This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Wiki Education assignment: Teaching Writing in Middle and High School
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tristinj15 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by
Tristinj15 (
talk) 00:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
I'm happy to take this one! Expect a review in the next few days. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 00:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Alright, here comes the review! Please respond with Done, Not done, or something similar to that effect, without crossing any of my comments out. You can also pose any general questions you have in
§ Discussion below.
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
I have reservations on the use of technical terms here; see
my comment below.
The statement about the Eras tour is not reflected anywhere in the body of the article. I would move the statement along with its citation further down.
The statement that the song was recorded at Kitty Committee is unsourced.
Done all three.
ℛonherry☘ 12:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: It is the first mention of Swift within the article body. It should be hyperlinked, should it not?
ℛonherry☘ 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Considering this is the creator of the song, whose name is right there in the title of the article, I would say no. However, you're free to disagree with me on this point, and I won't push it if you'd like to keep the link. —TS
The sentence beginning "In September 2020," feels pretty
original research-y to me given that it's cited to the primary source on Disney+. Where is the subjective phrasing of "assembled" and "secluded" coming from? Also,
I've added source for that.
ℛonherry☘ 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, this looks good to me. —TS
Why is this discussion of a documentary about Swift's previous album in this article? Is it directly relevant to the subject in any way?
The song is part of the album that was recorded the same evening as the documentary.
ℛonherry☘ 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Then that should probably be mentioned in the article, as the discussion of that documentary seems pretty off-topic without that context. —TS
The quote beginning "I say it was a surprise..." is far too long to be encyclopedic. Same goes for the quote of the lyrics further down. These two should be paraphrased, shortened, or removed — and I'd highly recommend removing the lyrics. In general, I'd be wary of relying too much on the artist's opinions of their work that they share in interviews, as it tips the scales of
undue weight a little too much in that direction.
Done. Don't know who added it. The last time I read this article and decided to nominate it for GA, this prose was not there.
ℛonherry☘ 12:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This whole second paragraph feels a bit out of place in a section titled "Background and release". I'd recommend shortening it significantly and merging it down into
§ Composition and lyrics.
What makes
Justrandomthings a reliable source? It appears to be a blog, which is considered generally unreliable due to being
self-published.
I have the same reservations as before about using an extended quote from Swift to describe the song ("two longtime college sweethearts..."). I have additional reservations about citing a tweet from Swift in this context.
Done all of the above, except those I've commented on.
ℛonherry☘ 12:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Composition and lyrics
The use of this image feels more decorative than encyclopedic. How does its inclusion benefit a reader's understanding of the subject? Also, the caption is technically unsourced.
The subjective descriptors "weepy" and "spacious" should not be written in
Wikipedia's voice, and need inline attribution to the writers of those articles. ("[Reviewer] felt that the song was '[descriptor]'", or something to that effect.) Rinse and repeat for the rest of this section.
The second half of that sentence ("oompah piano chords that interlace...") is
too closely paraphrased.
I would rewrite this whole sentence with less emphasis on
technical terms like "oompah" that require the reader to click on the link mid-sentence in order to understand what the word means.
"Apologetic" is not verified by the source.
"Champagne Problems" also sees the narrator addressing → The narrator addresses
There are two relatively bare lyric quotes cited to
Elle. Rather than including entire lines of the song here, it would be more informative to write about what the reviewers said about them, or how they were interpreted.
What makes
MusicNotes a reliable source? More broadly, how is the inclusion of the tempo and vocal range encyclopedic?
This section mostly reads like a series of "[A] said [B]" statements that don't connect to each other in a logical manner. Just like in any other section of the article, related information should be organized together in series, and the reviewers' opinions can still be shared without using excessive quotations. I'd highly recommend reading
this essay, which is a useful list of mistakes to avoid in reception sections. This is going to require a substantial rewrite, so I'll withhold some of my other comments about this section until later so as not to waste your time.
Make sure capitalization of album and song titles are consistent even if they're stylized in the title of the source.
The first {{Certification Table Entry}} template is missing its |id= and |access-date= parameters, which is causing an error in the references list.
@
TechnoSquirrel69: Hi. This is the reference ([1]), but I don't know how to incorporate it into the table entry as it does not have any "id". I would like some help here.
ℛonherry☘ 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll look into it. —TS
Quick question, where did you get this document from? Links to file-sharing platforms like Dropbox are normally avoided on Wikipedia due to their questionable reliability and volatility. I'd prefer a link to the ARIA's website, if possible. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 18:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
ARIA themselves provide these PDFs via dropbox, I fear. Scroll down to the "Resources" section in the
official website.
