Talk:Champagne Problems (Taylor Swift song)

Genre

Is the genre Ballad? Or maybe this is in a subgenres of Ballad or something else? SamieFrost22 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Eras Tour - Arlington, TX - Evermore act.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Teaching Writing in Middle and High School

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tristinj15 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tristinj15 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2023 (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:Champagne Problems (Taylor Swift song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to take this one! Expect a review in the next few days. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, here comes the review! Please respond with  Done,  Not done, or something similar to that effect, without crossing any of my comments out. You can also pose any general questions you have in § Discussion below.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead

• I have reservations on the use of technical terms here; see my comment below.
• The statement about the Eras tour is not reflected anywhere in the body of the article. I would move the statement along with its citation further down.
• The statement that the song was recorded at Kitty Committee is unsourced.

 Done all three. ℛonherry☘ 12:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Background and release

• "Taylor Swift" is an excessive link.

Comment: It is the first mention of Swift within the article body. It should be hyperlinked, should it not? ℛonherry☘ 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering this is the creator of the song, whose name is right there in the title of the article, I would say no. However, you're free to disagree with me on this point, and I won't push it if you'd like to keep the link. —TS

• The sentence beginning "In September 2020," feels pretty original research-y to me given that it's cited to the primary source on Disney+. Where is the subjective phrasing of "assembled" and "secluded" coming from? Also,

I've added source for that. ℛonherry☘ 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this looks good to me. —TS

• Why is this discussion of a documentary about Swift's previous album in this article? Is it directly relevant to the subject in any way?

The song is part of the album that was recorded the same evening as the documentary. ℛonherry☘ 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Then that should probably be mentioned in the article, as the discussion of that documentary seems pretty off-topic without that context. —TS

• Decider is run by the New York Post, which is designated as a generally unreliable source. This needs to be removed or replaced.

  This has yet to be addressed. —TS

   Done —TS

• Swift wrote "Champagne Problems" song
• The quote beginning "I say it was a surprise..." is far too long to be encyclopedic. Same goes for the quote of the lyrics further down. These two should be paraphrased, shortened, or removed — and I'd highly recommend removing the lyrics. In general, I'd be wary of relying too much on the artist's opinions of their work that they share in interviews, as it tips the scales of undue weight a little too much in that direction.

 Done. Don't know who added it. The last time I read this article and decided to nominate it for GA, this prose was not there. ℛonherry☘ 12:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• This whole second paragraph feels a bit out of place in a section titled "Background and release". I'd recommend shortening it significantly and merging it down into § Composition and lyrics.
• What makes Justrandomthings a reliable source? It appears to be a blog, which is considered generally unreliable due to being self-published.
• I have the same reservations as before about using an extended quote from Swift to describe the song ("two longtime college sweethearts..."). I have additional reservations about citing a tweet from Swift in this context.
• "Champagne" is an excessive link.

 Done all of the above, except those I've commented on. ℛonherry☘ 12:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Composition and lyrics

• The use of this image feels more decorative than encyclopedic. How does its inclusion benefit a reader's understanding of the subject? Also, the caption is technically unsourced.
• The subjective descriptors "weepy" and "spacious" should not be written in Wikipedia's voice, and need inline attribution to the writers of those articles. ("[Reviewer] felt that the song was '[descriptor]'", or something to that effect.) Rinse and repeat for the rest of this section.
• The second half of that sentence ("oompah piano chords that interlace...") is too closely paraphrased.
• I would rewrite this whole sentence with less emphasis on technical terms like "oompah" that require the reader to click on the link mid-sentence in order to understand what the word means.
• "Apologetic" is not verified by the source.
• "Champagne Problems" also sees the narrator addressing → The narrator addresses
• There are two relatively bare lyric quotes cited to Elle. Rather than including entire lines of the song here, it would be more informative to write about what the reviewers said about them, or how they were interpreted.
• What makes MusicNotes a reliable source? More broadly, how is the inclusion of the tempo and vocal range encyclopedic?

