Talk:Never Grow Up

Requested move 17 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Although recentism does apply as seen from one of the !voters, but there is a consensus to move per WP:PT. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• Never Grow Up (Taylor Swift song) → Never Grow Up
• Never Grow Up → Never Grow Up (disambiguation)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per pageviews. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 11:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Taylor Swift song of course gets more page views right now, but this is recentism. Long term it is extremely unlikely that it will continue. It might but we should not assume this. Andrewa (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. A song that was released in 2010 having over a thousand pageviews over the dab (32) and the book by Jackie Chan (143) shows that it is the PRIMARYTOPIC. I don’t see any recentism here; unless I’m missing something. Best, reading beans 03:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Never Grow Up (song) should be the title if this article is not found to be the primary topic. See WP:SONGDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It's hard to say "recentism" applies when the only other article is about a book that came out in 2015, aka five years after the Swift song. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2024 (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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Never Grow Up (Taylor Swift song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gained (talk · contribs) 17:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IanTEB (talk · contribs) 19:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is under an ongoing title move request, but I don't think that presents a problem for a GA review.

Checklist

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Background and composition

• unable to do with the people she had met in real life - 'real life' could be shortened to just 'life'.
• [3] only mentions that Swift conceived the album from two years of emotions, not that it had been in the works for two years, unless I'm missing something.
  • Changed to "She included all of the emotions she felt in the last two years on the album"
• The archived [4] (Songwriter Universe) takes me to the main page where I don't see any content pertaining to the album.
• she is accompanied by a background male vocalist - is it not known who the background vocalist is? This article also lacks a Personnel section for the 2010 version, but so do the other articles on songs from this album so I assume that information is not available.
  • Yes, the credits for the individual album tracks are not available.
• I'm unable to access the live version of [11] but the archive works fine. It's either a regional thing, or the source has become dead (the article on HitFix seems to suggest the latter).
  • It's the latter.
• with some believing that it would have been for her 2006 self-titled studio album - shouldn't 'would' be 'could'?
• What does 'older than her years' mean? Her age?
  • I believe so according to my interpretation of the quote.
• Verified: [1], [2], [8], [9], [10], [12], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [24], [25], [26]. Assuming good faith on print sources

Release and live performances

• I don't see Big Machine Records within [23] (AllMusic), but I am unfamiliar with navigating the site so it might be under a section I'm missing
  • Replaced with the Apple Music source
• Swift performed 'Never Grow Up' at selected locations of the album's associated world tour in 2011 - I would prefer the tour is mentioned by name (Speak Now World Tour), but it is only a preference
  • I personally prefer the former but I get why you prefer the latter.
• via=Newspapers.com should be added to [28] and [30]
• [31] (Washington Post) should have subscription access clarified in the citation using url-access=subscription
• the second child of her friend, the actress Jaime King - changing this to 'the second child of her friend and actress Jamie King' might be a more clear alternative to this text. When I first read the text, I mistakenly thought that the actress was Swift's godchild.
  • I changed it to "her godson and the second child of the actress Jaime King" and removed "her friend" because I think it's not necessary.
• Verified: [29], [32], [33], [34]

Critical reception

• It seems [17] (Los Angeles Times) needs a url-access=subscription
• [38] redirects me to a rather sketchy website, but the archive works fine. URL status should possibly be changed to dead, if it is not a regional issue
  • The original link works for me just fine and it shows the album review. I believe it's a regional issue.
• 'where Swift actually changes it up' - 'where' should be moved out of quotations
• showcased Swift's skill of 'taking common country-radio templates and perfecting them' - I think this sentence is a slight exaggeration of the source. Heaton writes that "sometimes, like on the parent-to-child ballad 'Never Grow Up', Swift seems capable of...". 'Seeming capable of' doesn't technically mean that the writer believes her to absolutely have that skill.
  • Changed to "showcased Swift's potential capability"
• The Oklahoman believed it was one of the tracks where Swift gives a break to the album's 'tabloid marathon' - is also a bit of an exaggeration, albeit in the opposite direction of above. Lang states that tracks like this make the album not a tabloid marathon, whilst the current text implies that he thought that the rest of the album was so.
• Changed to "The Oklahoman believed it was one of the tracks that does not make the album a 'tabloid marathon'"
• included in the rankings of Swift's discography by Jane Song and a staff of Paste (56) - like done above when specifying that Nathan Chapman played the song's guitar, it might be best to put '(at 56)' for the first entry here for clarification.
• [48] (Vulture) places the song at 92, but the article says 94
• Verified: [35], [6], [39], [47], [19], [12]

"Never Grow Up (Taylor's Version)"

• that it was further heighten by Swift being an adult - shouldn't 'heighten' be heightened'?
• that although her singing may seem jarring at first but her - I would change this to 'although her singing may seem jarring at first, her...'
• The credits lack citation
  • Added
• Verified: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]

Conclusion

Mostly minor issues, I hope nothing is too much of a bother to alter. There isn't any illustration, but I don't know if anything would really help the article (expect an audio sample, maybe?) so I don't think it's a problem. IanTEB (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @IanTEB! Thank you for choosing this to review. I'll be addressing your points at the end of the week. As for illustrations, I don't think an audio sample would help due to how simple the production and lyrics are, and I believe readers can imagine the music and lyrics just by reading the prose so I don't think it is necessary. Gained (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @IanTEB! All of your points have been addressed, and I have left comments on some of the points while the rest were done or fixed. A few of the points were done by @Dcdiehardfan (thanks btw!). Gained (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This was a quick review (was gonna say swift, but I realized my error). I edited a few small points that I missed; I'm happy to pass this. IanTEB (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)