Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/How You Get the Girl/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How You Get the Girl

[edit]

How You Get the Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 18 December 2024, 06:03 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song from Taylor Swift's 2014 album 1989. It was used in a Diet Coke commercial that stars the second-richest cat in the world, Olivia Benson, and has been performed in Swift's world tours since 2015. Fun fact—the choreography of the 1989 World Tour's performance was compared by several publications to Singin' in the Rain (1952).

I would like to thank Ippantekina, Dxneo, Gained, Heartfox, Brachy0008, and MaranoFan for being generous enough to participate in the PR and provide some constructive and helpful comments. Following the peer review, I believe the article is ready to be a FA, and I would appreciate any comment from everyone including the peer reviewers. Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support. article looks really great and as a final note, im really proud of you (and how you've helped grown the article). thanks for everything. =D brachy08 (chat here lol) 10:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so so much, Brachy! This means a lot to me :)) Medxvo (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ur welcome =D brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "Some critics praised the song as catchy and energetic: they particularly highlighted the chorus and how the track combines acoustic and electronic elements" → maybe semicolon rather than colon? – the first statement doesn't really "introduce" the second
  • "It incorporates" → The record incorporates
  • "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe, who had produced her" → "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe; the pair had produced her"
  • "Swift sings in the outro of the song, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl". The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending." → "The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending. Swift sings, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl"."
  • "Reviewing "How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version)", critics praised the song's production and energetic sound; The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber deemed it one of 1989 (Taylor's Version)'s adrenaline-pumping and centerpiece tracks and Slant Magazine's Jonathan Keefe commented that the production "packs even greater heft" on the new version and considered it one of the tracks that validates the re-recorded album" → too much for one sentence
  • "reached number four on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart" → the date would be relevant
  • ""How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version) reached number 29" → missing last song title quote mark
  • suggest replacing E! with a better source of possible

Best, Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Heartfox: Thanks for the comments! I believe I've addressed all of them, let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Hope you're doing well :) Medxvo (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. Heartfox (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]

Thanks for the ping! I will read through the article again during the weekend to make sure I did not miss anything at the PR. Just two comments for now.

  • The names and locations of studios in the infobox seem to be separated by brackets instead of commas on the other 1989 articles.
  • The sample caption does not need a period as there is no main verb.--NØ 19:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting these, should be done now :) Hope you're having a good day! Medxvo (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. NØ 11:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Image use, placement and licence/rationale seem OK to me. Seems like source formatting and reliability are OK as well. Is 2023 Independent still reliable, though? Spot-check of this version:

  • 12 OK
  • 13 OK
  • 17 OK
  • 27 Need help with the first sentence about Marah Eakin. Not sure what it supports in the footnote.
  • 29 OK
  • 33 This does not link shimmery and Gibson
  • It says "'How You Get The Girl' has a Debbie Gibson sparkle to it"... I tried to paraphrase the "sparkle" thing to minimize the one-word quotes. Would it need to be "while Stereogum's Tom Breihan thought that it had the "sparkle" of Debbie Gibson's music" or is it okay as it is now? Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36 OK
  • 46 OK, but might want to put a different source for "Several reviewers" as this one's only about one reviewer.
  • Do you mean the "Some critics considered the lyrics straightforward and underwhelming" sentence? This should be the paragraph's topic sentence that summarizes the whole paragraph, as advised at WP:RECEPTION. Wood and Larocca both criticized the lyricism, as well as the other reviewers who criticized its poor quality. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 47 OK
  • 50 Where's "centerpiece"? Also, the comment about #46 applies here too.
  • It says "The heart of 1989 lay in adrenaline-shot anthems such as 'All You Had to Do Was Stay' and 'How You Get the Girl'". I think "the heart of the album lay in the track" means that it is a centerpiece track, no...? I've written the topic sentence as per WP:RECEPTION here as well, which should summarize the paragraph statements. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 53 Where's "five worst"?
  • The article is for the five best and the five worst songs from the album. Ahlgrim wrote the five best first ("Blank Space", "Style", "Wildest Dreams", "Clean", and "New Romantics"), then the five worst ("Welcome to New York", "Shake It Off", "Bad Blood", "How You Get the Girl", and "You Are in Love"). Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54 OK
  • 57 Where's 200,000?
  • 61 Where does it specify female?
  • 69 Don't see "singing in the rain"
  • 71 and 72 Only supports the first part of the sentence, as 72 doesn't mention "How You..."
  • Ref 71 mentions that it is the second Dublin show (and that she sang "Mean" at the first Dublin show), and says that it was an acoustic performance. Ref 72 says that it was "night one in Sydney" and that it also was an acoustic guitar performance. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 74 OK
  • 76 OK
  • 85 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks so much for the review. I've replaced the 2023 Independent source with the Apple Music source which supports the provided information (the track's title and the release date). I've also left some comments above regarding your concerns, please let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The two remaining issues should be done with this edit. Is there any remaining issue or is everything OK now? I hope you're having a good day and thanks so much again for your help and your time :) Medxvo (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

