Talk:Bejeweled (song)/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 01:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this within the next day or so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ronherry, the review is below. The main concern here is the article's sourcing and its text-source integrity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

• The MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE should probably be reworded. Four commas is a lot for a first sentence. Also, would it be worth describing it as a single in the first sentence?

@Thebiguglyalien: Well, it is a promotional single, not a single. A promotional single is a very niche definition and it was not labelled as such by Swift or her label. It is purely a Wikipedia categorization of the song based on its release strategy. Therefore, I do not it would be appropriate to call it a promotional single in the first sentence. ℛonherry☘ 14:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• about one's recognition of their self-worth – "self-worth" already refers to a specific person, so could this just say "about recognition of self-worth"?
• widely speculated to be the re-recording of Speak Now – Something like "and later confirmed" should be added, otherwise this article seems out of date.
• "Bejeweled" was performed for the first time on the Eras Tour (2023). – Would it be more accurate/precise to say "performed for the first time in concert on the Eras Tour"?
• The first sentence under "background and production" runs on and it's hard to keep track of the main idea. Maybe start by saying she announced it on that date and then describe where she was.
• driven by plinking synth arpeggios from prominent synthesizers, specifically the Juno 6, that erupt in the hooks. – It there a way this could be made more understandable to the layman?
• I'm not recommending any specific changes here, but I always suggest that editors writing about music read WP:RECEPTION; it's good practice to avoid having the entire reception section in the "reviewer said [quote]" format.
• featuring Swift both boast and be needy – Could use rewording
• one of whose vomit Swift is cleaning up – The way this is written makes it sound like the real Taylor Swift is cleaning up actual vomit.
• Swift's team reached out to Dita Von Teese for her appearance, and Swift spoke with Von Teese about Von Teese's influence on her. – "Von Teese" is used three times in the same sentence. It's tricky, but hopefully there's a way to reword this. The spot check of this source below is relevant.

Verifiable with no original research

Reliability:

• The Taylor Swift Digital Store does confirm what it's supposed to, but it's not ideal to use a store page as a source. If it being sold here is significant enough to put in the article, then it was probably written about in another source.

@Thebiguglyalien: I think the primary website source is the main criterion in classifying this song as a promotional single rather than just a song, as per WP:PROMOSINGLE. 14:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Broadway World is considered generally unreliable.
• The Recording Industry Association of Malaysia source should be okay, although it would be better if it wasn't published on Facebook.

Citations and original research:

• a comic take on the story of Cinderella – This is unsourced opinion.
• The storyline references and provides an ironic twist on the fairy tale Cinderella. – Unsourced. Also, "ironic twist" is subjective.
• only named as "House Wench" – The source and music video describe her as "House Wench Taylor".
• It's difficult to tell what part of the music video synopsis is cited to the Bailey and William sources versus what's cited to the video itself. If there are parts that are cited to the video, then it might be appropriate here to make an in-line citation for the music video itself, just so it's clear what is supported by what.
• cloaked queenly figure – Interpretation, make sure this is supported by a source.

Spot checks:

• [4] Jones – I don't see where this supports On September 21.
• [7] Paul:
  • I suppose you could technically say that this is a metaphor. But when the source uses the word metaphor, it's referring to how she describes her experience with folk music, not how she describes this song.
  • after deviating into folk music with her last two studio albums during the COVID-19 pandemic – I know that she's referring to her two COVID-19 albums, but the source doesn't say this.
• [11] Lipshutz:
  • It's a little misleading putting this after the narrator cautions a male romantic subject to pay attention to her before it is too late, which is not mentioned at all in this source.
  • This source doesn't establish that it's the ninth song on the track, it's just coincidentally the author's ninth track in his ranking.
  • The source doesn't say that the song is perfect (adjective), it says that it took experience to perfect (verb). Maybe they have similar meanings in a denotative sense, but the former is a lot stronger in a connotative sense.
• [15] Brown – Good.
• [18] Roberts – This supports that she planned a release on October 25, but it does not support anything it its second use.
• [33] Sapnos – Does this say anywhere that Von Teese influenced Swift specifically? I only see Swift talking about Von Teese's influence on other performers.
• [35] Sarlija – Good.

