Talk:Labyrinth (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 00:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism): I reviewed all matches over 6% found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns - most matches are quoted lyrics or basic details. No problems wiht close paraphrasing found during spot checks or other reviews of sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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): No images; this is preferable to adding purely decorative ones.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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): No images; this is preferable to adding purely decorative ones.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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): No images; this is preferable to adding purely decorative ones.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Background
 * Optionally, could add "American" before singer-songwriter.
 * set for release on October 21, during her acceptance speech for Video of the Year for All Too Well: The Short Film at the 2022 MTV Video Music Awards - maybe rework the sentence, so that the unlikely reading that the release would be during her acceptance speech is ruled out.
 * Spot check on Soon after, Swift revealed the name of the album, Midnights, and its cover, accompanied with a premise, on social networks. The tracklist was not immediately revealed. - looks like the album title was revealed during the VMA speech, not "Soon after". I'm not sure, with the VMAs on August 28, an article dated August 28 could confirm that the promise to reveal mre at midnight was kept, as that would have been on August 29. Keeping the equivalent of "soon after" for the cover reveal seems suitable to deal with what's a minor inconsistency in the source dating. I'm not sure that the source specifically confirms that "The tracklist was not immediately revealed."
 * Jack Antonoff, a musician who has worked - maybe "had worked" to futureproof the text a bit?

Composition and lyrics
 * Spot check on features prominent electronic stylings - looks like there is editorial oversight of the team YP site at SCMP, but is it a suitable source here?
 * Spot check on Alexis Petridis of The Guardian commented that the vocal effects "warp [Swift's] voice to a point of androgyny" - no issues

Critical reception
 * Looking at their homepage, I wasn't convinced that Our Culture Mag is a reliable source, but looking into it a bit more, seems suitable for what it's used for here for a GA.
 * There's no consensus on whether Insider is a reliable source. Seems OK here as conveying opinions; no issues with spot check.
 * I was deliberating for a bit on whether 4 positive reviews and 2 negative ones constitute "generally positive reviews". Given the ratio of this sample, that seems fair.

Commercial performance
 * No issues.

Credits and personnel
 * No issues. Spot check was fine.

Charts/Certification
 * No issues.

Infobox & Lead
 * some critics praised the song ... A few found the track underwhelming sort of suggests to me that more than a few praised it; but in fact the number of reviews quoted is only half-a-dozen, albeit one has two named authors. Consider rewording the "A few" part, but if you keep it then that's fine too.

General
 * I made a few very minor amendments suggested by scripts. Feel free to revert any.
 * Thanks for the review, I've addressed your comments accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All looks good now. Passing. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)