Not in Love (Crystal Castles 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 23, 2024 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 25, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Crystal Castles canceled their studio recording plans for "Not in Love" because they became attached to Robert Smith's demo vocals?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music. Songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong Electronic music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

For this song, the original is Platinum Blonde in 1983. It was barely any difficulty to fit that in with what was already written here, and the original, though not the hit of the century, did become well known enough that calling the Crystal Castles album version "original" sounded very weird. (Maybe it only sounded weird to an old man, but some old men do read stuff on Wikipedia.) :) TooManyFingers (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Not in Love (Crystal Castles song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 22:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   a. (reference section):

   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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I will review this later today! --K. Peake 09:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Synthpop → Synth-pop with the wikilink in the infobox
  • Done
• I think it would be appropriate to mention the recording process of Smith's vocals that were originally seen as demo vocals, then used
  • Done
• Follow this sentence with one about the composition of the covers
  • Done
• To make the lead more expansive, re-arrange the reception so the sentence about critics calling the album version unexciting is followed up by what they praised about the version with Smith and then start a new sentence for the best songs of 2010s rankings, adding names of publications this included
  • Done
• Remove the Belgium chart mention for the lead because these are Ultratop charts, also mention the certification was in Canada by Music Canada to specify
  • Done

• The reference does not back up the song being originally by Platinum Blonde
  • Added
• "Another press release mentions" → "Another press release mentioned"
  • Done
• Re-invoke [3] at the end of the sentence with Ethan Kath's direct quote
  • Done
• Remove the release year of Crystal Castles from brackets since this needn't be done a second time
  • Done
• "Robert Smith recorded "raw" → "Smith recorded "raw"
  • Done
• "was sung; they decided to keep it" → "was sung and decided to keep the song"
  • Done
• "The Robert Smith version of" → "The Smith version of" although the source says October 25 so shouldn't you use this as the date of announcement?
  • Done. I've checked the source and it says October 25 before switching to October 24? Probably related to time zones. October 25 is indeed the correct date; fixed.
• "and officially released" → "and officially released as a single"
  • Done
• Pipe acoustic to Acoustic music
  • Done
• "A music video directed" → "An accompanying music video directed" to be specific
  • Done

• Wikilink Ethan Kath and pipe Robert Smith to Robert Smith (musician) on the audio samples
  • Done
• "the version with Robert Smith." → "the version with Smith."
  • Done
• Beats per Minute → Beats Per Minute and pipe to Beats Per Minute (website); the staff member's name is used in the source so mention here please too
  • Done

• "was generally considered unexciting." → "was generally considered unexciting by critics." and put the refs into order
  • Done
• Pipe B-side to A-side and B-side
  • Done
• Beats per Minute → Beats Per Minute and remove pipe to Beats Per Minute (website); the staff member's name is used in the source so mention here please with the last name this time
  • Done
• "and that it "sounds the way" → "and sounding "the way"
  • Done
• "said that this track" → "said that the track"
  • Done

• Mention this was the staff of Fact
  • Done
• To avoid overquoting, put the last part of Dombal's quote into your own words as something like "one of Crystal Castles' catchiest works"
  • Done
• "and "Once again, Kath and Glass spun aesthetic" → "as Kath and Glass manage to spin "aesthetic" per above – re-invoke the ref at the end of this sentence too per direct quoting
  • Done
• "ages" while providing a" → "ages", while providing a"
  • Done
• Put some of Molly Beauchemin's quote into your own words to avoid overquote
  • Done
• "described it as the" → "described the song as the"
  • Done

• Regarding the lists, rather than mentioning so many in the first sentence I would only mention any notable rankings like the highest few in prose
  • Done
• Beats per Minute → Beats Per Minute and pipe to Beats Per Minute (website)
  • Done

• Create this section because the positions need to be written out in prose to be in the lead
  • Done

• Good

• Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel
  • Done

• See MOS:TABLECAPTION
  • Done
• ARIA Charts → ARIA in the table as this is how it is supposed to be formatted
  • Done

• See MOS:TABLECAPTION
  • Done

• Copyvio score shows violation possible for the Pitchfork decade ranking so cutting down on the direct quoting should fix this
• Done
• UnderTheRadar → Under the Radar and pipe to Under the Radar (magazine) on ref 3

This is actually a different magazine.

• Beats per Minute → Beats Per Minute and pipe to Beats Per Minute (website) on ref 14

Done

• Good

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed after knocking this review out! --K. Peake 20:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Skyshifter Any further response after you initially covered some of the points? --K. Peake 08:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the delay, I'll try to address everything today. Skyshiftertalk 12:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: done! Skyshiftertalk 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter I would still say in accolades, you need to own list notable publications in prose since it is too much naming them all when you have a table already. --K. Peake 08:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: I'd say it's fine. The number of accolades is relatively low and the prose there is quite short, so I don't think it would make a big difference. However I can change it if needed. Skyshiftertalk 11:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter I would say make one choice, either write out the accolades in prose only or have the table and a summary above of the highest ones. I'd chose the latter, but the former would be fine it's either one of these two choices though and I'm happy to then pass! --K. Peake 14:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: done! Skyshiftertalk 14:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ✓ Pass now, I did some slight copy editing and sorry for the late check-off of this article I had been away! --K. Peake 08:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FA status.

