Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1989 (Taylor Swift album)/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 December 2020 [1].

1989 (Taylor Swift album)

edit
Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC) and TheSandDoctor[reply]

With this monster album, America's Sweetheart turned into a fully-fledged pop machine, churning out hits after hits. I tend to dislike manufactured pop, but this album was different: the aesthetics, the irresistible beats, and most importantly, the sharp, witty lyrics that seem to be out of league for the heartless top 40.

After two failed FACs, with the biggest concern regarding thoroughness of research, I have done a(nother) rather exhaustive review of the existing literature and reorganised the whole article. With the help from TheSandDoctor, the article has seen improvements in sentence structures and cohesiveness. I am aware that I have another active FAC at the moment, but I believe that it wouldn't go against the rule since this FAC is nominated by two editors. Hoping third time's the charm, and looking forward to comments and concerns, HĐ (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Is there any critical commentary on the album cover? (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info on the album's cover and artwork, HĐ (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I do not post comments by the end of Saturday, then please ping me. I have participated in the past two FACs and the peer review. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current peer review which is about a very different musician and genre of music. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was initially confused when reading the caption for the "I Wish You Well" audio sample. I would clarify that the "She Drives Me Crazy" sample is what really "exemplifies the influence of 1980s music on the album". I do not think it is entirely accurate to say that for the song itself. Something about the current phrasing seems off to me.
  • I still have a question about the caption. I thought "I Wish You Well" used a "She Drives Me Crazy" sample, but the new caption says that it served as a point of inspiration for the snare drums in the song. I interpret this as two different things entirely. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Hmm, Swift told Rolling Stone that the song did start as an interpolation of "She Drives Me Crazy", but the end product on the album is (what I think) a completely new song that was only inspired by it. Had the song really sampled "She Drives Me Crazy", it would appear on the credits in the liner notes, HĐ (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I was confused because the prose says Antonoff used the sample for the instrumentation and sent this sample to Swift to re-record. I had assumed the sample remained in the song when I first read this. Would it be helpful to add a brief part about the sample not ending up on the final version of the song? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once this part is resolved though, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. I've added a brief sentence to clarify, which I hope would clear things up. I'll try my best to reach out to your PR in the earliest time possible, HĐ (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience, and apologies for the back-and-forth about a relatively minor part of the article. Everything has been cleared up for in the article. Take as much time as you need with the PR. I'll be leaving it up for as long as I can because I am trying to be better at using PR as a way to improve an article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this sentence: (The sessions took place at her homes in Los Angeles, New York City, Nashville, Rhode Island, and London throughout September 2014). Do you we know the exact city in Rhode Island? It just seems strange to mostly mention cities except for one state.
  • Hmm, I think that it was held at her mansion in Watch Hill, but the source cited does not mention it... (Funny though, sources for the Reputation secret sessions indicate the location of Watch Hill precisely, while for the 1989 sessions they only mention "Rhode Island"). I'm still trying to find an appropriate source, but if I couldn't then I'd just leave it as that, HĐ (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me, and since the information is not available, then the sentence should be kept as it currently stands. It was just something I noticed while reading the article so I was just curious about it. I agree that a source that explicitly connects a specific Rhode Island city with 1989 would be needed to change this. It should be good as is. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. I have not thoroughly looked at the images, media, or citations, but I believe that all of the references are reliable and high quality for a featured article. I also think that the article uses an appropriate amount of academic sources. Reading the article made me go back to listen to the album and I had a great time with it so that is always a win lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for reviewing the article! Tbh the album is one of my first CDs that I ever own, and one of the first that made me listen to albums instead of singles, so it has a very special place in my heart. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Looks great to me. No issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article, Hawkeye7! --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from SatDis

edit

Have previously left comments on the Blank Space single from this album and was impressed with the quality of the article. Will start leaving comments soon.

  • Hmm, I think a note like 9× Platinum (Diamond) should be fine. It's quite weird that Diamond is not 10× Platinum by ARIA standards though. HĐ (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I hate to bring criticism, but a couple of sentences in the lead are a bit confusing and I feel they need clarification or simplification.
  • 2014, through Big Machine I don't think the comma is needed here.
  • The comma was added by a GOCE editor. I'm not sure though, having a comma is fine for me but I think I'll leave it to others to consider
  • Swift's long-standing status as a country artist was met with media skepticism. It took me a few reads to understand this. Can it be reworded to express how the media was skeptical that her primary genre or her sound was shifting?
  • ... and named her fifth album after her birth year. I feel the "and" here makes it seem like the two points should be related. Seperate the sentences?
  • Hmm... she was inspired by the 1980s to name it after her birth year. Maybe a comma would do?
  • shaped the album's synth-pop sound characterized by heavy synthesizers, programmed drums, and processed backing vocals Split this as well. Maybe "sound. They added typical characteristics of the genre such as heavy synthesizers..."
  • I don't think the sentence is bloated to begin with. I mean, wouldn't something like "A is B defined by C, D, E" better than "A is B. This B is defined by C, D, E"?
  • Swift wrote the songs inspired primarily by her personal life surrounding past romantic relationships, which had been a trademark of her songwriting. Maybe "Swift's songwriting for the album was primarily inspired by her past romantic relationships. Writing songs about her personal life had become a trademark of hers".
  • I reworded it to Swift wrote the songs inspired primarily by her personal life surrounding past romantic relationships, which had been a trademark of her songwriting.
  • aggressive marketing When I hear "aggresive", I think in-your-face, forceful and uncomfortable. Is that true of this campaign?
  • praised Swift's songwriting, which offers Maybe "Swift's songwriting for offering..."
  • Done
  • huge commercial success Can you replace "huge"?
  • I think it's safe to say it's a huge success. It's the biggest 2010s album by an American artist after all
  • I don't think the line about the cover album is essential for the lead, as I noticed it is mentioned in more detail later.
  • Fair point. Removed.

Apologies for the large amount of suggestions for rephrasing sentences (I'm by no means perfect myself). I would suggest reading it aloud and listening to how the sentences flow. I just think some of them are a bit overcomplicated - aim for clarity. I will be busy with work for the next few days, but if you found this helpful, I'd be happy to continue with the rest of the article soon. :) SatDis (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking your time reviewing the article! I have responded to some of your concerns—and respectfully disagree with some. Either way though, they are really useful to help perfect the prose and I appreciate that :) Looking forward to more comments, HĐ (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...2014, through Big Machine..." -- that comma is technically correct given the date format. It could be restructured to avoid it by splitting and rewording the sentence, but that would become overly cumbersome/choppy in my opinion. The skepticism bit reword looks good to me. I concur with @HĐ:'s comments overall. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the revisions that have been made; the lead reads better now. I am fine with respectful disagreeance, because it means you both know the article really well and can vouch for it! I will leave some more comments in a few days if you are happy to wait. SatDis (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • The Background section reads really nicely.
  • The note for the ARIA accreditation is looking great.

Just a couple of suggestions but they won't affect my support:

  • It mentions her to be known as "America's Sweetheart" but the source says "she's been called...". Could the article say "Having been called "America's Sweetheart"? "Known as" makes it seem like everyone was calling her that.
  • Reworded
  • Can you make sure sources such as "Taylor Swift's 1989: A Track-by-Track Breakdown" italicises 1989 as it's the album title? And song titles having both quotation marks here "Taylor Swift goes 80s bubblegum on new single 'Sweeter than Fiction'" - "Sweeter than Fiction"
  • I'm not sure if 1989 should be italicised in link titles, and as someone told me, the double quotation marks for singles i.e. "Sweeter than Fiction" should be single quotation marks because the title is in double marks already, HĐ (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have to say on the article. Well done, it's a fantastic read. I apologise I don't have more detailed comments, but I can tell the article has been meticulously written and referenced. I especially like how detailed the transformation from country to pop is. I will support the review. I've enjoyed looking at "Blank Space" and 1989 now and I thank you for your review of my FA candidate. Good luck with the FA review. SatDis (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. Good luck with your FAC as well! :) HĐ (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review Support from Homeostasis07

edit

I made comments during one of this article's previous FAs, and have to say I'm impressed with the marked uptake in quality since then. I've read through the prose of the first 3 sections (lead, 'background', 'recording and production'), and the only thing that immediately jumped out at my was the following sentence in the lead:

  • "Martin and his collaborator Shellback shaped the album's synth-pop sound characterized by heavy synthesizers, programmed drums, and processed backing vocals."
I'm not sure "characterized" is the correct verb here. It just reads oddly to me. What about "Martin and his collaborator Shellback shaped the album's synth-pop sound while incorporating a heavy use of synthesizers, programmed drums, and processed backing vocals."
Reworded. Hope it sounds fine now :) HĐ (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that, I found a couple of instances of non-numerically-ordered references, which I've fixed myself (suggest searching for more). I'll hopefully be able to review the rest of the article tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • 4 instances of Red in the first paragraph of this section. I think it's obvious to anyone reading the section that all of the first paragraph refers to Red, so consider varying it up a bit with 'the album', 'the record', or even just 'it'.
    Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Swift's lyrical inspirations during the album's conception came from her journal detailing her personal life, which had been a staple in her songwriting process.
A bit wordy. What about something along the lines of: "Most of the lyrical content written during the album's conception was derived from Swift's journal, which detailed her personal life and had been used as a staple in her songwriting process since her debut."
I like that. Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which prompted her to write satirical songs besides her traditional fairy tale-like fictions.
Can we elaborate here on what's meant by "fairy tale-like fictions"? I'm assuming this relates to songs like "Love Story", but a sentence about how her previous work was inspired by fairy tales might be helpful here.
I rephrased it so that it's simpler and less clunky... because assuming all of Swift's previous songs are fairytale-like is kind of generalising, HĐ (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production

Could be more simply rewritten as: "The first, "I Wish You Would", sampled the snare drum of Fine Young Cannibals' 1988 single "She Drives Me Crazy", one of their mutual favorite songs."
The final song does not credit the sample though, that's why I wrote it that way, HĐ (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

  • A writer in the 'Overview' sub-section says the album is "devoid of contemporary hip hop or R&B influences popular in mainstream music at the time.", and writers in both 'Critical reception' and 'Legacy' compliment it for its "avoidance of contemporaneous hip hop and R&B crossover trends". But the 'Songs' sub-section here says "Blank Space" is "set over a minimal hip hop-influenced beat". Consider revising one way or the other.
  • Interesting. The general consensus is that the album is pure pop, but "Blank Space" and "Bad Blood" employ (what critics describe as) hip hop beats. I'm thinking that this "hip hop" element is not hip hop per se, but in the veins of hip hop. Still figuring out how to better convey that, HĐ (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, fairly sure you can just normalise "[F]unky electronic music" and "[E]very day was a struggle." to just "Funky electronic music" and "Every day was a struggle. ..." You can do so as long as changing the quote's capitalisation doesn't alter the meaning of the quote, which I don't believe this would do.

Title and artwork

Release and promotion

  • Nothing to complain about here.

Critical reception

  • In a 2019 retrospective review, Pitchfork's Vrinda Jagota found the album freed from the dramatic heartbreak on Swift's previous records, which shows that "everything doesn't always have to be so serious".
Not really sure what this means. That the album was free of the dramatic heartbreak found on Swift's previous records? Or that the album freed Swift from the dramatic heartbreak found on her previous records? Those are two very different things. Consider rephrasing/expanding.

Accolades

  • Nothing to complain about here, except for the inclusion of Pitchfork's "readers' poll for the 2010s decade." After researching the list, it seems Pitchfork Staff decided the top 200 albums beforehand, and all their readers could do was pick their top twenty of Pitchfork's predetermined choices. Hardly a comprehensive or even fair method. But, whatever... I won't oppose because of its inclusion.
  • I think there are some entries in the readers' list not included in the publication's selections (i.e. "Style" by Ms. Swift herself), so I'd choose to keep it, HĐ (talk)

Commercial performance, Legacy, Track listing and Personnel

  • Nothing to complain about in these sections.

Will continue this tomorrow, but don't expect to find any problems with the data-specific sections (charts/certifications/release history). Expect to support once all the above have been addressed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! :) HĐ (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding HĐ. I'm happy with the changes you made to the article, and am satisfied with your responses to some of my other points. I checked the rest of article (charts/certs/release dates), and it's all accurate. I noticed some of the latter Billboard references weren't archived. Since Billboard has developed a penchant for hiding most of its charts behind a paywall – example – I took the liberty of running the archive-URL bot. I hope you don't mind, since this has increased the size of the article by some 14kb. Otherwise, I'm happy to support this for promotion. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time reviewing the article, and I absolutely don't mind the archive URLs :) And also kudos to TheSandDoctor as well! HĐ (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

I've added this to the Urgents list because I feel quality of writing needs more review. I just looked over the "Title and Artwork" section and it's not a very cohesive narrative—it strikes me as being cobbled together from looking at sources without enough holistic attention. --Laser brain (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll try to reach out to some potential reviewers in the next couple of days. Thank you for your patience, HĐ (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit

This FAC looks quite mature but given Andy's comment above and HĐ's invitation on my talk page I'm happy to happy to look at the prose. And it's an excuse to read some more about the amazing Taylor Swift! I was lucky enough to see her perform some of these tracks on the Reputation tour. Cost me a lot of money but worth every penny! I'll be back with some comments as soon as I can, and by mid-week at the latest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing about lyrics or the significance of the name in the lead? The album was a complete reinvention of herself as a singer, which the lead only touches on.
  • I feel like the name 1989 was a last-minute decision... Swift also has not elaborated in-depth on why she named it that way, but I think "Inspired by 1980s synth-pop" should be justified enough, HĐ (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She did call the album a "rebirth" for her, but connecting that to the title 1989 may be dubious (to me, at least) because apparently she did not explicitly indicate such connections... Either way, how about a sentence like Inspired by 1980s synth-pop to transform her sound and image from country-oriented to mainstream pop? The main inspiration here is 1980s synth-pop, after all, HĐ (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album incorporates various pop and rock styles Which one? Red (the subject of the previous sentence) or 1989 (the subject of the article)?
  • Does Swift mention any mention any particular songs by Lennox or Gabriel that she liked or which inspired her? Thinking about it, I can sort of see a similarity between "Solsbury Hill" and, say, "Welcome to New York".
  • Scott Borchetta, president of Swift's then-label Big Machine, was initially dubious of Swift's decision. According to Wiktionary, this use of "dubious" is allowable, but I think "sceptical" (or "skeptical" in American spelling) or "doubtful" works better in this context.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This solidified Swift's vision of a coherent record rather than a mere "collection of songs" I think more can be made of this. If it wasn't then, an album as an individual, coherent work has become a key part of Swift's artistry and one of the things that sets her apart from most contemporary pop artists.
  • I think this justifies the cross-genre experimentation of Red mentioned previously. I think coherence is not Swift's strongest asset with some albums, but I'm open to suggestion on how this can be expanded because I'm out of ideas for now... HĐ (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every few years the media finds something that they unanimously feel is annoying about me. Me, my character, the way I live my life, the way I talk, the way I react when I win stuff." That quote needs attribution otherwise it's just dangling there.
  • Removed the quote
  • The prose gets a little choppy in the "songs" section. To a certain extent this is unavoidable in an attempt to briefly cover the most important tracks without going into excess detail for the album article, but there's some room for improvement. Even just combining short sentences and varying sentence structure can help. (I made one edit here myself.)
  • For the "songs" section, I decided to not group the songs into thematic discussions, but rather follow the tracklist order to discuss track-by-track given that the previous "overview" section already discusses the overall style/theme of the album. Either way, I hope that it is justified, and I've trimmed a bit to make it somewhat more coherent, HĐ (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a lot of citations in mid-sentence which can hamper readability (eg, Swift hints at her desire to reunite with her ex-lover[46] on "How You Get the Girl"). Can some of these be grouped at the end of sentences or paragraphs?
  • Done
  • What does where an ex-lover of hers was staying in mean?
  • Removed and reworded
  • The academic Maryn Wilkinson What is Wilkinson's academic specialty? The reader should know if they're an expert on music or marketing or something else.
    Not 100% sure how to work it in at the moment, perhaps HĐ would, but her research is around film style and politics, with one of her focuses being American pop culture. (source) --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • positive reviews from contemporary critics,[9] with most of them acknowledging This use of "with" to join two parts of a sentence is discouraged.

That's as far as "Critical reception" for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • three million-selling albums within the first week of their release doesn't quite make sense, and "three million-selling" could potentially be confused with selling three million copies, not three albums selling a million each.
  • Done
  • and 1989 became the first album released in 2014 to sell one million copies avoid repetition of "became". "Was" will suffice here.
  • Done
  • the fastest-selling album since 2004 up to that point "up to that point" is probably redundant unless the caveat is that it was soon beaten by another album, in which case be explicit.
  • Done
  • the third highest-selling album of the 2010s decade in the US Do you mean third-highest-selling? Or that it was the third album to be the highest-selling? Also, "highest-selling" sounds odd to me; consider "best-selling".
  • Done
  • scholar Shaun Cullen as with Wilkinson, we should tell the reader Cullen's area of expertise so they can make up their own mind about the importance of the opinion.
  • Done
  • "at the cutting edge of postmillennial pop" following the release of 1989 "following the release of 1989" can probably be assumed from the context, which also avoids having the album name ending one sentence and starting the next.
  • Done
  • Is there anything to add on 1989's impact on Swift herself or its influence on her subsequent albums like Reputation, which continued the pop theme?

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added info on this, HĐ (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, @HJ Mitchell:, thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. I believe I have addressed your concerns, and please let me know if there is anything left that needs to be resolved. On another note, I'm quite envious with you attending the Reputation tour. I wonder why Swift has not visited countries beyond the Anglophone countries and Japan since 2013's Red tour, but I hope she will one day... HĐ (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC); pinging @HJ Mitchell: again, in case there are remaining issues that haven't been addressed... HĐ (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay in returning. Support on prose, having tinkered with it a little bit today. I'm not comfortable giving a definitive opinion on comprehensiveness/thoroughness of research. Music is not my area of expertise. I'd be interested to hear from Nick-D if he feels his concerns from the previous FACs have been addressed. The article does now cite some of the journal articles he mentioned, which is a good sign, but there are questions I've asked above and I'm not 100% sure if these can't be answered because the source material doesn't exist or because they haven't been adequately researched. Obviously, if the answers aren't out there, the article is comprehensive (in that it reflects all the knowledge available in the source material). Btw, if you ever get the opportunity to see Taylor live, I'd highly recommend it. Hopefully the opportunity will come up post-Covid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking time reviewing the article. I look forward to comments from other users regarding comprehensiveness and thoroughness of research. Best regards, HĐ (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Not my area of expertise, but an interesting read. The following are suggestions only, just to show I've read it really. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Swift wrote the songs inspired primarily by her personal relationships, which had been a trademark of her songwriting.— I think that the subject/object relationship is unclear, perhaps Swift's songs were inspired primarily...
    Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • she had been known for autobiographical narratives— Perhaps she had included autobiographical narratives
  • I think "she had been known for" is preferable as it highlights that it is a strong expertise of Swift that attracts praise and attention from critics and media alike. "She had included" is rather weak imo, HĐ (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a publicized feud that received widespread media coverage— publicized seems redundant
    I agree. Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision came after talent manager Scooter Braun acquired her masters, which she had been trying to buy for years— Until I followed the link, I thought "she" referred to Scooter Braun, perhaps which Swift had been trying to buy for years
  • Tokyo, Japan —"Japan" seems redundant, at least to a Brit
  • I use a script which highlights possibly unreliable sources, and it picked up the two Medium refs , so I checked these. The Oral History seems OK, but Christgau's page had This account is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules. Does this matter?
    Christgau is considered a RS as is cluepoint, so I am surprised about that "under investigation" header...at least we have an archive of it. I don't think it does matter given who wrote it (and the archived copy). What are your thoughts, HĐ? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Christgau had some personal conflicts with the site, but given his reputation as a reliable critic in music, I think the archiveurl should be fine (I'd also change the url-status do "dead"), HĐ (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, @Jimfbleak:! Definitely a messy affair. I second what HĐ says about hoping it all works out in the end and the right thing is done. I have added a couple lines about the subsequent re-sale and stating that she has begun the process of re-recording her first six albums; I think some mention is warranted given that the original sale is already covered in the section. Please feel free to tweak though, Jimfbleak and HĐ. I welcome your input. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Have I missed image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has not received image and source reviews thus far. I wonder how I can request for one. Regards, HĐ (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Top of WT:FAC, you'll see a section... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do the image/media review. The lead image is the album cover, under fair use, which is standard practice for album FAs and supported by an appropriate rationale. Two song excerpts are claimed under fair use; both are supported by detailed rationales and are used to support text that discusses their composition so I'm happy they satisfy the NFCC. All other images are freely licenced (self-published on Commons or verified via Flickr) and used appropriately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

Will do later today. Aza24 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no reliability issues
  • Archive links are much appreciated!
  • ref 234 is "hitparade.ch" while other refs from this site are "Hung Medien" – I would think the latter is preferable
  • The linking is really consistent throughout (thank you!) the only thing I see is that Ultratop and Reuters (168) can be linked
  • ref 117 has a Japanese title w/ English translation – the other "in Japanese refs" just have the english title
  • Unfortunately there's quite a bit of inconsistency with retrieval dates. As consistency is required for sources in FAs and retrieval dates are required anyways for sources without publication dates, I have to present you guys with a tedious task of standardizing them. It may help to do command/control f and search for "retrieved" which will highlight the references with them to make those without easier to spot. If it helps I've tried to collect a list of references missing them (see below), though I may have missed some"
    • missing for refs 2, 8, 10, 11, 17, 22, 26, 50, 77, 87, 89, 91, 92, 97, 100, 101, 105, 107, 116, 119, 122, 123, 124, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 139, 140, 143, 145, 146, 150, 161, 166, 194, 196, 206, 209, 214, 215, 227, 230, 231, 232, 235, 238, 241–247, 250–259, 274, 275, 284, 289, 292 + most of the amazon and itunes refs
  • Found no other issues. Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Hello, thank you so much for reviewing the sources. I have added retrieval dates (hopefully to all of them) and re-format Japanese refs (with the exception of automatic Japanese ref for certifications). HĐ (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your initiative here, it looks like ref 2 is missing one still but that isn't enough to prevent a pass for this source review. I see this is the third attempt from you both; the can't have been easy, I applaud your dedication and persistence! Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1989_(Taylor_Swift_album)/archive3&oldid=993135076"