Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Not in Love (Crystal Castles song)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2025 [1].

Not in Love (Crystal Castles song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 17:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Not in Love" was originally a song by Platinum Blonde that Crystal Castles decided to cover for their second album. It didn't get much attention from critics until Robert Smith replaced the original vocals, resulting in Crystal Castles' highest charting single by far and one of the best songs of the year. I believe it is ready to be featured following GAN, PR and GOCE. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 17:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Averageuntitleduser

[edit]
  • "more-impactful" — remove dash.
  • "named it as one of the best songs of 2010" — remove "as"
  • "for their eponymous 2010 studio album" — "self-titled" may be even more recognizable when discussing albums.
  • "Ethan Kath recorded his vocals as 'a scratch demo' he intended to re-record but it was used for the finished version and released on the album." — suggest: "Ethan Kath recorded his vocals as 'a scratch demo'. He intended to re-record the song, but the demo was used for the finished version..."
  • "Smith recorded 'raw demo vocals' for the song; when the band listened to the result, they became attached to the way the demo was sung and decided to retain Smith's demo and canceled their plans to re-record Smith in a studio." — suggest: "Smith recorded demo vocals for the song; when the band listened to the result, they became attached to the delivery, which they described as "raw", and decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio."
  • "stronger structure" — this is hard to conceptualize, or a bit vague. Try revising the phrase.
    • I've quoted directly now.
  • "Emily Bick of The Quietus wrote the song" — "wrote that"
  • "A writer for DIY described the song as the most-destined for festival stages and the purest of any Crystal Castles release, adding it is one of the best covers of the 2010s and 'a crazed re-creation of a song that looked to be dead and buried'." — suggest splitting the second half into its own sentence, e.g., "They concluded that it was one of the best covers..."

All minor comments. Very nice article! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser: Thank you! All done. Skyshiftertalk 20:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Support! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • "second studio album Crystal Castles (2010)" - "second studio album, Crystal Castles (2010)"
  • "re-recored" can be linked to re-recording (music)
  • "when the band listened to the result, they decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio, as the band became attached to these "raw" vocals" - "when the band listened to the result, they became attached to his "raw" vocals and decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio" -- reads better, in my opinion
  • "distortion" can be linked to distortion (music)
  • Shouldn't "[t]here's" and "[t]he" be "There's" and "The" since the sentences were separated with a colon?
  • "crescendos" can be linked to crescendos
  • "Rolling Stone characterized the version" - Shouldn't this be "Rolling Stone's Andi Harrima characterized the version"?
  • "chorus" can be linked to refrain
  • "synthesizers" and "synths" can be linked to synthesizers
  • "filler" can be linked to filler (media)
  • "the "Not in Love" re-recording with Robert Smith" - Does Smith's full name need to be mentioned again?
  • "said Smith "elevates" Crystal ..." - "said he "elevates" Crystal ..."
  • "catchiest" can be linked to catchiness
  • "He also said this was one of Smith's ..." - "He also considered it one of Smith's ..."
  • "ballad" can be linked to sentimental ballad

