Talk:Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 01:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this up for a review. I will start my review once the "Wildest Dreams" one is complete. To be honest, this is my least favorite song from the album, but I am interested in learning more about it as it was huge at the time. Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

The Kendrick Lamar and Taylor Swift images are missing ALT text.

Added

This ~~(The Feminist Manifesto by Taylor Swift: Boss Babes, Fit Girls and Welvin Da Great)~~ could be a useful resource for the article. It was published by an online journal (Collateral) which seems reliable to me, since it specifically talks about its peer review process and editorial team. Careful though as the link to the article is an automatic download (and I hate when it is done that way, but that's just me).

Hey, I checked the link and it requires a subscription... Do you have any access to it?

I do not have a subscription, but you could request access to it through the resource request. Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article from The Atlantic (Taylor Swift's 'Bad Blood' Video Is the Anti-Avengers) also has some interesting and useful analysis on the music video and its representation of gender.

Interesting indeed. Added

It is interesting what kind of articles come out of different music releases. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few articles written about how Madonna's music video for "Bitch I'm Madonna" was influenced by the "Bad Blood" one. Here are sources from Elle (Madonna’s answer to ‘Bad Blood’) and (Battle Of The Videos: Bitch I'm Madonna Vs. Bad Blood) and The Independent (Madonna's new video looks suspiciously like Taylor Swift's 'Bad Blood'). A fan-made mashup of both songs was even discussed by Billboard (Taylor Swift's 'Bad Blood' & 'Bitch, I'm Madonna': Listen to a Mash-Up Now!) and Capital (WATCH: It's The Madonna & Taylor Swift Mash-Up Music Video We've ALL Been Waiting For!). There is enough coverage on the music video comparisons and the mashup to include both in the article.

I'm kinda dubious about this... Most articles point out that both videos feature an ensemble cast and that's the only thing I can conclude

Understandable. I just wanted to raise this to your attention because it was something that I remembered being discussed at the time. I could see it being worth a brief, one-sentence mention, particularly after the PopSugar sentence on the video to further illustrate its impact. I do understand your point though, and it may be a case where these sources are better suited for the "Bitch, I'm Madonna" article instead. Thank you for the response though. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid having single-word quotes like "trite" as they are not particularly helpful.

Removed

I am not sure what is meant by this ("bold artistic direction"), and I think it has issues with WP:NPOV.

Reworded

I do not see a source supporting that this was recorded in 2014.

Removed

I would add a caption to the infobox to clarify the cover is for the remix.

The infobox indicates that the single is by Swift feat. Lamar, so I don't think it's necessary

Fair point. A caption would probably be overkill as our readers would be intelligent enough to understand it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would put some description in parenthesis behind 3:19 to clarify what it means. I am guessing it is the remix version, but I am not quite sure.

Done

I will not be able to do a full review of the article until the beginning of next week due to off-Wikipedia obligations, but I wanted to provide some initial comments until then. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

I am not sure if the link for "feud" is necessary.

Hmm, though the word has become well known in popular culture, I think a link to its definition is needed because its use is still kinda... temporal?

I can understand your point. I think the current meaning has passed into common knowledge, but it is always good to keep an unfamiliar reader in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would specify that this is the fourth single from 1989.

Done

I do not think squad needs to be in quotation marks.

Have to disagree. "Squad" is a term that the media used to describe Swift's friends and it's not necessarily factual

Fair point. I just think it looks weird in quotes, but I could understand why this should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would revise this part, Swift's expertise in songwriting, to something like, Swift's abilities as a songwriter. The "expertise" word choice can be read as a little overly positive (i.e. like praise).

Done

Background and release

For this part, seven out of 13 songs, I would say seven of the thirteen tracks instead since it is discouraged to mix numeral and words to represent numbers in the same sentence.

Done

This part, rapper Kendrick Lamar was not yet revealed to be featured, seems unnecessary, and I would remove it. I would only keep it if there was something notable about Lamar not being revealed as the feature right away, but it seems pretty standard to announce a reveal and tease the feature to build interest in the single.

Done

I am not sure if the note about what the previous three singles are is necessary as the reader can click on the 1989 link to learn more about the album. I'd take it out.

Done

Writing and composition

I would link mixed in this part, was mixed by Serban Ghenea at Mixstar Studios.

Done

In the second paragraph, you reference "Bad Blood" as a song for three sentences in a row. I would add some variation to avoid repetition.

Done

I do not know what this part means, expresses resentment towards betrayal.

Reworded

I have two very similar comments for this sentence: ((tq|The single version featuring Lamar incorporates elements of hip hop, and features verses written and performed by Lamar himself.}} I would avoid using featuring/features as it is rather repetitive. Also, I would try to avoid repeating Lamar twice.

Done

I would shorten this part, the media commotion surrounding the publicized feud between Swift and Perry to just the publicized feud between Swift and Perry as the "publicized" description already covers the media coverage.

Done

For this part, a more profound bass, "profound" seems like an odd word choice. I think something else would work better here.

Done

Commercial performance

I would move this section after the "Critical reception" section as that is the standard structure/practice for song articles.

Done

For this part, making Swift the first artist since Adele to yield three chart toppers from the same album, I would specify the name of the Adele album.

Done

Is it really notable to mention which song replaced it as a number one or that it fell to number two on the second week? Both bits of information seem trivial to me.

