Talk:Style (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Producers: Max Martin, Shellback, Ali Payami → Martin Shellback Payami
 * ❌ Per Copy-Edit — HĐ (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead

 * Should add something else regarding the "Commercial performance" section. Other countries and peaks
 * You should also say the song was included in several year-end lists.
 * Opinion of critics regarding the music video "sensual, sexy, mature", etc...
 * The nominated award for APRA.
 * I don't view that necessary; the lead aims to provide enough information regarding the single. I believe it does for the time being — HĐ (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from, but I strongly disagree. The song matched the US peak in Canada and it peaked at number 1 in South Africa, top ten in Australia I don't need every single country just the ones with higher peaks, top ten would be more than enough. The year-end lists show the appreciation for the song by reviewers. Regarding the music video I would suggest a small description, but since the music video doesn't have a strong storyline like it is said, the appreciation of them would be a way to catch a reader's attention. The award nomination just adds more fuel to the fire, seeing as a peer of judges were found of the song. It has to provide information summarizing the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Production and release

 * Serban Ghenea and John Hanes were in charge of mixing, and Tom Coyne was responsible for mastering. → in which studios?
 * No information, sorry
 * It can be found on the inlay notes. It was mastered at Sterling Sound, NYC and mixed at MixStar Studios, Virginia Beach, Virginia


 * She says "Style" and "Shake it Off" were the last songs finished by the production team for 1989. → unlike what is written in the article. Any other source besides YouTube?
 * Reworded; there are no other sources, sorry. But the YouTube link can be removed and the source still remains reliable
 * Let the youtube link there, better than nothing at all.


 * It is third on the album's track listing, following "Welcome to New York" and "Blank Space" → not relevant, please remove
 * I don't see why
 * How is saying that the song it's the third on the tracklist is vital to the article? Any specific reason for being the third? Unless it's the latter it's not relevant.

✅

Music and lyrics

 * You don't need the references on the sample description as it is all stated on the body of this section.
 * Add the "’70s groove" comparison made by Sam Lansky on Time magazine.
 * Done


 * Remove the lyrics in the end as it is explained above they concern cheating. They are not needed here and it a bland copy and past, they are four full verses and not partial verses, like in the sources you used by Los Angeles Times and COS. I understand it is in the Vox explanation and it shows that better, but not like this.
 * Sorry but I don't get your point on this... — HĐ (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To begin with, what's source provided you this? It goes against the policy of wikipedia. "An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders." You can only use small verses from other magazines, not metrolyrics or something that has lyrics for songs. "You've got that James Dean daydream look in your eye / And I've got that red lip classic thing that you like" -> this is ok as it is taken from a review to show a point. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote was taken from the source Plugged In, so I don't think it violates the MOS like you indicated

Critical reception

 * Wrong section for the image
 * Kitty Empire → author-link Kitty Empire
 * Greffen → who is Greffen? Only Benjamin Boles wrote for Now. Is there a magazine and a link missing?
 * While lauding the song's musical styles as "deliriously triumphant", however, he criticized its theme of white people's conventional beauty standards as "a cliché that doesn't need to be [...] bragged about → who? and what publication? I thought it was Wood and it is not...
 * The previous Copy-Editor messed up a bit; rephrased the whole thing


 * Jon Caramanica → author-link
 * For consistency authorlinks are removed (per the previous Copy-Editor)

✅

Commercial performance

 * 1-10 → say one, two, three....
 * 11... → use 11, 12, 13...
 * Recording Industry Association of America → Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
 * which denotes track-equivalent sales of three million units based on sales and streams → I would remove this
 * I don't see the reason here
 * I don't know why it is included here, it adds nothing to the article.
 * There is a discrepancy between certified sales and actual sales, and "sales and streams" explains that
 * I'm aware of that, you can keep it, though. Some people might not know. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As of November 2017, "Style" has sold 2.2 million digital copies in the US. It has received triple platinum certification by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) → use this sentence
 * Music Canada → Music Canada (MC)
 * Should mention the component charts of Canada as it peaked in all of them
 * Canadian component charts don't have standalone articles, so I opted against including them
 * I accept such. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * British Phonographic Industry → British Phonographic Industry (BPI)
 * Australian Recording Industry Association,[62] and gold by the Recorded Music NZ → Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) and gold by the Recorded Music NZ (RMNZ) + the sources at the end of the sentence.
 * Czech Republic (Rádio Top 100), South Africa (EMA) → should mention these peaks.
 * I don't see the purpose of adding acronyms for recording associations; they don't profoundly elevate the article's quality. — HĐ (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It makes it look cleaner and gives consistency to what is on the certifications table. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

✅

Music video
✅
 * Sherwood had finished the film Take Down, which was later renamed Billionaire Ransom. → not on given source its rename
 * several mutual friends → remove several, not on given source

Live performances and other usage

 * Fine

Credits and personnel

 * Wikilink Max Martin, Shellback, Tom Coyne and others, you don't have to link Taylor Swift.
 * Where was it mixed?
 * No info, sorry
 * See above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

✅

Weekly charts

 * Fine

Year-end charts

 * The width of the columns should be the same (2015 and 2016)

Certifications

 * Remove the sales of 2 million and add it to the article as those are pure sales and due to the stream inclusion is higher.
 * Then it would appear to be FANCRUFT
 * What? If the song was certified 3 times platinum it means it has sales+streaming figures to be certified so it's equivalent to three million. Where is this fancruft? Keep the sales on the commercial performance, as I said, but you can always claim "despite selling two million copies, the RIAA certified it three times platinum for its sales and streaming figures", or something on this vein. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the sales figure should be removed from the table, especially since it's a specific figure. 3 million > 2.2 million is not a good reason for me. Readers can understand that the certification is based on sales+streams in the body. HĐ (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's fine by me. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

✅

Release history

 * Fine

Overall

 * Missing a "Formats and track listings" section.
 * It was not digitally released, hence the omission — HĐ (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a source backing up the release of the digital download.
 * You can now address the issues, a well-rounded and written article, once you have please let me know. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some have been addressed, others are pending because I haven't got your point. Thanks for reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, it's one of my favorite songs by Swift. I believe I have addressed your concerns, please let me know. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have addressed all per above. HĐ (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)