Talk:22 (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: BuySomeApples (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It looks mostly very well written with no grammar or spelling issues. Parts of it do feel a little unencyclopedic or like they're worded in an odd way. I'll elaborate below in separate bullet points.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There are few minor spots that need to be tweaked to comply with the MOS. Sentences which summarize statements by reviewers or quote them shouldn't be in brackets (like this). It's OK to use quotations marks for quotes, and have the rest be plain.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article is mostly well sourced, but there are a few places where the sources don't match the information in the articles.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sources used in the article all seem reliable. Primary sources are used very sparingly and only in ways that are allowed by Wikipedia guidelines.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unsure, mostly because of the sourcing issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig has given this a clean bill of health, so I think it's good!
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers all the important information and seems well organized.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article could probably be trimmed in some parts. The "Writing and production" section doesn't need to list the names of every recording artist after each instrument, their names can be in "Credits and personnel." It isn't really necessary to quote the same lyric in two sentences back-to-back, like in the "Composition and lyrics". Trimming down some of these quotes would help.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The page seems mostly well balanced and neutral in its coverage.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Aside from recent improvements to bring this article up to GA status, this page seems stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Overall you did a really wonderful job on this article, I just have a very few minor tweaks below.

Writing

In "Writing and production", it reads "To this end, she approached different producers beyond her career base in Nashville". Can we change that to something more encyclopedic and less press release-y?
In "Composition and lyrics", it reads:"the narrator celebrates the moments of being 22 years old". Can we change it to "celebrates the experience of being 22" or something like that?
Also: "citing his songs for "how [they] can just land a chorus" as an inspiration". This feels clunky, can we rephrase to "citing his ability to "land a chorus""?
"the song captures how she felt about being 22 years old, when she knew about the 'possibilities of how you're still learning'" can be changed to "the song captures how she felt about being 22 years old, including the 'possibilities of how you're still learning'".

Verifiability

In "Writing and production", it says "To this end, she approached different producers beyond her career base in Nashville, Tennessee. She went to Los Angeles to meet with Swedish producer Max Martin" but I didn't see this information in the sources. Did I miss something (sometimes I don't read carefully enough) or is it in a different article?

BuySomeApples (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BuySomeApples: thanks for taking up this review. Please bare with me for approximately 3-4 days for me to have some time for the GAN... If 4 days have elapsed and you still have not received a response from me, do ping me to notify! Best, Ippantekina (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BuySomeApples: I believe all your comments are addressed now. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this @Ippantekina: It seems like you mostly focused on the feedback in the additional comments, but I think you might have missed the feedback in the table above. Those should be mostly easy fixes because the page is already in pretty good shape. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BuySomeApples:-- Apologize, I might've neglected the comments in the table by mistake. Might I know why brackets are not encouraged? I personally find brackets useful in grouping and summarizing similarly positive/negative reviews. I believe 2a and 2c are resolved now as the Rolling Stone source does state that Swift wanted to work with other producers than Nashville-based ones. I'm working on 3b atm. Ippantekina (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ippantekina:! With not using brackets to highlight information, it's really just that Wikipedia articles should be as simple and standard as possible. There's nothing really wrong with bracketing quotes in a magazine article, but Wikipedia pages are more streamlined and quotation marks are enough. It also makes it a little more accessible, since less "fancy" text is better for screenreaders. Willow (song) is another TS song page that passed GA, and is a good example of what we're going for with editing. The order of this article is fine, it's mostly just small parts about layout. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples: If the bracketing quotes are the remaining issue then I guess the article is ready now. Thanks again for the review! Ippantekina (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to keep holding this nom @Ippantekina: but it still doesn't look like you've fixed all of the issues listed in the table yet (See 3b). Also I noticed a few other tweaks before which I'm gonna bullet below really quick. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"At the 2015 Pop Awards held by Broadcast Music, Inc., "22" was one of the three award-winning songs (with "Everything Has Changed" and "Shake It Off") that helped Swift earn recognition as one of the "Songwriters of the Year"." This could be less clunky and a little more neutral, maybe "At the 2015 Pop Awards held by Broadcast Music, Inc., "22" was one of three songs, along with "Everything Has Changed" and "Shake It Off," that earned Swift recognition as one of the "Songwriters of the Year".
I'm not sure that describing negative reviews as "dismissive" works. Can we change it to something like "Some critics deemed the track repetitive, including [etc]"? Also, for balance maybe include one quote from a negative review since we have a couple of positive quotes.
"Later reviews have been generally positive" > "Retrospective reviews have been generally positive"
"Some complained that the song resembled the chart hits of her contemporaries" Can we tweak this line? I can't access the original article but phrasing it in a way that explains why Reed complained about the resemblance might be informative. (ie, "Some critics felt that it was derivative of [etc]" or "Some critics felt it was a departure from her previous work, in favor of a style more similar to [etc]"). BuySomeApples (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding 3b--at my previous FACs other editors commented that the instruments and personnel should be mentioned in prose in addition to the "Credits" section; other than that, might I know which quotes shall be cut from the "Composition and lyrics" section (because I have trimmed down the section quite a bit)? The bullet points are resolved now, Ippantekina (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I was going off of WP:PERSONNEL and the standard of other articles like Delicate (Taylor Swift song) but this might be a different standard. I don't know because I'm not that familiar with FA standards so I guess let's do it your way. It doesn't make sense for you to have to change it later on for FA.

Also one last thing (I promise). The bit about it making 22nd birthdays more of a milestone is really neat and I'm curious if there's anything more we can add about that. If not, it's fine but I just thought that was an interesting point. Thanks! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks ready now, outstanding job! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2023 (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.