Talk:...Ready for It?/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Ippantekina (talk · contribs) 07:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 15:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I will take on the review for this article, for the May 2025 backlog drive. As this is my first-ever GA review (other than a quickfail I made half a year ago), a more-experienced GA reviewer will also be overseeing this review, and may possibly provide additional feedback on that article. With that out of the way, I hope to have initial comments out of the way in 24 hours, and for the full review to be completed within a week :) Leafy46 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking part in this review as an experienced editor for the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025. I'm excited to work alongside Leafy46, I have outlined my process with GAN reviews at User:IntentionallyDense/October 2024 GAN backlog drive if you are curious. If you (or the nominator) have any questions at all feel free to reach out on my talk page or ping me here. Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to tag Ippantekina so that they are aware that Leafy has found some sourcing issues. Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: Thanks for that tag! Do you think I should start my prose review before the sourcing issues are sorted out? I also have a question below in my spotchecks, if you could take a look at that whenever you have a moment (27e). Thanks again :) Leafy46 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 27e I think it really depends. For example if someone writes in their lyrics "I'm feeling blue" one could (I think) reasonably say that the artist is trying to say that they feel sad. However anything that is likely to be challenged (see Wikipedia:Content that could reasonably be challenged) needs a citation. So while it is generally a well established fact that to say you "feel blue" means to say you "feel sad" something along the lines of "the writer is talking about feeling sad over their recent breakup" would require a source as that could easily be challenged.

This is honestly not an area I'm super knowledgeable in as I generally review and write on topics where every line needs to be sourced so if this does not help clarify things or the nominator is unhappy with my response I may have to pull in a third person to give their opinion.

As for continuing on with the review I usually judge it like this: "are the current issues big enough that if they were not fixed you would fail the article?" if the answer is yes then I would consider putting this on hold until the nominator can address the issue. If the answer is no then I would move on with the review. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. I'll accept the "plot summary" of the song as it is (except for the one lyric not mentioned in any of the citations), but I'll place this nomination on hold due to the sheer number of issues I've found during my limited spotcheck (in addition to the unaddressed media concerns). Leafy46 (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll get back to this soon. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for getting through most of my spotchecks fairly quickly! There's still a few points remaining (primarily about the media usage, though the Israeli charting still needs to be addressed), but I'm satisfied enough with the progress made with the citations that I'll begin my prose review :) Leafy46 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With an article of this length prose reviews can get overwhelming. I haven't looked through your feedback yet so take this with a grain of salt as it is something I remind most new reviewers about. Prose reviews at a GA level don't have to be too intense. At a GA level you are mainly looking for 3 things: grammar issues, spelling issues, and prose that doesn't make sense. If there is something you're unsure about feel free to ping me. My point is, don't stress out too much about picking up on every little prose error! Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: I have finished my prose review for this article, and thus am "finished" with my review as a whole. Please let me know if you need any clarifications, and I'll do my final checks (and give it off to IntentionallyDense for a final-final check) once you've addressed everything :) Leafy46 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46: hello thanks for the review. Gimme a day or two and I'll get back to you as soon as I could :) Ippantekina (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Quickfail checks

Article looks pretty solid from a first glance
Earwig shows a 39.8% similarity, which is acceptable. The reason for this is because the wording is identical to an IMDB listing of the music video, but I imagine that it was copied from Wikipedia instead of the other way around
There are currently no cleanup banners on the page
The article is stable, there is no edit warring
There has not been a previous GA review, with issues that would need to be addressed

Media

File:...Ready for It? - Taylor Swift.png — Y Good
File:Ready For It (Taylor Swift song) sample.ogg — Y Good
File:Taylor and Burton Cleopatra.jpg — Y Good
File:Taylor swift ready for it video.png — ? Copyright tag is fine, but I don't think that this image should be in the article because the easter egg it depicts is original research (i.e. it's not mentioned in the section itself, and doesn't have a citation).
File:Taylor Swift The Eras Tour Reputation Era Set (53109865720) (cropped).jpg — ? Copyright tag is fine, but I don't see any indication that this image depicts Swift performing "...Ready for It?" in specific. Is there something I'm missing?

Spotchecks

Here we go. I'm going to check 10% of sources, which seems to be the standard for these reviews (a quick review shows no problematic perennial sources, though the Daily Mirror is used once). Update: Spot-checks are completed, though I admittedly may have been a bit nitpicky; in any case, most of my issues revolve around source-text integrity, so it shouldn't be too painful to fix these up. Please let me know if you need any clarification, or if I missed something in the sources! For future reference, the version that the comments below refer to is this one.

