Talk:Kings and Queens (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Kings and Queens (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
January 6, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Songs (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.


Article needs editing. Currently states that views on youtube are over one hundred million. This is false. Other citations should be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference mentions the band has 100 million views, not the video. This justifies an edit (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


Will the shoot a video for this single?

Video Locations[edit]

Where is the bridge in LA that the riders first start off at? It looks like downtown somewhere. Does anyone know specifically? Also the where is the tunnel at that's featured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

AOL reference to cite "progressive rock"[edit]

The reference that is being provided to supposedly cite "Kings and Queens" as being progressive rock is a reference that is only referring to the album as a whole as being progressive rock (a very weak reference, too, mind you..). As such, it's is impossible to determine if specific songs are exempt from such a statement. If 30STM put rap song "Abc" on This Is War, does that mean that "Abc" is a progressive rock song because it is on an album described as progressive rock? You can't use the transitive property that way. You are extrapolating a descriptor of something very general (the album) to something very specific (the song), and you can't do that without being very imprecise. Use a different reference that specifically calls the song "progressive rock". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

The song was used in a Sunkist commercial [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Also used in the trailer for the Legend of the Guardians: the Owls of Ga'hoole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kings and Queens (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prism (talk · contribs) 17:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

General overview[edit]

Disambiguation links (per Dablinks)[edit]

  • Not present.

External links (per Checklinks)[edit]

  • It denotes some indeterminate and broken-class external links to correct, though, the Amazon links have given me some problems in the past and I'm not surprised if they can't be corrected here either.
Fixed BlackBook reference. Every single reference I use for Amazon and Pandora have that issue but they work. Can I leave them?
Yes, you can. prism 19:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

  • Audio sample description: "featuring layers of guitar overdubs influenced by arena rock." → OR, not supported in the body of the article.
The arena rock influence is supported by multiple sources in the Critical reception section.
You don't specifically say "arena rock" in any part of the article though. Epic rock maybe?
I will be more specific in the Composition section.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Infobox lists alternative rock as a genre, though, that isn't supported in the body of the article either?
That should be included in a Composition section.
You should include it when you complete the text I'll provide then, OK?
I will do it, of course.--Earthh (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, I've just completed the composition section.--Earthh (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


  • One recurring problem here, with the references, is that when you have more than one references linking to the same website/magazine, you always wikilink the names (repeatedly and mistakenly). You can't. Leave the wikilinking in the first reference and then eliminate it from the others. This problem occurs in the following references:

And probably more, but please correct them all.

Yes check.svg Done.
  • Kerrang! references need publisher parameter (Bauer Media Group); and so do the Billboard references R6 and R7.
Yes check.svg Done.

Prose, redundancies and visual aspect[edit]

Lead section[edit]

  • This Is War is missing date. It should be like This Is War (20??).
Yes check.svg Done.
  • "The melody of the song resembles the musical works of U2, and contains several qualities similar to that of 1980s adult contemporary musical works" → Reword a bit so it doesn't repeat musical works twice in the same sentence.
Yes check.svg Done.
  • "premiered on Kevin and Bean's radio show of KROQ in Los Angeles on October 6, 2009" → Unnecessary.
Why is it unnecessary?
That information belongs on 'Background' section, the important thing here is the single release date/service date.
Moved to the Background section.
  • As I requested you to remove the part about the premiere, add ',2009 to October 13.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Remove the first paragraph citations.
Why should I remove it?
An experienced user has reccomended me to either cite everything in the lead or remove all citations. prism 19:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done.--Earthh (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Nothing to address.

Suggestion: Couldn't you possibly find information to create a Composition section? I even found a reliable sheet music for the song (, from which you could retain some valuable information, like: the song is set in a 4/4 time signature, how many beats per minute has it, what notes do the vocals range from and to what? If you want to, I can write down that info.

It will be very helpful if you start that section. However some informations are in the Background and Critical reception sections
You'll have to write specific informations about genres and other valuable information though. I'll give you the initial prose for the section though. prism 19:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will do it. Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done

Critical reception[edit]

  • Nothing to address.

Music video[edit]

  • Nothing to address.

Cover versions and media usage[edit]

  • This section also contains a sentence about a live performance of the song by the band. Wasn't the song performed in any of their tours since then? It probably did... can't you find a reliable source and include it here, proving that it was performed in one of their tours (at least one), please? If you do so, change the section title to "Live performances, covers and media usage".
Created a Live performances section. Let me know if something is wrong.--Earthh (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Track listing[edit]

  • UK 7" vinyl repeats... I checked the urls and they clearly state one is a 'normal' single while the other is a maxi single. Please insert that information there.
Yes check.svg Done

Suggestion: If you can find information (extra) about the single's commercial performance, peak dates and etc could you create a 'Commercial performance' section? It's in almost every single section. And per WP:Songs, popular songs should have such information in greater detail. And this is certainly part of that.

I've written something but we don't have enough material for a separate section. The only significant chart performance is the one of the Alternative Songs.--Earthh (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


  • This article looks very good, its prose is decent too, though those sections I pointed out are necessary and I need you to create them, therefore I will put this on hold for 1 week. Let me know if you need more. If these sections are not created in the time you asked for, I will fail this nomination, but I'm sure that won't happen. Good work! 17:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The new Composition section looks good. prism 21:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Second read-through; verifying changes[edit]

  • No further problems detected on second read-through.
  • Changes made successfully.
  • Congratulations! prism 18:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)