Talk:Now That We Don't Talk/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Heartfox (talk · contribs) 03:44, 23 November 2023 (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.	"peaked at number two" → peaked at number two on music charts Suggest adding a sentence that precedes the four critic comparisons to other Swift songs in the "music and lyrics" section The critical reception paragraph can use more paraphrasing instead of quotes and a topic sentence like the one in the lead "most top-10 singles (49) and most top-five singles" → should use "songs" instead of "singles"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).	"Republic Records released Swift's fourth re-recorded album, 1989 (Taylor's Version), on October 27, 2023, on the ninth anniversary of her fifth original studio album, 1989 (2014)." → source? "the personnel" → she and the other personnel
	2c. it contains no original research.	"Witty" seems acceptable, but I am not really seeing a consensus that critics considered the song catchy or that some picked it as an album highlight
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Suggest adding a photo of swift in the 1989 era and an audio sample in the future
	7. Overall assessment.

Heartfox (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox, many thanks for taking up this review. Please ping me or put this GAN on hold once you finish examining the article. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina, the review is finished, sorry if that wasn't clear. Heartfox (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice, normally I'd expect an "onhold" message. I've addressed all points accordingly except the "catchy" part. I do believe the critical reviews cited in prose justify that point. Will add a sample in the future. Ippantekina (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: nudge, Ippantekina (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]