Talk:Message in a Bottle (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Nominator: Gained (talk · contribs) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 20:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. I note that the nominator, Gained, isn't a major contributor directly (a recently changed requirement) but has been asked to take over as nominator by a major contributor. This is (at least at the moment!) my favourite Taylor Swift song so I'm looking forward to reviewing. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference numbers as of Special:Permalink/1213111059.

Strengths[edit]

Even though many sources are more broadly about Red (Taylor's Version) or the vault tracks, notability is clear from chart performances and depth of critical commentary.
Other than one source mentioned below, I'm confident in the reliability of all sources used in context. I've done spotchecks as I go along and mentioned the minor issues below.
I've done a search for further sources and am happy that the article is broad in its coverage based on the reliable information that exists.
I've not found any copyright issues: quotes of critics/lyrics are reasonably short and attributed.
Use of the remix album cover seems like a reasonable decision (similar imagery and presumably part of the same photoshoot as the Red (Taylor's Version) cover), as does use of the chorus. Fair use rationales are thorough.

Action points[edit]

It's pedantic, but I'm not quite happy that Pitchfork or the article justify that this song uses "production synthesizers and a pulsing bass" (it's more broadly about Martin/Shellback's influence, as we say: "The two producers introduced their electronic-pop production consisting of..."). Similarly, the audio caption could mention the genres that are verified instead of "the synthesizers and programmed beats". The lead could say instead it was the first writing collaboration between Swift/Martin/Shellback and/or that other songs they co-wrote were included in Red.
CNET post-2020 is to be avoided if possible (see RSP)—in this case the claim seems trivial to verify with another source from the article.
The ARIA reference (#57) has an error (missing URL).
"charted in Australia, Canada, and the United States" – I think "among others" should be added (there's NZ and UK too, but a bit too many to list).
"Josh Kurp of Uproxx" – publication names should be in italics.
"who acquired Big Machine including ..." – I think a comma is needed before "including". (And it took me a while to work out that the en dash in "Big Machine–owned" is correct, per MOS:SUFFIXDASH.)
The paragraph beginning "In April 2021" gets quite repetitive: I think both instances of "the re-recording of her [year] studio album" can be substituted by "that of her [year] studio album" to reduce re-"re-record"s. On the second instance, "From the Vault" doesn't need to be explained (and "also" is redundant): rewrite as As with its predecessor, Red (Taylor's Version) includes "From the Vault" tracks.
Rather than the separate genres, "electronic-pop" should link "electropop". I'd write it as "electronic-pop (electropop)" and then unlink the following instance of "electropop".
But now needs to be preceded with a quote mark.

Great article! Formally this is on hold until the above are addressed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bilorv! I believe I have addressed all your points. Gained (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues I can see: (1) I think there's still an issue with verifiability of this song using synths/bass. Which of the given sources verifies the song also follows the three Red tracks released before stylistically with its use of synthesizers and a pulsing bass? This is also an issue in the audio caption. (2) A Dropbox link doesn't verify that this material was officially published by ARIA. Can you cite instead a page on the ARIA website that links to this PDF? — Bilorv (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv I didn't find anymore sources about the song's production so I removed first issue including the Pitchfork source entirely; the sentence actually constituted WP:SYNTH which I didn't notice when addressing the comments. I also removed much of the sentence regarding Max Martin and Shellback's influence on songs they produced for Red which now seems out of place on the article. For the second issue, click this link then locate the "latest accreditations" link, and you'll find the "Jan 2024 Single Accreds" link there. Gained (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gained: thanks for the speedy responses. I've updated the audio caption and lead in line with the latest change and substituted the ARIA link for the one you give here: it doesn't matter if the reader has to follow a link or two but it matters that they can verify the publisher is ARIA. Personally I think this is still appropriate composition information even if it's about other Red songs: "The two producers introduced their electronic-pop production consisting of pulsing synthesizers, programmed bass drums, and electronically processed vocals". However, this isn't something that needs to hold up the review. I am happy that this is a

pass for GA as the article already meets the GA criteria. Thanks for your work taking over the original nominator! — Bilorv (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]