Talk:Ignorance (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Ignorance (song) was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 27, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
February 5, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Ignorance video still[edit]

I just uploaded the video still for ignorance for visual purposes only. Wikipedias going to delete it because it has not 'source'. Please tell me how to get them to not delete it? I added the tag 'Non-free music video screenshot' to the description, will that work? If not, what will? --NicoX448 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

UK Release[edit]

I think that Paramore may release it as a CD Single because they have with all their other singles (apart from the first 3) so surely they won't leave it with a download! Jonni_Boi (Talk) 16:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

I think we should add a photo from the music video —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightwyrex (talkcontribs) 03:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

citation[edit]

This article need the copyright info from the single and the CD. for this track. It's always frustrating to look up a song and not see who wrote or hold the copyrights for the music and lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.164.161 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

The song is emo, pop punk, and alternative rock, NOT punk rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emorocker777 (talkcontribs) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thats completely wrong. This song is ALTERNATIVE ROCK and PUNK ROCK. Not POP ROCK, and DEFFINATELY NOT EMO!

--NicoX448 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I said the song was POP PUNK not POP ROCK, HUGE difference. what makes this song punk rock? The song is emo because of the bare emotion, it's like a harder, more mature, Misery Business

Emorocker777 (talkcontribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.48.197 (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • What you just stated was a major stereotype. Your saying its emo because it has emotion? So all songs that have emotion are emo? Its punk rock because of the music, not the lyrics. Alternative and punk rock are basically the same. Alt. Rock just branches off from punk.

~NicoX448 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.226.108 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • You claim to know so much about music genres, but the song has nothing of Punk Rock, the song is pop punk and emo. Emo IS a genre and ignorance IS emo because of the lyrics and pop punk/alternative rock because of the music, it was NOT a stereotype it was the way the emotion is dealed out, not just the emotion. Plenty of songs that have emotion ARE NOT emo, i am just simply trying to explain to reach a middle ground.

Emorocker777 (talkcontribs)

  • Both of you: THIS IS NOT A FIELD FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Use reliable sources. For now, I am making it rock and rock alone, since WP:ALBUM states we go for the most general term. If you bother to find sources to backup your claims then feel free to change it, if not, you will be reverted and tagged for genre vandalism (which I am personally sick to death of seeing, such a stupid arrogant issue). k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think at least (seeing as there obviously is no middle ground), we should at least call it Alternative rock (seeing as it's the only one we all seem to agree with). Idk how to source the "pop punk" genre (it was on the itunes review) but that one is 100% verifiable. and recently i've found one supporting all three genres [1]

Emorocker777 (talkcontribs) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

No, that is 100% unverifiable. Using an iTunes review, come on? It would be done by a user most likely and it's not accessible without the program. Does not pass WP:RS. Start here: WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

iTunes reviews are not valid sources, I can write these myself. I can see that this is a very simple argument, someone believes that lyrics define the genre "Emo" regardless of music, the other person simply removes "Emo" without permission.I suggest that you spend your time trying to find valid sources that are scattered all over the internet instead of reverting each other's changes in an endless battle of genres.T.tyrael 08:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.tyrael (talkcontribs)


  • Review is the wrong word it was a summary of the album, and what i did was find reviews that said the song was the correct genre. This was a very petty arguement and i'll be the first to apologize for my part in it, but now it is sourced so it's truely over.

Emorocker777 (talkcontribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for understanding, and I'm glad that you have cited the genres on a couple of articles.T.tyrael 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.tyrael (talkcontribs)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ignorance (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:Throughout the article, there's a lot of repetition of the song's name. It might be best to have a consistency with that. You know, it doesn't hurt to add "the song" or "the single" once in a while. In the Music video section, this sentence ---> "The video is intercuts with clips of the band performing in a cramped small room" doesn't make sense, mainly "The video is intercuts with clips". Do you mean "The video is intercutted with clips of the band performing in a cramped small room"?
     Done Crystal Clear x3 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
     Done Crystal Clear x3 17:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    Check.|Throughout the article, there's a lot of repetition of the song's name. It might be best to have a consistency with that. You know, it doesn't hurt to add "the song" or "the single" once in a while. In the Music video section, this sentence ---> "The video is intercuts with clips of the band performing in a cramped small room" doesn't make sense, mainly "The video is intercuts with clips". Do you mean "The video is intercutted with clips of the band performing in a cramped small room"?
     Done Crystal Clear x3 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
     Done Crystal Clear x3 17:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    Check.|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:In the Personnel section, please link "co-producers" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. Throughout the article, "...recorded in Spring 2009", with seasons differing in different part of the world, a different wording than spring should be picked, per here.
     Done Crystal Clear x3 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
     Done Crystal Clear x3 17:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    Check.|In the Personnel section, please link "co-producers" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. Throughout the article, "...recorded in Spring 2009", with seasons differing in different part of the world, a different wording than spring should be picked, per here.
     Done Crystal Clear x3 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
     Done Crystal Clear x3 17:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    Check.|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:Reference 7 has a different url link path, so you might want to update that.
     Done Crystal Clear x3 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    Check.|Reference 7 has a different url link path, so you might want to update that.
     Done Crystal Clear x3 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    Check.|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2bcom}}}|}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|}}

