Talk:Get Him Back!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Get Him Back! article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Get Him Back! has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 3, 2024. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Get Him Back! appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 November 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the music video for Olivia Rodrigo's song "Get Him Back!" was shot on an iPhone 15 Pro?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Get Him Back! (2nd nomination).

Wikipedia

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 articles

Pop music Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Olivia Rodrigo High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olivia Rodrigo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olivia Rodrigo 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.Olivia RodrigoWikipedia:WikiProject Olivia RodrigoTemplate:WikiProject Olivia RodrigoOlivia Rodrigo articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:00, 3 September 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Get Him Back!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 04:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 00:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get around to reviewing this over the next couple days! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Generalissima. Thanks for taking this review! How is this going?--N Ø 04:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check

2: Checks out.
8: Yep.
10: This cited three times; I'm not usually one for music reviews so I'm curious how this sort of source is accessed! Not disqualifying if its difficult to, of course.

This is found in the physical CD booklets of an album which also produce song lyrics and the track listing. It is kind of a chore to upload since it has to be hosted by an external image hosting service.

17: Yep.
21a & 21b: I've always found music links a funny way to cite this, but it checks out!
24, 25, 27, 27, 28, 29: All of these descriptors individually check out, but I wonder if there's a better way to describe this; I feel its a stretch to say these sources really describing the song as all of these at once. Maybe "has been variously described as a rap rock, pop rap, or pop-punk song"?

I have been encouraged to go for active voice usually, so I have a preference for the "is a [insert genre] song" phrasing (which can be seen on Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) for example). I don't think there is anything wrong with your suggestion, though, although "variously" could be seen as getting into filler word territory

34a, b, c, d, e, f, g: Check out.
72: Yep.
88: Yup.
97: Checks out.
124 & 125: Check out, but this one sentence section feels clunky to me. Is there a way to incorporate that into another section?

Overall, high-quality sourcing. Nothing seems out of place for this sort of article.

Prose review

Lede is good, except for that aformentioned confusion of a song being 4 genres at the same time.
Background and release is good.
Music and production kinda has a Sea of Blue at the end... maybe we can only include the comparisons that multiple sources mentioned?

imo the quotation marks and commas prevent an SOB issue since they should separate the blue parts for readers and prevent confusion that it's just one big link to the same article. I would worry about cherry-picking comparisons as that could cause a neutrality and/or comprehensiveness issue according to some.

Very well written critical reception section, those are notoriously hard to write and you've pulled it off well. Maybe you could squeeze a couple of the reviewer perspectives together to avoid namedropping so many reviewers, but I'm unsure how this would be done, or if it'd even be possible.

Thank you so much! I did do a lot of clubbing while originally writing this, and kept just those ones separate combining which would be detrimental to readers' understanding imo.

Commercial performance well-written, but I feel the last two sentences that's just a list of where it charted in various countries is slightly redundant when the charts tables are a few sections below that.

The chart tables do produce the entirety of this information but most song FAs put it in prose anyways. In FACs where I have not also included this information in the text, there has usually been pushback.

Music video section good.
Live performance section is good, but maybe an excessive number of quotes? I feel this can be compiled into just a couple sentences about positive reception without naming individual reviewers.

I think the mention of the reviewer names is necessary to demarcate that these are not very widely held opinions but I have just gone ahead and paraphrased out some quotes!

Other

Coverage seems broad, can't really think of anything missing.
Seems neutral, assuming there's not some well of negative criticism somewhere I'm missing :D
Stable for sure.
Images are good and have alt-text.

@MaranoFan: All in all, just seems like a few problems to fix. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review and the kind words! I believe I have replied to or addressed everything.--N Ø 11:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good here! I'm confident this hits GA criteria now. Promoting! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:00, 3 September 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.