as well. How far off from FA do you both think it is now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Always happy to assist :-) – zmbro (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's too far off and I would be really happy to see the song become a FA, not only because I'm the one who was responsible for the GA review to help it along the path but also since it is one of my favourite Stones tracks! --K. Peake 07:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • TheSandDoctor Do you mean would I leave comments on the FAC page? If so then yes, I will collaborate on the process. --K. Peake 14:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Sorry, I meant if you would like to help get it to FA quality or point out areas you think need improvement. Based on prior experience, I am hesitant to just jump directly to FAC from GA unless others think it is ready haha. —TheSandDoctor Talk 14:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Joofjoof (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(
)
  • Comment I am preferential to ALT1 downward.

Improved to Good Article status by TheSandDoctor (talk). Self-nominated at 20:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC).

Article promoted to GA on 17 January, long enough, sourced, neutral and plagiarism free. Hooks referenced and interesting. The image used in the article is fair use. QPQ done. Corachow (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paint_It_Black/Archive_1&oldid=1137067188"