Jump to content

Talk:Wake Me Up When September Ends

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

Really?

[edit]

Do individual songs usually deserve wikipedia entries? 65.11.69.130 22:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Almost anything NOTABLE is included in wikipedia. Notability, however, doesn't include every garage band. Lotsofissues 22:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they do, not songs that aren't singles though. That would be pointless and lengthy. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wake Me Up When September Ends. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2017

[edit]

Could someone change the part where it says "The song became the fourth single from American Idiot to be certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America." to "The song became the fourth single from American Idiot to be certified 2x platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America." And change the Certification from Platinum which is 1 million to 2 million[1] 208.54.39.212 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: For @Bowielowie too, read this for why. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=&ti=Wake+me+up+when&lab=&genre=&format=&date_option=release&from=&to=&award=&type=&category=&adv=SEARCH#search_section

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2017

[edit]

Could you change the BPI certification from Sliver to Gold, as it went Gold in September 2016 and the RIAA certification from platinum to 2x platinum in the certifications part[1][2] 76.125.38.35 (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards/search.aspx
  2. ^ https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=green+day&ti=wake+me+up+when+september+ends&lab=&genre=&format=&date_option=release&from=&to=&award=&type=&category=&adv=SEARCH#search_section

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Wake Me Up When September Ends/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This caught my attention on Discord, and I couldn't resist. :) Expect comments in the next few days! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment before I dive any deeper: there seems to be some close paraphrasing with this source. See the report. Most of the red highlights are the song's title or quoted lyrics, but there is some text from the article that's too similar for my liking. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed one of the questionable bits (which, to clear up, I did not write), but other than that it just seems to have a high rating because of how many times the song title is said. This shouldn't be a problem now. λ NegativeMP1 05:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: I was adding some info to the article when I noticed some repeated citations and crosslinks to news sources appearing in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. May be worth doing a quick, second pass to clean up the article's references a bit. Leafy46 (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's an area I'm missing, this is only an issue with the references auto-generated by the charts template, which is an issue I noticed and have no idea how to fix since it's related to templates. I'll run a second check through the maim prose sources, though. λ NegativeMP1 16:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just from a quick look, refs #17 and #18 (Rolling Stone No. 958) are duplicated, for instance -- as for the chart templates, if you go to the specific single chart and click "show all", there should be a field called "refgroup" which allows you to use that chart reference in a <ref name=whatever> fashion. Leafy46 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it more, but be aware that I am very inexperienced with templates, especially ones that auto-generate citations. This is my first time working on a non-video game soundtrack music article. λ NegativeMP1 03:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I had some spare time and I'd really like to see this promoted to GA, so I've cleaned up those citations for you. Good luck with the rest of the process! Leafy46 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't know it that worked like that. I'll use this for future reference, since I intend on cleaning up the rest of the American Idiot song articles (maybe not GA, just cleanup, since it is four more songs) before the 20th anniversary edition releases. λ NegativeMP1 17:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Prose

[edit]
  • Link "rock ballad" in the lead.
    • Done.
  • Attribute the quote "militarist rhythm".
    • Done.
  • "The primary composition ends before the [track's] duration is over," seems an unnecessarily awkward way to convey that there are a few seconds of silence or near-silence at the end of the song. Rephrase.
    • Done.
  • I know you're planning an article about "Homecoming", but let's unlink it in this article until that happens, as it creates a duplicate link to the American Idiot article. Also, the period goes outside of the quotes per MOS:LQ, which applies several more times throughout the article.
    • Thanks for letting me now that part of the MOS exists, I think I resolved all of those issues now. Removed link to "Homecoming".
  • during the 2000s well ... What do you mean by "the 2000s well"?
    • Removed "well", not even I'm sure what I meant by that.
  • The sentence beginning "He wrote that the song was ..." is rather confusing in the way it uses quotes and uses the word song too many times to feel natural. I would rephrase, probably break up sentence, and possibly paraphrase one of the quotes.
    • Done.
  • I've added a {{Citation needed}} in § Commercial performance.
    • Already resolved.
  • "Although it wasn't the song's literal meaning," Make this a bit more formal and lose the contraction.
    • Done.
  • Going down a list of chart placements in § Commercial performance seems redundant to the chart tables lower down, and the grouping of countries together — for example, Hungary and New Zealand — because they happen to have the same peak placements doesn't read very clearly.
    • I feel like it wouldn't hurt to have some rundown of how the song performed internationally in the prose (even where it didn't reach #1), but done.
  • "Some of these performances were meant to promote the album, taking place in 2004." Rephrase.
    • Done.
  • "... where American Idiot was played in its entirety" is too similar to the phrase used earlier in the paragraph.
    • Done.
  • Link "benefit concert" in § Legacy.
    • Done..
  • I would not describe the song's relation to the hurricane as an "affiliation", nor the concert as being "dedicated to Hurricane Katrina".
    • Reworded.
  • Link "COVID-19 relief efforts" to Charitable activities related to the COVID-19 pandemic or at least COVID-19.
    • Done.
  • In the years since its release,
    • Done.
  • Why is Eternal September linked in § See also? It seems completely unrelated to the song except for the mildly similar name.
    • No idea, removed.

References and miscellany

[edit]

Citation numbers from this revision.

  • I would recommend formatting the citations to feature the names of the publications in the |website= parameter instead of abridged URLs, but this is optional for GA quality.
    • Assuming this is what you were referring to, I went through all of the main prose citations and corrected the titles to be the website name, linking to their Wikipedia articles as well (if they had one).
  • Adjust the link in citation 16 to lead to page 11 of the source.
    • Done.
  • Random spot-checks verified the statements supported by citations 3, all uses of 7, 42, 55, and 56.
  • I'm still seeing close paraphrasing issues with the American Songwriter source I mentioned above. Here are a few problem phrases: "pairing the song [...] which went viral", "New Orleans Saints [...] the hurricane", and "after interviewing soldiers [...] television advertisement". Please take a close look at the text cited to this source and made sure there are no further issues.
    • I'm going to run a further investigation, but I suspect that this Wikipedia article was what that source plagiarized from, rather than the other way around. I can not see any apparent methods to change the wording from the page.
      • Yeah the majority of what is getting flagged as copyvio is phrases that literally have no other way to be written without being detrimental to the article's writing. And my suspicions are true, since it appears the majority of writing getting flagged here was written in the article before that source was ever published, see this revision.
    Reverse copyright violations, my favorite... It's somewhat concerning that a reputable source like American Songwriter seems to be getting up to this stuff, but that's a discussion outside the scope of this review. No futher issues with regards to criterion 2d. —TS
  • File:Green Day - Wake Me Up When September Ends.ogg is a non-free sample appropriately used, tagged, and captioned.

Discussion

[edit]

I appreciate your patience with my review, NegativeMP1! I don't have too much to say about this article, any other comments I could post would be relatively minor or outside the scope of a GAN review; good work! Feel free to reply to comments in line and let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your time to review this article! I've addressed all issues highlighted above, unless noted otherwise/done with additional considerations. λ NegativeMP1 03:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. My major concerns have all been addressed, so I'm pleased to  pass this as a good article! Time to save a spot at the DYK queue for the end of September? :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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

[edit]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by NegativeMP1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

λ NegativeMP1 19:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wake_Me_Up_When_September_Ends&oldid=1241925748"