Talk:Paper Rings/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Gained (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 18:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "with Big Machine." Shouldn't this be Big Machine Records?
• "background vocals, programmed and" to "background vocals and programmed and"
• "old-school background vocals shouting" maybe better as "old-school shouting background vocals"?
• "details reminisce Swift's" to "details are reminiscent of Swift's"
• Maybe add a photo of Swift or Antanoff, since the article doesn't have any photos?
• The commercial use section of the NFCC template has "The use of a low resolution screenshot [...]", which doesn't really make sense for an audio clip.
• Seems comprehensive enough for a song article and has all the sections I would expect.
• Refs are reliable and properly-formatted.
• Spot-checks: No issues except where noted.
  • Schwartz, Dana (August 23, 2019). "Review: On Lover, Taylor Swift Lays Down Her Armor". Time.
    • "jangly electric guitars" Schwartz just says jangly, not guitar, and the other ref there says only guitar,, not jangly. Putting them together is synth.
  • Lipshutz, Jason (August 23, 2019). "Every Song Ranked on Taylor Swift's Lover: Critic's Picks". Billboard.
    • See above.
  • Leszkiewicz, Anna (July 24, 2020). "Folklore Reveals a More Introspective Side to Taylor Swift". New Statesman.
  • Willman, Chris (August 23, 2019). "Album Review: Taylor Swift's Lover". Variety.
  • Empire, Kitty (August 24, 2019). "Taylor Swift: Lover review – a return to past glories". The Observer.
  • Petridis, Alexis (August 23, 2019). "Taylor Swift: Lover Review – Pop Dominator Wears Her Heart on Her Sleeve". The Guardian.
  • "The Spinoff reviews all 18 songs on Taylor Swift's Lover". The Spinoff.
  • Holmes, Dave (August 23, 2019). "When Taylor Swift Eases Up On the Self-Mythologizing, Lover Is Pretty Damn Good". Esquire.
• That's all I got.

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

Hello @AryKun, I have addressed all of the issues you stated :) Gained (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, will pass now. AryKun (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)