I think that's all. Great work! Medxvo (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: thank you! All done. Skyshiftertalk 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Image licence, use and rationale seem OK to me. Might want to add why these particular parts of the song were clipped and why it takes two non-free samples rather than just one; remember, "must significantly enhance the understanding of the subject, and its omission would be detrimental to said understanding". Is undertheradar.co.nz a reliable source for interviews? What makes DrownedInSound a reliable source? It looks I have reviewed most of the magazines and sources here already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Two non-free samples are needed to show the (sourced) differences between the original version and the version with Smith. The same part was clipped in both, which clearly shows the pre-chorus, its vocals, and synthesizers and part of the chorus in Smith's version — aspects which sources commented on. I will add this to the rationales. Drowned in Sound is listed as reliable on WP:A/S. undertheradar.co.nz does multiple interviews with NZ artists/artists touring NZ, and they then republish on their official media accounts (example); I don't see any reason to doubt the legitimacy of the interviews. Skyshiftertalk 14:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are the differences a significant aspect of the article topic, though? It doesn't seem like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like most of the "Composition" section is about comparing both versions and noting said differences. Skyshiftertalk 10:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Commercially, it appeared in the singles charts of Australia, Denmark, Scotland, and the United Kingdom, and was certified gold by Music Canada." It may just be me, but consider either deleting "Commercially" or expanding a little (eg 'Commercially it was a modest success, appearing in ...'). I had to pause for a few moments to think through the connection.
    • Fixed
  • "He intended to re-record the song, but the demo was used for the finished version and released on the album." Is it known how that happened?
    • It is not.
  • "asked if he could remix one of its tracks". Remix any track, or did he specify "Not in Love".
    • Any track in the album. I've changed "Following its release" to "Following the album's release" for clarification.
  • What are "home demo vocals"? Is there a link?
    • Just vocals that were recorded in his home.
The uninitiated may find "Smith recorded demo vocals for the song at home" more self explanatory.
  • "It was planned to be released in the United Kingdom via Fiction Records with acoustic demos of "Celestica" and "Suffocation" as B-sides on December 6." And was it?
    • It was not. The article previously had something like "but the release didn't happen", but it was removed for being unsourced.
Ah, the good old trying to cite a negative. Drat.
  • " "Not in Love" was sent to American alternative radio on January 11, 2011". This sounds a bit shorthand. Is it short for ' "Not in Love" was sent to American alternative radio stations on January 11, 2011'?
    • Fixed
  • "Pitchfork's Mark Richardson said this version is filled with digital noise and heavy distortion.[17] Mark Pytlik, also writing for Pitchfork, said the track is "much tamer" than the version with Smith's vocals.[13] Cameron Scheetz of The A.V. Club said Kath's "distant ..." "...said ... said ... said ..." Synonym time?
    • Fixed
  • "Larry Fitzmaurice of Pitchfork said this version has a "more muscular framework" than the first, and powerful synths with an anthemic intensity." The first part is a comparison, the second a statement. Did you mean something like '... and has more powerful synths with an anthemic intensity'?
    • It is supposed to be like that, but rearranged.
Better now. (IMO)
  • The album version section is rather "A said "short quote" ... B stated "short quote" ... C described "short quote" ..." Is it possible to make it a bit more "engaging"?
    • Tried my best
  • "Robert Smith version" is an improvement, but is in much the same style in large parts.
    • I've changed a word but I'm not exactly sure how to improve it much.
  • ""Not in Love" was ranked as one of the 20 best songs of 2010 by ..." Which version?
    • Clarified

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: thank you! Responded. Skyshiftertalk 20:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • The last part of the first paragraph now has three x "described" in a row: "while Cosores of Beats Per Minute described it as "pretty pedestrian". Emily Bick of The Quietus described it as "[shifting] towards discomfort, disillusion, despair". Justin Jacobs of Paste described it as "pretty" and said it sounds "the way twinkling Christmas lights look"." Maybe something like 'while Cosores of Beats Per Minute considered it to be pedestrian. Emily Bick of The Quietus wrote of "discomfort, disillusion, despair", although Justin Jacobs of Paste described it as pretty and as sounding "the way twinkling Christmas lights look" '?
I realised that this left 2 x considered in one sentence. I tweaked it but messed up my edit summary. Let me know if the revised version doesn't work for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "said the song is "massive" ... its "high-definition angst" feels unique to the band." Why the shift to present tense? (is instead of was, feels not felt) You use past tense elsewhere in the same paragraph. (described not describes, considered not considers)
  • "Robert Smith version" section. you need to lose some of those verbs. Eg (just a suggestion) "Molly Beauchemin from Pitchfork described the song as having an explosive, "life-affirming" chorus that transitions into Kath's tender interludes with "triumphant precision", calling it one of Crystal Castles' "finest, most cathartic ballads"." → 'Molly Beauchemin from Pitchfork called it one of Crystal Castles' "finest, most cathartic ballads", having an explosive, "life-affirming" chorus that transitions into Kath's tender interludes with "triumphant precision".' Wa'da'ya think? It loses one "described", which you use six times in three paragraphs!
  • If you like - or can at least can live - with what I have done in my first and third suggestions above, have a go at extending the principles over the rest of the reception section. Note that it is not required to put single words in quote marks if they are clearly and closely associated with the source. (Although you can if you wish.) If you are not happy, have a look at how other FACs have handled the issue and see if you can come up with a different approach. Bedtime now, so no responses for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've applied these suggestions but I'm not sure if it is sufficient. Skyshiftertalk 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thing that you are now close to "there". It seems to be missing a summary of the critics view of "Robert Smith version". And the comments on Smith and on the band seem mixed together. How would you feel about separating them thematically?

