Talk:London Boy (song)/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 August 2021 (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

First review of mine for a while; I'll start later today! --K. Peake 09:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • If the studio listed in the infobox is the correct one, then it needs to be named in the body too under personnel
    • I chose not to include studios in the section because WP:PERSONNEL only recommends personnel
  • Pipe bubblegum pop to Bubblegum music
  • WP:OVERLINK of Taylor Swift under songwriters
  • "singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, taken from her seventh studio album" → "singer-songwriter Taylor Swift from her seventh studio album,"
  • It is not notable for the lead that Sounwave is credited as a songwriter under his birth name so remove this part
    • It explains why there are different names for songwriter and producer credits.
  • That is fine in the body but in the lead, you can keep it as saying that Sounwave wrote and produced the song to avoid too much detail. --K. Peake 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has additional writing credit by" → "It gives additional writing credit to"
  • Move the first sentence of the second para to being at the end of the first one instead so it's more than three sentences
  • Wikilink upbeat
  • Mention the genres before the term "song" but keep the rest of the info too
  • ""London Boy" is about Swift's infatuation" → "it is about an infatuation"
  • "by her experiences in" → "by Swift's experiences in"
  • "The lyrics name-check" → "The lyrics of the song name-check" having this as the first sentence of the second para
  • Pipe spoken-word to Spoken word
  • Remove English actor introduction to Idris Elba since this is not useful for the lead
    • Why? I find it useful.
  • Introduction solely being in the body is sufficient, unless the person in question is a main subject of the article. --K. Peake 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Identify the critics as music critics, but where is the mention of audiences too coming from?
    • There is a mention in The Independent in the prose
  • "only skim the surface of" → "barely relate to"
  • "entered the official singles charts of Australia (number 42)," → "charted at number 42 in Australia," and write out the other positions like this rather than in brackets apart from using "on" for the Hot 100, plus all of these need to be written in the body
  • Mention the Live Lounge performance as the last sentence of the lead

Background and production[edit]

  • Img looks good!
  • "released her seventh studio album, Lover, on" → "released Lover on"
  • "by the connections she felt with her fans" → "by the connection she felt to her fans" but only this part of the sentence is backed up by the source
  • "track list of Lover consists" → "track list of the album consists" to avoid writing its title too much
  • "from R&B musician Cautious Clay." → "for R&B musician Cautious Clay." plus mention here this was due to the interpretation of "Cold War"
  • "Clay was contacted by" → "Cautious Clay was contacted by" per Wikipedia policy on stagenames
  • "wanted to interpolation the rhythm of Clay's" → "wanted to interpolate his" since the rhythm detail is too much here and should only be in comp
  • "which Clay happily accepted." → "which he happily accepted."
  • "entirely by Clay in" → "entirely by Cautious Clay in"
  • Pipe Mermaid Parade to Coney Island Mermaid Parade
  • Remove the colon after Rolling Stone since that's not the full sentence
  • "just pretty surreal."" → "just pretty surreal"." per MOS:QUOTE
    • What do you mean? It's a full sentence.
  • "I don't even know, she never even shouted me out, I don't know anything about her, really, so, to me, that she would feel it was appropriate to include that interpolation is just pretty surreal." says the source, showing the part quoted is not from the sentence's start onwards so the MOS applies here. --K. Peake 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics[edit]

  • ""London Boy" is an" → "Musically, "London Boy" is an"
    • Isn't it kinda redundant?
  • No, it is appropriate to use this term when writing about musical genres. --K. Peake 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe bubblegum pop to Bubblegum music
  • "song featuring layers" → "song, featuring layers"
  • Wikilink synthesizers per WP:PIPE
  • Add a sentence after the above one mentioning it interpolates the rhythm of "Cold War", as this can be repeated from background when there's relevant info for both sections
  • "production with elements" → "production, with elements"
  • [9] does not actually say the city inspired the song
  • "behind the song: "I just" → "behind the song by saying she "just"
  •  Not done also, why is there a space after the full-stop in this quote which isn't a full one anyway? --K. Peake 07:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should mention Swift's reference to Camden Market on the first chorus instead on the audio sample text per the source and relevance
  • Pipe chorus to Refrain
  • None of the first sentence is sourced
  • "and name-checks a" → "and name-check a"
  • Pipe American culture to Culture of the United States
  • Pipe English culture to Culture of England
  • "when he appeared on" → "from when he appeared on" plus mention this was in 2017
  • Shouldn't you write as Motown Records instead and pipe that to Motown?
  • The "American smile" part is unsourced
  • Pipe Camden to London Borough of Camden
  • Pipe West End to West End of London
  • "Swift enjoys several" → "She expresses enjoyment of several"
  • The line being launched by Swift and the designer is not sourced

Reception[edit]

  • Retitle to Reception and promotion, merging the below section
  • "visit in London."" → "visit in London"." per MOS:QUOTE
  • "37th in her list" → "37th on her list"
  • The New York Times and Slate reviews should be last since they don't belong in the middle as the only negative ones
    • The section opens with largely negative reviews before proceeding to positive ones.
  • The i review is second, which is a mixed one so you should organise mixed/positive/negative reviews together correctly. --K. Peake 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were annoying and" → "are annoying and"
  • What you have written from the NME review is not sourced
  • Add the chart positions after the critical reception, as everything in the lead needs to be written out in the body
  • You should mention what numbers it charted at for proper context, especially when this belongs in the lead too and everything there has to be written out here. --K. Peake 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances[edit]

  • Make this the second para of the above section instead
  • "the first time on" → "the first time during" but the mentions of other performances are irrelevant
    • Given critical reception and live performances are barely related, I'd like to keep them separated. The critical reception section is also decently long to stand on its own.
  • It is acceptable if titled reception and promotion with them in separate paras, as this signifies that there's two types of information split from each other... also neither section is more than one para so a merger is appropriate. --K. Peake 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Credits[edit]

  • Retitle to Credits and personnel, adding the recording studio above the actual personnel and using the recording and personnel respective subheadings
  • That's fine, but retitle to Credits and personnel. --K. Peake 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charts[edit]

References[edit]

  • Copyvio score looks great at 20.0%!!!
  • Nice job with the archiving of these!
  • Cite CNET as work/website instead on ref 1
  • Remove or replace ref 6 per WP:RSSM
  • Remove or replace ref 9 per WP:RSP; this is a showbiz article
  • WP:OVERLINK of Entertainment Weekly on ref 12
  • Cite Genius as publisher instead for ref 17
  • Author-link Jon Caramanica on ref 20

Final comments and verdict[edit]

  •  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; took two days! --K. Peake 19:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done all, except where I responded. Thank you for reviewing the article. Ippantekina (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ippantekina Thanks for the quick response; I have left comments in relevant areas. --K. Peake 08:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping. Done all, except I disagree with merging Critical reception and Live performances. "Promotion" is a little pretentious as Swift performed this song not necessarily as part of promotion per-se. One-paragraph sections are also acceptable imo. Ippantekina (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ippantekina I have pointed out where you missed points above, though I would suggest merging live performances and retitling to Reception and live performances since two sentences is too short of a section for GA-class. --K. Peake 07:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. Ippantekina (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina ✓ Pass now, I did some copy editing but good job this looks a lot better! --K. Peake 06:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Boy_(song)/GA1&oldid=1040877332"