Talk:Evil Twin (song)/GA1

GA Review

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: Paparazzzi (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expect a review soon. --Paparazzzi (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

I believe the pop genre is redundant when it is also stated that it is an electropop song
The lead can be extended, detailing what critics said about the song
Apparently this song was performed live. Please add information about the track's live performances

Background

new favorite song on her upcoming third major-label studio album was "Evil Twin".[1] The next day, she described the song... change the last "song" with "track"
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" adding that it is about all those things people think about to themselves and that "everyone's got an evil twin in them"." this read awkward, please reword it

More to come.--Paparazzzi (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the following sentence should be included on the composition section instead, since it does not disclose anything about the song's development: "The next day, she described the song in an interview with Entertainment Tonight by saying "why did I say that? That is my evil twin, that wasn't me! I am innocent!", adding that it is about all those things people think about to themselves and that "everyone's got an evil twin in them"."

Composition

Mention the length of the track and its genre at the beginning of the second paragraph
- The first sentence already mentions "electronic pop", so I think this would be redundant. Also, I don't normally see track lengths in song articles. If required to pass your GA review, fine, but seems unnecessary when mentioned in infobox. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph should be moved to the Background section, since it is information about the development of the track
- I disagree. These claims are about who made the track itself, not the song's development. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

I believe there are too many quotes on this particular section. Many of the critics' comments can be reworded
- I've removed one of the extended quotes altogether and done a little reworking here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Divide the section into two paragraphs
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Copyvio: Violation Unlikely with 33.3% confidence Everything fine here
Ref 3, Background section: "to January 25, 2019, because she wanted to add more songs to it, and removed it from iTunes that month"... The info in bold does not appear on the source. Also, I think it would be important to clarify in that sentence that the album was eventually not released on January 25.
Background: Ref 4 could be removed and instead you could use ref 6 to support the sentence ""You've waited long enough.. #EVILTWIN comes out Friday 😎 listen for my entire family on the backgrounds!"
Background: "Thus, it was one of the few songs from the original version of Treat Myself to make the final cut." This is not supported by ref 9.
In Ref. 18 the song is described as a "disco-influenced pop bop"... I think the "disco" part could be included in the composition section, as something like, ""Evil Twin" is an electropop song with elements of disco music" or something like that
Is Soundigest reliable? it looks like a blog
- I'm not really sure. Here's there 'About Us' page. I don't feel strongly about keeping if you think removing is best. The claim is not contentious so I don't feel strongly about removing either. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I went ahead and removed this source, which also got rid of one of the extended quotes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Add information about the release of the Lyric video
- I'm not finding secondary coverage but the link appears in the External links section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Meghan Trainor look so big?
- Do you mean the navigation template? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Another Believer: Yes! OMG, I meant to say "Meghan Trainor template", HAHAHAHAHA.--Paparazzzi (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Paparazzzi, Good question. I'm not identifying the cause. If you don't mind, I'm going to ping User:Jonesey95, who seems to know everything when I get stuck on anything related to markup. Any ideas? :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is is better now? There was a stray {{col-begin}} template that was mismatched and apparently causing a little extra box above the navbox. I also tidied some quote mark formatting. If the navbox still looks "so big", I don't think it's a problem with this article; it just has a lot of types of articles in it. You could set it to be collapsed by default if you wanted to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonesey95, Yes, resolved, thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are my comments. I'm going to put this on hold. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to address all the issues with the infobox, lead and background sections. Let me know if there are any more issues with those. I will let AB get to the other sections since he pretty much wrote those alone. Regards, N Ø 09:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think all concerns have been addressed. Looking pretty good to me overall, but ready for Paparazzzi's review. Thanks, both! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since my comments have been addressed, I'm going to pass this article. Congratulations! Paparazzzi (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2020 (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.