Talk:1989 (album)/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by HĐ in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 15:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply


Infobox

edit
  • Los Angeles → Los Angeles, California
  • New York → New York City, New York (as it could be Brooklyn, New Jersey...)
  • Do the same with the rest

  Done

Lead

edit
  • Inspired by 1980s synth-pop for Red's follow-up → Inspired by 1980s synth-pop
Can you re-write it in a different way? It sounds like it was released together with Red and it didn't' draw inspiration from it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • whose key figures included Martin, Shellback, and Jack Antonoff, → aren't you saying the same on two sentences before "a result of Swift's collaborations with pop producers Max Martin and Shellback."
Got it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • effectively eschewing her signature country sound. → already mentioned above regarding the critics
  • done
  • It won Album of the Year at the 58th Grammy Awards → It won Best Pop Vocal Album and Album of the Year at the 58th Grammy Awards
  • win the category twice. → win the latter category twice.
  • done

  Done

Background

edit
  • Taylor Swift released her fourth studio album Red in October 2012 to commercial success; the album debuted atop the US Billboard 200 with first-week sales of 1.2 million copies → Taylor Swift released her fourth studio album Red in October 2012 with contemporary critics notincing the album's emerging departure from Swift's signature country styles of previous releases. (otherwise fancruft)
  • "22", "I Knew You Were Trouble" and "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" → release dates in between brackets
I can see your point of view. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • The album's associated world tour ran from March 2013 to June 2014 and grossed over $150 million → remove it, fancruft
  • Swift had been dubbed by the media as "America's Sweetheart" because of her wholesome public image. During promotion of Red, her reputation was suffering from what The New York Times called "a backlash" resulting from her overexposed romantic relationships with high-profile celebrities. Swift avoided discussing her personal life in public, as she believes that talking about it can be a "career weakness". → how is this vital to the article?
  • It gives a clue on how Swift's themes shifted to more wistful and mature perspectives (cue 'Blank Space', which satirised the media perception of Swift being a man-eater), (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
If you can give examples as you did with Blank Space, with sources, regarding the last topic it would be awesome. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done

Production

edit
  • support of Red → support of the aforementioned album
If the sentece was longer, how about "Swift began songwriting for 1989 in mid-2013, when she was touring in support of Red."? By this point, the album probably didn't have a name but 1989 it is the follow up. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I'll try to find another way because that Swift titled the album 1989 is in the second para, and since I wanted to shape this section in a narrative form, it's arbitrary to mention the name 1989 right at the forefront, (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • ;the former and Swift served as executive producers →, with the former and Swift serving as executive producers (flows better) + sources at the end of the sentence
  • The Hideaway Studio → located at? By the way, if it is not indicated how do you know?
How that works if you say on the notes "The location of The Hideaway Studio, where "Clean" was recorded, is not indicated in the liner notes of 1989" ? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
For other songs, for example, 'Blank Space', the text would list out the studio name + location (Recorded at MXM Studios in Stockholm, Sweden etc.). For 'Clean' only, it only says 'Recorded by Imogen Heap at The Hideaway Studio, which I'm pretty sure is a pseudonym for Heap's home studio in London. Anyways, since all other studios' locations are indicated but not The Hideaway Studio, I added a note to explain the situation, (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I get it now. Thanks. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • You are always talking about the standard edition, don't you want to mention the deluxe? or both together, instead of producing 2 Jack Antonoff produced 3?
Fine by me. Only two issues two address here.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done

Music and lyrics

edit
  • Closing tracks of the standard edition → The closing tracks
  • Any particular order of the songs? It's not by singles or album tracklist
  • The songs in the third para revolves around Swift's wistful perspectives on love; the fourth para discusses songs in a more 'randomized' order I believe, as the themes the songs in the fourth para discuss spread from satirizing the media to talking about love with a playful view (as Swift only shared BTS inspirations on a few tracks only), (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I ge the idea now. Just adress the rest.