6 — Y Good, though add the subscription requirement to the citation for consistency
17 — N The date of December 10, 2017 is not verified in the source; if anything, the article's release date on December 6 suggests that the song was released earlier than what's written in the article. The original link is also dead, and the citation should be adjusted as such

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

27 — See below
- a) Y
- b) N — The fact that it's tropical house-dancehall is backed up, but not the fact that it's the song's chorus. "Heavy synths" also doesn't seem to be verified through this source or the other

This should be done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- c) Y — Combining "dubstep" from one source with "bass drops" from the other is a bit synth-y (no pun intended), but I'll give it the pass
- d) Y
- e) N — I may need to turn to InternationallyDense on this one for a second opinion. All the sources essentially write out different parts of the song's lyrics, but I'm not sure whether the wording used here serves as a "plot summary" of the song, or if it begins to delve into interpretation not corroborated by the sources. For certain though, the line "no one has to know" is not mentioned in any of the three sources, and should be removed. (UPDATE: I think I can accept the current interpretation of the song's lyrics, but the "no one has to know" line not being in any of the citations still needs to be addressed)

Should be done. Ippantekina (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- f) Y
- g) N — This is a pretty clear-cut instance of WP:SYNTH. Breihan himself never explicitly wrote that the song "embod[ies] a dark aesthetic that represented Reputation" in his article, yet the way that the sentence is structured suggests that he did. The rest of the sentence (and thus the other citations) follows the same pattern: USA Today wrote only that the song is "anthemic" and Clash only that it is "defiant", meaning that the two cannot be put together in a single sentence and be attributed to both authors as though both wrote that it was "anthemic and defiant".

Rewrote the whole thing. Ippantekina (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- h) Y
32 — See below
- a) N — Same complaints as above, where the article does back up the song's tropical-house influences, but does not back up that those influences are prevalent in the chorus (nor is there mention of the "heavy synths")

This should be done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- b) Y
- c) Y
42 — See below
- a) Y
- b) ? — Mostly checks out, but I feel that the "twisted" in the article refers to how Swift adjusted the metaphor throughout the album, instead of the "twisted" on this page being used as a synonym for "wicked". Let me know if you read it otherwise

Right, I adjusted it. Ippantekina (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

49 — Y Good, but I would change "worst" to "weakest" to reflect the author's wording in the article
54 — N The article supports up to September 2017, but not the complete date of September 23, 2017

Used another link for the date; the current ref supports the "peak" position. Ippantekina (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

61 — ? Weirdly enough, I don't actually see any songs in this archived link, so I can't verify the song's Israeli charting. I'm not sure if this is a bug on my end or not, though
75 — Y
80 — See below
- a) Y
- b) Y — "Inspired by" and "Pays homage to" are two different things, but because the same movies are directly mentioned in the Telegraph article as homages, I'll let this slide
93 — Y
101 — N The article back up that the song was performed during the tour, but not that it was performed as the "opening number for the Reputation segment".

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

115 — N Original link is down, and the archive link suggests that the #3 song was "Voices" instead of "...Ready for It?". May I suggest using this link instead?

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

126 — Y
141 — Y

Prose review

Prose review is based on this revision.

Lead

"The song premiered in a college football match by ESPN,..." — Switch to "ESPN premiered the song during a college football match,...", to grammatically connect ESPN to the song and not the football match.
"Music critics generally described the production of "...Ready for It?" as anthemic and appropriate for live stadium concerts and as an opener for the Reputation era." — Anthemic is supported, but not the parts about the song being "appropriate for live stadium concerts" or "an opener for the Reputation era". If by the latter you mean that some critics believed this song should've been the lead single over "Look What You Made Me Do," then that should be directly written instead.
"...several regarded the track as generic and indiscernible from mainstream trends and the rapping cadence awkward." — As far as I can tell, there isn't a critic listed in the article who panned the song for having an awkward rapping cadence.
"The single peaked within the top ten on charts..." — This is a little vague imo, even for the lead section. Could you plump this up a bit, maybe by listing just the top-five chartings?
"...and received platinum certifications in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States." — Is there a reason why Brazil isn't included when every other country is?

Background and release

Add non-breaking spaces between all the dates; this applies to all sections.
"1989's synth-pop production transformed Swift's sound and image from country-oriented to mainstream pop. Although the album propelled Swift's status to a global pop star…" — This feels a bit clunky and repetitive imo, given that both are essentially saying that 1989 turned Swift into a pop star in different ways. Could these sentences be consolidated, perhaps?
"...making her seclude from interactions with the press. During a self-imposed hiatus…" The way that this is currently phrased makes it seem like self-imposed hiatus was separate from her seclusion from the press. Maybe "During this self-imposed hiatus…" instead?
- Also, this seems to contradict the Daily Mirror source, since that one claims that "...Ready for It?" was written during the 1989 World Tour, while this one claims that it was conceived after the fact. Unless I'm missing something, I would probably prioritize this source given that (1) it’s Swift’s own words vs. those of her assistant, and (2) Rolling Stone is more reliable than the Daily Mirror.
"On September 2, 2017, Swift premiered a snippet of "...Ready for It?" during ABC's Saturday Night Football broadcast…" — Maybe this is a bit nitpicky, but the way this sentence is worded makes it sound like Swift herself was involved with premiering the song during the broadcast (e.g. she performed it) when, from what I understand, the song was only used to soundtrack an advertisement. If my understanding is correct, could this perhaps be clarified?
Linking "college football game" with Aflac Kickoff Game is a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG imo, exacerbated by the source itself not explicitly stating that this game was the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game.

