Talk:Gorgeous (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

GA nomination successful when sufficiently improved based on below input

The following discussion 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[edit]

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I plan to review this nomination. Initial comments should be up within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snuggums, thank you for your review. Just proceed with a full review, and I'll address everything once you put this on hold. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with assessments of the infobox and lead.

Infobox[edit]

I'm not sure lyric videos should be included here, even when uploaded by an artist's channel and there isn't an official music video to be used in its place

I'm pretty sure its use can be justified given {{External music video}} allows for non-music videos; plus the lyric video received 100M views, which is pretty notable

Lead[edit]

The use of "crush" is too informal. Try something like "love interest" or "infatuation".

Done

When mentioning charts, I'd at least add other places this peaked in the top 20 (Ireland, Lebanon, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, and Slovakia). Six nations feels incomplete when there than just two places it entered without reaching the top 10.

Done

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production and release[edit]

Perhaps you could mention how Taylor decided to feature James Reynolds after hearing her repeatedly say the word "gorgeous"

Done

Are you sure this is the best place to discuss live performances?

Given that a "Live performances" section may be too short on its own, I incorporated the bit together with this section

This seems incomplete without much detail on how the track came to be.

Idk, I feel like a Credits and personnel section would suffix...

You appear to have misunderstood my point. I was talking about what inspired the lyrics and such, not who was involved with writing/producing this track or handling instrumentals (which is where credits would belong). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell since she didn't do press interviews while promoting the album... Tried to find something but they come off ass rather gossip-y, HĐ (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Composition[edit]

See my previous comments about the use of "crush"

Done

It looks like File:Gorgeous - Taylor Swift song sample.ogg complies with WP:SAMPLE

Thank you :)

I'd say it's worth including how she's confirmed the track is about Joe Alwyn

The source sounds a bit gossip-y to me..

Fair enough SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone doesn't appear to say this has any electropop, only writes "gentle, radio-friendly pop". The closest I can find to that is Variety writing it features the "same deep electro-throb direction" as LWYMMD and RFI.

Y added Variety

Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use the exact same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph

Removed one extra ref

Not sure it's relevant what year "Drop It Like It's Hot" was released

I think it's safe to leave it... would cause no harm, I suppose

Billboard uses "the pursuit of a maddening -- and, apparently, rather 'gorgeous' -- love interest", not just simply "the pursuit of a maddening love interest" as you suggest.

Y Paraphrased the whole part

I'll get to "Critical reception" next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

To avoid WP:SYNTH, general assessments of reception should have at least one citation specifically mentioning overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable reviews for a track. Drawing conclusions from pieces listed within Wikipedia articles is overly presumptuous, especially when it might fail to factor in other opinions not already mentioned, and can come off as lazy.

Y removed

USA Today doesn't use "pop queen dominaiton", it's actually "their queen's pop domination" when discussing Swift fans

Whoops, Y reworded

No mention of Christopher Rosa by name (author of Glamour piece)?

Done

Commercial performance[edit]

The section is incomplete with only a total of six nations discussed. That's not nearly enough when it charted in many more! While you don't necessarily have to give the same amount of detail to each of them, they should all at least be mentioned by name. Of the ones you have included, we'll need a separate citation for reaching #15 in the UK (which I found here), and I'd add how this was the third track from Reputation to reach the top 10 in Australia.

Y Added top 20 positions

Better, but it still needs more. You now only have about half the amount this entered. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Added top 40, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this in the first sentence when it only speculates entering at number 11 in the US, just use it for the Views bit. Such a guess turned out to be wrong anyway.

That was actually used to support the chart date of Oct. 30, 2017, and the info of the #13 debut is factually correct

Using "hit" within "14th number-one hit" is subpar tone. It would be better to go with "entry" or "song".

Y Reworded

Are any pure sales figures known aside from how many copies were sold in the US during its first week? If not, then the certifications (which combine those with streaming-equivalent units) will suffice. I would either way recommend putting the ARIA certification with its chart peak, similar to how UK details and US details are all kept together.

Done; and Y removed first week US figures

If released to UK radio, then I'm pretty sure that counts as being released as a full-fledged single

Not sure... I don't see Official Charts reporting it as one of the singles of the week at [1] (using the Web Archive tool). We had a discussion at Talk:Reputation (Taylor Swift album)#Singles (?) regarding whether radio push could automatically make a song the single. Insofar as there is no official report from the record label, and in this case, from Official Charts who are responsible for reporting new releases weekly, we decided to keep it as promotional single. (I think it's pretty common for non-single songs to receive airplay at a certain time around an album's release, like "Stay Beautiful" from Swift's 2006 self-titled) HĐ (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I previously thought BBC Radio was some indication, but the conversation you linked makes a decent case suggesting otherwise, and something from Official Charts Company definitely would be more authoritative for the nation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Credits and personnel[edit]

One question: is James Reynolds only credited for the intro, and not as a featured artist?

Y Yes, according to Reputation CD notes that I'm keeping

Charts[edit]

"2017–18" should be "2017–2018" as four digits are preferred for years as more complete and professional

Done

Unless I'm missing something, this didn't chart in Italy or Portugal (which only appear to list numbers for some other places)

Added URL for Portugal. It's weird that the info is not archived at the song's page. I haven't found anything for Italy... would you say I should remove it?

If you can't find any replacement for an Italian peak, then delete altogether. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications[edit]

No issues!

References[edit]

Don't italicize Capital FM

Done

Overall[edit]

Prose: Could use some work
Referencing: One misformatted citation, and not all content is supported by the attributed sources
Coverage: Needs expansion, mainly for commercial performance
Neutrality: No concerns here
Stability: All good
Media: From what I can tell, the sample is fine to use
Verdict: Placing on hold for seven days, effective immediately, which should be enough time to address my concerns. I admittedly got through this sooner than expected. Have at it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thank you for the review. I believe everything is addressed now. Let me know if the article needs more work. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just two more things: the "lukewarm reviews from music critics" WP:SYNTH needs to be removed from the lead, and perhaps you could change up one of the "It additionally" instances when discussing charts. I realize it's not a full copy when one is followed with "reached" and the other goes with "charted within", but the sentence structure feels a bit repetitive there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything is resolved now, HĐ (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough to pass. Congrats on getting another GA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.