Eg: 'The majority of critics were enthusiastic about Smith's cover. Pitchfork named it the "Best New Track" and Fact staff called the track "as satisfying as you could have hoped for". Larry Fitzmaurice, writing for Pitchfork, said the song was "massive", evoking chills, and that while a cover, its "high-definition angst" felt unique to the band. Molly Beauchemin, also from Pitchfork, called it one of Crystal Castles' "finest, most cathartic ballads", having an explosive, "life-affirming" chorus that transitions into Kath's tender interludes with "triumphant precision". Brandon Stosuy of Stereogum said this version could be considered the best the Cure song in years, while providing a new perspective on the "saturated, blasted goth-noise prettiness" of Crystal Castles. A writer for DIY described the song as the most-destined for festival stages and the purest of any Crystal Castles release; they concluded that it was one of the best covers of the 2010s and "a crazed re-creation of a song that looked to be dead and buried".


Smith's vocals in particular drew praise, with most critics agreeing with Scheetz' assessment that Smith's emotional vulnerability reveals "the tender longing[s] beneath Crystal Castles' cool, icy facade". Slant Magazine staff wrote: "The crunchy production combined with Smith's familiar pangs is heart-wrenching and nothing short of blisteringly gorgeous". Fitzmaurice also considered it one of Smith's best performances in a long time, with Richardson judging that he improves Crystal Castles' first version, balancing nostalgia with the immediacy of life. Pitchfork's Ryan Dombal described Smith's vocals as "loud and clear", making this one of Crystal Castles' catchiest works.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Regarding this, I will try my best to explain. The correct structure is: "Someone said (past) the song is (present) this". The song is something, because the song is a definite work and its attributes don't change. Critics have said something about the song in the past, saying that it is something. This is used in many parts of the article: "Pitchfork's Mark Richardson wrote that this version is filled with digital noise and heavy distortion.", "Cameron Scheetz of The A.V. Club said Kath's "distant, distorted vocals" on the first version provides a ghostly feel to the lyrics.", and the entire second paragraph of Composition. I have followed this with other FAs such as Worlds (Porter Robinson album).
Got it.