Just for clarification, I am working from this version of the article. My comments are below:

  • I would simplify "has a balladic production" to "is a ballad" instead as it is more concise.
  • Done
  • For this part, "The lyrics see Swift", I would suggest using a different word than "see" as lyrics cannot really "see" anything.
  • Changed to "find", feel free to tell me if you have a better option
  • Why not make a separate section for the re-recording as done for something like "Style" (Taylor Swift song)? There would appear to be enough information to support it as there is the background for the re-recording process, the release of 1989 (Taylor's Version), and the production credits for the new version, as well its critical and commercial reception. If you are worried about the "Background and releases" section being too short, you could move the chart information for the original version up there, like what is done for "Labyrinth" (Taylor Swift song). I was thinking that it would be more helpful to include all the information about the re-recording, infobox and all, in a single spot for readers to more easily access.
  • Uhhh.... This is such a significant change, but it's done. I also think that it would be more helpful this way. Please let me know how it looks now...?
  • It is more about restructuring the article and not about adding in new material so while it does make a significant change, I do not believe that this request would be considered too much for a FAC. Either way, I think the changes improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The re-recording infobox includes a link to the lyric video, but the original infobox does not have a link. To be consistent, it would be beneficial to link the music video there.
  • I think it doesn't have neither a music video nor a lyric video
  • I believe the Red in Citation 5 should be italicized as it is a reference to the album title. I would double check all of the citation titles to make sure that the album titles are italicized.
  • I have double checked multiple times before, but I didn't think that this one should be italicized because it's.. Red Alert which imo is a completely different thing...? It should be done anyways
  • For the citations, be consistent on whether both work/website and publisher are being (as in Citation 5) or just the work or the publisher (as in Citation 2). I do not think that a publisher is necessary for well-known stuff, and it appears that Citation 5 may be an oddity in the regard, but I still want to point this out in case I missed other instances of this.
  • I think only refs 5 and 11 have both of the website and publisher, and that's because their articles are being published by their parent company, NBC/The Recording Academy. Should the publisher parameter for these two citations be removed?
  • The author for Citation 40 reads Tucker Ken, rather than Ken Tucker.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Should be done

I hope that these comments are helpful for so far. I have not seen anything major. My comments are mostly nitpicks and clarification questions. I have only covered the lead and done a quick look at the citations, but I wanted to post at least a start for my review. I will try to post further comments over the weekend. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for these helpful comments. I believe most of them are addressed now; I've left some comments above. Medxvo (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a suggestion so feel free to disagree with it. It may be nice to link catchy to give readers a broader context for it, but I can also understand if you decide against this as it is a rather well-known idea. Again, this more of an idea than anything else.
  • Done
  • I think it would nice to expand on Courteney Larocca's criticism for the song. I was actually questioning if any of the reviewers criticized the song for providing a plan for a man to force his way back into a relationship after he was the one to ruin the relationship. I find the parts regarding Larocca's review to be rather vague, and it could benefit from some expansion, while still keep it brief.
  • Should be done
  • For this part, (who was in the audience watching the show), I do not think that the "watching the show" part is necessary as I think readers would already know that by him being in the audience, he is watching the performance.
  • Should be done
  • It may be good to position File:Taylor Swift 7 (18912291189).jpg to the left as I know that some editors do not like when a person in a photo looks away from the article or off the page. It is not a major deal in my opinion so feel free to disregard this point, but I still thought it was worth raising to your attention anyway.
  • I didn't really like how it looks. It made the section look a bit disorganized
  • I would make the part on the Ryan Adams cover into its own paragraph as having it in the same paragraph with the Diet Coke advertisement leads to a more awkward transition in my opinion as they are both unrelated to one another.
  • How does it look now? Should the Diet Coke part be moved after the live performances or is it OK now?
  • It may be good to briefly include a part about the critical response to the re-recording in the lead.
  • Should be done
  • This is more of a nitpick, but I would avoid repeating "song" in this part, (likened the song's production to that of Radio Disney songs) if possible. An alternative idea could be "to music on Radio Disney".'
  • Done

I believe that this should be it for my review. Wonderful work. I do not notice any major issues. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoba47: Thanks so much again for the helpful review. I believe the comments should be done, I've also left some comments above. Medxvo (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/How_You_Get_the_Girl/archive1&oldid=1263058258"