That it felt to number two after one week at number one could (presumably) indicate that the song was hyped mostly by its music video, so I think that's OK to include. Removed the song that replaced it

Critical reception

As I said above, this section should go before the "Commercial performance one".

Done

This part of the image caption, others felt that his radio-friendly verses were out of league with his traditionally aggressive styles, does not really make sense to me, specifically the "out of league" part. I'd revise it.

Done

For the quote in the Clash sentence, the period should be on the outside of the quotation marks since it is not a full quote. I would check the article as a whole to make sure that this is avoided as I see several other instances of this.

Done

I have two issues with this sentence: The remix version featuring Kendrick Lamar received praise for Lamar's guest verses and the reworked instrumental, but some critics felt that Lamar's radio-friendly verses were out of league with his well-known aggressive flow. The first being that Lamar is repeated three times in one sentence. I would avoid that. And I still do not think the "out of league" wording really works or makes sense so I would use an alternative.

Reworded

I do not find this part, awarded the song four and half stars out of five, to be particularly helpful. Also, for the same sentence, I would avoid using single-word quotations. I would avoid using these types of quotes throughout the article as a whole.

Removed single-word quotations. Kept the rating because it showed how enthusiastic the publication was towards the song

Fair point. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, wrote that they "[wished] the song, why not just say wrote that they wished "the song instead?

Done

Music video

The flow is not quite right in the beginning of the first paragraph, specifically the rather short second sentence. It reads rather choppy to me, and I would re-examine this part. I would also avoid starting two sentences in a row with "It" as it also makes the prose less compelling.

Done

As I said in the lead, I do not think squad needs to be in quotation marks.
For this part, Arsyn double crosses Catastrophe by stealing the briefcase in Catastrophe's hand, I would avoid repeating Catastrophe twice.

Done

I am uncertain about the structure of the last paragraph as it jumps across multiple different topics, from positive reviews to negative reviews to the view count. I am wondering if there is a way to make this more seamless or cut into multiple paragraphs? I also think the part about the video's anti-feminist message needs to be expanded on to explain why critics thought this. I remember there was a lot of pushback against the whole squad thing at the time.

Added some bits regarding criticism towards the squad

Thank you. This section looks very good. Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

I do not think this section is needed, and I would instead incorporate the awards given to the song into the "Critical reception" section and the awards given to the music video to the "Music video" section. That may actually make a separate paragraph on the positive reviews in the "Music video" section.

I don't think awards like People's Choice or Teen Choice can fit under either "Critical reception" or "Music video", so I grouped them under a single "Accolades" section instead. Hope that makes sense :)

Understandable. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other versions and usage

I would rename this section to "Live performances and other usage" as you have done in the "Style" (Taylor Swift song) article.

Done

For this part, released a parody video based on "Bad Blood", titled "Bat Blood", which was released in, I would avoid repeating "released" twice in the same sentence.

Done

For the second paragraph, I would re-examine the prose because it currently reads more like a list rather than a cohesive paragraph. It may be helpful to change up the sentence structures to avoid this.

Hmm.. any suggestions?

Apologies for the weird formatting in this bullet point. That was an accident on my part. My main concern was that it read more like a check-list of all the different things that the song appeared, but I am uncertain on how to better improve myself upon further inspection. I was likely over-thinking this part, and it should be fine in its current format. Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is discouraged to use "then" like it is done for this part, the then-upcoming film Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Done

Final comments

These are my final comments. I hope this is helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I have addressed your concerns as above. Thank you so much for the review. Hope you're having a great week so far! HĐ (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Thank you for addressing everything. I actually really appreciate that you pushed back on several points because you are right there and I enjoyed reading your point of view. I have never worked on an article about a song with this level of success so I always have massive amounts of respect for editors who can balance out all of the coverage.
The only thing left to be addressed is the Collateral article. I can request for you and send it to you by email if you prefer. I have used the resource request several times in the past, and I usually get it within a day or two. I am not entirely sure how useful the source is since I do not have full access to it, but I just want to make sure that is addressed before I pass this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: If possible I'd very much appreciate your help in obtaining the source! To be honest this is my least favorite Swift song, but I'm doing this with hopes of promoting 1989 as a featured topic (which is ambitious I gotta say), HĐ (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the mix-up with the sources. You are doing a great job with all of the 1989 articles. Nothing wrong with being ambitious. Good luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Why does the link to The Feminist Manifesto by Taylor Swift: Boss Babes, Fit Girls and Welvin Da Great lead not to a Collateral article, but to THE PORTRAYAL OF POWER FEMINISM IN CATASTROPHE’S CHARACTER AS A STRONG WOMAN IN TAYLOR SWIFT’S BAD BLOOD MUSIC VIDEO, an undergraduate thesis (skripsi) from Airlangga University? I don't think that thesis is useful for the article. This link might work instead and it appears to led me to an open access article. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanif Al Husaini: Thank you for the correction. I must have accidentally attached the wrong link. I am not sure how that happens. Thank you for the link to the open access article. Pinging @HĐ: so they know that the article is available. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hanif Al Husaini and Aoba47! I have incorporated the journal article into the prose. Let me know what you think, HĐ (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments, and thank you again to Hanif Al Husaini. I will ✓ Pass this. Great work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]