Talk:Welcome to New York (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: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 15:17, 9 December 2020 (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

I will take this on soon to help you in getting a large number of GAs for Taylor Swift. --K. Peake 15:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Infobox looks good
  • "for her fifth studio album" → "for her fifth studio album,"
  • "Written and produced by" → "The song was written and produced by both" since the writing/production and comp/lyrics should be in different sentences to move the lead to the correct order
  • The release sentence should be directly after the writing/production one
  • "the synth-pop song equipped with pulsating synthesizers explores" → "A synth-pop song equipped with pulsating synthesizers, it explores" as a separate sentence
  • "as a promotional single for 1989 through" → "as the album's second promotional single, through" with the target
  •  Not done per WP:NOTBROKEN, and that promo singles aren't required a chronology (I forgot where the consensus is at, but it's somewhere at WikiProject Songs talk page) HĐ (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change 1989 to the album though since you have referred by the title earlier in this para once but never wrote "the album" --K. Peake 07:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporary critics criticized the song's lyrics," → "Contemporary music critics criticized the lyrics of "Welcome to New York"," with the target
  •  Not done common terms should not be linked, or at least that's what I'm told by other editors, HĐ (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was something like guitar or piano then your statement would hold water, but this is targeting music critics to the relevant article. Also, you should mention the song's title as instructed because reading "the song" twice in the same sentence is very awkward --K. Peake 07:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lacked substance compared to" → "lacks substance compared to"
  • "A few others" → "A number of others"
  • "equality, and praised" → "equality, and some critics praised"
  •  Not done They are the same critics, HĐ (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It reached the" → "The song reached the"
  • Target New Zealand Singles Chart to Official New Zealand Music Chart
  • "the top 20 on charts" → "the top 20 of the charts"
  • ""Welcome to New York" reached" → "the song reached"
  •  Not done Wouldn't "the song" be repetitive? HĐ (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this context, you should put the song since it's title has already been mentioned in this para --K. Peake 07:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done all except where noted. Thank you for taking time reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background and development[edit]

  •  Not done not very useful to target 1980s to an article that lists all trends of the era, while "1980s synth-pop" at present is more appropriate, HĐ (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done first instance in an article should be linked HĐ (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and incorporate a straightforward" → "and incorporate straightforward"
  • "for her fifth studio album," → "for her fifth studio album"
  • Remove target on 1989
  • "headlining world tour in support" → "headlining world tour of the same name in support" to specify it is The Red Tour, or maybe a different wording that makes this clear if the one suggested seems confusing or awkward to you?
  • Add release year of Red in brackets
  • "for the album's conception," → "for 1989's conception,"
  • "To this end," → "To this endlessness,"
  •  Not done "to this end" is grammatically correct, HĐ (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done all except where noted, HĐ (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Production and composition[edit]

  • Audio sample text looks great but you should add refs to it despite the info already being sourced in prose, since the prompted part is only mentioned in the previous section's prose
  • "lyrics and approached Tedder" → "lyrics, before approaching Tedder"
  • Target programming to Programming (music)
  • Remove wikilink on synthesizer
  • "the producers of the song were Tedder, Swift, and" → "the song was produced by Swift, Tedder, and" since that is the order given in the infobox
  • Why have you not changed the order? --K. Peake 08:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was" → "it was"
  • "It was mastered" → "The song was mastered"
  • Target Sterling Sound Studio to Sterling Sound Studios per MOS:LINK2SECT
  • The opening track info belongs in the release and commercial performance section instead as the third sentence of the first para, also mention the date it was released as the opening track on the album
  •  Not done Placing it here will link to the fact that some critics appreciated its role as an opening track that sets the tone for the album in the "Critical reception" section, HĐ (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a bright" → ""Welcome to New York" is a bright"
  • "length of three minutes and thirty-two seconds (3:32)." → "length of 3:32."
  • @Kyle Peake: 3:32 can be mistaken as three hours and 32 minutes, so I don't change it, HĐ (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dramatize failed relationships," → "dramatizes failed relationships,"
  • "viewed the lines" → "viewed the lyrics"
  •  Done all except where noted

Critical reception[edit]

  • Img should be in the live performances and other usage section instead, plus a full-stop is needed at the end of the text
  • The full stop should only be there if it's a full sentence, and in this case it's not, HĐ (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received mixed reviews from contemporary critics," → "was met with mixed reviews from contemporary music critics," with the target
  •  Not done
  • @Kyle Peake: I linked music critics, but what's wrong with the wording "received mixed reviews"? HĐ (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be "was met with" in the body when it is "received" in the lead --K. Peake 08:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kyle Peake: I don't see any rule saying it should be that way, but fine, HĐ (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gothamist should not be italicised
  • Remove or replace Jezebel per WP:SELFPUB
  • "without bodyguards," and defended" → "without bodyguards", and defended"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more positive side," → "more positive note,"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stated that it was a" → "stated that the song is a"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "carefree attitude; and opined" → "carefree attitude, and opined"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PopMatters's Corey Baesley acknowledged" → "PopMatters' Corey Baesley acknowledged"
    Done. Though technically correct (I discovered after researching when I was about to report it as a typo to NYT), I am glad that I am not the only one who finds "s's" improper. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:POSS says that "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound, when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake)." Does that mean that PopMatters's is the correct one according to MOS, since PopMatters is a singular noun? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hanif Al Husaini: technically, yes, it should be properly written out as PopMatters's and Adams's. Since some editors may find this confusing, however, I'd change to something else, HĐ (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Release and commercial performance[edit]

