Jump to content

Talk:I Can See You (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: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 19:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll make the corrections within the next five days and get back to you. ℛonherry☘ 16:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress: reviewing this one as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/August 2023... — Bilorv (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive suggestions:

  • The article is a bit on the short side, though it has all the major sections. I understand if there is no more information available since this is such a minor Swift song (but it's certainly notable from its high charting). However, could another source run be done to see if there is (a) anything Swift said about the original (pre-2010) writing of the song; (b) any more details for "Music and lyrics" (often key signature/tempo can be reliably sourced); (c) any critical commentary on the music video? (I'd add from The A.V. Club that the vault contains outfits and memorabilia from Swift's career.)
I have updated the critical reception of the music video. ℛonherry☘ 07:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not happy with the music video image currently used, partly because it's so dark. It looks a lot darker than the actual music video frame does on my screen. Moreover, I'm not sure if this is the most illustrative: how about a frame from around 4:20—possibly there's one that gets all three of them and the Speak Now cover facing forwards. I think NFCCP is met on the basis of actually depicting the heist/vault/metaphor that's mentioned in prose.
    Also, feel free to reject this, but if we're using a music video image already then why not put it in the infobox (with a suitable caption for commentary)?
The music video is just tonally dark. I examined every shot, and the vault ones was one of the least dark timestamps. The timestamp you suggested is a fast-paced scene and a pause-and-screenshot did not look good. So I uploaded the scene where Swift is freed. I suppose that's fine. ℛonherry☘ 07:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for looking again—still not delighted by this but I won't oppose it. A bot should reduce the size to the acceptable 100,000 pixels now I've tagged with {{Non-free reduce}}. — Bilorv (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not mandatory, but I feel a short audio extract would be fine under NFCCP and could illustrate the guitar riff, funk or indie rock genre.
 Done. ℛonherry☘ 07:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing (numbering as of Special:Permalink/1168069257):

  • Spotchecks on #7, #9, #21, #24, #50, #51. No issues.
  • What makes sputnikmusic.com reliable?
Sputnikmusic's review is included in Metacritic, which aggregates reviews from "major" mainstream critics to provide ratings of albums. ℛonherry☘ 07:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source #18 has messed up author parameters.
  • This isn't necessary for the GA criteria, but references would ideally link website names consistently (i.e. always, never, or on first use only).

Copyedits:

  • "Swift hence withdrew from Big Machine" – "hence" doesn't feel right here. Something like "subsequently" fits better.
  • "She subsequently revealed" – "revealed" is a bit sensationalist where just "said" would fit (see MOS:SAID).
  • "which consists 22 songs" – missing an "of".
  • "most recent predecessors" – maybe "immediate predecessors" is less clunky.
  • "Swift's use of innuendos while describing a 'cataclysmic' crush has drawn comparisons to Swift's song" – repetition of "Swift" in a sentence; the latter could be "her".
  • "Along with 'Back to December (Taylor's Version)' at number ten, both marked ..." – can't have "along with" and "both" like this. Maybe "I Can See You" and "Back to December (Taylor's Version)" simultaneously became Swift's 16th and 17th top-ten entries ....
  • "She stated that she 'wanted to show a story visually that portrayed the ways that [her fans] have helped [her] get [her] music back'" – where possible, quotes should be avoided. Here, Swift's words are hardly unique or flowery so I think the quote can be done away with through rewriting e.g. Swift stated she wanted to create a visual story to show how fans helped her get her music back.

Overall, a great article and hopefully these suggestions will help. GA quality is definitely in reach. — Bilorv (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Formally on hold for seven days; happy to extend if progress is made.) — Bilorv (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv:  Done all. ℛonherry☘ 07:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, Ronherry; it addresses most of my concerns. Searching for sources, I do think this is sufficiently broad for GA. I did discover, however, some breaking news so I'm going to be a bit cheeky and ask for a paragraph on the pop-up exhibit I Can See You (Taylor's Version) (some sources: [1][2][3]). I've made a minor edit here. (Also, was there a reason to not remove the repetition of "Swift" within a sentence mentioned above?) — Bilorv (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, you're absolutely right. It's not cheeky at all. I totally forgot about the pop-up show by the Grammys. Thank you! ℛonherry☘ 10:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv:  Done! ℛonherry☘ 10:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is a pass for GA! — Bilorv (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Can_See_You_(song)/GA1&oldid=1168866566"