  Done

Pre-release promotion

edit
  • Fine

Distribution

edit
  • both the standard and deluxe editions...through retailer services globally → missing deluxe on the source and it only links to the US iTunes
  • The following day, Apple announced that it would pay artists during the free trial period → source on the end of the sentence
  • The following day, Apple announced that it would pay artists during the free trial period. Swift thereafter agreed to keep 1989 on the streaming service. → can you make one sentence out of these? The reading doesn't flow well MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I can only turn the full stop to a semi-colon; Swift did not announce she'd keep 1989 on Apple the same day Apple announced the royalty plan so..., (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done

Singles

edit
  • were released through iTunes Stores (as promotional singles) → source?
  • I would replace the MTV source as it calls "Out of The Woods", incorrectly, the second single
  • As the other singles have peaks for other countries such as Australia, UK, Cananda...so should Blank Space have.
  • Style" followed on February 9, 2015,[71] → source at the end of the sentence.
  • The video won → It won
Can it? It won Video of the Year... MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Reworded; the rest is all done, (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Wildest Dreams" served as the follow-up single on August 31, 2015,[75] → same as with Style
  • US as promotional singles → US as promotional singles one at a time.
  • Previous promotional single "Out of the Woods" → "Out of the Woods", previously released as a promotional single, was issued
  • and distributed the first, "Wonderland" → the iTunes source joined with the others.
  • Wonderland".[79] "You Are In Love" followed on February 24,[80] and "New Romantics" was made available on March 3.[81] → same as with style

  Done

Live performances

edit
  • "Love Story" and "I Knew You Were Trouble" → brackets for the year of release and unlink "I Knew You Were Trouble" as it is already linked above
  • Concurrently with the release → Is it still going?
I read currently, my bad. Adress the other. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done

Critical reception

edit
  • while noted → regardless of
How about, while noted → noticed, flows better. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done

Accolades

edit
  • 1989 placed at number six on Metacritic's list of the best-received records of 2014 → 1989 was the sixth best-received record of 2014 on Metacritic's list
It's just the wording. Can you reword it? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't really like the phrase "the sixth best-received record of 2014"; it's a list compiled on independent data, and the 'sixth best-received record' sounds like it was ranked by Metacritic while in fact, it's not... (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • of the year → of 2014
  • by various publications → in various publications
  • Jon Caramanica → Caramanica
Sure, but his name is already on the above section, you can use the surname as it's the same person. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • received two awards for → received awards for
  • was for Fearless in 2010 → was for Fearless (2008) in 2010

  Done

Commercial performance

edit
  • thanks to the emergence → due to the emergence (I get the meaning of the sentence, but let's not use metaphors)
  • third week of release,[133] → source at the end of the sentence
  • It also made Swift the female artist with the second-highest number of weeks at the top spot, at 35 weeks, only behind Whitney Houston, who spent 46 weeks at number one. → I would add the "previously reported" source here as well, and where is a source for Swift weeks?
Can't you find it? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • 1989 spent 53 weeks in the top ten → can you merge this with another sentence? It breaks down the reading

  Done

Ryan Adams's cover

edit
  • Rock singer Ryan Adams → American rock singer-songwriter Ryan Adams

  Done

Track listing

edit
  • Fine

Personnel

edit
  • Studio locations → mixing, recording. Be more precise.

  Done

Weekly charts

edit
  • Fine

Year-end charts

edit
  • Fine

Certifications and sales

edit
  • It wasn't given a certification in France remove it from this table. Add the sales to the commercial performance section. The same goes for Worlwide sales, nobody gives a worldwide certifcation.
  • Please add streaming as a true parameter on the table.
  • So I have seen articles that only include "real sales" on the commercial performance and let the table only with streams and sales included. I would do such as we don't talk about real sales anymore but rather certified units. Nevertheless, I'm open for discussion on this matter.
Fine by me. Adress the rest MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I wouldn't remove France+WW sales figures for the same reason as well; the template has the parameter |nocert=true for purpose of listing sales figures w/o certs, (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
It might have the parameter, but the WW figures have never been awarded a certification. You claimed those in the prose so it's fine. It has yet to be award a certification in France, just add the sales to the prose. Can you show me some FA article like this? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • There are a few like Thriller, Control etc. While I think there's no problem removing WW sales from this table, I wouldn't remove the French sales given that the album was not particularly successful in France, thus it'll be of triviality to add that to the prose, (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
You have a point there, it would be trivial to add to the prose. Remove the WW from the table and leave the french ones there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done

Release history

edit
  • Put the references together like in reference 243.
  • Missing standard CD for Germany
  • dr.com.tr → not sure what is this?

  Done

See also

edit
  • Fine

References

edit
  • Source 30 is dead → target

  Done

edit
  • Fine

Overall

edit
I didn't noticed it was already linked. It is needed due to the album being certfied 9 times platinum in the US only selling 6 million copies, the other 3 million are due to streaming. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • That said the sales figures are sourced, hence no place for the sales+streaming indicators... I'm not sure if readers can understand but I'm fine anyways, (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply