Talk:The Archer (song)
The Archer (song) is currently a Songs good article nominee. Nominated by Gained (talk) at 12:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: 2019 song by Taylor Swift |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it a single?[edit]
I'm confused. Taylor did say it was not the third single and that it was just a song on her Instagram live stream. However it was sent to radio in Australia, and a few sources have called it a single.[1][2][3][4] (and probably more.) I'm not sure now whether this should be considered a single or a promotional single but I would like to see what other people think. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's a promotional single. Taylor Swift has said that it is not a single, so I think it's best to follow what she says because it's her music. Just my thoughts. CountyCountry (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Archer (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Gained (talk · contribs) 12:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Brachy0008 (talk · contribs) 13:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Gained I have placed down some points for improvement. That is all I can do for today, so be sure to keep your eyes open for more points and call-outs from ME-HEE-HEEEEEEEEEE! Brachy08 (Talk) 06:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Gained the final comments should be up now Brachy08 (Talk) 00:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Review, is this article ready for review? Does it say it does not want that, but you say it does... How's the intro?
Copyvios[edit]
- Violation is possible (Earwig's). However, it is mainly from quotations from the song. Copyvios are 43.2%, which is a bit concerning
Image review[edit]
- A bit concerned about the image. I would let it pass, but can you check if you can find a better image? Thanks!
Sourcing[edit]
Reliable...?[edit]
FN 59 is unreliable.- Is Toronto Star reliable?
- Toronto Star is arguably Canada's largest daily newspaper publication and many people think it's a reputable source
- Checks out.
- Toronto Star is arguably Canada's largest daily newspaper publication and many people think it's a reputable source
- Can't find anything about The Recording Academy, other than the fact that they host the Grammys... any thoughts?
- I think that's because it's their most notable thing that they do by a long shot.. but I believe the article's editor is an experienced music critic judging by their page
- I will take a look and tell you my thoughts on it.
- She definitely wrote a lot of articles for TRA, so it would pass
- I will take a look and tell you my thoughts on it.
- I think that's because it's their most notable thing that they do by a long shot.. but I believe the article's editor is an experienced music critic judging by their page
Is Atwood Magazine reliable?- Removed.
Is V reliable?- Removed.
- Not removed (yet)
- Done
- Not removed (yet)
- Removed.
- Is The Ringer reliable?
- Is Stereogum reliable? According to its article, it is a bit bloggy.
- Stereogum is under SpinMedia, which features Spin and Vibe, both deemed reliable sources according to WP:RSMUSIC. I think it's the same for this one.
- Got it (presumed reliable)
- Stereogum is under SpinMedia, which features Spin and Vibe, both deemed reliable sources according to WP:RSMUSIC. I think it's the same for this one.
Mentioned...?[edit]
FN 1: Does not have the quoted textslove letter to love itself
andfull spectrum of love
. Needs rephrasing.FN 3: Does not support the release of The Archer for streaming and digital download.FN 6: Does not contain the quoted texta different side
.FN 10: Does not say that The Archer is performed, only said that Swift performedseveral songs from Lover
.FN 17-18: Neither sources refer to The Archer as a ballad.
And that brings us to FN 20 22. I will pause the source review here (for now), but please address the points.
Update: Reviewed more sources (managed to reach FN 32)... so far so good! I would list more stuff below once I can see an issue. Second update: The entire recording and composition section checks out.
FN 37: Does not supportlyrics are about Swift's reflection on her past
- FN 20, 40, 41: Does not support
how Swift was a perpetrator [...] of them
And that brings us to the end of lyrical interpretation.
- FN 49: Confused on how it supports
album highlight
. I would like some explaination... - FN 53: The Archer is ranked 6th, not 10th
- FN 54: The Archer is ranked 23rd, not 26th
And so we have come to the end of the source review. Please finish up the comments I have placed, and I shall subsequently pass it.
Other stuff[edit]
- Live performances of The Archer are under background and release. Tell me why is it present right here, right now. If you want this to be a GA, I wish you would explain and address it.
- I'm not the one who did this but I assume that both "Background and release" and "Live performances" aspects of the article were very short so it was combined to make it look more complete. Gained (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Understandable. Maybe do this change
Brachy08 (Talk) 08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)− Backgroundandrelease+ Background, release and live performances- How about "Background and love performances" instead? The change you proposed is too long for a section. Gained (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure... That'll do Brachy08 (Talk) 09:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- hey @Brachy0008: how's this review going? Ippantekina (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure... That'll do Brachy08 (Talk) 09:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- How about "Background and love performances" instead? The change you proposed is too long for a section. Gained (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
A bit of source overload. (FN 21-24)- Is
Sargent remarked that it was Lover's "most stunning"
necessary? Earlier in the section, it already said that he regards the song as analbum highlight
.lauded Swift's songwriting about romance as being better than "any of her peers" in contemporary music.
can stay stay stay. - FN 52 is not archived.