Talk:Lavender Haze

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the TV series Mad Men inspired Taylor Swift's hit song "Lavender Haze"? Source: Paul, Larisha (October 7, 2022). "Taylor Swift Reveals How Dealing With 'Weird Rumors' About Joe Alwyn Relationship Inspired a Midnights Track". Rolling Stone.
  • Reviewed: Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

Converted from a redirect by Lk95 (talk). Nominated by Unlimitedlead (talk) at 21:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC).

• article is long enough, new enough, hook is interesting, and the article is well-sourced though quite short. looks good for me! Artem.G (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Writing credit

I think the writing credits should be divided between Lyricists and Composers like the Wikipedia page for shake it off since we have the Sounwave Rolling Stones article talking about the song writing process. So it should be: Lyricist: Taylor Swift Composers: Taylor Swift Jack Antonoff Zoë Kravitz Mark Spears Jahaan Sweet Sam Dew 41.62.138.154 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lavender Haze/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 05:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Continuing my streak of reviewing songs, I will also add a personal song review that has no bearing on the actual review itself. I will have this article fully reviewed on either Sunday, August 20 or Monday, August 21. I have not listened to Taylor Swift in such a long time besides the contemporary Anti-Hero (song). I like that one, this one is also on that album, so let us give it a spin! Adog (Talk・Cont) 05:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! ℛonherry☘ 11:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Writing for Wikipedia, a dog described the song as an "ethereal tune of love" that highlights both "the pop of songs and a comfortable walking-pace beat meant for a dance of two". The dog described the themes of the song akin to that of "wanting to see the world through the rose-colored lens', but in reality, having a rosy retrospection". The dog further emphasized how the song's beat reminded him of Your Love (Nicki Minaj song), and praised its bridge for its rhythm and rhyme. Closing the review, the dog stated although it would not make his Apple Music (and yes, not Spotify or Tidal) playlist, the song has a uniqueness that can both relate to its audience and reflects Swift's personal fame in the limelight. Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

---

OK! As an introduction to my recent reviews for GAN, the following are suggestions for sentence structure and grammar during my first skim through of the article. If there are any changes that are not appropriate for the text or change the text's content, feel free to disregard them with a comment. For this review, I will do a full read-through, then a skim of the text the first go:

Prose

Lead

• According to Swift, the title is a 1950s-dated common phrase referring ... I would replace "is" with "references" for better wording.
• The single peaked at number two on singles charts of ... Possible missing word "the" before "singles".
• The music video of "Lavender Haze", ... may read better as The "Lavender Haze" music video ....
• set-list to setlist?

Background and production

• ... Midnights, at the 2022 MTV Video Music Awards on August 28 for context, I would put the year after this first instance; with subsequent instances in the paragraph omitting the year.
• track-list as track list when possible?
• The following sentence: ... reveal the track-list I would replace the second instance of "reveal" in the same sentence with "disclose" to avoid repetition.
• Beginning on September 21, 2022, Swift began unveiling the track-list ... Two things here, to avoid repetition with the word "beginning", I would change "began" and the following word to "started to unveil". Track list fix here.
• ... each track title was revealed in each episode. I would omit this phrase as the subsequent sentences reveal what this information has.
• Swift has since removed the said Instagram video as of May 2023. I am not too sure this has significant relevance to the song outside of Swift-fans intrigue in their relationship. I would omit this sentence.
• It was produced by the first four songwriters and uses ... might read better as The first four songwriters produced it and used ....

Composition and lyrics

• Critics said ... Music critics here? If they are not all music critics, it should be ok then.
• The following sentence: They called it a song ... I would specify who called the song, some music critics, specific ones, or a variety of music critics.
• Should "face" in: The lyrics are about the tabloid scrutiny and online rumors that Swift and Alwyn face be in the past tense or is present tense usually the norm.

Critical reception

• "Lavender Haze" received critical acclaim Here, as in the suggestion above, I would describe if this was from music critics. If not, it is ok. If you are up to it also, the intro sentence may benefit if the reviews have a common theme to highlight.

Release

• I believe a comma should be after "2022" per MOS:DATECOMMA.
• Same with the above suggestion ... followed on March 3, 2023 and were released ...
• Same sentence, "Swift’s" contains a curly apostrophe when it should be straight.