ℛonherry☘ 18:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I see; that's odd, but acceptable as a primary source, I suppose. I think it might just be easier to put that row in with normal table markup instead of the template, so I'll try that out. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 18:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
ℛonherry☘ 18:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your patience,
Ronherry! I have various concerns about this article as it pertains to the
criteria which will require a fairly involved series of changes and improvements. However, I feel like these issues are workable, and if you're willing to put slightly more effort into this review than you might normally expect from a GAN review, I'm willing to work with you to get this article to GA level instead of just failing this nomination outright. Let me know if you have any questions! —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 06:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TechnoSquirrel69: Pinging you to let you know I've responded to your comments!
ℛonherry☘ 13:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey
Ronherry; sorry to keep you waiting, but I've been a little busy this week. I may have more time to do a second round of this review over the weekend. I appreciate you for getting back to me so quickly! —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 05:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks once again for your patience with me,
Ronherry; it's been a bit of a crazy week! Nice work on this so far, and here are some follow-up comments to your changes, some of which I've left inline above.
In the lead, "portrayal... of mental health" is not supported by any claims in the body.
The list of countries where the song charted seems too detailed for the lead. Just mentioning that it charted in multiple countries should suffice.
In
§ Critical reception, use of the term "lauded" is not neutral; the source doesn't go much further than a short description of the song, so a word like "noted" would be more appropriate.
Thanks! I've responded to some of your questions inline above, you might want to take a look at that. I also added some new comments in
§ References. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 14:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've addressed those new comments as well, thank you.
ℛonherry☘ 09:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Done, both the sessions' relation to the song, and the references' formatting, except the one thing where I requested some aid from you. Thanks.
ℛonherry☘ 18:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Really nice work on this nomination over the past few weeks,
Ronherry! I appreciate your patience with the delays and your perseverance to get through some of the more involved changes. From a nomination I was initially unsure of, you've really tightened everything up, and I'm pleased to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Don't forget that you have seven-day window to nominate the article at
Did you know? to have a hook appear on the Main Page! —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Wiki Education assignment: Teaching Writing in Middle and High School
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tristinj15 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by
Tristinj15 (
talk) 00:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
I'm happy to take this one! Expect a review in the next few days. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 00:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Alright, here comes the review! Please respond with Done, Not done, or something similar to that effect, without crossing any of my comments out. You can also pose any general questions you have in
§ Discussion below.
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
I have reservations on the use of technical terms here; see
my comment below.
The statement about the Eras tour is not reflected anywhere in the body of the article. I would move the statement along with its citation further down.
The statement that the song was recorded at Kitty Committee is unsourced.
Done all three.
ℛonherry☘ 12:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: It is the first mention of Swift within the article body. It should be hyperlinked, should it not?
ℛonherry☘ 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Considering this is the creator of the song, whose name is right there in the title of the article, I would say no. However, you're free to disagree with me on this point, and I won't push it if you'd like to keep the link. —TS
The sentence beginning "In September 2020," feels pretty
original research-y to me given that it's cited to the primary source on Disney+. Where is the subjective phrasing of "assembled" and "secluded" coming from? Also,
I've added source for that.
ℛonherry☘ 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, this looks good to me. —TS
Why is this discussion of a documentary about Swift's previous album in this article? Is it directly relevant to the subject in any way?
The song is part of the album that was recorded the same evening as the documentary.
ℛonherry☘ 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Then that should probably be mentioned in the article, as the discussion of that documentary seems pretty off-topic without that context. —TS
The quote beginning "I say it was a surprise..." is far too long to be encyclopedic. Same goes for the quote of the lyrics further down. These two should be paraphrased, shortened, or removed — and I'd highly recommend removing the lyrics. In general, I'd be wary of relying too much on the artist's opinions of their work that they share in interviews, as it tips the scales of
undue weight a little too much in that direction.
Done. Don't know who added it. The last time I read this article and decided to nominate it for GA, this prose was not there.
ℛonherry☘ 12:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This whole second paragraph feels a bit out of place in a section titled "Background and release". I'd recommend shortening it significantly and merging it down into
§ Composition and lyrics.
What makes
Justrandomthings a reliable source? It appears to be a blog, which is considered generally unreliable due to being
self-published.
