Talk:New Romantics (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll review. It's been a couple years since I've reviewed a GA, now is as good a time as any . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@HĐ: ^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "Swift co-wrote the song with its producers, Max Martin and Shellback" -- this line I think would be better rewritten to something like what is found in Style (Taylor Swift song) resolved

Production

I like this section as currently written.

Music and lyrics

• "...according to Slate editor Forrest Wickman, this reference is also apparent on the song's sonic resemblance to the era's new wave." -- this feels like a run-on sentence. The comma should probably be a period? resolved
• "Slate critic Carl Wilson dubbed the song 1989's example of Swift's new attitude towards romance, where she no longer seeks revenge on ex-lovers, specifically with the lyric..." -- this could be fine, but does read sort of odd to me. Could this be restructured perhaps?

Release and commercial performance

• "The single reached the top 40 on charts in Lebanon (number 18)..." -- all the "number X" stuff seems unnecessary as currently written. Could this just be shortened to the number like this "...*(18), ...(33), ..."?

Critical reception

• "Sheffield in 2019 ranked..." -- that just reads funny to me. Wouldn't "In 2019 Sheffield ranked..." (or something along those lines) be a better fit here? perfect!

Live performances

This section seems rather short. Are there any other reliably sourced live performances of it that she has done that would be suitable to mention?

Credits and personnel

• "Credits are adapted from liner notes of 1989." -- this should probably be at the top of the section?

Charts

Looks good. Not a point of contention/I am not counting it against this review, but do you know if it charted on any others?

Certifications

Looks good.

Conclusions

@HĐ: I am going to go ahead and place this review  On hold for the time being until the above is addressed. Overall I think that this article is quite close to GA and arguably FA. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor; Hi, thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. I believe I have addressed your concerns. Regarding the live performances, I have done another round of reviewing the existing literature, but it seems that Swift has only performed the song on the said occasions (which is pretty understandable given that it is a "bonus track" after all). Regarding the importance for WikiProject Taylor Swift, as I am not a member of the project itself, I am not sure what the criteria for importance are, but I guess it'll be okay to change it from Low-importance to Mid-importance.

Thank you for your review again. If possible, would you mind having a look at the current FAC for "Blank Space"? I think the article is in pretty good shape, but it needs another prose review to make sure that everything is ready. — HĐ (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   y

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Looks good to me! Congratulations. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)