I have applied your suggestions with this in mind. On "most critics agreeing with Scheetz' assessment"... I wouldn't put it like that if they haven't explicitly agreed with Scheetz' specific assessment, so I've reworded it. Skyshiftertalk 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I think that it would be helpful to have two infoboxes as this article is about two covers. An article like "Forever & Always" this an example of t. I would think that the album version would have an infobox, along with the one for the Smith version.
  • Apologies for the double-reply, but I wanted to comment on the following edit. I think that it would be better to have both infoboxes in the lead, with the first release (in this case, the album version) coming first so the information is presented in more of a chronological order. This article is about both versions of the song, so I do not think that it makes sense to put a preference on the single version by having that appear first and separate in the lead. I would suggest looking at the article that I have linked above or at "You're Not Sorry" or "Hey Stephen". I know that all of the examples are Taylor Swift articles, but I think they are closest equivalent to this article, as they are all songs recorded multiple times by the same artist. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the single version is much more notable than the album version, and thus it should be the main infobox of the article. I'd say the album version is more of a context for the single version, and that's why I think it belongs better in the Background section.
  • Sorry, but it still does not make much sense to me for the reasons that I have already listed above. The current placement in the "Background and release" section is also a bit odd as most of that section is on the single version. I disagree with the idea that "the album version is more of a context for the single version". Again, this article is about both versions of this song, to the point that it includes audio samples from both. At this point, in my opinion, it may be best to just eliminate the album version infobox entirely. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • For the lead's first paragraph, I would put the part on Ethan Kath before the bits on the second cover and Robert Smith. It seems a bit jarring to go from the first cover to the second cover back to the first cover again.
  • Rearranged lead.
  • This is likely a silly question, but what does "impactful" mean in this context, has more impactful beats and synthesizers? To me, it reads more like a review, but it could also just be a more objective description that I am missing.
    • Changed to stronger
  • For the lead's last sentence, it is unclear which version of the song appeared on those charts. It is also unclear in the "Commercial performance" section. I am guessing that it is the Smith version since that was released as a single, but it is always best to avoid any potential confusion.
    • Fixed
  • I would recommend linking demo for readers who may be unfamiliar with music jargon.
    • Done
  • What does "home demo vocals" mean? I am unfamiliar with that phrasing. Does it just mean that he recorded his vocals at home? If so, I think that should be stated more clearly.
    • Done
  • For this part, they became attached to his "raw" vocals, it is unclear who is saying this quote.
    • It is the band. I believe this can be inferred through context (when the band listened to the result, they became attached...)
      • When it comes to quotes, the reader should not have to infer anything. The article should clearly and explicitly attribute the quote so this would need to be addressed. This could be fixed with something along the lines of: According to Kaith, the band became attached to his "raw" vocals and decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the announcement of the Smith cover notable enough to mention in the article? I am only wondering because while announcement can be notable, this does not appear to be the case.
    • I don't see a reason to remove it if there is sourcing confirming when the announcement was made.
      • That does not really answer my question though. Sure, the announcement can be sourced, but why is the announcement notable enough to mention at all? Why not just say when the song was released? Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be mindful of using "released" multiple times in close contexts. I know that it can be difficult while discussing this kind of thing, but it is helpful to avoid repetition.
    • I've used "launched" in some cases.
  • Is there any further information about the music video, other than the director and release date?
    • I have added some information.
  • Is the song's inclusion on FIFA 12 notable enough to mention here? It seem a bit trivial to me.
  • I would recommend adding some sentence variation in the "Composition" section, particularly for the first paragraph. The prose come across as a listing of random critics and for that reason, it is not as engaging in my opinion. It may be helpful to look at other song FAs, like "I'm Goin' Down", to see how this section is handled.
    • Because there is no connectivity between the critics' opinions, and due to the relatively low number of reviews, I don't know how to make it more engaging than just listing their views separately.
  • I would avoid one-word quotes like "massive" and "life-affirming". In the past, I have been told that they can take away from other quotes in the article, and for both of the instances mentioned above, they are used in the same sentence as what I view as more impactful quotes. That and it is always good to be mindful of quote usage in general.
    • I have removed the quotation marks.
  • I would avoid the following sentence construction when possible, with Richardson judging that he improves Crystal Castles' first version, balancing nostalgia and the immediacy of life. I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I have seen notes in other FACs that say to not use the "with X verb-ing" phrasing. This is the only instance that I see in the article, but it would be good to double-check.
    • Fixed
  • For the "Accolades" section, I think the information should be presented with prose rather than in just a table.
    • I had all the table information listed in the prose, but some of it was removed after the GA review to focus on the higher listings. I don't have a strong opinion either way.
      • I would honestly convert the table into prose. I could be wrong, but I just have not seen a song FA with a table like this as a replacement for prose. It may be worth seeing how other FAs have handled this kind of thing. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Personnel" section does not include the credits for the album version of the song, instead only discussing the Smith version. Do the liner notes for Crystal Castles provide any further information on the personnel for the original version?
    • Added
  • For Citation 19, it should be Harriman, not Harrima.
    • Fixed
  • For the citations, make sure that album titles like Crystal Castles are italicized to comply with WP:CONFORMTITLE. I noticed this with Citation 21, but I would double-check the other citations as well.
    • Fixed

