Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
This article was put up for second opinion by
The Ultimate Boss, but they mistakenly blanked the review page which is incorrect in this context but I have filled it in with the appropriate templates and I will take on this article soon! --
K. Peake 07:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Infobox and lead
Add the release date of the song on the album to the infobox; source this in the body (ignore that removal by SNUGGUMS since it is common to use release dates if there's not a separate release and that's acceptable as long as you are not using the incorrect template)
Added
Lowercase stylization is not sourced anywhere in the body
Done
"
Taylor Swift, taken from her eighth studio album" → "
Taylor Swift from her eighth studio album,"
Done, but in another way
"It was written and produced by" → "The song was written and produced by both"
"with lush guitars, strings," → "with guitars,
strings," with the target (guitars are not sourced as lush and the word is not notable for the lead anyway)
Done
"Alongside fellow tracks" → "Alongside fellow album tracks" to be specific about what ties them together
Done
"James and an" → "James, and an"
Are you sure mistress is the correct language for the lead when the body calls her a teenager?
Done
""August" is written from" → "The song is written from"
"picking it as an album highlight." → "picking it as a highlight of Folklore."
Done
The U.S. chart positions should come first, as that is Swift's native country
Done
Remove the "upon release" part from the top 20 sentence since it is not notable for the lead
"for Swift's previous albums" → "for Swift's previous studio albums" per this starting a section
Done
Mention that Swift also produced "August", as everything written in the lead needs to be in the body too
Done
Instead of being at the end of both the last two sentences, [2] should only be at the end of the final one
Done
"As with the rest of" → "As with other tracks on"
Lyrics and composition
Are you sure it wouldn't be better to start the sentence by writing "Swift wrote "August" alongside..." and mentioning the other songs there?
Done
Where does the EW ref mention James and the teenager?
Done It was mentioned in Vulture, which directly quoted Swift
"she wanted to explore the perspective" → "she wanted to explore the idea" per the source
Done
The James and relationship with someone else parts are not mentioned by the source
It is pretty nuanced since it is not directly mentioned ("because there was another situation that had already been in place"), but I added the Rolling Stone source which directly mentions the James-Betty love thing
The naive part is not mentioned by [5], so add [4] directly before it at the end of that sentence
Done
Wikilink
imagery, but this is not directly sourced as what the image inspired
Done
"is never explicitly mentioned by name," → "is never mentioned by name," to avoid repetition
""Augusta" or "Augustine"." → ""Augusta" or "Augustine" inside the singer's head." to be more specific, per the source
This does not apply here, as the issue is the wrong ballad article being piped to, not a redirect. --
K. Peake 07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"incorporating 1990s-influenced
guitars, vocal
reverberation and" → "that incorporates 1990s-influenced guitars, vocal
reverberation, and" per the wikilink being obvious
Link to
guitar could be beneficial to some readers
Seems like too obvious of a term; everyone knows what a guitar is and it's not some specific type like
acoustic. --
K. Peake 07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Are you sure the source really works for calling the strings lush because it refers to them as "shivering"?
Changed it back to "shivering"
"and minimal
synthesizers, "subtle" → "minimal
synthesizers, and "subtle" because the latter is the last element of the list
Done
The A.V. Club refers to "August" as among "Songs [that] echo other artists", which comes after the listed instrumentation; are you sure this is properly sourced?
I think it does, based on my personal experience listening to this album (I know it's OR, lol), and this paragraph specifically mentions this song and "Epiphany" as two songs on the album that do not rely on "honyed piano"
Critical reception
Retitle to Reception because the third para is dedicated to rankings, plus if you add the release date here at the start then retitle to Release and reception (alternatively, you can do this for commercial performance)
I don't think the sources are good for representation since they are only two reviews; if the sentence is backed up by these, then just remove it especially because it can be seen what reviewers praised in this section anyway
I included them there because they do offer praises to the song, but with not much substance like other sources.
"The song peaked within" → ""August" further peaked within"
Done
The positions should be ordered geographically, so start with Canada, then Australia and follow those with the other two
Shouldn't numerical order be better though? I wouldn't want to see positions time-warping from 16 to 12 and then to 13
The guideline for commercial performance is to order these geographically, even if it may seem awkward. --
K. Peake 07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Could you link the guideline? Even so, it is a guideline and not a carved-on-the-stone policy, so I think it can be adjusted here and there.
HĐ (
talk) 01:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Charts
Good
Notes
Good
References
Copyvio score looks too high at 51.0%; cut quoting from the EW ref to resolve this
Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; glad to have completed this review after accepting the second opinion position! --
K. Peake 12:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Kyle Peake: Thank you for the review. I have responded to your comments above. Let me know if anything else should be addressed.
HĐ (
talk) 02:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
HĐ: The article definitely looks better now, I just left a few comments where you have disagreed with my suggestions. --
K. Peake 07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Kyle Peake, Apart from the commercial performance section, I believe I have addressed everything.