Commercial performance

• She became the first artist to simultaneously occupy the top 10 spots of the Hot 100 may read better as She became the first artist to occupy the top 10 spots of the Hot 100 simultaneously.
• Midnights also became the first album in history to contain 10 top 10 songs I would change the first "10" to "ten" to help differentiate between the two, and as used later.
• Would the sentence that starts: Elsewhere, "Lavender Haze" has peaked ... be redundant as there is a chart further down in the article that contains the same information in the box? I would consider omitting this or provide further analysis from the sources.

Music video

• The video intercuts between Swift in the pool and in the lavender before cutting ... I would remove the second "in" as extra words. The lead "in" should suffice.
• The walls suddenly fall down, revealing the house to be afloat in space, and then leaving her on a cloud surrounded by the floating koi fish. Two things here, I would omit "down" and remove the comma after "space" for easier flow.
• The video contains numerous Easter eggs that link to other Midnights tracks.[90][91][88] Numerical order of references here.

References

• 56, "charts.spotify.com" as "Spotify". Are Spotify charts usually used (I say this because I have not come across it yet, and out of curiosity)?
• 72, "IMI International Top 20 Singles for week ending 31 October 2022| Week 43 of 52" as "IMI International Top 20 Singles for week ending 31 October 2022: Week 43 of 52".
• 83, "SINGLES DIGITAL" and "TOP" as "Singles Digital" and "Top".
• 90, "ELLE" as "Elle".
• 108, Same capitalization as 83.

108 is an auto-generated template source. ℛonherry☘ 16:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Additional comments or concerns

• MOS:DUPLINKs "feminist" in "Critical reception". "Anti-Hero" in "Commerical performance". "Anti-Hero" and "Bejeweled" in "Music video".
• Add archived versions of sources that do not have them with the Archive Bot (if running).

Umm, this is little embarrassing, but I do not know now to use the Archive bot. LOL. ℛonherry☘ 17:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ronherry: All good! I saw others using this tool and hopped on as soon as I could use it (since previously, you would have to archive, every single source). The bot is located on the metawiki:InternetArchiveBot. When it works, it is a life and timer saver! Anyways, passing! Adog (Talk・Cont) 12:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, for the full read-through and skim, it looks good besides minor corrections or omissions. I will do spot checks on the sources before an all-clear can be given. It is looking good. Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Spot check: Swift revealed the songwriting credits for Midnights on October 18, 2022. "Lavender Haze" was written by an assembly including Swift, Jack Antonoff, Sounwave, Jahaan Sweet, Sam Dew, and Zoë Kravitz This source does not mention "Sounwave" as being part of the project, nor is the source in the following sentence here. The source connected to this sentence does not also mention Sweet or Dew, but the following source does. I would add source 14 to this sentence, and possibly another source that mentions "Sounwave".
• Spot check: Media publications wrote that the lyrics feature a feminist viewpoint and calls out the misogynistic conceptions about gender roles.[24][16][34] Numerical ref. order of this passage.
• Spot check: I do not believe that the sentence Following the premiere of the music video, "Lavender Haze" was made available for digital download in the US on Swift's official webstore. can be supported alone with ref. 46 because the official website does not describe the song being made available after the premier of the music video, nor has a release date. Another source to accompany this or omit?
• Spot check: Same issue as above with ref. 53's sentence, although this does have the music video, the official website does not help describe the passage.
• Spot check: Ref 83 is deadlinked. Archived version?

Sadly, there isn't an archived version on Wayback machine. ℛonherry☘ 17:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well written + verifiability

• The article is well written, with some minor grammar or sentence structure changes highlighted above. The article follows a general manual of style consistent with other song articles. The reference layout is good, with some minor fixes highlighted above. I believe the article cites necessary reliable sources, and uses primary sources sparingly. Although, with the original research spot checks above, there are some issues that are minor. According to Earwig, we are in the clear with quotes highlighted only. No problems with copyright, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Broadness + focus + neutral

The article has broad coverage of the contents of the song, in addition to a grandeur focus on the subject. The article is neutral towards its subject, presenting a good balance of perspectives and tone. Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Images + stability

The article is illustrated with various images that are relevant to its contents. The images seem to have the proper paperwork. The article is stable with no ongoing or active edit conflicts. The history has some reversions, but all or mostly from anonymous users for vandalism/addition of unreferenced content/not appropriate. Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Ronherry: Alrightly then, the review is finished from here unless anything else pops up. You are good to go with these changes. The article was a good read! To let you know also, since I reviewed this on August 21, I will be on vacation from August 23-26. If you happen to complete it during these times, know I am gone temporarily. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

   Done all, except those points I've replied to. ℛonherry☘ 17:14, 26 August 2023 (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.