Talk:Ghostholding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

Passed. Cattos💭 00:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

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:Ghostholding/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Locust member (talk · contribs) 03:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 00:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)


I actually really enjoyed this album when I listened to it a few weeks ago, after a few folks on Discord recommended it to me. Definitely a top 20 album of 2025 so far. Happy to review this! Cattos💭 00:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up!!! This is definitely up there in my fav albums of 2025 as well, alongside Revengeseekerz :-) Locust member (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Nice work on this great album. Happy to  Pass! Cattos💭 00:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • Copyvio gives a result of 14.5%.
  • The album cover has appropriate non-free use rationale, and has alt text.
  • As noted in our first review, make sure to use the "'s" template before italics.
  • No personnel?
    • It's written in prose: "Remover wrote the album between 2022 and 2024, and recorded, produced, and mixed it from September 2024 to January 2025. The album was mastered for vinyl by Moa." considering only Remover worked on the standard edition (Moa only contributed to the album's vinyl release) it would be a waste of space
Ok, makes sense.

Lead

  • You could include the position on the album's NACC charting.
    •  Done

Background and release

  • "under the Venturing alias in 2022" --> "under the alias Venturing in 2022"
    •  Done
  • Remover later clarified that their fans made up the project's backstory and spread it across various music websites; they also confirmed the alias is only a current project separate from their main music. In this context, "they" is potentially ambiguous to Remover and their fans, especially since "their fans" is the closest plural noun antecedent. (I am aware that Remover uses they/them pronouns). Try rewording to: Remover later clarified that the project's backstory had been fabricated and spread by fans, and confirmed that the alias is simply a current project distinct from their main work.
    •  Done

Composition

  • Multiple journalists observed similarities between Ghostholding and Census Designated,[12][16][17] Remover's second album released under their main name. I thought Census Designated was the end of the sentence because the three citations right after it made it look like a period.
    • hm. I mean I can see the confusion but stuff like this happens in a lot of articles. I'm not sure what other way to go about this since if I put all of them at the end of the sentence, the 3 other sources dont back up the claim of census being remover's second album
  • Remover stretches their voice across measures and alters their voice across the album. The repetition of "voice" is stylistically clumsy.
    • Changed
  • "a track contains restless drumming" --> "a track that contains restless drumming"
    •  Done

Critical reception

Spotchecking

Nothing in the references strike me as unreliable. Numbering is based on this revision.

  • 1: checkY
  • 2c: checkY
  • 3a, 3b: checkY
  • 5b: checkY
  • 6: checkY
  • 10a, 10c: checkY
  • 16a: checkY
  • 20: checkY
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

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

(
)
  • ... that fans of Jane Remover created a faux backstory for the side project that the album Ghostholding was released under?
Improved to Good Article status by Locust member (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

Locust member (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC).

  • I'll take on this review. Leafy46 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
More information General: Article is new enough and long enough ...
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Close

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - While this hook is pretty interesting, I would be remiss to not point out how it seems to be more about Venturing as a side project than Ghostholding.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article looks pretty good as a whole! Earwig shows a 14.5% similarity, which is excellent. My primary concern with it is the sourcing: The Needle Drop is used several times on this page as a source, despite being listed as an unreliable source on WP:A/S. I wouldn't be comfortable with its inclusion without a cause; is there a particular reason why this review is used? As for the hook, I find that it is more about the origin of this side project than about the album itself, in violation of WP:DYKMAJOR; I request an alternate hook for this reason, though I am of course open to discussion. Leafy46 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  • I would argue that TND's inclusion at WP:A/S is pretty outdated. Per WP:FANTANO, his reviews are to be used in a case by case basis, as he is considered an established expert in the subject by some. I have had three other articles (Census Designated, Teen Week, and Frailty (Jane Remover album)) that have included TND as a source and has been no issue in the review of any of those DYKs. For the problem with the hook, I wouldn't have pitched it if they source didn't relate it to the album. Per the Stereogum source I listed, it stated that in their article announcing Ghostholding included the false fact that Venturing was a fake 90s band created by Remover. However, I do have another hook that might satisfy the qualifications of WP:DYKMAJOR.
    • ALT1: ... that a music publication publicly apologized after falsely reporting that the album Ghostholding was the work of a fictional indie rock band? (Stereogum)
      • I believe this puts more emphasis on Ghostholding and satisfies DYKMAJOR. Locust member (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
        • I'm not so sure if the discussion over TND is *that* outdated, the most recent discussion about its use at A/S was less than a year ago and its "unreliable" status on A/S says the same thing as WP:FANTANO. However, I'm not going to fight the precedent here, as much as I feel that Fantano's review is no better than any other random YouTuber's or blogger's after reading through the relevant discussions.
In regards to the new hook, it's much better! The way it's framed focuses more on the album, which was my intention with my feedback. However, the line added into the article itself ("Initially, the public—and multiple music publications...", particularly the word "multiple") is not supported by the sources: only Stereogum seemed to have reported the fictitious story as true, while the other two pretty explicitly write that the story is false. Either the word "multiple" should be dropped, or another source of a music publication reporting it should be added. Leafy46 (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I dropped the word "multiple", and now I think I have satisfied every comment in this DYK. Locust member (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Good enough for me, approving ALT1. Thank you for your work on this article! Leafy46 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Question about adding information about the origins of venturing

Hey! im wondering about how to go about clarifying about the origins of venturing, despite news articles saying that the backstory was fan-made, jane has clarified in interviews that the PR team said that and that she actually just didn't want to do the lore for the account anymore

52:29: You know like the Venturing like the whole venturing album own I mean well it was its own thing like cuz there like was this whole fucking thing about lore it's like I mean like the band used like it used to be like a fake band that I came up with and I was like going to do lore for it and then I decided not to

I didn't want to do the lore anymore so I said like when the song came out last month I was like yo no more lore and like but the thing is nobody really understood that so then like it all just kind of happened and like my like my PR guys like they asked to do like "do you want us to do press for this" and I was like oh sure and I wanted like I wanted to be insistent on like dropping the lore like I told them like yo can you tell whoever you send this out to to like tell them that there's no more lore

Then and then like basically all of the all of the pr for that song was like of just pasting the fan written bio essentially so people basically thought that it was still on and I was like yo can you like double down and say like I'm not trying to do lore like this is just a Jane Remover album now like under a different name and but then like it cuz I said like it's this is just a copy and pasted like fan art like fan bio but then like then they thought like that had said that the lore was just made up by fans which isn't really true I mean like if there's anything I can blame the fans for I guess is just like blowing it out of proportion.

— Jane Remover, bevs with the best:jane remover & sugar-free redbull - d9lton (2025)

Unsimp (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI