Talk:Happiness (Taylor Swift song)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 18 November 2023 by reviewer Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs).

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

Taylor Swift Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

Passed. Locust member (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2025 (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:Happiness (Taylor Swift song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 13:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Locust member (talk · contribs) 17:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I’m going to be taking this so you can get that Evermore good topic :)) Locust member (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it! Medxvo (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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, as shown by a source spot-check. 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:
· · ·

"natural extension to Folklore" - not sure why but this wording feels off/not the most neutral. I would just say "resulted in Evermore, which Swift described as a "sister record" to Folklore". like you have used in articles before
- Done Medxvo (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the i was renamed to The i Paper, I believe it can be kept as simply the i in this article since the name change was after the song's release.

Some references have limited access levels while others don't. I would add it to all of them that seem fit.
- Added limited access to Star Tribune and The Atlantic, please tell me if I missed other sources Medxvo (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone could use it but since it's not a part of the criteria I won't hold a GA over it. Locust member (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though not listed in WP:A/S, Atwood Magazine is included in 72 good articles, so looks good.

Angela Morrison of Exclaim! believed "Happiness" featured one of Swift's most mature lyricism - I think "some" instead of "one" works better here.
- Done Medxvo (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check looks good; all sources verify their accompanied text.

I think you could add something from "As the song progresses Swift as the narrator goes back-and- forth in her telling of the relationship between the protagonist and the ex-partner." from this source in music and lyrics section.
- Should be done, let me know how it looks Medxvo (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lowndes Schaarschmidt from Atwood Magazine - the source says their last name is Commander
- Ooops, thanks, done Medxvo (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In critical reception, you can add Cory McConnell of The Ringer said it drags on the first half of the album per here
- Thanks for this, I changed the sentence completely to "considered it one of the less interesting tracks on the album's first half" since that's what they explicitly said Medxvo (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a nitpick but in the sentence ending in "own emotional hook." reorder the sources so they are in numerical order
- Done Medxvo (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Gatsby image has correct licensing. No other images included in the article.

No other editors since October so stability is not an issue.

Earwig shows highest copyvio of 27.5% so looks good.

Overall

Everything else looks good! Awesome work here, as always, Medvxo. Putting this On hold for now, ping me once you got these all handled and I'll pass this so you can get that Evermore good topic :))
Thanks so much again, Locust member, much appreciated! All should be addressed. Medxvo (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks ready to go. Congrats!! Locust member (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedway

GA review