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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 22:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gained, I'll go through this article to see how it compares to the GA criteria, and then I'll fill out the review so any issues can be fixed. It's a pretty short article, so I'll most likely do the whole thing today. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gained All right, I've written up the review. Overall, it looks pretty good. Like all reviews, there are a few grammar/wording suggestions. The main thing though is how short the article is and what else might be added to it. Once those things are addressed, there shouldn't be anything keeping this from being designated as a good article. You can add a reply anywhere on the page here to discuss any of the points. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Thebiguglyalien! You might have noticed that this is my first article submitting to GA, and I really appreciate and shocked on how detailed all this is. This might take a couple days in total, so let me know if it needs further work :) Gained (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Thebiguglyalien, I believe all of the issues you pointed out are now addressed accordingly :) Gained (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple small edits for grammar, but I don't see any other reason why it doesn't pass the GA criteria. I'll designate it as a good article now. Congrats! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

I've read the article and made notes about any possible issues in the text. Reviewers generally don't make any substantial changes (otherwise I'd basically be reviewing my own work), but I made some minor copyedits.

• Written by Swift and Dan Wilson, who also produced it – The wording here reads a little awkwardly
• on three of Swift's concert tours, such as the Red Tour (2013–2014) – "including the Red Tour" might read better.
• which it was included – Is this supposed to say "in which it was included" or "where it was included"?
• Critics retrospectively remained positive of the track – This doesn't make sense grammatically. How about "critical reception remained positive" or "the re-recorded track was also received positively".
• She wrote the whole album – this seems informal
• One of them was Dan Wilson – The article isn't clear about Wilson's significance at this point. It just says that he was one of the producers she approached, but it never actually says anything about him deciding to work with Swift.
• The song is described as It a lot under the "production and release" section. Some of these can be replaced with its title or even just "the song".
• The "production and release" section reads like a list of names. If there's any way to break that up a bit or reword it so it flows better, that would help readability. Of course, the best solution would just be finding more information about the production of the song, but that's easier said than done.
• She performed the track after a technical malfunction – Is the technical malfunction significant to this song (for example, did she only play the song specifically because of the malfunction)? If it is, the article should clarify how it's relevant. If not, that detail probably doesn't need to be in the article.
• building up to a climactic finale – This seems dramatic, and it can probably be reworded with a more encyclopedic tone.
• one of the evidences – Is there a way to reword this?
• In retrospect, critics have considered "Treacherous" one of Swift's better songs – "In retrospect" seems like it's about to talk in present tense, summarizing the opinion today, but it stays in past tense. Maybe "In retrospective reviews" so it's clear the article is still talking about specific reviews.
• It was ranked among her top 75 tracks – What's the significance of the top 75? It might be better just to go straight into the critics' opinions without mentioning (somewhat arbitrary) list rankings.

Verifiable with no original research

All of the sources appear to be reliable.

This is general advice I give during most reviews, but try to paraphrase quotes whenever possible. A lot of quotes are common in music articles, especially in the reception section, but overquoting can be an issue. None of the quotes in this article stand out as problems, but it's something to keep in mind.

I've spot checked these sources to compare them with how they're used in the article:

• Bernstein (2020) – Good.
• Al-Heeti (2021) – Technically this says that it's planned to drop on November 12. It doesn't confirm that it actually did drop then. This really isn't a big deal, but it wouldn't hurt to find a source that confirms it did in fact drop on November 12. Otherwise this source is good.
• O'Connor (2020) – Good.
• Sager (2021) – Good.
• Willman (2012) – Good.

The spot checks look really good. I'm usually able to find more things to comment on than a minor nitpick.

Broad in its coverage

My main worry here is that a lot of this article duplicates the information at Red, particularly in the "background" and the "production and release" sections. To a certain extent this is unavoidable with any article about a song, but it would be good if there was more information about the production and style of this song specifically. It might be worth looking at the sources in the article to see if they have more information that could be used, or to look for other sources.

Even with culture and entertainment articles, it's usually worth doing a Google Scholar search and a Google Books search to find more academically inclined sources. Getting access to these sources can sometimes be tricky, but The Wikipedia Library has access to a lot of them.

Neutral

No ideas or aspects are given undue weight. The article doesn't present its own opinions on the song.

Stable

There are no content disputes that might hold up the article.

Illustrated

The image is licensed under Creative Commons, so no copyright issues. The caption provides adequate context.