Talk:Alone (The Cure song)

RedShellMomentum

This article looks very good to be an FA, but there are some issues with the refs in the article:

• Ref 1, ref 19, ref 46, and ref 50 should use |publisher=.
• Ref 4, ref 5, ref 12, ref 13, ref 15, ref 16, ref 18, ref 20, ref 21, ref 23, ref 24, ref 25, ref 27, ref 28, ref 29, ref 32, ref 40, ref 42, ref 44, ref 45, ref 48, ref 51, ref 53, ref 54, ref 55, ref 57, ref 60, and ref 61 should use {{cite magazine}}.
• Ref 11 should use {{cite news}}.
• Try to wikilink the rest of the websites in the citation templates.

That's all I could see. RedShellMomentum 23:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@RedShellMomentum: Thanks for your comments here! I have applied all your suggestions, except for the last one (I learned early on to link it only the first time a website appears, to avoid overlinking). Leafy46 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick comment that while it is still optional, linking websites in citation templates more than once is permissible per MOS:DUPLINK: "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. In that case, I don't mind adding links to the rest of the citations. Leafy46 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Camilasdandelions

• Remove the song's name in table captions per MOS:HEADER

• I assume you're referring to the line 'Chart performance for "Alone"', to which I'd respond that including a line like that is pretty common practice across song articles: see the FAs Irreplaceable, Dragostea din tei, Life on Mars?, and All-American Bitch, for example.

• "Credits were adapted ~". And the section name "Personnel" is enough

• Changed to "Credits are adapted". Also gonna put a little [citation needed] around the second part, "Credits and personnel" is a pretty common section title (see, for instance, the FAs Outside (Mariah Carey song), Speechless (Lady Gaga song), Dance the Night, and Hey Baby (No Doubt song)).

• As "Composition" usually means "Music and lyrics", "Composition and lyrics" is kinda awkward for me

• "Composition and lyrics" is pretty common for a header, but I don't have anything against shortening it.

• There's commercial performance content in "Release" section. Why don't you rename the section's name to "Release and reception"?

• No, that would create confusion with the 'Critical reception' section. 'Release' on its own commonly encompasses commercial performance already. See, for instance, the FAs City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song), Ghost in the Machine (song), Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song), and Hot Sugar (song).

That's all I see for now. Good luck for FA! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Ippantekina

Happy to look into this PR. As the goal is FA, my prose review shall be really demanding (assuming that sources are all reliable and verifiable). As a preliminary note, I strongly suggest you read this guide and practice some exercises there, which helped me improve my writing tremendously. As such, my prose suggestions will be based on that guide, as well as general advices pertaining to WP:Summary style. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That would be lovely, thank you so much for spending the time to review this article! In the meantime, I will definitely look through that essay and implement things if I catch them. Leafy46 (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Over the last hour, I cut out around 300 bytes worth of words from the article, following the suggestions at Tony1's essay (diffs). I appreciate you bringing this essay to my attention, since it really did bring up some good points and common pitfalls which I could fix up. I believe this got rid of some of the more obvious nitpicks, which hopefully clears the runway for you to focus on the more specific ones :) Leafy46 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that the guide is helpful! Sorry for the tardy response, it's currently peak season for my off-wiki work so I have been logging on and off Wikipedia intermittently. Comments to follow soon. Let's start with the lead.

Lead

• The song was written in 2019 after Robert Smith rediscovered the poem "Dregs" by Ernest Dowson and adopted its imagery. I was told by many that always use the active over the passive wherever possible, so you could rewrite this to something like "Robert Smith wrote the song in 2019, adopting the imagery from the poems "Dregs" by Ernest Dowson" (what is 'rediscovered' here i.e. did Smith read it somewhere first? If this cannot be explained you can keep it simple)

• Done. I also clarified that he 'rediscovered' the song in his journal.

• Thanks. It reads much better now. Ippantekina (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• It begins with three minutes and twenty-one of instrumentals seconds?