Music and lyrics

"...and the chorus has the production becoming more airy to make room for her singing with breathy vocals." — I think I understand what you’re trying to say here, but it comes across as quite winding and unclear. Maybe reword it to "...and the production becomes more airy to make room for her breathier vocals" or something like that?
- And on that note, is there a better word that we could use in the place of "airy"? That’s not really a word I associate with music production, is all.
"According to Swift, "...Ready for It?" was her first collaboration with Martin and Shellback that she felt very different from their previous musical approach on 1989." — This reads clunkily because it's not established in the article that Swift had previously worked with Martin and Shellback on 1989, which creates a bit of dissonance on the subjects of the lines "her first collaboration" and "their previous musical approach". Could this be patched up?
"According to Swift, she also used criminal imagery on other Reputation songs but in "twisted" ways." — I see what you did there to make "twisted" work, but is this relevant to the article? What Swift kept in mind while writing the rest of Reputation feels tangential to the writing of this one particular song.
- This also marks the second "According to Swift..." in three lines, albeit on different paragraphs. I'm not going to ding you for this, but I just noticed it and thought I'd point it out.
"She compares her romance to that of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, implying the complications of stardom and privacy on her love life." — This is more in line with "spot-check" territory, but the analysis in the latter half of this sentence is both a bit vague and not backed up by any of the sources. The closest is Time writing that the line sets the scene for "the album’s investigation of the perils of stardom", but this doesn’t back up the entire sentence.

Critical reception

I’d argue that "Catchy" is an everyday word and thus that linking it is MOS:OVERLINK, but I won't fight it if you decide to leave it in.
"Slant Magazine's Alexa Camp thought that the song was carefully constructed with catchy pop melodies and rapping cadences, and The Music's Uppy Chatterjee opined that it should have been the lead single." — Is there a particular reason why you combined these two reviews together? Their sentiments seem to be pretty disconnected, and there isn’t really any effort being made to compare the two reviews (see bullet point #1 of WP:RECEPTION).
"The Daily Telegraph described the lyrics as "wonderfully cringeworthy", and The New Zealand Herald's George Fenwick considered "...Ready for It?" one of the worst tracks off the album." — Ditto.
I reckon there could be more depth with regards to the retrospective reviews, given that there are quite a few rankings of Swift’s discography which don’t paint the song as positively as it is presented in this paragraph (including NME and Paste Magazine, which both put the song pretty low on their overall rankings of Swift’s discography). This is obviously not to say that undue weight should be placed on these negative opinions, but they should still be reflected in the paragraph nonetheless.

Commercial performance

My only complaint here is that there are a few countries missing from the list of international Top 10, 20, and 40s — Hungary and Slovakia are the immediate ones I see, though I may have missed others. It’d also be nice to pop in Singapore’s odd 2024 charting, if you can find some way to fit it in.

Music video

"The teaser was met with controversy, with many online commentators and media outlets claiming that Swift was physically naked in the music video; many social media users criticized Swift's alleged nudity in the teaser." — This feels a bit awkwardly-worded to me, maybe a reword to something like "The teaser was met with controversy from online commentators and media outlets claiming Swift was physical naked, prompting criticism from social media users."
"The video features homage references to sci-fi and anime, such as Blade Runner, Tron, and Ghost in the Shell." — Is "anime" necessary here? The only example here which would potentially qualify is Ghost in the Shell, and as far as I can tell the references seem to refer more to the 2017 film than the original manga/anime.
"Graffiti seen on the walls are lyrics from the Reputation album." — Is this part necessary for the plot synopsis? It seems to only serve to justify the inclusion of the image, but my issue with the media use here has already been stated above.
"The video features two different versions of Swift. This is interpreted as the battle between the Swifts; her true self and the media's perception of her." — This is pretty weirdly-worded, perhaps change this to something like "The video, featuring a battle between two versions of Swift, has been interpreted as the clash between her true self and the media's perception of her."

Live performances

"...backed by a quarter of backing vocalists and dancers." — Should be a *quartet* of backing vocalists, presumably.
"...B96 Chicago and Pepsi Jingle Bash on December 7, in Chicago, Z100 Jingle Ball in on December 8, in New York City, and Jingle Bell Ball on December 10, in London, England." — These should all be changed to either the form of "B96 Chicago and Pepsi's Jingle Bash" or "the B96 Chicago and Pepsi Jingle Bash", depending on which is used in the source.
- Also, there's a typo in "Z100 Jingle Ball *in on* December 8"
"The screens onstage then parted, and Swift emerged onstage through the smoke..." — It's a bit awkwardly-worded, remove one of the two "onstage"'s

The rest of the sections

Is there any reason why Serban Ghenea's name is written with an S-comma in the 'Personnel' section, but not earlier in the 'Music and lyrics' section?
Could you double-check if there's a difference between "mixing" and "mix engineer" in the liner notes? Apple Music names both Ghenea and Hanes as "mixing engineers", but the article for Reputation (album) does indeed list the two differently
The year-end chart for El Salvador seems like it should be under the 2017 table and not the 2018 table, looking at the website itself