Talk:Sparks Fly (song)/GA3

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis (talk · contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! Thanks for nominating this article for GA status! I'm looking forwards to doing my little part with the review! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Vocem Virtutis:. Thank you for reviewing this article. Once you complete the review, please ping me or tag the talk page with onhold. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vocem Virtutis:, I have addressed your comments. Let me know if the article needs more work. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll give it another look! Thank you much! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Template:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Initial Thoughts[edit]

What I notice right off the bat when reviewing this, and something I'm sure you've already seen, is that this article was previously rated at GA status and was delisted. I've gone ahead and run through the article and taken care of hitting a few points of the review that look good to me, but a major part of this review will include my going through the previous review that delisted this article. I imagine that you've probably already tackled several of those complaints, but I'll obviously have to go through them in more detail. Still, the article was at GA status once, and I definitely think we can get it there again. Looking forwards to working with you!

After an initial comparison of the state of the article now versus when it was delisted, there has been clear and substantial improvement. I'm almost entirely satisfied with the solutions taken to issues that the GA2 review covered. That said, I suspect there might be just a couple slips that have entered into the article, so I'll cover those below.

Unresolved Issues[edit]

Lead

I took care of a couple small grammar issues.

As noted in the GA2 Review, there is no need to have "music critics" wikilinked.

Done

Infobox

Looks good to me!

Background and Release

Again, looks good!

Music and Lyrics

A bit nitpicky, but I want to mention "According to Swift, the song is about a dangerous love affair one could not resist because the two have such a strong connection and chemistry." This sentence doesn't really have an object in relation to "the two." Maybe it would be better phrased "According to Swift, the song is about a dangerous love affair one could not resist because the couple involved have such a strong connection and chemistry." or something similar.

Done

The sentence "The uptempo track combines country, pop, pop rock, and arena rock with a production incorporating dynamic electric guitars and subtle fiddles." is almost an exact copy of a sentence found in the lead. The lead is meant to summarize information, so these two sentences should not be near carbon-copies of one another.

Done

"The love-in-the-rain imagery recalls that on many of Swift's previous songs from her second album Fearless (2008), including the title track, "Hey Stephen", and "Forever & Always"." I'm not entirely sure what "that" is referring to. The sentence should be rewritten and clarified.

Done

Critical Reception

"Erin Thompson of Seattle Weekly commented the rain imagery on "Sparks Fly" represented Swift's lack of repertoire in her songwriting. On a more negative side, John J. Moser from The Morning Call and Mikael Wood from Spin considered it one of the album's weakest tracks." I think both of these critics seem to be responding "on a more negative side." Maybe just move that to the beginning of the sentence about Ms. Thompson?

Done Ippantekina (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

"Publisher of the yEar"

Done Ippantekina (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Performance:

From GA2: "Debut positions and overall peaks are the most important details for charting, and adding a re-entry much lower than what it originally reached can be cut per WP:CHARTTRAJ"

"On Billboard's Hot Country Songs chart, which monitored US country airplay, the song peaked at number one on the chart dated November 26, 2011, and spent 21 weeks." Spent 21 weeks what/where? The sentence feels a bit incomplete.

Done

"The single was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for surpassing one million units and, as of November 2017, had sold 1.1 million digital copies in the United States." I s there any chance of finding a statistic more recent than 2017?

Not done Unfortunately, no. 2017 is the most recent update I could get. Ippantekina (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well; if that's what we've got, that's what we've got. Vocem Virtutis (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live Performance:

In the GA2 review, the reviewer questioned why only a single critic's review was included in the Live Performance section of the article. Now, the review of the single critic is not mentioned at all in this section. I can't imagine that there weren't any other reviews available, so I was curious as to why that review was removed and no others were added to the section.

I personally don't find critical reviews of live performances constructive; I also followed other FAs like "Shake It Off" or "Blank Space" where there are no critical reviews (or so) of live performances. Ippantekina (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking those FA's, I follow what you mean. I agree with the previous reviewer when they say that having just one critical review doesn't feel very encompassing. On the other hand, I would actually agree with you that, given the nature of live performance, the constructiveness of a review is questionable at best. All that considered, I'm happy with where this section is now. Vocem Virtutis (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the end of the second paragraph, I think the sentences get a bit clunky with "Swift later included the track... sang the song... sang the song... performed the track." A little spice here might make it roll of the tongue just a bit better.

Done

"Vancouver" and "Columbus" should match in being wikilinked.

Done

Music Video

I haven't made it to checking the sources quite yet, but "eye-popping visuals" sounds like a phrase from one of the sources. If so, it may be better to either make that a direct quote, or leave that phrase out of the sentence. In my mind, it runs a little borderline on the neutrality criteria if no source is being directly cited.

Charts

Looks good!

Certifications

Looks good!

Release History

Looks good!

Final Review[edit]

I am passing this good article review on Taylor Swift's song "Sparks Fly". I believe it meets all six criteria necessary to be considered a good article. The article is well-written, stable, and neutral in point of view. The nominator of the article has corrected the flaws in the article that resulted in the previous delisting, such as making the use of media within the article appropriate to MOS standards and properly citing parts of reviews that originally were out of context. The sources for the article have been checked, and any changes to the article necessary for the sake of verifiability have been made. Finally, all illustrations in the review are relevant and used properly, with appropriate captions. The article, as written now, is a vest improvement over the article that is was previously that resulted in its delisting. Vocem Virtutis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]