Talk:Running Up That Hill

Lead
I've created this section to give @ Popcornfud a space to discuss the lead, in line with BRD. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Here are some of the problems with the current lead:
 * The single was a critical and commercial success in 1985. It peaked at number three on the UK Singles Chart... It is redundant to say a song was a success, then say it reached number three on the singles chart. We only need to say it reached number three on the singles chart — let the facts speak for themselves, skip the editorial commentary.
 * The claim that it was a "critical success" is vague and is not supported by the article body.
 * The song has had two further periods of success: More fluff. Just cut to the chase and list the sales / chart positions. Again, let the facts speak for themselves.
 * The claim that the cover artwork features Bush drawing an arrow, which references a gesture in the music video is WP:OR that isn't supported by the article body.
 * Sloppy writing. For example, it reached number six in the UK chart — what is "the UK chart"? This presumably means the UK Singles Chart.
 * Popcornfud (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A song can be a critical success without being a commercial success, and vice-versa. Since the lead does not paraphrase the body's content on the critical response (which does need re-writing, but is present in "Legacy") it should be stated explicitly, and it's typical to describe both the commercial and critical response at the same time.
 * It's personal opinion whether that sentence is fluff. I think it's context for the reader and introduces the following sentences well.
 * The second clause of the single artwork sentence should be removed if no source can be found (have you looked?), but describing the cover is helpful from an accessibility perspective.
 * The UK Singles Chart is only called the 'UK chart' after being introduced by its full name and linked in the previous sentence. This is acceptable abbreviation, not sloppy.
 * A.D.Hope (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Legacy section is a WP:PROSELINE mess with no clear narrative. There's nothing about the critical reception that can be summarised in the lead until that section is fixed, and until then it should be left out. The lead should follow the body per WP:LEAD
 * The sentence adds no information or clarity. It is functionally useless. Instead of using a vague term like a "period of success" (defined how?) we should just say the success it had. Be literal and direct.
 * I've removed the cover art info.
 * There is no advantage whatsoever in referring to the same thing using different names, and this only harms clarity. See WP:ELEVAR. I've fixed this.
 * Popcornfud (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see what you're getting at, but think you're over-applying PROSELINE; the essay is aimed at articles formatted as timelines when they should be prose, which isn't the case here. It's appropriate to highlight 1985, 2012, and 2022 in the lead, as they're significant dates for the single. Similarly, the purpose of ELEVAR is to avoid variation for the sake of it, particularly when it introduces confusion, but abbreviating 'UK Singles Chart' to 'UK chart' does not do so. It's no different to abbreviating 'Kate Bush' to 'Bush'.
 * I've reinstated the first clause of the cover art sentence, as it's not original research. The clause introducing the 2012 and 2022 revivals is useful it justifies the inclusion of those years in the lead– neither is the only year in which the song has been used in popular media (e.g. 2019) or reappeared on a chart (e.g. the UK chart in 2014). A.D.Hope (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "The single's original cover art shows Bush drawing an arrow" is original research unless you have a source saying that's what the cover art shows. It's also not mentioned in the article body and so shouldn't be in the lead. Why is it important? Popcornfud (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The cover art clearly shows Bush drawing an arrow, it's not original research to state that. It's important to mention in the lead as it improves accessibility for readers who have trouble seeing the image or using the alternative caption. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how clear something is — with some caveats (and I don't think describing images is one of them), it's original research if it isn't backed by a source.
 * The alternative caption is the standard solution for accessibility issues with images. Do you have any Wikipedia policies that say otherwise? Popcornfud (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that simply describing an image is original research. Alterative text is the standard accessibility solution for images, but it does no harm to describe them in the body either. The existence of alternative text isn't a justification for removing body text which refers to images, at any rate. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)