  • "on iTunes on" → "via the iTunes Store on" with the wikilink
    Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swift released a 30-second sampler" → Swift shared a 30-second sample"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The single was" → "The song was later" for context and because it is only a promo single
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for selling one million units in the United States." → "for selling 1,000,000 units in the US."
  • @Kyle Peake: same concern with the nitpick-y nature of these ... what's the huge difference between "one million" and "1,000,000"? HĐ (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is only one million, shouldn't you write the actual number? --K. Peake 08:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kyle Peake: What do you mean? They are equivalent in meaning and notation, HĐ (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • HĐ Per MOS:NUM, it seems writing out not as a number for millions is more commonly used for larger amounts than just one. --K. Peake 09:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It seems" does not necessarily equate to a fixed rule (I don't see any specific indication that one million should be 1,000,000 and not the other way). But fine, if that's what you think appropriate for this situation, HĐ (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a top-ten hit in" → "was a top 10 hit in" per MOS:NUM
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target New Zealand Singles Chart to Official New Zealand Music Chart
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on record charts of" → "on the record charts of"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure the top 40 positions for all of the countries should in brackets, as it does make for tedious reading somewhat?
  • "Denmark (27)[40] and the United Kingdom (39)." → "Denmark (27),[40] and the United Kingdom (39)."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances and other usage[edit]

  • 1989 Secret Sessions should not be surrounded by speech marks
  •  Not done I don't understand why, HĐ (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the title of a song or anything similar, so why speech marks? You wouldn't surround a tour by them... --K. Peake 08:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't a tour, but a special concert unconventional to usual touring. HĐ (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being unspecific, I meant that comment in the context of anything like a tour, which the concert obviously is --K. Peake 08:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the promotion of 1989," → "of the promotion for the album,"
  • "on televised shows including" → "on televised shows, including"
  • Target acoustic to Acoustic music
  • "for his album" → "for his 15th studio album"
  •  Not done reworded; and I don't think "15th studio album" would help much.. HĐ (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Swift's album 1989." → "of Swift's album of the same name."
  • "Adams's version incorporates acoustic guitar" → "Adams' version incorporates acoustic guitar" with the wikilink
  • Wikilink strums
  • "on Adams's 1989." → "on Adams' 1989."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Credits and personnel[edit]

Charts[edit]

  • Why have you done that? --K. Peake 08:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per usage The main usage case is when a table is placed immediately below a heading, where the heading is effectively identical to the table's caption. Caption and heading are identical in this case, HĐ (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications[edit]

  • See MOS:TABLECAPTION

References[edit]

  • Copyvio score looks decent at 31.0%; ignore the higher scores since none of those sources appear in this article
  • Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
  • Ref 4 is a duplicate of ref 1
  • Cite E! Online as work/website instead for ref 5
  • Same as above for American Top 40 on ref 6
  • WP:OVERLINK of Taylor Swift on ref 9
  • Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 10
  • WP:OVERLINK of Time on refs 19 and 20
  • Remove or replace ref 23 per WP:SELFPUB
  • WP:OVERLINK of Entertainment Weekly on ref 24
  • WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on refs 26, 31 and 44
  • Ref 33 is useless, as you can invoke the certification from the table in the release and commercial performance section instead by using a refname
  • Cite Yahoo! as publisher instead for ref 47
  • WP:OVERLINK of The A.V. Club on ref 48
  • WP:OVERLINK of Consequence of Sound on ref 49
  • Per WP:OVERLINK: Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=[[The Guardian]].

Final comments and verdict[edit]

  •  On hold after reviewing in less than 24 hours, though do not feel to clarify with me if you are unsure about implementing any changes like you did during the first stage! --K. Peake 13:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Kyle Peake:, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, except where I replied as above. Thank you for reviewing the article, and I hope my explanation is appropriate, HĐ (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ Nice timing with the response, though you have missed some points which I have pointed out above after doing some brief copy editing and why has the smartphone mentioned been removed? --K. Peake 08:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Responded as above... pretty sure I removed smartphone by mistake, but shouldn't it be left like that because it's a fairly common term? HĐ (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ Still a few fixes left, which I have pointed out just now above (though the charts and certifications captions still need to be added too). Also, it is fine to wikilink that because it is not as common as the actual term phone. --K. Peake 08:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ A little back and forth, but we solved any differences in the end. ✓ Pass for this article now! --K. Peake 09:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Welcome_to_New_York_(song)/GA1&oldid=993576479"