Wikipedia

Talk:Gorgeous (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

< Talk:Gorgeous (Taylor Swift song)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by SNUGGUMS in topic GA Review
Learn more about this page
GA nomination successful when sufficiently improved based on below input

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.

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply


Hello! I plan to review this nomination. Initial comments should be up within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Snuggums, thank you for your review. Just proceed with a full review, and I'll address everything once you put this on hold. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Beginning with assessments of the infobox and lead.

Infobox

edit
  • I'm not sure lyric videos should be included here, even when uploaded by an artist's channel and there isn't an official music video to be used in its place
  • I'm pretty sure its use can be justified given {{External music video}} allows for non-music videos; plus the lyric video received 100M views, which is pretty notable

Lead

edit
  • The use of "crush" is too informal. Try something like "love interest" or "infatuation".
  •  Done
  • When mentioning charts, I'd at least add other places this peaked in the top 20 (Ireland, Lebanon, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, and Slovakia). Six nations feels incomplete when there than just two places it entered without reaching the top 10.
  •  Done

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Production and release

edit
  •  Done
  • Are you sure this is the best place to discuss live performances?
  • Given that a "Live performances" section may be too short on its own, I incorporated the bit together with this section
  • This seems incomplete without much detail on how the track came to be.
  • Idk, I feel like a Credits and personnel section would suffix...
  • You appear to have misunderstood my point. I was talking about what inspired the lyrics and such, not who was involved with writing/producing this track or handling instrumentals (which is where credits would belong). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Composition

edit
  • See my previous comments about the use of "crush"
  •  Done
  • Thank you :)
  • The source sounds a bit gossip-y to me..
  • Rolling Stone doesn't appear to say this has any electropop, only writes "gentle, radio-friendly pop". The closest I can find to that is Variety writing it features the "same deep electro-throb direction" as LWYMMD and RFI.
  • checkY added Variety
  • Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use the exact same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph
  • Removed one extra ref
  • Not sure it's relevant what year "Drop It Like It's Hot" was released
  • I think it's safe to leave it... would cause no harm, I suppose
  • Billboard uses "the pursuit of a maddening -- and, apparently, rather 'gorgeous' -- love interest", not just simply "the pursuit of a maddening love interest" as you suggest.
  • checkY Paraphrased the whole part

I'll get to "Critical reception" next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Critical reception

edit
  • To avoid WP:SYNTH, general assessments of reception should have at least one citation specifically mentioning overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable reviews for a track. Drawing conclusions from pieces listed within Wikipedia articles is overly presumptuous, especially when it might fail to factor in other opinions not already mentioned, and can come off as lazy.
  • checkY removed
  • USA Today doesn't use "pop queen dominaiton", it's actually "their queen's pop domination" when discussing Swift fans
  • Whoops, checkY reworded
  •  Done

Commercial performance

edit
  • The section is incomplete with only a total of six nations discussed. That's not nearly enough when it charted in many more! While you don't necessarily have to give the same amount of detail to each of them, they should all at least be mentioned by name. Of the ones you have included, we'll need a separate citation for reaching #15 in the UK (which I found here), and I'd add how this was the third track from Reputation to reach the top 10 in Australia.
  • checkY Added top 20 positions
  • No need for this in the first sentence when it only speculates entering at number 11 in the US, just use it for the Views bit. Such a guess turned out to be wrong anyway.
  • That was actually used to support the chart date of Oct. 30, 2017, and the info of the #13 debut is factually correct
  • Using "hit" within "14th number-one hit" is subpar tone. It would be better to go with "entry" or "song".
  • checkY Reworded
  • Are any pure sales figures known aside from how many copies were sold in the US during its first week? If not, then the certifications (which combine those with streaming-equivalent units) will suffice. I would either way recommend putting the ARIA certification with its chart peak, similar to how UK details and US details are all kept together.
  •  Done; and checkY removed first week US figures
  • If released to UK radio, then I'm pretty sure that counts as being released as a full-fledged single
  • Works for me. I previously thought BBC Radio was some indication, but the conversation you linked makes a decent case suggesting otherwise, and something from Official Charts Company definitely would be more authoritative for the nation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Credits and personnel

edit
  • One question: is James Reynolds only credited for the intro, and not as a featured artist?
  • checkY Yes, according to Reputation CD notes that I'm keeping

Charts

edit
  • "2017–18" should be "2017–2018" as four digits are preferred for years as more complete and professional
  •  Done
  • Unless I'm missing something, this didn't chart in Italy or Portugal (which only appear to list numbers for some other places)
  • Added URL for Portugal. It's weird that the info is not archived at the song's page. I haven't found anything for Italy... would you say I should remove it?

Certifications

edit
  • No issues!

See also

edit
  • Also flawless!

References

edit
  •  Done

Overall

edit
  • Prose: Could use some work
  • Referencing: One misformatted citation, and not all content is supported by the attributed sources
  • Coverage: Needs expansion, mainly for commercial performance
  • Neutrality: No concerns here
  • Stability: All good
  • Media: From what I can tell, the sample is fine to use
  • Verdict: Placing on hold for seven days, effective immediately, which should be enough time to address my concerns. I admittedly got through this sooner than expected. Have at it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Just two more things: the "lukewarm reviews from music critics" WP:SYNTH needs to be removed from the lead, and perhaps you could change up one of the "It additionally" instances when discussing charts. I realize it's not a full copy when one is followed with "reached" and the other goes with "charted within", but the sentence structure feels a bit repetitive there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:27, 28 January 2021 (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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gorgeous_(Taylor_Swift_song)/GA1&oldid=1003337564"