 Done all. ℛonherry☘ 12:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Critical reception

• This section mostly reads like a series of "[A] said [B]" statements that don't connect to each other in a logical manner. Just like in any other section of the article, related information should be organized together in series, and the reviewers' opinions can still be shared without using excessive quotations. I'd highly recommend reading this essay, which is a useful list of mistakes to avoid in reception sections. This is going to require a substantial rewrite, so I'll withhold some of my other comments about this section until later so as not to waste your time.
• Remove the peacock term "2008 hit".
• The second half of that sentence ("with the latter being..." reads quite awkwardly, could you rephrase it?
• "Billboard " and "bridge" are duplicate links.

 Done all. ℛonherry☘ 13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

References

• 'Folklore'/'Evermore' → Folklore/Evermore
• Make sure capitalization of album and song titles are consistent even if they're stylized in the title of the source.
• The first {{Certification Table Entry}} template is missing its |id= and |access-date= parameters, which is causing an error in the references list.

  @TechnoSquirrel69: Hi. This is the reference (), but I don't know how to incorporate it into the table entry as it does not have any "id". I would like some help here. ℛonherry☘ 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll look into it. —TS

  Quick question, where did you get this document from? Links to file-sharing platforms like Dropbox are normally avoided on Wikipedia due to their questionable reliability and volatility. I'd prefer a link to the ARIA's website, if possible. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  ARIA themselves provide these PDFs via dropbox, I fear. Scroll down to the "Resources" section in the official website. ℛonherry☘ 18:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I see; that's odd, but acceptable as a primary source, I suppose. I think it might just be easier to put that row in with normal table markup instead of the template, so I'll try that out. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much. I appreciate it. ℛonherry☘ 18:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  No problem!  Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Try to make sure all the news publications are linked if they have an article on Wikipedia.

@TechnoSquirrel69:  Done. ℛonherry☘ 18:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• The entirety of § Commercial performance is missing inline citations. Thankfully, most of the references can just be copied from § Charts, though.
• File:DomPerignonChampagne.jpg is licensed under CC BY 2.0, no issues. See my comment above about the appropriateness of its usage.

 Done both. ℛonherry☘ 13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for your patience, Ronherry! I have various concerns about this article as it pertains to the criteria which will require a fairly involved series of changes and improvements. However, I feel like these issues are workable, and if you're willing to put slightly more effort into this review than you might normally expect from a GAN review, I'm willing to work with you to get this article to GA level instead of just failing this nomination outright. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Pinging you to let you know I've responded to your comments! ℛonherry☘ 13:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Ronherry; sorry to keep you waiting, but I've been a little busy this week. I may have more time to do a second round of this review over the weekend. I appreciate you for getting back to me so quickly! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your patience with me, Ronherry; it's been a bit of a crazy week! Nice work on this so far, and here are some follow-up comments to your changes, some of which I've left inline above.

• In the lead, "portrayal ... of mental health" is not supported by any claims in the body.
• The list of countries where the song charted seems too detailed for the lead. Just mentioning that it charted in multiple countries should suffice.
• In § Critical reception, use of the term "lauded" is not neutral; the source doesn't go much further than a short description of the song, so a word like "noted" would be more appropriate.
• The first paragraph of § Commercial performance is still unsourced.
• I'm not convinced § In popular culture needs bullet points per MOS:PARA.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done all. ℛonherry☘ 08:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've responded to some of your questions inline above, you might want to take a look at that. I also added some new comments in § References. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've addressed those new comments as well, thank you. ℛonherry☘ 09:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ronherry: I'm still seeing some pending issues, such as the The Long Pond Studio Sessions's relation to the song, and all of the reference formatting issues I brought up in § References. Could you take closer look at those and get back to me? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Done, both the sessions' relation to the song, and the references' formatting, except the one thing where I requested some aid from you. Thanks. ℛonherry☘ 18:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Really nice work on this nomination over the past few weeks, Ronherry! I appreciate your patience with the delays and your perseverance to get through some of the more involved changes. From a nomination I was initially unsure of, you've really tightened everything up, and I'm pleased to  pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Don't forget that you have seven-day window to nominate the article at Did you know? to have a hook appear on the Main Page! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

References

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.