HĐ (
talk) 01:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
HĐ✓Pass now, even though we disagree on the commercial performance point honestly there's no MOS guideline that I'm aware of so it's not too much an issue. --
K. Peake 07:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
This article was put up for second opinion by
The Ultimate Boss, but they mistakenly blanked the review page which is incorrect in this context but I have filled it in with the appropriate templates and I will take on this article soon! --
K. Peake 07:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Infobox and lead
Add the release date of the song on the album to the infobox; source this in the body (ignore that removal by SNUGGUMS since it is common to use release dates if there's not a separate release and that's acceptable as long as you are not using the incorrect template)
Added
Lowercase stylization is not sourced anywhere in the body
Done
"
Taylor Swift, taken from her eighth studio album" → "
Taylor Swift from her eighth studio album,"
Done, but in another way
"It was written and produced by" → "The song was written and produced by both"
"with lush guitars, strings," → "with guitars,
strings," with the target (guitars are not sourced as lush and the word is not notable for the lead anyway)
Done
"Alongside fellow tracks" → "Alongside fellow album tracks" to be specific about what ties them together
Done
"James and an" → "James, and an"
Are you sure mistress is the correct language for the lead when the body calls her a teenager?
Done
""August" is written from" → "The song is written from"
"picking it as an album highlight." → "picking it as a highlight of Folklore."
Done
The U.S. chart positions should come first, as that is Swift's native country
Done
Remove the "upon release" part from the top 20 sentence since it is not notable for the lead
"for Swift's previous albums" → "for Swift's previous studio albums" per this starting a section
Done
Mention that Swift also produced "August", as everything written in the lead needs to be in the body too
Done
Instead of being at the end of both the last two sentences, [2] should only be at the end of the final one
Done
"As with the rest of" → "As with other tracks on"
Lyrics and composition
Are you sure it wouldn't be better to start the sentence by writing "Swift wrote "August" alongside..." and mentioning the other songs there?
Done
Where does the EW ref mention James and the teenager?
Done It was mentioned in Vulture, which directly quoted Swift
"she wanted to explore the perspective" → "she wanted to explore the idea" per the source
Done
The James and relationship with someone else parts are not mentioned by the source
It is pretty nuanced since it is not directly mentioned ("because there was another situation that had already been in place"), but I added the Rolling Stone source which directly mentions the James-Betty love thing
The naive part is not mentioned by [5], so add [4] directly before it at the end of that sentence
Done
Wikilink
imagery, but this is not directly sourced as what the image inspired
Done
"is never explicitly mentioned by name," → "is never mentioned by name," to avoid repetition
""Augusta" or "Augustine"." → ""Augusta" or "Augustine" inside the singer's head." to be more specific, per the source
This does not apply here, as the issue is the wrong ballad article being piped to, not a redirect. --
K. Peake 07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"incorporating 1990s-influenced
guitars, vocal
reverberation and" → "that incorporates 1990s-influenced guitars, vocal
reverberation, and" per the wikilink being obvious
Link to
guitar could be beneficial to some readers
Seems like too obvious of a term; everyone knows what a guitar is and it's not some specific type like
acoustic. --
K. Peake 07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Are you sure the source really works for calling the strings lush because it refers to them as "shivering"?
Changed it back to "shivering"
"and minimal
synthesizers, "subtle" → "minimal
synthesizers, and "subtle" because the latter is the last element of the list
Done
The A.V. Club refers to "August" as among "Songs [that] echo other artists", which comes after the listed instrumentation; are you sure this is properly sourced?
I think it does, based on my personal experience listening to this album (I know it's OR, lol), and this paragraph specifically mentions this song and "Epiphany" as two songs on the album that do not rely on "honyed piano"
Critical reception
Retitle to Reception because the third para is dedicated to rankings, plus if you add the release date here at the start then retitle to Release and reception (alternatively, you can do this for commercial performance)
I don't think the sources are good for representation since they are only two reviews; if the sentence is backed up by these, then just remove it especially because it can be seen what reviewers praised in this section anyway
I included them there because they do offer praises to the song, but with not much substance like other sources.
"The song peaked within" → ""August" further peaked within"
Done
The positions should be ordered geographically, so start with Canada, then Australia and follow those with the other two
Shouldn't numerical order be better though? I wouldn't want to see positions time-warping from 16 to 12 and then to 13
The guideline for commercial performance is to order these geographically, even if it may seem awkward. --
K. Peake 07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Could you link the guideline? Even so, it is a guideline and not a carved-on-the-stone policy, so I think it can be adjusted here and there.
HĐ (
talk) 01:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Charts
Good
Notes
Good
References
Copyvio score looks too high at 51.0%; cut quoting from the EW ref to resolve this
Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; glad to have completed this review after accepting the second opinion position! --
K. Peake 12:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Kyle Peake: Thank you for the review. I have responded to your comments above. Let me know if anything else should be addressed.
HĐ (
talk) 02:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
HĐ: The article definitely looks better now, I just left a few comments where you have disagreed with my suggestions. --
K. Peake 07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Kyle Peake, Apart from the commercial performance section, I believe I have addressed everything.
HĐ (
talk) 01:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
HĐ✓Pass now, even though we disagree on the commercial performance point honestly there's no MOS guideline that I'm aware of so it's not too much an issue. --
K. Peake 07:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply