Talk:Sparks Fly (song)/GA2

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

I'm not so sure the WP:Good article criteria are met here. From a glance, there not only is unsourced text, but also various improperly formatted citations. Details to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Time to dig deeper!

Infobox

 * File:Sparks Fly - Single.png has an appropriate FUR

Lead

 * To reduce the first paragraph's surname repetition, one or both instances of "Swift's" could be replaced with "her"
 * No need to link commonly recognized terms like "music critics" per WP:OVERLINK
 * When discussing charts, focus more on the highest overall peak for nations it entered
 * "Speak Now World Tour (2011–12)" should have four digits for years, which looks more complete and professional than the informal use of two digits
 * This feels incomplete without any mention of lyrical content

Background and release

 * Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to implement the same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph, which means ref#2 can be safely removed from "her eponymous album in 2006" when it's already covered by the end of the next sentence (the one that finishes with "forty and fifty people")
 * This might feel like nitpicking, but "several" (implying 5–10) is exaggerating when she actually says "a few shows" instead of several plus it's missing the "like" from her "crowds of, like, forty and fifty people".
 * With or without being archived, it doesn't look like ref#8 works at all
 * One of the links from ref#9 only seems to give an incomplete loading while the other doesn't list August at all, only February 15, 2013 for some reason :/
 * I see nothing useful within ref#10, only some mentions of WMS and SKUs (whatever those are)
 * The "Macy's 4th of July Fireworks Show" bit is unreferenced, and "last 2012" doesn't feel right. Did you mean to say "in 2012"?

Music and lyrics

 * File:Sparks Fly Sample.ogg exceeds the limits at WP:SAMPLE; the maximum length allowed for a 262-second song (the duration of this track) would be 26 seconds.
 * Deriving country pop from "toes the line between country and pop" feels like a stretch; I'd opt for a more explicit mention of the genre. For what it's worth, the URL used for arena rock describes it as "the perfect blend of '70s arena-rock and country".
 * Per MOS:QWQ, use single quotation marks for quotes-within-quotes, and save double marks for the outside
 * MOS:CURLY says to use straight quotation marks (',") instead of curly ones (‘,“)
 * I'm not convinced "Engine 145" or "Taste of Country" should have italics
 * Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs as those make the flow of text come off as choppy

Critical reception

 * See my above comment on WP:OVERLINK, and unless you can find a ref that specifically mentions the overall reception of this song, I wouldn't recommend adding "received positive reviews" here. You shouldn't make presumptions solely based on reviews already listed in Wikipedia articles as that can fail to factor in other stances not mentioned.
 * The piece from Jonathan Keefe was published in Country Universe, not Slant Magazine
 * Again, MOS:CURLY and MOS:QWQ issues
 * More questionable use of italics with "Taste of Country", "Roughstock", and Insider Inc. (and you shouldn't hide the lattermost's "Inc." part)
 * Use feminine pronouns for Erin Thompson, who actually says she "wasn't as hot" on the song as "Mean" or "Mine", not "to hot" (which misspells "too"). You should also avoid contractions unless part of a quote or title.
 * You missed a crucial part of Amanda Hensel's stance, which is that she "While we love this latest release, we find ourselves missing the originality that was 'Mean.' In short, this one leaves us a bit parched."
 * A key part of Mikael Wood's review that gets left out is deeming this track (along with "Long Live") the "dullest, most forgettable moments" of the Speak Now album
 * Insider lists 18 tracks, not just 14

Accolades

 * With only four listings, perhaps you could convert the box into prose and get rid of the subheading altogether

Commercial performance

 * The URL for ref#26 isn't working
 * Debut positions and overall peaks are the most important details for charting, and adding a re-entry much lower than what it originally reached can be cut per WP:CHARTTRAJ
 * I recommend organizing the section by focusing on one chart at a time before discussing another. You've scattered some bits on the US component charts.
 * The whole "Potential Pop Hits for 2011" is taken from a piece that above all else discusses what tracks critics liked, which tells me this would be better for the "Critical reception".
 * Per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, remove Radio Songs when this has entered the main Hot 100 chart for the US
 * Recording Industry Association of America should be spelled out in full upon first mention outside of lead, and it has certified the song Platinum, not just Gold.
 * You should note how 28 was also the peak for Canada and 17 was as high as it went in the US
 * This neglects to mention Australia and Belgium
 * Awards are already discussed above and don't really belong in this section anyway

Live performances

 * No copyright concerns with File:Taylor Swift Speak Now Tour 2011 4.jpg
 * Only one critic's commentary gets listed for the times she's sung this live? You can add more than that!
 * I see no mention of "Sparks Fly" within ref#43
 * Only banjos and are mentioned as instruments from the 2007 edition here, nothing on violins that I could find
 * Ref#44 has a dead link
 * Link Speak Now World Tour – Live, and the use of "cited" from "cited Swift's perforation" reads awkwardly
 * Let's specify that you mean the 2011 CMA Music Festival and the 2016 Formula One (other terms that should be linked along with iHeartRadio Music Festival)
 * The second and third paragraphs are completely unsourced, and I would merge/expand to avoid having any that are super short
 * There's no indication here that the "Sparks Fly" performance during the Reputation Stadium Tour was a surprise or acoustic (maybe the video it used could've been used as proof for the latter at one point but it's now deleted)

Music video

 * Another instance of WP:OVERLINK with "music video", and it looks like you archived the wrong date for Taylor's website as I see no listing of such a video there
 * The tweet used no longer exists, but thankfully AllAccess can be used in its place
 * It feels monotonous how all but two sentences from the paragraph before reviews begin with "the"
 * Unless you can find a good citation for how the video was temporarily removed from YouTube, I would scratch it altogether

Reception

 * I'm not sure this warrants a subheading with only two reviews listed (which admittedly doesn't feel like enough). Either way, view count and streams don't really fit under "Reception" when those are separate matters from whether critics like something.
 * It has actually suprassed 85M views on YouTube (something I didn't have any trouble finding a citation for)
 * The URL used for Social 50 is dead
 * I see nothing pertaining to Yahoo! Music in the given source
 * MOS:CURLY and MOS:QWQ still aren't fully met

Credits and personnel

 * Flawless!

Charts

 * All good!

Release history

 * The links used for CD single aren't showing August 10, 2011 at all or Big Machine Records

Overall

 * Prose: A thorough copyedit is needed, particularly with a bunch of issues involving MOS, and I'm not fond of the super short paragraphs
 * Referencing: Not only is there text missing sources (or unsupported by the ones used), but a couple references used are questionable, and many citations have formatting issues
 * Coverage: Some key details are missing while other bits could be scrapped
 * Neutrality: I'm pretty sure it's free of bias
 * Stability: Looks fine to me
 * Media: The sample should be shortened or deleted altogether
 * Verdict: Putting this reassessment on hold. While far from the worst I've seen, the article definitely needs revising big time. If the above can be resolved within seven days, then I'll let it keep the GA status. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot to do this sooner, but after absolutely no effort at all has been made to address the above concerns after more than a week, I am now delisting the article. DO NOT renominate without resolving them. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)