Talk:Cardigan (song)/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! I shall review this article. My initial comments should be up within a week. If they're not, then ping me here as a reminder. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Starting with the infobox and lead now.

Infobox

• File:Taylor Swift - Cardigan.png has an appropriate FUR
• Out of curiosity, is it known when specifically between April 27 and July 24, 2020 this particular track was recorded? If you can't pinpoint an exact day or month, then simply 2020 will suffice.
  • I don't think a recording date is known. BawinV, do you know of a specific date? D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Nope! The recording date was never revealed! BawinV (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Scrap "first surprise record" bit from "her eighth studio album and first surprise record, Folklore" when that detail is very minor compared to the overall album count. Save details on its surprise distribution for the album's page instead.
• Unless I'm missing something, the first distribution this had independent of album release was July 27, 2020 (as listed in infobox), not the 24th (parent album release and what prose currently uses). Either way, don't simply assume the day a parent album comes out is the same day it spawns a single unless you have proof of it being available for its own physical/digital purchase or sent to radio at the same time.
• I see a WP:SYNTH violation with "acclaim" (a contentious claim) from "received acclaim from music critics" since that isn't cited within article body. You cannot make such presumptions solely based on reviews already mentioned in the prose, especially when that can fail to factor in other opinions not listed. It also comes off as fancruft unless there's a ref inserted that specifically notes how this was acclaimed/lauded overall.
  • Does "praise" sound better? D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • It does, though to avoid repetition of that term, I'd go with something along the lines of "Music critics praised 'Caridgan' for its poetic songwriting and laid-back sound". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
      •  Done BawinV (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Let's consolidate "the top five in Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore, the top 10 in the United Kingdom" into an overarching top 10 description when these appear to be the only places it reached that range (aside from US and Australia where the song went number 1)
  •  Done D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

More to follow in the future. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Hi! It's coming up on one week since you left any comments, so I thought I would ping you. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for getting sidetracked; I should have more up within 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Background Development and composition

• I'm not convinced the "Background" portion is ideal to use in the section title when this (as far as I can tell) doesn't discuss what influenced the song's creation or anything. It only appears to have been implemented for the sake of having a section with "background" in the name. Using "production" or "development" would be more appropriate to include with "composition".
  • Y Changed to development. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Starting two consecutive sentences with "The song" feels repetitive
• Unless there's something I missed, neither attributed source refers to this as a ballad
  • N Removed for now. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• File:Cardigan by Taylor Swift.mp3 appears to comply with WP:SAMPLE
• Sorry to nitpick, but Slate doesn't specify that Peter Pan and the High Line are featured on the "Cardigan" track, only on the Folklore parent album. There's also nothing about similes there or a "lingering physical memento".
  • No need to apologize. N Removed all of that. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Trim "Swift told fans on her Instagram story that she" down to just "Swift told fans that she"; the more pertinent point is she's talking with fans, not which social media platform was used

"Critical reception" will follow after you've gone through the above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:  Done all. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception

• Don't hide the "Inc." from Insider Inc. or italicize the name, and since it already uses "an effective way to evoke young love and innocence lost" much like the current prose, you may as well set it up as one continuous quote that isn't separated by other quotation marks in between words.
• Not sure Vulture should have italics
• The use of "ability" from "praised Swift's ability to 'stunningly' convey" comes off as treating an opinion like a fact.
• Since "all 161 Swift songs so far" is already outdated given the release of Evermore and some new inclusions on the "Taylor's Version" re-recording of Fearless, perhaps you could replace "so far" with "at that point" or "at the time".
• Unlink jealousy per WP:OVERLINK when it already is a commonly recognized term
• Are Wales Arts Review and Uproxx trustworthy publications? I'm not familiar enough with either of them to say for certain myself.
• "Maura Johnston termed the song's lyrics"..... the verb "termed" reads awkwardly here, also you're missing the bigger point of Johnston's opinion, which is that this track's lyrics "pay off at the album's end"
• From what I can tell, The Independent is only saying "Cardigan" follows up on the lyrical themes of "Call It What You Want" and isn't giving a particular stance on how much the author likes/dislikes it. On a similar note, Spin just seems to say it's sonically similar to "Wildest Dreams". These pieces would both be better for the previous section when they just compare compositions.
  • I do not understand what you mean by "be better for the previous section"? Do you think it should be moved to "Development and composition"? BawinV (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes indeed I do. Perhaps I should've made that more explicit before. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      •  Done. BawinV (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done all, except the clarification I requested above. BawinV (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Rankings (merged into "Critical reception")

• Is three listings enough to warrant a box or even a subsection? You could easily convert it into prose. Regardless, this is actually from The Plain Dealer instead of Cleveland Magazine, and you appear to have linked to Billboard twice without any URLs to Complex despite listing that organization.
  •  Done. BawinV (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The rest will probably be assessed section-by-section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Before I get to "Commercial performance", there's one other thing I should add: the year-end rankings should include commentary from what those reviewers liked about this particular track. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done. BawinV (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Commercial performance

• Only six nations' primary charts and one global chart listed (not counting those from a WP:SINGLEVENDOR)? That feels incomplete when this isn't even a quarter of the amount it entered!
• "Upon the release of Folklore, "Cardigan" reached top-tier positions worldwide" seems redundant given the number one peaks already listed here
• For more consistency between styles, "ten", "eighteen", and "twenty" can be written in numerical form when only single-digit numbers need to be spelled out in words
• While I don't believe Spotify charts are appropriate to mention per WP:SINGLEVENDOR, the record number of streams on that is valid to include either way.
• "appeared at number 77 on the chart, dated September 15, 2020"..... that technically is when the listings got published, yes, but Billboard dated this chart to its September 19, 2020 issue. Why they use a date four days ahead of revelation for the world, Canada, US, or any other individual nation is beyond me. Nevertheless, we should abide by what was used.
• Even though this might feel like splitting hairs, it would be ideal to establish sooner that the Billboard Hot 100 pertains to the US by putting that bit right before the chart's name. Later on in the sentence, you can use "sixth number-one single in the nation" or "sixth number-one single in the country" to avoid repetition.
• Scratch "dethroning 'Rockstar' by DaBaby featuring Roddy Ricch from the top spot" and replace it with how long "Cardigan" was at America's summit, namely one week before descending to number 8
• "hits" from "top-ten hits" is subpar tone for (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia
• "charts dated July 30, 2020"..... no, that's when the tracking period ended; their issue date is actually August 8, 2020
• This doesn't mention "Exile", though I do see "The 1" listed, so you'll need something else to back up the claim of her having 19 tracks reach NZ's top 10.
  • N Removed for now, but I'll ping BawinV as he added the information in the first place. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Doggy54321: That website lists "Taylor Swift" and every "Taylor Swift feat." separately. Check this BawinV (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • That makes sense, thank you for adding it in! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• "On the Canadian Hot 100, "Cardigan" opened at number three" is missing an in-text citation
• Mid-week rankings for the UK aren't the same thing as official weekly results, which I found here. That Official Charts Company article also doesn't support your claim of Taylor becoming "the first woman in UK history to debut three top-ten songs simultaneously". It actually says she was the sixth to ever have three in its top 10 at once.
  •  Done all. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You've got quite some work to do here! It's not enough for me to immediately fail the nomination, but definitely the article's weakest section so far. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I've completed everything. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Much better now overall, and I made some minor changes after re-reviewing it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Music video

Synopsis

• I'm not sure how File:Taylor Swift - Cardigan (music video screenshot).png meets criterion#8 of WP:Non-free content criteria. At the very least, its caption doesn't help much here.
• NME is talking about the video and parent album coming out on July 24th; it doesn't specify a single release

Production

• Whether "The Man" was the first music video Taylor directed on her own is better for that song's page
  • @SNUGGUMS: Is it not notable how Prieto and Swift have already collaborated once before "Cardigan"? BawinV (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • What I meant is you should scrap the "Swift's official solo directorial debut" bit. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Per WP:REPCITE, you don't have to use the same citation more than once in a row per paragraph, so the first one (I'm not counting that blocked quote from  Rodrigo Prieto) only needs to have this Rolling Stone piece placed at the ends of "sent visual references to Prieto and Tobman to communicate her vision of the video."

Fashion and aesthetic

• Even when not set up in an orthodox way, I do like how you managed to include some critics' commentary on the video here :)
  • Thank You! BawinV (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Magazine" is not part of the publication name for W
• Use this Wiktionary link for "pièce de résistance"
• "briefed" doesn't feel like the best choice for a verb
• "Refinery29 deemed that Swift" reads quite awkwardly, and don't use italics for the publication
• You're missing quotation marks for "English rose" from "classic 'English rose'".
• Spell out Raidió Teilifís Éireann in full before using an acronym

Getting closer to the end now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done all. BawinV (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

• It feels redundant to list accolades in both prose and a table. Use just one format or the other for all listings. If using the latter, then add a column for the citations. Otherwise, maybe you add some details on who won the nominations it lost just so the structure doesn't feel so monotonous.
• The link used for UK Music Video Awards only seems to list winners, so you'll need an additional ref for other nominees
• Gold Derby Awards should be removed when they don't warrant an article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Derby Awards (2nd nomination)
• I only see nominations announced for Kids' Choice Awards, iHeartRadio Music Awards, ADG Excellence in Production Design Awards, Myx Music Awards, and AICP; you should add pieces with the results (preferably containing all nominees along with winners)
• Here is what you should use for the Grammys
• There appears to be a stray space (or perhaps a Blank Space :P) between the citations attributed to "the latter alongside Swift's 2020 single 'Willow'."
• I don't see the track mentioned anywhere for Nashville Songwriters Awards. In fact, none of the nominated songs are listed!

 Done all. I have to clarify that you asked for the winners list of Myx awards, but the results haven't been announced yet; they're pending.

Here's something I forgot to mention: AMFT should also be removed when it doesn't appear to have or warrant an article. Also, scratch the use of "most notably" when that's a blatant WP:NPOV violation and inappropriate WP:EDITORIALIZING. I'm not convinced we need to mention how this was "Swift's fifth song to be nominated for Song of the Year and the fourth in Best Pop Solo Performance." SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done – AMFT Awards and "most notably removed". The Grammys are a big thing, and they are, along with the MTV VMAs and the AMAs (or maybe it's the BBMAs), widely considered to be the "big three" of award shows, so I think mentioning a statistic like this is helpful. Good joke 😂! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Live performances and covers

• The plural use of "performances" as opposed to singular (performance) suggests Taylor has performed this track multiple times, so how come only the Grammys are listed?
• Including some comments from critics on her Grammy performance that night would be nice, and Album of the Year details are better for the Folklore page.
• Out of curiosity, did Avril Lavigne have any comments on the mashup for this and "I'm With You"?

Yep! "Epic. love it" BawinV (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the hardest parts are done with. The rest should be a breeze in comparison to assess! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done all. Thanks! BawinV (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Track listing

• Unless I'm missing something, Neither of these links mention any durations.
  • I don't think things like durations have to be sourced, as it is automatically assumed that the body of work (in this case, the song) is the source. If you want, I can add an additional source to the actual body of work using {{cite AV media}}. As well, track listings themselves do not need to be sourced per WP:TRACKLISTING. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • You actually should source them per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. This isn't exempt from inline citations unlike plot sections of movies or TV episodes. I thankfully found 3:59 for download/streaming the main edition and 3:48 for "cabin in candlelight version", but if you can't obtain anything for the Vinyl release, then remove its listing here altogether. I'd even prefer album/CD liners over having no source at all. As for WP:TRACKLISTING, that seems to be more about listing all the tracks included on an album. While this might feel minor right now, it'll help in the long run as I'm sure every detail would face more scrutiny during an FA nomination. I admittedly often delve deeper into nitty-gritty than the average reviewer would during GA nominations because I feel it helps improve articles even more and give them better chances of reaching FA level. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Good to know. Yes, I was going to suggest streaming services as a potential source, since they always list lengths. Thank you for being so proactive :) D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • You're quite welcome, and it's too bad I couldn't find any Vinyl listing through Apple, or I already would've linked to that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Credits and personnel

• I'd specify that individaul track liner notes were used as opposed to album line notes.
  •  Done D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Those unsurprisingly were light and easy. Get through those, and I'll assess the charts and certifications. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you so much for doing this, by the way. I really appreciate it, and I know Bawin feels the same way. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Charts

Weekly charts

• As far as I can tell, both Belgium links just list peaks for other countries and not this one (which is rather ironic). Same goes for Portugal.

I'm confused about Belgium as to why it's showing like that, but in Portugal's case, there's a chart run right below that shows Cardigan peaked at No. 21. BawinV (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

My bad on Portugal; I just found that 21 after somehow failing to catch that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha! So, tell me what we shall do about the Belgian regions? BawinV (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Just remove both of those entirely while keeping in the Portugese chart. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

We missed it! I looked into the sites deeper, and when you scroll down the sites, there's a list of all of Swift's chart entries, and in those lists, you can find Cardigan's peaks. BawinV (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

In that case, leave them as they are in the chart rankings, but naming it within the lead as a place this reached the top 10 gives a false impression that it charted that high on Ultratop charts for Belgium (which are the country's primary charts as opposed to the Ultratip charts it actually entered) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is a Facebook URL the only thing available for Malaysia's peak? I looked through RIM's website and their listings for some reason appear to skip over a bunch of weeks for 2020.

As of now, yes, that Facebook link is the only source we have. BawinV (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like you mistakenly used a Czech Republic link for Slovakia

I checked other song articles. That link is auto-generated; Czech Republic and Slovakia share the same site. The correct template ("Slovakdigital") has been used, and the instructions that appear inside the reference should say "Click Slovak Digital Top 100" (where the site shows Cardigan at #45 in Slovakia), but it simply says "Click Digital Top 100". BawinV (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Facepalm I don't know how I missed that instruction, but thank you for pointing it out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Haha, that's alright! BawinV (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Year-end charts

• No issues!

Certifications

• Flawless!

OK, almost done with the article. I expect my next batch of comments to be the final one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Release history

• Nothing of concern!

Footnotes

• Perfect!

See also

• This just seems to be an arbitrary cherry-picking of statistics. Scrap entirely when it doesn't offer anything not already mentioned within prose.

References

• ALL links need publication names, access dates, publication dates (unless it's one of those auto-generated URLs from chart templates), and (when known) authors
• Don't italicize ABC News, Apple Music, Musicnotes.com, "E! Online" (which should read as E!), Insider Inc. (and don't cut off its "Inc." when that's part of the name), Vulture, YouTube, Refinery29, "RTÉ (and spell that out as Raidió Teilifís Éireann), ARIA Charts, Recorded Music NZ, Irish Recorded Music Association, Recording Industry Association of Malaysia (which only needs to be mentioned once within the citation), "GRAMMY.com" (and that should be Grammy Awards), Official Charts Company (plus one instance is missing the "Company" part of its title), iHeartRadio, RTHK, Junkee, "Taylor Swift Official Store", or All Access
• "W Magazine" → W
• "HRT" → Hrvatska radiotelevizija
• "The" is part of the name for The Washington Post
• "Deadline.com" → Deadline Hollywood
• Are "TuneBat", "PromoNews", and "AwardCore" trustworthy? I'm not familiar with these publications or certain whether they should have italics.
• Unlink Laura Snapes (that got deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Snapes)

Overall

• Prose: The lead needs an adjustment
• Referencing: Certain citations are incorrectly formatted, also there's a few questionable sources, and I don't see anything here about the Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions performance being acoustic.
• Coverage: Looks good
• Neutrality: Bias is nowhere to be found
• Stability: Nothing of concern
• Media: All licensing is appropriate
• Verdict: Effective immediately, the nomination is being placed on hold for seven days. If all of my remaining concerns are addressed within that time, then I'll pass. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done all. BawinV (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

After going through this again and tweaking some things (nothing major), I can safely promote the article to GA. Well done, gentlemen! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.