Talk:Girl, So Confusing/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: De88 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CatchMe (talk · contribs) 03:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the best songs of 2024 shouldn't end the year without a review, right? I plan to do that today. CatchMe (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Top

• Are there sources regarding the "promotional single" status of the remix? If not, change the short description to "2024 song by Charli XCX".

Due to the notability the remix has over the original track, would it be better to attribute the song to both Charli and Lorde?

I think it would be different if we classified the remix as a single. Also, Lorde is a featured artist according to the lead (not consistent throughout the article.)

I see. I removed and changed it as suggested.  Done

• I think "(stylised in sentence-case)" is trivial.

I have seen other articles highlight this in the lead. Examples or article with GA-class status: Reputation, "All the Good Girls Go to Hell", etc. What is the overall consensus on stylization in titles and remarking this in the article?

I only found a dicussion here and an essay, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. Since it's not a policy/guideline, I accept it in a GA article, as other users did. Maybe it would be removed from articles in the future after further discussion, maybe not.

I removed it, but I will note that the change in the title for the remix should be left, considering that the original had it named "version" instead of "featuring", which based on purely original research, was changed to be consistent with all the songs on the remix album.  Done

• Per WP:FALSETITLE, add "the" before "English singer", "New Zealand singer", etc. Do it in all sections.

 Done

• Maybe you could include some information about the added lyrics/dialogue of the remix to the lead.

 Done

• Add "Commercially, " before "It charted in the top 40..."

 Done

• "...in New Zealand and the United Kingdom and peaked..." - add a comma between "Kingdom" and the second "and".

 Done

• Add the certification to the lead.

 Done

Background

• Link first mention of Charli XCX.

 Done

• "She later clarified on her TikTok account that Brat did not contain any "diss tracks", with the exception of the album's lead single, "Von Dutch" (2024)." - Unsourced? Did not find it in the following ref.

Ref 36 was meant to be linked here. Added it.  Done

• "Upon the release of Brat, Out's Mey Rude reported about fans' speculations that the song may be about Japanese and British singer Rina Sawayama, Welsh singer Marina Diamandis or New Zealand singer Lorde." - Could you copy ref 7 after this? Otherwise, it seemed unsourced.

 Done

• Could the feuds with Sawayama and Diamandis be trimmed a bit for focus and to not fall out of WP:SCOPE?

Which sentences would you recommend removing? I mentioned their collaborations to establish that the artists have worked together and that the alleged feud was random, but unsure which ones could be removed while still retaining the essence of the article.

For example, I would remove the sentence starting with "Sawayama accused Healy of...", since it's not so related to "Girl, So Confusing" imo. I would say something like "Diamandis, who had previously worked with Rutherford, wrote "This Froot looks familiar" on Charli XCX's Instagram post, which became a meme phrase" to not go into unnecessary detail. Let me know if you disagree. Also, in "speculations of the song's subject" you should change "the song" to "Girl, So Confusing" since it's not really talking about that before.

I trimmed the sections. I do agree that it flows better and still leaves the reader understanding the motives behind the possible connections between the artists in question. Let me know if I need to remove more from those two paragraphs.

I think it's better now. Don't want to be nitpicky.

• The first two paragraphs of Background and release under Lorde remix could be moved here (and be trimmed a bit too). I know those are about Lorde, but I think are kind of out of place and suit better here, as they are not so related to the remix release, and the other two comparisons (Sawayama and Diamandis) are in this section.

I debated moving them here, but will move here as it does leave the reader wondering where Lorde fits into the discussion of the subject.

 Done

Composition and lyrics

• Attribute to writers instead of websites/magazines, e.g. "while ...while Pitchfork's Meaghan Garvey called..." instead of "...while Pitchfork called..."

 Done

• Was there any critical reception for the original version?

I went through many of the album reviews that mention the track and could only find descriptions of the song, but no actual positive or negative reviews of the song. Most read neutral and descriptive of the production and other musical aspects.

• There should be a Commercial performance section.

 Done

Lorde remix

Infobox

• The same with the above stylization, not sure if it's relevant.

 Done

• The genres are completely unsourced/not discussed in prose.

Unsure who added those, removing them. I know two of those genres were listed on several articles. Will cite them in prose as well.

Could not locate any source that explicitly described the genre(s) of the remix. Will remove all genres from the infobox.

Background and release

• See above regarding the two first paragraphs.

Moved and condensed the paragraphs into one.  Done

Lyrical interpretation and themes

• The same with the attribution mentioned above.

Would you suggest that this be moved to Background and release section?

• "...but provides an answer from Lorde..." - "...and provides and answer from Lorde..."

 Done

• The Genius source isn't really necessary, and there is no consensus on its reliability per WP:GENIUS.

 Done

Critical reception

• Again, attribute to writers in the first paragraph.

 Done

• "The remix won the 2024 Popjustice £20 Music Prize, a prize which recognises the best British pop single of the previous year." - Isn't 2023 the previous year?

Removed "previous" to indicate the award is given to a pop single released that same year.  Done

• Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Overly long ranking lists, cut down the year-end rankings to a maximum of 10. I would remove the less relevant ones, like Flood and The Ringer, and the unranked NPR list. Also, I think you could separate the year-end and the mid-decade.

I have questions on this. I have seen other articles with long lists of year/decade/all-time placements all together and some of those are GA-class status. My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy has them all together. I do want to note that there are many publications with notability in and out of the core music circles that are worthy of being included in the article. Many of those publications, if added, would exceed the 10 limit. What merits inclusion in the article? Notability of the publication or high placement of the track? You can make the argument that majority of the publications on this article are of notable or significant cultural relevancy.

I guess they can be together, but the consensus is to be a maximum of 10. And I think the relevance of the publication is more important. Some users opined this in that discussion as well.

I separated both and left the ones with publications of high notability.  Done

Charts, Certifications

• Look good!

References

• Earwig's Copyvio says "violation possible" with 49.2% of similarity. The text tagged are quotes; you should paraphrase some of them. Without the textual quotes starting with "I don't think you become a bad feminist..." and "[Lorde] had big hair; I had big hair..." it should be better.

 Done

Overall

The article is mostly very well-written, neutral, and stable. The pics are well-licensed and well-captioned, and I think all references are considered reliable, except where noted. I will put this  On hold and wait for the comments to be adressed or discussed.