I have the same reservations as before about using an extended quote from Swift to describe the song ("two longtime college sweethearts..."). I have additional reservations about citing a tweet from Swift in this context.
Done all of the above, except those I've commented on.
ℛonherry☘ 12:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Composition and lyrics
The use of this image feels more decorative than encyclopedic. How does its inclusion benefit a reader's understanding of the subject? Also, the caption is technically unsourced.
The subjective descriptors "weepy" and "spacious" should not be written in
Wikipedia's voice, and need inline attribution to the writers of those articles. ("[Reviewer] felt that the song was '[descriptor]'", or something to that effect.) Rinse and repeat for the rest of this section.
The second half of that sentence ("oompah piano chords that interlace...") is
too closely paraphrased.
I would rewrite this whole sentence with less emphasis on
technical terms like "oompah" that require the reader to click on the link mid-sentence in order to understand what the word means.
"Apologetic" is not verified by the source.
"Champagne Problems" also sees the narrator addressing → The narrator addresses
There are two relatively bare lyric quotes cited to
Elle. Rather than including entire lines of the song here, it would be more informative to write about what the reviewers said about them, or how they were interpreted.
What makes
MusicNotes a reliable source? More broadly, how is the inclusion of the tempo and vocal range encyclopedic?
This section mostly reads like a series of "[A] said [B]" statements that don't connect to each other in a logical manner. Just like in any other section of the article, related information should be organized together in series, and the reviewers' opinions can still be shared without using excessive quotations. I'd highly recommend reading
this essay, which is a useful list of mistakes to avoid in reception sections. This is going to require a substantial rewrite, so I'll withhold some of my other comments about this section until later so as not to waste your time.
Make sure capitalization of album and song titles are consistent even if they're stylized in the title of the source.
The first {{Certification Table Entry}} template is missing its |id= and |access-date= parameters, which is causing an error in the references list.
@
TechnoSquirrel69: Hi. This is the reference ([1]), but I don't know how to incorporate it into the table entry as it does not have any "id". I would like some help here.
ℛonherry☘ 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll look into it. —TS
Quick question, where did you get this document from? Links to file-sharing platforms like Dropbox are normally avoided on Wikipedia due to their questionable reliability and volatility. I'd prefer a link to the ARIA's website, if possible. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 18:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
ARIA themselves provide these PDFs via dropbox, I fear. Scroll down to the "Resources" section in the
official website.
ℛonherry☘ 18:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I see; that's odd, but acceptable as a primary source, I suppose. I think it might just be easier to put that row in with normal table markup instead of the template, so I'll try that out. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 18:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
ℛonherry☘ 18:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your patience,
Ronherry! I have various concerns about this article as it pertains to the
criteria which will require a fairly involved series of changes and improvements. However, I feel like these issues are workable, and if you're willing to put slightly more effort into this review than you might normally expect from a GAN review, I'm willing to work with you to get this article to GA level instead of just failing this nomination outright. Let me know if you have any questions! —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 06:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TechnoSquirrel69: Pinging you to let you know I've responded to your comments!
ℛonherry☘ 13:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey
Ronherry; sorry to keep you waiting, but I've been a little busy this week. I may have more time to do a second round of this review over the weekend. I appreciate you for getting back to me so quickly! —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 05:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks once again for your patience with me,
Ronherry; it's been a bit of a crazy week! Nice work on this so far, and here are some follow-up comments to your changes, some of which I've left inline above.
In the lead, "portrayal... of mental health" is not supported by any claims in the body.
The list of countries where the song charted seems too detailed for the lead. Just mentioning that it charted in multiple countries should suffice.
In
§ Critical reception, use of the term "lauded" is not neutral; the source doesn't go much further than a short description of the song, so a word like "noted" would be more appropriate.
Thanks! I've responded to some of your questions inline above, you might want to take a look at that. I also added some new comments in
§ References. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 14:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've addressed those new comments as well, thank you.
ℛonherry☘ 09:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Done, both the sessions' relation to the song, and the references' formatting, except the one thing where I requested some aid from you. Thanks.
ℛonherry☘ 18:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Really nice work on this nomination over the past few weeks,
Ronherry! I appreciate your patience with the delays and your perseverance to get through some of the more involved changes. From a nomination I was initially unsure of, you've really tightened everything up, and I'm pleased to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Don't forget that you have seven-day window to nominate the article at
Did you know? to have a hook appear on the Main Page! —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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.