Jump to content

Talk:Seven (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 12:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hiya. I'll be reviewing this article and will try not to screw anything up. Pamzeis (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Totally forgot about this. Will make the changes and let you know! ℛonherry 09:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ronherry are you going to start? — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 03:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Yes. Sorry. Life has been busy. This totally slipped past my mind. Will do it today. ℛonherry 04:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • which was released on July 24, 2020, via Republic Records — the song or album?
  • "Seven" is a folk song with nostalgic lyricism blending present and past perspectives, which convey a 30-year-old Swift introspecting on her childhood and recalling the purity of her relationship with an old friend, and the then 7-year-old Swift incapable of understanding the domestic violence her friend experienced but realizing it years later, respectively. — is a very long sentence containing lots of information, some of which gets lost. Needs to be split or something I think
  • The song garnered universal acclaim from music critics, many of whom chose it as a standout on Folklore for dealing with a sensitive topic like child abuse, and lauded its experimental composition and Swift's "lustrous" vocals, in addition to the undertones indicating the subject's queerness. — is a lot of praise mentioned in the lead. I'm sure was deserved, but it just comes off as puffery; can this bit be trimmed?
  • simultaneously with the album's 15 other songs and alongside the album's 15 other songs — is this relevant for this article? I don't see how it could be unless the commercial success of the album's 15 other songs were impacted by "Seven"
  • a contrast to its "hazy" predecessor "Mirrorball" and the following track "August", which he viewed as the most pop song on the record — seems unnecessary to me, but is also kinda confusing 'cuz the track list for Folklore isn't established prior to this
  • On July 23, 2020, Swift announced that Folklore would come out at midnight — is there any way to explicitly say the album (and the song) came out on July 24?
  • over 14.4 million views as of October 2022 — any updates?
  • Can we explain what "surprise songs" are? I feel like non-Swifties would be unfamiliar with them
  • being dragged out of a — is there a way to avoid the idiom here?
  • also see Swift "pay tribute" to the innocence — who said this?
  • The lyric "Or hide in the closet" also possibly alludes to her friend's queerness — needs attribution
  • So... in #Composition and lyrics, the song refers to Swift as doing this and doing that. This, at least to me, presents these events as personal experiences that actually happened in her life. But from what I know about Folklore, it's an album of fictional perspective. So I think it needs to be clarified that Swift is singing as a character.
@Pamzeis: That's not entirely true as Swift says the album is a blend of both fact and fiction. It is Swift's most fictitious album, but is not a fictitious album entirely. Several critics also express the same views. In our case, "Seven" is considered a song inspired by Swift's actual childhood, as per a majority of critics. ℛonherry 10:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swift's catalogue back then — when is "then"? Folklore's release?

Sourcing

[edit]
  • universal acclaim — is not mentioned in the body
  • Swift's "lustrous" vocals — needs a source in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE
  • "Seven" was met with acclaim from music critics. — is there a source for this??
  • Are PopMatters and PopBuzz reliable sources?
@Pamzeis: PopMatters is a reliable source. It is a music outlet whose reviews and ratings are included for assessment on Metacritic. However, PopBuzz is not a reliable source. ℛonherry 10:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks (version reviewed):
    • fn 4: checkY
    • fn 7: checkY
    • fn 14: checkY
    • fn 24: checkY
    • fn 33: checkY
    • fn 43: checkY

Think that's it from me, so I'm putting this  on hold for now. Ping me in any replies! Pamzeis (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Hi! I apologize for the delay. I've implemented all your suggestions except the two where I've replied. ℛonherry 10:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

Second look

[edit]
  • "the tree swing in the woods of my childhood. Hushed tones of let's run away" and never doing it." — there's either a quote mark missing or an extra one in there
  • instrumented by flurrying piano — a flurrying piano?

Sorry for being pretty nitpicky with my review. This article is almost there, but has a few very minor issues (to call them issues, even, is an exaggeration). We're so close! Pamzeis (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! That's alright. ℛonherry 14:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis: Pinging you again in case you missed the notification! ℛonherry 06:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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

Third look

[edit]

I think that's a  pass from me :) Pamzeis (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ℛonherry 07:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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