From the spot checks, it looks like the article makes some assumptions about what the sources support or includes things that are not mentioned in the sources. I suggest going through and making sure the sources generally reflect the content.

Broad in its coverage

Adequately covers the main aspects expected in a song article. There's a lot of information in this article about the Midnights album. To a certain extent that's unavoidable, but see if some of it can be condensed or trimmed. The commercial performance section especially is more about Midnights than "Bejeweled".

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight.

Stable

No recent disputes, no major updates are expected.

Illustrated

One Creative Commons and one valid non-free use rationale. The caption gives context for the second image.

1. It's not a promotional single. Eurohunter (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done all, except the two pointers where I've provided clarifications. ℛonherry☘ 14:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ronherry, I've looked at the changes and have some further comments:

• the "promotional single" label presents a separate problem. There's no corresponding sourced claim in the body that describes it as a promotional single, so this is WP:Original research. It's not up to us to decide what it is; we exclusively write what the sources say.
• Swift portrays the Cinderella character, – There's now no reference to Cinderella prior to this in the body. So maybe "Swift portrays a Cinderella-like character" or "Swift portrays a character reminiscent of Cinderella".
• after deviating outside of the genre with her last two studio albums during the COVID-19 pandemic – The issue with this wasn't the genre. The source does mention folk. What it doesn't say anything about is COVID-19.
• The article still claims that Lipshutz (2022) identifies Bejeweled as the ninth track.
• Since the synopsis is cited to Bailey (2022) and Willman (2022), I'd expect everything written to be supported by at least one of them, but there are a lot of lines that are not. A synopsis can go uncited because it's implicitly cited to the work itself, but that doesn't work if we're claiming that it's cited to a different source.

A look at the sourcing, both before and after the changes here, makes it seem that the article doesn't closely adhere to best practices for WP:Original research and WP:Text-source integrity. Original research is one of the few areas where I don't really have any wiggle room when evaluating the article; good articles are expected to be completely clean of any discrepancies between the article and the sources. I said above that "I suggest going through and making sure the sources generally reflect the content", and that suggestion still stands. If you're willing to go through and fix any original research issues (the ones that I mentioned and any others that exist), then I'll do another check once you think the article is ready. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've made the corrections and also went through the whole article for any further fixes. ℛonherry☘ 13:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ronherry Most of it looks good. GA requires articles to comply fully with WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction; the relevant section here is WP:PLOTSOURCE. Essentially, the synopsis can be cited directly to the video (with or without an in-line citation, it will be assumed if there is not one). But this only works if it's a pure description without any analysis or behind the scenes information. In that case, other sources are needed. So for that information, the sources you had before were good. The problem is that the synopsis also includes information that was not in those sources. For those specific elements, then a citation to the video would be helpful so it's clear that that's where it comes from. The underlying rule here is that if the article says something, then the next in-line citation should also say it (or show it, in the case of a video). I should be able to read any sentence, go to the next in-line citation, click on it, and verify the sentence that I read. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand. The prose contains both descriptions of the video's plot and the analysis bits. I removed the sources on your suggestion that the video citation would be enough to cover the whole thing. If the analyses also should be cited, then wasn't the previous version already fine? I could've just added the video in-line citation to support the plot description as there are sources already supporting the analysis stuff. Please help me understand. Or else, should the "Plot" and "Analysis" be split into two separate sub-sections to resolve this? ℛonherry☘ 17:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I could've just added the video in-line citation to support the plot description as there are sources already supporting the analysis stuff. – That's what I'm suggesting, yes. The problem is that the previous version falsely suggested the sources described the plot description. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so how do I solve this? Is my idea to split the section into "Plot" and "Analysis" a good one? ℛonherry☘ 16:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I added the citations to show what I meant. Now each sentence is supported by the next citation in that paragraph. Does it look all right with you? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Yes. It looks great. Thank you. ℛonherry☘ 13:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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.