Great work with the article. I think that this article would provide some nice diversity to the current pool of song FAs. I hope that these comments are helpful. I have never heard anything by Crystal Castles, so hopefully my very outside perspective is beneficial here. Once everything has been addressed, I will re-read the article to make sure that I did not miss anything. Just to be clear, I am primarily focused on the prose, as the source and image reviews have already been done. Aoba47 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skyshifter, is there some hold up over responding to these? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I will begin responding soon. Skyshiftertalk 13:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I think it would be best to just remove the album version infobox. I disagree with the current placement, and since this was not something brought up by other reviewers, it is likely not really needed anyway. There are only two points left: the "raw" quote (because quotes should be clearly attributed) and the accolades table (as I am not sure about using a table as a replacement for prose, but it is worth looking into). After these points have been addressed, that should be the end of my review. I have left other replies as well, but they are not requirements. Thank you for your patience and I hope that this helps to get this FAC promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: thank you, I have applied these suggestions. Skyshiftertalk 16:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you! I have responded to your comments. Skyshiftertalk 21:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the double reply. I just wanted to add to voorts' comments below about print magazines. I think that it could be worthwhile to look for further coverage in newspapers, which are accessible through a database like Newspapers.com. For instance, I found this article from The Independent about a live performance of this song and review of that. There is also another article from The Independent and a review of the album version from Guelph Mercury. I am only bringing this up now as my review was focused on the prose, but I wanted to expand on voorts' comments below and bring up up some ideas/examples. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have also found another source through archive.org. I will add everything soon. Skyshiftertalk 14:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I was able to help. I just wanted to point out some potential examples to expand on the comment below. I am happy that you found another source on archive.org. Just to be clear, this does not affect my review, and I still support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with your work on the article! Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

Just a couple things I picked up from a skim. Citation numbers from this revision.

  • Though I understand why you wrote it that way, I share Aoba's concern over the opening sentence, which seems to imply the article is about two songs which happen to have the same title. The article is about one song which happens to have two versions.
    • Fixed
  • A handful of duplicate links: in § Album version, Beats Per Minute; in § Accolades, Beats Per Minute, Pitchfork, Slant Magazine, Rolling Stone, and goth.
    • Fixed
  • Citations 3 and 27 are missing archive links. The Link Dispenser tool makes it easier to find these.
    • Fixed
  • I recently learned about MOS:WEBITALICS, so the majority of the |publisher=s in the citations need to be |work=s or |website=s.
    • The only three uses of |publisher= in the article—AllMusic, BBC Radio 6 Music, and Spotify—should not be italicized.
      Could you elaborate on why these shouldn't be italicized? The footnote at that guideline specifically cites an RfC where this was discussed and advises against using the |publisher= parameter in this way. —TS
      The policy suggests that italicization depends on the type of website it is, which is mostly "magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content" as well as encyclopedias. AllMusic is a database, BBC Radio 6 Music is a radio station, and Spotify is a streaming service. Additionally, the title of these articles aren't italicized in their respective articles. You can also see other FAs that have also followed in not italicizing AllMusic or Spotify, such as "I'm God". Skyshiftertalk 22:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is certainly true where the website is being mentioned in the prose, but the footnote states that citations should have things italicized regardless of what kind of website they are — the rationale being that we cite the publications, not the publishers — which appears to be supported by the result of the RfC and the template documentation. This seems to be a lesser-known guideline, so I'm not surprised if there are FAs that have passed using that style in the past (I'm pretty sure Worlds has a few as well that I haven't gotten to looking at yet). Ultimately, I'm not going to support or oppose on this alone, but I thought I'd at least bring it up. —TS

Nice work as usual, Skyshifter! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: thank you! All responded. Skyshiftertalk 22:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from voorts

[edit]
  • I've copy-edited the article / made some clarifying edits. If you have questions/concerns, happy to discuss here.
  • There are some full-sentence quotations. Can those be summarized?
    • Tried my best
  • Has anyone written about the music video?
    • Not that I could find, except for the "VHS-styled" thing.
  • I think the infobox should have information on the album version as well.
    • I think it's better to just have the single version info there, otherwise it can create confusion.
  • Have you checked print magazines (Billboard, Uncut, Rolling Stone, etc.) for reviews of the single?
    • I'll add some soon.

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter any response to this or TS's comments above? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond soon. TS's comments have already been addressed. Skyshiftertalk 14:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skyshifter, this has been open for ten weeks and is in danger of timing out. Do you have any thoughts as to when you will be able to respond to Voorts comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing left now is adding the newfound sources and paraphrase the full-sentence quotations, which will be done shortly. I am sorry for the delay. Skyshiftertalk 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47, Voorts, David Fuchs, and Gog the Mild: everything has been addressed and I am sorry for the delay. Skyshiftertalk 02:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue regarding media review I see is the use of two non-free audios but given that critics reviewed both versions of the song and drew certain comparisons, I think their use is justified. Promoting. FrB.TG (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Not_in_Love_(Crystal_Castles_song)/archive1&oldid=1290538712"