• D'oh. Done.

• before Smith begins to sing "before Smith sings"

• Done.

• music critics observed that the lyrics focused on themes of mortality and environmentalism. try to avoid 'observed' per MOS:SAID, also maybe a summary of what the song is actually about i.e. its narrative?

• This is definitely more of a "vibes" song than having a narrative. Pretty much the only thing which Smith himself has said on its lyrics is that it was inspired by that poem "Dregs". I've switched out 'observed' for 'advanced' to get around the 'implied objectivity' issue, otherwise.

• I would say "argued" or "opined" are more objective choices. Ippantekina (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Opined it is, I guess. I feel like the sentence reads a little convoluted now, but it's readable and more objective than before. Leafy46 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• The track was written by Smith and was produced by him and Paul Corkett. repeats a prior statement that Smith wrote the song

• Removed.

• The Cure debuted the song in live performances maybe "The Cure first performed the song live..."

• I've rephrased it as ""Alone" first appeared during live performances", since I feel like it captures the original meaning a bit better. What do you think?

• with particular praise towards its atmosphere, its scope what is "scope" here? Lyrical scope or musical scope?

• "Scope" was used as a more neutral term to emphasize how three separate reviewers each called the song "epic", and how one found the song intimate despite its big themes. How would you suggest I go about rephrasing this?

• I'll have to read the critical reviews before being able to give an opinion on this. For now I just think that "scope" is pretty vague a term. Ippantekina (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• It peaked at number 6 I usually write out numerals from one to nine per WP:MOSNUM

• Done.

More to come (again, apologies for my delayed response) Ippantekina (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I've addressed your points above, and no worries about the delayed response. This is at Peer Review, after all, and I myself am also a bit busy at the moment because of midterm season lol. Leafy46 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Background

• Link Songs of a Lost World in its first occurance (except the lead)

• Done.

Composition

• "runs at the moderately fast tempo of 100 beats per minute" shouldn't it be "a tempo"

• Yes. Fixed.

• The track begins with three minutes and twenty-one seconds of "charcoal-shaded" instrumentals always attribute direct quotes, or else you should paraphrase them

• Paraphrased to 'dark'

• Instrumentally, the song features "hollow" drums, distorted guitar, "symphonic" synthesisers,[9] and a "descending triplet" pattern played on piano and guitar.[4] same concern. Also I would argue that "Instrumentally" is redundant

• I've removed both 'descending' and the quotes for triplet, and I've paraphrased the other two. I've also gotten rid of 'Instrumentally'.

• Mark Beaumont of The Independent stylistically compared the track to nu-shoegaze "stylistically compared" doesn't make sense... maybe "compared the track's style to..."?

• I've gone and changed the sentence to be more specific, thus removing the need for 'stylistically' there

• Andrew Trendell of NME wrote that "Alone" was more similar to the band's "cinematic and expansive" output than their poppier fare.[12] what does "poppier" mean?

• It's a bit too in-depth to explain in this article, but the Cure swings between making dark gothic rock and bright pop songs (see the first paragraph of The Cure#Musical style for my 'source' about this). I've Wikilinked Pop music, so hopefully that does the trick?

• I get it, but "poppier fare" does not sound encyclopedic. Maybe something like "pop-friendly songs". Ippantekina (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• I see your point, switched to "pop-leaning songs".

Comments addressed :) Leafy46 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Petridis wrote that themes of mortality — which he linked to the deaths of Smith's parents and older brother during the recording process of Songs for a Lost World — were present in "Alone" at this point we all know the themes are in "Alone"; maybe something more straightforward like: "Petridis commented that the themes of mortality referenced the deaths of Smith's parents..."

• Why would a reader know that? It's the first mention of the themes of mortality in the article, outside of the lead and the mentions to "Dregs" (which I can't assume most people have already read/know the themes of).

