Talk:The Archer (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

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)

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

• 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

• A bit concerned about the image. I would let it pass, but can you check if you can find a better image? Thanks!

Sourcing

Reliable...?

• 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.
• 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
• Is Atwood Magazine reliable?
  • Removed.
• Is V reliable?
  • Removed.
    • Not removed (yet)
      •  Done
• Is The Ringer reliable?
  • The article's writer Lindsay Zoladz previously worked at New York, which is deemed reliable according WP:RSP.
    • Got it. (I will let it pass)
• 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)

Mentioned...?

• FN 1: Does not have the quoted texts love letter to love itself and full 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 text a different side.
• FN 10: Does not say that The Archer is performed, only said that Swift performed several songs from Lover.
  • She performed the song as the opening track of the show. Gained (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I meant FN 10. Sorry about that. Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that's the ref I checked; it says that Swift began the show with "The Archer" Gained (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Pretty sure the FN changed to 11 Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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 support lyrics are about Swift's reflection on her past
• FN 20, 40, 41: Does not support how Swift was a perpetrator [...] of them
  • I'm pretty sure it was supported by this quote on ref 41: "It's potentially an admission that she does, in fact, love drama and getting into fights, even if she’s played the victim" Gained (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  that would pass. Brachy08 _(Talk) 11:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

• 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

  −

  Background and release

  +

  Background, release and live performances

  Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:22, 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)

  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)

  i had a bit of technical difficulties (bc my ipad keyboard broke) and due to a major skill issue in prioritisation, it is a bit delayed (but will be completed). it is on track to be passed. Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  however, they are usually perfectly fine so most likely to pass anyway. Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:52, 14 May 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 an album 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.