Thanks, Skyshiftertalk 14:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this article to the FAC PR sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles on that list. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "remix" should be linked (both in lead and body) since it's a bit uncommon for people with little knowledge of music. Also based on a recent music FA.
  • Done
• "following the Crystal Castles' release, Smith asked if he could remix a song on the album" - "following the album's release, Smith asked if he could remix one of its tracks". Since Crystal Castles (either the duo or the album) is mentioned five times in the first paragraph.
  • Done
• "Critics found the first version of "Not in Love", a synth-pop song" - I would change it to "A synth-pop song, critics..." for flow.
  • Done
• "Critics found" - found is under MOS:SAID. You should replaced with one of the words listed there.
  • Done
• Replace "synths" with synthesizers, linking it (also based on the recent FA).
  • Done
• "It appeared" - "Commercially, it appeared"
  • Done
• There's eight "version" in the lead. Could a few be replaced with remix?
  • Using "cover" instead
• "and was certified gold" - consider linking "certified gold" to List of music recording certifications.
  • Done
• "in Canada by Music Canada - I think this is redundant.
  • Done
• "Crystal Castles re-recorded it for Crystal Castles (2010)" - "Crystal Castles covered it for their eponymous 2010 studio album". Also linking covered.
  • Done
• I would remove "according to a press release" for flow.
  • Removed the sentence altogether
• "but they did end up on the album" - "but ended up on the album"?
  • Done
• "asked if he could remix a song on Crystal Castles" - "asked if he could remix one of its tracks".
  • Done
• Unless I'm missing something, the sources do not say the UK release "never happened".
  • Removed, though the article may imply that the release happened when it didn't.
• Maybe "alongside a Nic Brown-directed music video" could be added to the lead after the mention of the single release.
  • Added "alongside a music video"
• I would separate Bick and Jacobs' opinions.
  • They seem to be opposites. I think it is okay as it is.
• "Pytlik of Pitchfork" - it is already stated that he is from Pitchfork.
  • Done
• "Pitchfork named the re-recording with Smith "Best New Track"" - "Pitchfork named "Best New Track" the re-recording with Smith"?
  • This phrasing feels strange
• You could paraphrase some of the quotes from the Robert Smith version subsection.
  • Done
• "best songs of 2010 by the likes of" - IMO "the likes of" is unnecessary.
  • Done
• "peaked at 90" - "peaked at number 90".
  • Done
• I think "In Canada" (under Commercial performance) is unnecessary since it is already stated in the name of the following chart and certification organization.
  • Unsure as I begin each sentence with the country name
• The Track listing shouldn't be here per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Track listing.
  • Done
• The titles of the citations should be with title case per MOS:CT.
  • They can also be consistently in sentence case, as it is the case with some FAs such as Worlds (Porter Robinson album).
    • Thanks for the clarification! CatchMe (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• All refs should be archived for consistency.
  • Done
• Link all magazines/websites/publications in the citations for consistency.
  • Unless I missed something this is already done.
    • My apologies. Thought that UnderTheRadar referred to the American magazine. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I could say at the moment. It's my first time participating on a PR, so my apologies if there's something wrong or not needed. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 22:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a quick PR this weekend. Looks strong as of right now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, meant to get around to this sooner. Will be on it tomorrow for sure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm here now. The following is primarily concerned with the writing style. Verifiably looks good on initial appraisal, so it's just a matter of putting some polish on this pretty strong article.

• Platinum Blonde is introduced as a "Canadian rock band" in the lead but not the body. I think it would be worth adding there too.
  • Done

• Consider introducing Crystal Castles as a "Canadian electronic group" or something similar on first mention in the body.
  • Done

• "Kath suggested that Smith replace his vocals" grammatically means replacing Smith's vocals. Reorder that portion of the sentence to read "Kath suggested that his vocals should be replaced by Smith's".
  • Did something similar

• The second paragraph of the "Background and release" section is generally well written, but "serviced" strikes me as industry jargon of uncertain meaning to the layman. Consider replacing it.
  • Done

• In the first paragraph of the "Composition" section, the flow between sentences seems a tad jumpy. I'd attribute this to the formatting of each sentence as "Joe Schmoe of Acme said 'X'". While there's relatively little flexibility within the MOS, I think one of those sentences could be rewritten to better transition between the thoughts of different critics.
  • Tried something

• In "Critical reception", consider dropping "conversely". I know that this goes against the note immediately above this one, but I don't see a strong case within the sources to directly contradict Bick's perspective with Jacob's.
  • Done

• The introduction in the "Personnel" section is not a complete sentence. I think the MOS permits this, but some at FAC might get fussy about it.
  • I have passed an FA with a sentence similar to this, so hopefully it should be fine.

• Noun and adjectival forms of goth are present a couple times in the article but lack links. I say add one on first mention.
  • Done

• Considering the multiple sources supporting that this song qualifies as "gothic", I think gothic rock should be added to the infobox alongside synth pop.
  • Done

Article seems to have some strong legs underneath it. Nice work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti Thank you! All replied. Skyshiftertalk 22:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will read this article and see what there is to do. Only if I actually do it, I'd heavily appreciate it if you could do a PR review for one of my own articles :). 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 03:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I decided to go through WP:FA?, the article does seem to generally meet the criteria, the lead is concise and summarizes the topic, structuring is appropiate, consistent citations, media where available, no unnecessary details... I can still give advices, though!
• "Smith recorded "raw demo vocals" for the song" - Maybe turn this to just, "Smith recorded a demo for the song"?
  • I'd like not to omit that these were "raw" vocals.
• "when the band listened to the result they became attached to" - add a comma between "result" and "they"
  • Done
• "Fact staff wrote that it is" - Might just be personal preference here, but I would omit the word "staff"
  • Adding "staff" was suggested at the GA review, so I prefer to keep it as it is.
• "... that this was one of the best performances by Smith until that time" - I'm totally missing something here, and I'm sorry if I am, but what time?
  • I really miswrote that; fixed.

All I got, the rest looks good to me! I wish you good luck on your FA, also would still appreciate if you left comments on my PR review :) 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 05:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AskeeaeWiki: thank you! I can take a look when I have time. Skyshiftertalk 23:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]