Talk:Getting Killed

Remove the No Wave Tag

Guys it's not No Wave ~2025-38251-43 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Points brought up by the TA on their talk page before being directed here:

The sources in question are music reviewers without any real credibility. Look at how they use it in the article, both times it's a throwaway used literally one time to describe their sensibilities. It's so insultingly blatantly wrong

I personally have no familiarity or interest in the article subject myself, had just reverted the TA over genre warring. Thanks for discussing rather than edit warring btw. Best, ^LaffyTaffer💬(they/she) 20:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

so no one is using this talk function and I'm not the only one who's removed the no wave tag can we get rid of the no wave tag also like go to rateyourmusic and look at the genre tags on this because that website actually has a pretty sophisticated genre voter and look at the votes for no wave and see that every single person on that website has voted against it ~2025-38251-43 (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right -- the cited sources only attribute elements of no wave rather than fully classifying the work within the genre. This was an error on my part introduced during expansion of the article. Thanks for flagging it. Cattos^💭 17:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ezéchiel Péquay: Instead of reverting my edits, please discuss this on the talk page. In Exclaim!, it says "inhabiting a potent pastiche of '70s rock text crossed with an inner-city no-wave posture is captivating, catchy, and progressively irritating." This wording does not constitute an explicit attribution of the work as no wave, but at most supports mentioning no wave as a "posture" -- that is, an influence or aesthetic stance. As for AllMusic, the description "no-wave-tinged art-rock" is effectively synonymous for "art rock with no wave elements". If something is "tinged", it contains a small amount of a given quality. Cattos^💭 00:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

More discretion needs to be put with regards to music reviewers. A common trend with music reviewers is spouting genres as adjectives for intriguing effect. If we listen to the album and compare it to seminal No Wave albums (let's just say no New York) it sounds not even remotely similar. Current genre tags are fine. ~2025-38251-43 (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Getting Killed/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 06:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 05:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Cathodography! I'll be your reviewer for the GA nomination of Getting Killed. Checking through the article was quick as I saw no issues on the way. Here's my criteria... - RTSthestardust (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations @Cathodography! You have passed this article as a GA. Keep up the good work! - RTSthestardust (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

GA Criteria Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Checked through the article and there were no issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issues here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There's 32% and 30.1% similarities from two Paste Magazine sources respectively, but violation is unlikely as they are coded green.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The album's history, production, musical style, release, critical reception, and chart performances are all covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very solid, as it doesn't distract from the main topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Nominator ranks top on authorship, showing significant contributions. There were five edits in the past week (including that I removed a fact about the tour's Europe leg starting on March 3 that is now-delayed to the 7th), but were all grammar fixes; being contributive, the article is still stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are two images, with the first being the non-free cover and the other being a Kenny Beats photo on Wikimedia Commons. However, the non-free cover didn't have a link, I replaced the general source of "Apple Music" with the actual link of the album. On the other side, the Kenny Beats photo already has a proper license and source.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images are relevant for use in the article and have great descriptions (for the album cover, it's the alt description)
	7. Overall assessment.

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.

Calling Cobra a Single

I think that Cobra should be removed from the singles category. I understand that it charted in some countries, the band premiered it early on BBC Radio, and that it's the B-side to an Au Pays du Cocaine 7" pressing from Urban Outfitters, but I don't think that is enough justification for calling it a single. It has never been available to stream or consume without being attached to the rest of the album like the other singles. Fionaphilia (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I also do not understand the arbitrary November 25th date. Is that when it first landed on a singles chart? Fionaphilia (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It was apparently serviced to adult alternative radio on October 20, but I'm not sure if Jack Barton Entertainment is a reliable enough source for this.