• Oh yes you're right. Still, I prefer to split this sentence into two, because sandwiching phrases in-between em-dashes makes the sentence rather lengthy.. Ippantekina (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Changed. Leafy46 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Alone" debuted live in Riga during the first performance of Shows of a Lost World I would use "The Cure" as the subject here instead ("The Cure performed "Alone" for the first time...")

• Changed to active voice, but kept "debuted" because this isn't just the first live performance, but the first time the song had any sort of release.

• Later, an 18-second preview of the track was posted to the band's social media on 23 September 2024 "Later" is redundant; also I'd use the active voice ("The band previewed the track..."

• Done. A little bit hesitant because it's not clear whether this was actually published *by* the band (lots of social media accounts are run by managers or the sorts), but the meaning is close enough.

• The revision works just fine!

• "Mary Ann Hobss's" (MOS:')

• Done. Ftr, I think the MOS page you are referring to is MOS:'S.

• Yes thanks for correcting.

• Various remixes of "Alone",

• Removed.

• I don't think {{abbr}} is needed for "No." - it's pretty standard in English. Ippantekina (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• The use of the abbr template with "No." on first appearance is directly addressed in MOS:NUMERO

• Oh I didn't know, alright. Ippantekina (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments addressed :) Leafy46 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• A general comment for the "Critical reception" is that words like "declared", "noticed" should be avoided because they might sound POV (MOS:SAID). I know this is rather tiring because there are not as many synonyms for "said" other than "commented" and "wrote", but one trick I usually do is to group similar opinions into one sentence (WP:RECEPTION), which I think you did a rather good job here! But if I can tweak it further (suggestions only--take what you like)--
  • As a single, "Alone" received critical acclaim from music critics. Walker-Smart declared that "Alone" was among the band's best works since the early 1990s, and particularly praised Smith's "bizarrely ageless" vocals.[21] Will Hodgkinson of The Times concurred, writing that Smith's vocals evoked a "teenage romantic" despite his age, and that "Alone" reflected the band's allure of being "locked within eternal youth".[9] The song's melancholic atmosphere received particular praise from critics I would write it into something like:
    • Upon its initial release, "Alone" received acclaim from critics, who highlighted its melancholic atmosphere and vocal performance. Walker-Smart and Will Hodgkinson described Smith's vocals as surprisingly youthful..
      • I've shuffled around that sentence quite a bit, but I'm happier with how it is now. What do you think? Leafy46 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • with Gourlay calling it the band's "most quintessential entrée" since "Plainsong".[43][44][45] ... Several critics praised its placement as the album's opening track.[16][46] These two are similar opinions right (a great opening track)?
    • Good catch. I've restructured the section to move Gourlay's comment down to where the opening track stuff is. Leafy46 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • and that it evoked a comforting yet melancholic atmosphere hmm isn't this idea already discussed in the first paragraph..
    • Yeah, but it would feel awkward to move Richardson's opinion up imo since the paragraphs are delineated by song reviews as a single vs. part of the album as a whole. I've removed that point for now, in my restructuring of the sentence per your previous comment. Leafy46 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Now that I've read the critical reviews, I would rephrase "its scope" in the lead to something like "its placement as the album's opening track" Ippantekina (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that'll work. Changed. Leafy46 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Right, I've gone and made a lot of changes to the Critical reception section following the general tweaks you've suggested above. Let me know if it's an improvement from before :) Leafy46 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Hey there! Not to rush you too much, but it's been a bit over a week since your last bit of advice, and I take from Roy Smith above that this PR is starting to get a bit old to keep open. Is there anything else you notice? Leafy46 (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I read the article again and IMO it is in good shape :) One last minor suggestion is that for 10 ratings, I always write out the numbers (9/10) instead of stars due to sheer visibility. Ippantekina (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your review :) I will close the PR and, once I address your suggestion and have a little more free time, I'll put this article up for FA. Leafy46 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)