Talk:"Slut!"/GA1
Add topicGA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 00:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Will begin soon. Skyshiftertalk 00:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
General comments
[edit]- Image and audio files have valid fair use rationales
- No copyvio — the link at the top just copies from this article. Other sources are slightly high for citing the song's own lyrics, which is fine.
Infobox and lead
[edit]- Ok
Background
[edit]- Ok
Release
[edit]- I am unsure if the last paragraph should be here. I think it would fit best in "Background". "Release" should only talk about the 1989 (Taylor's Version)-related aspect of the release, IMO.
- Added to a new section called "Release and commercial performance".
- I've added a missing exclamation mark.
- Thanks!
Production and lyrics
[edit]- You joined three references for the "a gentle and tender track" sentence (2nd para), but didn't for the "intense romance" (3rd para) sentence. I think that should be consistent.
- Done.
- The lyric [...] drew comparisons to the lyrics [...] of "Blank Space" [...] - you should say that Bailey is the one who compared the lyrics
- Added more references to show that Bailey is not the only one.
Reception
[edit]- Barnes proceeds -> Barnes proceeded
- Tweaked.
- shouting "'Slut!'" -> I think this should be just be shouting "Slut!" because it refers to the word, not the title of the song?
- You're right. Fixed.
- reached at number three remove "at"
- Done.
Other sections
[edit]- "Credits and personnel", "Charts", "Certifications" and "Release history" are fine. I've added a missing exclamation mark for "Certifications".
- All references are properly formatted. I've noticed you wrote %22Slut!%22 for the title in some chart templates because the URL needs those. I'm not sure what is the best course of action here. I think that formatting those references manually instead of using {{single chart}} would be the best solution.
Spot-check
[edit]Randomly chose 13, 20, 24, 26, 35, 37,42, 48. All of them check out, except for 20 - it does confirm that the media portrayed Swift as a "serial dater", but it doesn't mention "following a series of publicized romances with other male celebrities".
- Added sources to the ref #20.
On hold Skyshiftertalk 23:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Should be done now. Thanks for the review :) @Skyshifter: Ippantekina (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The %22Slut!%22 thing was not done, however I think it's minor. Note that for FA this change will probably be necessary. I am going to
Pass this article now, congratulations! Skyshiftertalk 10:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The %22Slut!%22 thing was not done, however I think it's minor. Note that for FA this change will probably be necessary. I am going to