Talk:All-American Bitch/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Fritzmann (message me) 18:04, 9 October 2024 (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.

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

Nominator: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 15:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 15:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay; I'm almost finished with my first sweep and will have comments by the end of the day. Fritzmann (message me) 15:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I have gotten busy recently too.--N Ø 17:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week since the first sweep comments were expected so I thought I would remind, Fritzmann.--N Ø 10:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

"wrote it with its producer" wrote what with whose producer? Does this refer to the song and the album's producer or the song and the song's producer?
"their double standards" makes it sound like they are the double standards held by women
I think an additional sentence on critical reception would be warranted in the lead, given its prominence in the article
Is Rodrigo's wardrobe during a rehearsal video deserving of a mention in the lead?
"where she stabbed a blood-colored cake at a tea party and splattered it on her face, receiving positive reviews" something about these two clauses sounds off to me. I can't quite put my finger on it though
"Rodrigo would listen to Rage Against the Machine on her way to studio sessions" I think this sentence is outside the scope of this article

I think it's relevant since Rodrigo later credits the band for inspiring the transition in the Composition section.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"uptempos and serious ones" is there a more encyclopedic way to phrase this?
The second half of the second paragraph of "Background and release" doesn't really seem to fit into the section. I think it may be more appropriate in the composition section since it discusses specific aspects of the song and the artist's motivation for writing them. Your thoughts?

The way I envision it, Background and release includes information related to a song's creation and inspiration, whereas Composition is the final analysis of the completed studio recording, making use of mostly secondary critical analysis. This article follows the same structure I have used on a bunch of FAs.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Online TikTok videos compared the chorus of "All-American Bitch" to Miley Cyrus's 2008 single "Start All Over"" probably belongs in the reception section

Probably not, since they aren't critics and the section is called "Critical reception". This is part of the immediate reception following the album's release so imo it logically belongs here.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"He plays acoustic guitar" shouldn't all of these be past tense, like "played"?
"on which Rodrigo explores" in which?
"from women" for/on women?
"their contradictory nature" does this refer to the contradictory nature of the pop culture references? Perhaps also split this sentence
I would reformat the note to be a complete sentence: "These critic included..."
What does "genre refraction" mean? Would additional context clear up that quote?

I would imagine this would be referring to the genre transition in the middle of the song, akin to how a ray of light would be refracted through a lens. Of course, we cannot add this to the article as it would constitute original research. A wikilink to Refraction would probably also be jarring.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any significant negative critic reception to the album or does the all-positive section accurately reflect their opinions?

The current section is comprehensive.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super familiar with song articles like these, but is this level of detail on the live performances standard?

Yes, if secondary sources considered this level of detail about a certain performance worthy of reporting on.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The bakery that provided 20 cakes for it got increased attention on social media" there may be a better way to phrase this, the voice just sounds a bit off
"It appeared in the trailer..." was this the concert in general or the screaming moment in particular?

Good catch. This is referring to the studio recording of the song, and I have made this more clear.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the prose is solid and I don't have any issues with the balance, original research, or synthesis. The critical reception section has a good mix of quotes and paraphrasing, and does a good job of summarizing critic opinions.

References

Ref 5 is an interview but is used to discuss the artist's inspiration so all good there
Ref 19 doesn't seem to verify anything or talk about its sentence; it was written five days before the album title was announced

Ref 18 does verify both claims so it seems 19 is just extraneous

Ref 19 includes Vampire's release date so it should be fine to keep. Two refs are not overkill.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 22 says that only one, as opposed to many, online Tiktok compared it to the Cyrus song. That article also makes a lot of other comparisons that aren't given the same weight; is there a reason that specific song was picked?

Is there a reason you think they aren't given the same weight? No comparison in the article has received more than one sentence. This one's just in a separate section since I don't think a comparison made by TikTokers belongs next to actual critical comparisons in the Composition section.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 35 and 36 look all good
Ref 40 and 41 also good
52, 54, and 55 are all well-transferred and I don't have any concerns about source-text integrity for the critical reception section
Not going to check all the rankings references, I'll take your word on those.

Overall an excellent article. I apologize once again for my negligence in delaying this review. Once the prose critiques are addressed I am happy to promote, please let me know if you have any questions! Fritzmann (message me) 01:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very insightful review, Fritzmann. It has been more than worth the wait. Let me know if my explanations on some of the points above are satisfactory, or else I am happy to revisit those points. Everything else is done.--N Ø 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan the changes look good and I am more than happy with your justifications for all of the points raised above. Thanks again for your patience and for the very quick response, promoting the GA now. Fritzmann (message me) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (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.