Jump to content

Talk:This Love (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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.


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

Reviewer: Lil-unique1 (talk · contribs) 20:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing this article :) ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress summary[edit]

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

Review[edit]

Lead

  • I think its worth mentioning that Nathan Champan was a regular collaborator and that its the only production by him that features on 1989.
  • I think it's a little too detailed for the lead...
  • Consider changing the phrase "Its lyrics use oceanic imagery to describe a faded romance and its subsequent revival" to Its lyrics use ocean metaphors to describe the revival of a faded romance
  • Done.
  • If you're going to mention charts in the Lead section, lets mention their positions as well please
  • Done.
  • Pipe critics to music critics ( [[music critics|critics]] )
  • Done.
  • Pipe balladic to Sentimental ballad ( [[Sentimental ballad|balladic]] )
  • Done.
  • Include (RIAA)) at the end of Recording Industry Association of America
  • Done.
  • Actually reading the next sentence (and checking the description) "highlighted the song's balladic production, while others deemed it out of place for the album's upbeat sound" this is not true. It received mixed reception - some critics called it the best song on the album while others felt that the ballad production was out of place on an otherwise upbeat album. The comments about Swiftian Lyrics and Chorus were only from 1 critic.
  • Done.
  • Done.

Background and release

  • Please move the image to the right - to stop it moving the heading for the next section.
  • Done.
  • The image description page does not say this image depicts Taylor performing "This Love". How have you ascertained this?
  • Kinda subjective but based on what I saw on the 1989 Tour film (the costume and microphone, etc)
  • Per the discussion here, Popcrush was deemed unreliable for inclusion in GAs
  • Replaced.

Music and lyrics

  • Good

Critical reception

  • Good

Personnel

  • Good

Commercial Performance

  • Good

This Love (Taylor's Version)

  • We don't normally credit people for songwriting per WP:ALBUMS
  • Done.
  • It terms of charts - have you checked the other Hungry charts to see if it charted on them? There's no consensus for which one to use at the moment.
  • I checked the Radio chart but it didn't enter that chart..
  • Done. That's very helpful to know!

Categories

  • It's also a 2022 song because of the re-released version
  • Done.

Overall

  • Copyvio score is low. Well done. Well written, some small changes required. Seven days should suffice :) ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ippantekina:, the final thing for me is the subjectivity of the image. As this is GA, and costume changes during a tour are frequent, just because Swift wore that dress during the performance on the tour DVD doesn't mean she wore that dress when performing the song. Also unless that exact moment captured is during the performance of "This Love" is a little WP:SYNTHESIS. A way around this would be to change the caption to something like "Taylor Swift pictured during the 1989 Tour, where "This Love" was performed.- there might be a more succinct way of saying something similar but something to that effect would negate the intepretation/subjectiveness. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:11, 25 May 2022 (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.