Talk:Would've, Could've, Should've/GA1

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 11:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This should be done today --K. Peake 11:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

 * Infobox looks good!
 * ""Would've, Could've, Should've" is a new wave" → "it is a new wave"
 * Merge into one para lead since both are too short at three sentences
 * "emotional sentiments of the track," → "emotional sentiments of the song,"
 * "It was included in" → "The song was included in"
 * "Rolling Stone and Slant Magazine." → "Rolling Stone, and Slant Magazine."
 * ✅ by

Background

 * "which features seven additional songs including" → "which features seven additional songs, including"
 * ✅ by


 * Since this section is a bit short, I would suggest moving the writing and production credits to here instead

Composition and lyrics

 * The more acoustic production part is not actually sourced
 * Wikilink acoustic guitar
 * Wikilink as synthesizers
 * Why is Insider piped to a different one than Business Insider here but not later on?
 * Should you use a narrator instead of Swift about the lyrics when no narrator is actually mentioned by sources but she is?
 * "never would’ve danced" → "never would've danced"
 * "scared of ghosts"." → "scared of ghosts."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences
 * ""of stealing her innocence and" → "of stealing her innocence, and" but why is PopMatters here when it offers no mention of this?
 * Remove the comma after 2010 song
 * Remove the "abusive" part from the relationship description because it is not sourced
 * Remove wikilink on Rolling Stone
 * "with second thoughts"" → "with second thoughts"." to end it correctly grammatically
 * ✅ by

Reception

 * "decision to relegate it as a bonus track." → "decision to include as a bonus track." with the wikilink per MOS:LINK2SECT
 * [3][5][12][14][17] is too many refs grouped together; move around to different areas of the sentence to fix this
 * "A few agreed its status" → "A few agreed with the song's status"
 * "added that its painful lyrics" → "added that the painful lyrics"
 * "Wilson called it a" → "Wilson called the song a"
 * "deeming it not as" → "deeming the track not as"
 * "Slant Magazine (24th)[4] and" → "Slant Magazine (24th),[4] and"
 * "and the Vietnam Hot 100 chart (96)." → "and the Billboard Vietnam Hot 100 chart (96)." with the pipe
 * ✅ by

Credits and personnel

 * Pipe drum programming to Programming (music)
 * Wikilink synthesizer to itself
 * Pipe mixing to Audio mixing (recorded music)

Charts

 * Good

Final comments and verdict

 * until all of the issues are fixed; nice job on this one! --K. Peake 12:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi will get back to you asap, probably by the weekend! Ippantekina (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi I and  have addressed your concerns above. Could you look through the article once more? Ippantekina (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You still need to move writing and production to the first section, change the narrator to Swift, fix the "second thoughts" grammar, change the bonus track sentence, alter the status part and be consistent with formatting of Business Insider. --K. Peake 11:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm looking into those later; but a quick question on "narrator", is there a problem to it? Because not all of Swift's songs are autobiographical, and it is professional to separate the art from the artist--which means the songs are from a specific narrator's perspective and not the artist's. Ippantekina (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources seem to indicate that it is from Swift's perspective, unless you can point out where I missed something? K. Peake 08:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand sources write like that; but for articles on Wikipedia I believe changing Swift (or any other artist) to "narrator" when we speak about the lyrics is a safe choice. It also would not blatantly violate verifiability imo. Ippantekina (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ippantekina that should be fine then, are you completing this article now? K. Peake 11:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, give me some days and I'll get back to you asap. Will ping you once everything's checked. Ippantekina (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, Ippantekina (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ now, some changes were not exactly as I'd envisioned them but those areas are definitely up to standard! --K. Peake 17:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Woohoo! OfTheUsername (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)