Talk:...Ready for It?

...Ready for It? is currently a Songs good article nominee. Nominated by Ippantekina (talk) at 07:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Short description: 2017 single by Taylor Swift

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taylor Swift Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 13 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved; snowball clause. (non-admin closure) Chase (talk | contributions) 01:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Ready for It? → ...Ready For It? – The word "for" also capitalize based on YouTube and iTunes. Hddty. (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hddty.: Not by Wikipedia rules. And should the initial dots be in the Wikipedia standard name? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:CT. – electricController 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As above. Raritydash (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As above. Aleccat 19:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the capitalization standards at MOS:CT Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. As for the inital dots, I disagree, since "Make Me...", "...Baby One More Time", ...But Seriously and ...And Justice for All articles also have dots in its titles. Music01 (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the word "for" is not capitalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.191.1 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Grammatically, "for" is a preposition and should be made lowercase. The word "like" in "Someone like You (Adele song)" is capitalized on iTunes but should be lowercase, technically. CB19 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:CT. Darkday (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is Genius a credible source?

I'd like to add more analysis of the song's lyrics into the "writing and composition" section, and so I found out about a website that analyses songs, and it's genius.com. I'd like to ask - is the website a credible source? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 04:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genius is not credible, sorry. It's user-added content. Aleccat 11:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start-class?

I think this article can pass as C-class now. What do yall think? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 06:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can DontBlameMe (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Key

"The song is performed in the key of E minor with a tempo of 160 beats per minute, with Swift's vocals spanning from G3 to E5."

The reference is to SongBPM. As I look, it gives the tempo but none of the other info in that sentence. So where has the rest of the info come from? Furthermore, according to my analysis the song is in a mixture of E minor and G major. — Smjg (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this reference, and then scroll to "Product Information". There, the key and the vocal range is available. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Natnat6002 (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

Hi! I found out that before the release on the US radio this song was sent on Russian contemporary hit radio as single on september 11 2017. Should I change the release date to September 11? Source: https://tophit.ru/en/tracks/84043/ MemberDecember (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Literature Special Topics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 October 2024 and 19 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chartiersl (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by M.n.painter (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:...Ready for It?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]

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

Lead

Background and release

Music and lyrics

Critical reception

Commercial performance

Music video

Live performances

The rest of the sections