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Crystal Clear for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks : ) Crystal Clear x3 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ignorance (song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Re-assessor: Till I Go Home

Lead

  • "Ignorance" is a song by the American rock band Paramore -> remove 'the'.
  • "Ignorance" was released by Fueled by Ramen in July 2009, as the lead single from the bands 2009 studio album entitled, Brand New Eyes. ->
  • Change 'Ignorance' to 'it' because of repetition.
  • Date? 'July 2009' isn't enough.
  • remove '2009' and put it after Brand New Eyes, so Brand New Eyes (2009).
  • 'bands' -> band's.
  • remove 'entitled
  • The single was written by Paramore band members Hayley Williams and Josh Farro; Paramore is also credited as being co-producers to the song. -> The song was written by the band's members Hayley Williams and Josh Farro, although Paramore is credited as being co-writers of the song.
  • ...recorded in Spring 2009 -> when exactly?
  • Musically, "Ignorance" is credited as being an alternative rock song. You can't be "credited" as being a particular genre.
  • Williams' -> Williams's
  • The song was commercially successful, charting within the top thirty in multiple territories, although the song performed better internationally. That doesn't even make sense!

Background

  • You have to state who the writer's were in this section.

Composition

  • Needs a composition section.

Critical reception

  • Leonie Cooper, a writer for NME -> Leonie Cooper of NME
  • Marc Hirsh, a writer from The Boston Globe -> Marc Hirsh of The Boston Globe
  • Emily Steves, a writer for Buffalo News -> Emily Steves of Buffalo News
  • Jon Canamanica, a writer for The New York Times -> Jon Canamanica of The New York Times
  • Ryan Wood, a writer for The Nebraska City News Press -> Ryan Wood of The Nebraska City News Press
  • Scott Heisel, a writer for Alternative Press -> Scott Heisel of Alternative Press

Chart performance

Specific

  • "Ignorance" had a good chart performance. Remove this!
  • generally charting within the top thirty -> you can't "generally" chart within the top thirty. Also, top thirty of where?
  • In the United States, the song performed worse than previous singles, peaking at number sixty seven on the Billboard Hot 100. -> what was its debut? When did it debut? How long was it on the charts etc. Also, 'worse' sounds POV, change it.
  • The song's current peak position on the Hot Digital Songs Chart is number fifty eight; the song charted on the chart solely due to digital download sales -> this is outdated, remove "current". Also, fix repetition, "charted on the chart".
  • "Ignorance" had a better chart performance internationally. -> remove this
  • The single was successful in the United Kingdom, entering the chart within the top twenty at number fourteen, where it peaked. -> The song peaked at number fourteen in the United Kingdom.
  • The song charted within the top twenty, peaking at number seventeen; the song remained on the chart for eight weeks. Which country are you talking about here?
  • The single peaked at number thirty five in Australia; the song remained the on the countries chart for two weeks. -> Use 'song' instead of 'single', countries is grammatically incorrect, it's 'country's'
  • The song had a similar chart performance in New Zealand, peaking at number thirty two and remained on the chart for five weeks. -> Too much repetition of 'the song', and the sentence goes from past tense to present tense.
  • The track was less successful in Dutch, having entered the chart on October 18, 2009, at number eighty two, where it peaked, the following week the song fell out of the countries top 100. Dutch isn't a country, and too much use of commas. This shouldn't be squashed up into one sentence.
  • Ignorance" was successful in Japan, charting within the top ten, peaking at number ten. Remove 'charting within the top ten'
  • The song also echoed similar chart success on Belgium's Singles Chart. Remove 'echoed' and replace with more appropriate word
  • It also charted at number forty two in Germany, as well as peaking at number ninety six on the Canadian Singles Top 100 chart. Don't mix two completely different countries together in one sentence.

Overall

  • All numbers need to be just that, numbers. eg. 'forty two' -> '42'.
  • Sort the sentences by countries, eg. first U.S, then Canada, then in a new paragraph talk about European countries.

Music video

  • The music video was released on August 13, 2009. Source?
  • When and where was it filmed? Who directed it?

Charts

  • Remove "chart procession and succession", we don't use that anymore.

References

  • #1 - fix it
  • #2 - fix date and needs access date
  • #5 - needs access date
  • #7 - dead link
  • #10 - this looks messy

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'm sorry but I am delisting this GA, seven days was ample time to address the issues. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)