Talk:Illicit Affairs/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 13:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. Will try not to screw anything up. Pamzeis (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

  • and some picked it as an album highlight — is this lead-worthy? If it's only "some" critics?
  • It received a silver certification from the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). — I also don't think this is lead worthy; it's not particularly impressive (for Swift, at least)
  • I've moved some stuff around in #Background and composition, which I hope you don't mind. You can revert me if you disagree
  • Swift recorded an stripped-down — what does "stripped-down" mean??

It means that there are fewer instruments used for a particular recording compared to the original. If this still confuse you, I would remove it. Gained (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • journalists described it — is "it" referring to the song or Swift's performance or the song's bridge or Swift's performance of said bridge?
  • her 2018 single "Getaway Car" — I don't think it's necessary to say "Getaway Car" was a single—it was only one in Australia and New Zealand (so it's not really well known as a single) and being a single wasn't a defining characteristic (if that makes sense)
  • lauded of how Swift "outdone herself" — doesn't seem grammatically correct to me. If it is tho, then it doesn't read very well
  • In a 2022 review — it's not exactly a review; I think it would be more accurate to refer to this as a ranking

 Done all except where noted. Gained (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

  • Critics often praised — Source?

 Done Gained (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are a member since 2018 but that's it, so I ommited it. Gained (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are Beats Per Minute and Sputnikmusic reliable?

Both reviews are included in Metacritic, which aggregates reviews from "major" mainstream critics to provide ratings of albums. Gained (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotchecks (Version reviewed):
    • fn 1: doesn't seem to support after the cancellation of a concert tour in support of her previous studio album Lover (2019)
    • fn 13: checkY
    • fn 19: checkY
    • fn 31: checkY (though "vocally astounding" tells the reader a lot more about what the critic thought than "marvellous" IMO)

Good point. Gained (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • fn 37: checkY

 Done all except the fn 1 and where noted. Gained (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I think this article's good to go. Ping me in any replies! Pamzeis (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis, I have addressed all of your comments except fn1, which I will be doing tomorrow. Gained (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis, I have remove fn1 and its info because I don't think it will disturb anything to the article. Gained (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Second look[edit]

Went through the article a second time and made a few copy-edits. I have one comment tho:

  • her fury takes it down in the process — is a bit confusing. What is "it"? How does fury take something down? What process?

That's it! If you could clarify that for me, I think this would be good to go! Pamzeis (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I hope it makes sense. Gained (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Third look[edit]

Looks good!  Passing the article. Pamzeis (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Gained (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed