The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 13, 2025 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 11:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 11:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I will start this today and probably finish tomorrow! --K. Peake 11:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Medxvo (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the unknown location from the infobox where only studios themselves should be; this is fine having a mention kept in prose
• "She wrote and produced it with" → "She co-wrote and produced the song with"
• Information about the song's lyrical subject is key, so please add this to the lead as the last sentence of this first paragraph
  • I totally forgot to add the lyrical information, thank you for this. Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "several of whom picked it as" → "several of whom picked the song as"
• "The track received" → "The song received"

• "and continued working on it" → "and continued working on the record" to avoid overusage of "it"
• The "really needed" quote is not source; try putting in your own words as something like "she felt was important to make"
  • Thanks for the great suggestion! Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "across the stage during" → "across the stage for"
• "She ended the performance" → "Swift ended the performance"

• Good

• Audio sample looks good!
• [13] should only be invoked at the end of the first para's penultimate sentence since it is used for information before and after the clause here
• The "this be declassified?" quote is sourced as ending as "be declassified and you'll confess why you did it?" – either remove the question mark from inside the speech mark here or add the full quote
• The source reads "when it wasn't forbidden", not "once it wasn't forbidden"
  • I added the liner notes source there to confirm the original lyrics since I also noticed that Vulture messed them up... You can see the liner notes here. Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "due to perceptions of" → "This was due to perceptions of" as a new sentence to avoid a run-on; there are three clauses used already by this point otherwise
• "and that "he will" → "and "he will"

• Retitle to Reception and merge with the below section
  • I think Commercial performance has enough information for a seprate section. Critical reception also has two paragraphs and 300 words. I think three paragraphs would be too much for information that are not so interconnected. I also believe 400 words would be too much for one section (+35% of the total word count), but let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "both similarly considered it a" → "both similarly considered the song a"
• "opined that it could be" → "opined that the song could be"

• Make this part of the above section per short size
• [47] should be next to [48] after the clause since it is not appropriate to have the ref in the middle before a clause abruptly

• Good

• Good

• Good

• Good

• Copyvio score looks fairly decent at 35.1%
• Cite Today as work/website instead on ref 7
• Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 11

• On hold until all of the issues are fixed; took a day and now it's done! --K. Peake 19:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe all should be done/addressed now, Kyle Peake! Thank you again for taking the time to provide a great review. Very much appreciated. Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Pass now, the issues no longer persist and I greatly appreciate your explanations for some points we did not agree on. --K. Peake 16:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]