Talk:Groovin'

Groovin' has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 28, 2023. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

Passed. Vaticidalprophet 18:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Groovin'/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 02:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in extremely good shape. I've made some minor copyedits, but this should be a very short GAN.

My only serious query is the way the lyrics are summarized, in particular the use of the somewhat-anachronistic 'partner'. The sources make it very clear that the song was inspired by a specific romantic relationship, and 'partner' is both ambiguous between romantic/platonic relationships and wasn't in common use for the former at the time. (The lead also says "partners", which is in disagreement with the sources and the body of the article.) Is there a good way to recast these uses?

Otherwise, excellent work. Vaticidalprophet 02:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet The lead section was a typo, my mistake. The lyrics are supposed to refer to a romantic partner (inspired by Cavaliere's girlfriend). English is not my first language which may have been the primary issue in this mixup, my apologies. VirreFriberg (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It's a term that's become much more common for romantic partners in the past ten or twenty years, but wasn't usually used for them in the 1960s, so it stood out as an unusual wording. I'll check the article for any more minor copyedits, but hope to pass this soon -- it's in strong shape and looking through the sources in that section found everything was fine in source-text terms. Vaticidalprophet 18:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some additional copyedits for flow and readability and am happy to pass this. Vaticidalprophet 18:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.