Talk:All of the Girls You Loved Before/GA1

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 05:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. This is my first time reviewing a music article, so alert me if I screw anything up. Pamzeis (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • the song for what they deemed affectionate lyrics and — seems kinda clunky. Maybe replace "what they deemed" with "perceived" or similar?
  • but cancelled the → but canceled the (American English)
  • "Safe & Sound (Taylor's Version)", "If This Was a Movie (Taylor's Version)" → "Safe & Sound (Taylor's Version)", and "If This Was a Movie (Taylor's Version)"
  • his birthname Adam King Feeney as writer → his birthname, Adam King Feeney, as writer
  • and, although Swift did not confirm the inspiration behind,[16] media publications interpreted it as a message to her then-boyfriend — it seems pretty clunky... can it be reworded or split?
  • all the women in his life and promises — add a comma before "and"
  • memorable, catchy melodya memorable, catchy melody
  • gold" an the lyrics — typo?
  • "breezy"[9] and The Times' Will Hodgkinson — comma before "and"
  • familiar and wrote that it — comma before "and"
  • artist with an "uninterrupted" 18-year run — are the quote marks necessary? They feel like scare quotes to me
  • What makes Our Culture Mag a reliable source?

Great article overall with very minor issues. Article   on hold now. Ping me in your replies. Pamzeis (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review, Pamzeis. I have addressed all of your comments accordingly :) Let me know if it needs further work. Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Second look

edit

Everything seems fine now!   Passing the article. Pamzeis (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed