Talk:Dress (Taylor Swift song)/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Strengths

 * The image of Swift is appropriate and the audio clip is well-selected and justified by commentary. (It's sad when there's no art for the infobox but outside our control.)
 * Source reliability is excellent, including the publications I had to investigate. The PopMatters author is a professional critic; AllMusic is used as a review (fine by WP:ALLMUSIC) and its author is the senior editor; musicOMH looks reliable and respectable.
 * I'm happy with both breadth and focus. The "Background" section is relevant to Reputation as a concept album about, well, reputation.

Action points

 * The audio rationale has some boilerplate text that doesn't apply: "The use of a low resolution screenshot from software or a website" and "The software or website from which the screenshot is taken".
 * "swirling synths" is used three times but as far as I can tell this isn't a technical term and none of the inline citations say "swirl". Unless there's a specific piece of information about the synths to convey (like 'high-pitched', 'prominently used', 'disorienting') then "synth-pop" may already cover it. Same with "propelling synths" (not in the source).
 * The ARIA reference has an error. Might be worth checking in the other GANs as I remember this was also broken at "Message in a Bottle".
 * In "Background", I think "Dress" should be mentioned as appearing on Reputation, as a reader might reasonably be confused about whether it's a song from 1989.
 * "Later reviews have remained" could simply be "Later reviews remained" (or "Retrospective reviews" if that causes less of a future/past tense clash).
 * said Prince's "If I Was Your Girlfriend" (1987) as a reference point – should be "named", not "said"
 * "hands cannot stop shaking from anticipation" – the tense is weird here. I think "hands shaking from anticipation" gives the same information more concisely, or "hands that cannot stop ..." would just change the tense.
 * "The lyrics received extensive critical commentary with regards to Swift's artistry and image." – This could be a bit more descriptive and less dry, like "There was extensive critical commentary about how the sexual lyrics developed Swift's image."
 * whose romantic relationships had been publicized in the press "and yet, for the most part, these affairs have felt entirely unsexed, devoid of any real emotion" – I think this quote can be halved without loss of information e.g. whose romantic relationships had been presented "entirely unsexed, devoid of any real emotion", in the press.
 * "taking the dress of" – should be "off"
 * the lyric, "I only bought this dress so you could take it off", was and repeatedly sings, "Take it off", signified – per MOS:QUOTEPUNCT, dropping the commas here would definitely be acceptable. I'd prefer this over the double comma, which is generally used to add information that the sentence would still be complete without.
 * I think there's more to say in "Release" about the relevance of Fuller and the Reputation Tour performance: Fuller's serpentine dance was denied copyright protections; and Swift's first six albums masters, Reputation included, were not owned by her.
 * The sentence Although "Dress" did not chart ... would make more sense to me after the first release sentence then after the subsequent Reptuation/Eras performance information.
 * ranked "Dress" among the 22 "underrated Taylor Swift songs" – not sure this quite makes sense. Maybe categorized "Dress" as one of 22 "underrated Taylor Swift songs"?
 * Maybe it's just personal preference, but in "Personnel" I'd prefer a full sentence like "Credits are adapted from the ...", or at least a colon at the end.
 * The infobox lists the studio as "Rough Customer (Brooklyn)", without a clear source—is this from liner notes?
 * Yes that's where the info came from. It is also covered in the "Music and lyrics" section. Gained (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead should say something about the sexual lyrics being a new development in Swift's public image. Its last sentence might also be made more interesting with a brief mention of Fuller.

Another interesting Swift article about a relatively minor song that is still rich in history and musicality. I've done spotchecks throughout, with issues noted above. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello again @Bilorv! Thank you for reviewing the article. I believe all of your points are now addressed. Gained (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, ! Just a couple of tiny things:
 * Taylor Swift masters dispute can be linked
 * "Critics extensively discussed about how" – "about" isn't needed
 * Critics generally praised "Dress", who discussed it regarding its sexual lyrics adding a new aspect to Swift's artistry and image – I think, reading literally, the "who" would be "the song 'Dress'" rather than "critics", so this needs rewording (like Critically generally praised "Dress" and discussed its sexual lyrics ...).
 * As last time, I think a link to the ARIA website is better than to Dropbox, even if the reader has to traverse a couple of extra web pages to get to the same place. Dropbox doesn't have a system of verifying users' authenticity, so far as I know. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have addressed everything @Bilorv, except for the third point as it was rephrased by Ippantekina and I think that solves the problem you pointed out. Gained (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'd like to point out that the Dropbox link was created by the ARIA themselves (general Dropbox links containing historical certifications can be retrieved RIA's "Latest accreditations" in the "Resources" section). Ippantekina (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my concern is in a reader verifying its authenticity, which is easier to do from ARIA's website than a Dropbox link. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, this fixes everything. Pass for GA and thanks to all those who've put hard work into it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)