Template:Did you know nominations/1989 (Ryan Adams album)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1989 (Ryan Adams album)
edit... that Taylor Swift wrote the lyrics for Ryan Adams' album 1989?
- ALT1 ... that Ryan Adams's album 1989 is a cover of a Taylor Swift album of the same name?
5x expanded by Keegan (talk) and Sendu1984 (talk). Self-nominated by Keegan at 06:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC).
This is a very nitpicky point, but I can't find any sources that say, definitively, that Taylor Swift wrote the lyrics for every song on the album. At the moment, you support this claim by citing the Amazon page for Ryan Adams' album, but I could not find information about authorship there. I also looked at other sources; I found some sources that credit her as a "composer" for every song on the album (see, e.g., this source), but how do we know she didn't compose music for lyrics that were written by someone else? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it an overly-nitpicky point, Notecardforfree (though I may not be the most objective person to evaluate nitpickiness
), but I think the issue could be resolved simply by removing the word "the" from the hook, so that it no longer implies she wrote all the lyrics and no one else contributed. On a related note, there should be an "s" after Adams's name; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the original hook is going to be too problematic. Can a new reviewer check this new hook?
- ALT1 ... that Ryan Adams's album 1989 is a cover of a Taylor Swift album by the same name?
- Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, Notecardforfree, you're looking for another reviewer to check ALT1, but you're doing the rest of the review for this nomination? If so, provided nominator Keegan has no problem with the new hook, I'll be happy to review it. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the new and/or alternative hooks. Thanks! Keegan (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- GrammarFascist, if you could give this an independent review, that would be very much appreciated. Whenever an editor writes a hook for a nomination, that editor is not allowed to approve it themselves, so this still needs an independent review. However, I can tell you that the article was created on September 21, it is over 1500 characters, I didn't see any policy issues, and QPQ is not needed (Keegan has less than five DYK credits). Thanks so much for your help with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Notecardforfree, it sounds like you've done almost the whole review aside from the hook. I'm happy to review just the hook for you (though it will probably have to wait until tomorrow, by which I mean Thursday); my doing so isn't contingent on this, but I have run into a similar situation with another music-related DYK nomination for which I want to do the review but have provided the ALT hook all parties are agreed on going with if it passes... Would you be comfortable reviewing that hook? Again, I will review this hook either way. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- GrammarFascist, thanks so much for your willingness to help! I went ahead and reviewed the other nomination for the Adam Lambert song. This article's review should be fairly easy -- I think everything is ready to go, but it needs a fresh set of eyes. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Notecardforfree, it sounds like you've done almost the whole review aside from the hook. I'm happy to review just the hook for you (though it will probably have to wait until tomorrow, by which I mean Thursday); my doing so isn't contingent on this, but I have run into a similar situation with another music-related DYK nomination for which I want to do the review but have provided the ALT hook all parties are agreed on going with if it passes... Would you be comfortable reviewing that hook? Again, I will review this hook either way. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- GrammarFascist, if you could give this an independent review, that would be very much appreciated. Whenever an editor writes a hook for a nomination, that editor is not allowed to approve it themselves, so this still needs an independent review. However, I can tell you that the article was created on September 21, it is over 1500 characters, I didn't see any policy issues, and QPQ is not needed (Keegan has less than five DYK credits). Thanks so much for your help with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the new and/or alternative hooks. Thanks! Keegan (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, Notecardforfree, you're looking for another reviewer to check ALT1, but you're doing the rest of the review for this nomination? If so, provided nominator Keegan has no problem with the new hook, I'll be happy to review it. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it an overly-nitpicky point, Notecardforfree (though I may not be the most objective person to evaluate nitpickiness
ALT1 is a lean 82 characters, thus short enough; it's interesting enough (even to me who has little interest in pop music); and it's cited in the lead to a reliable source that confirms the hook fact. (I've struck the original hook and copied ALT1 up to the top of the nomination, along with making a minor grammatical tweak.) Combining that with Notecardforfree's review of the rest of the nomination, I would say this DYK is GTG. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)