Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor Swift (album)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2025 [1].

Taylor Swift (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first album by Taylor Swift, who started out as a country singer-songwriter. Is this country music? I don't know, maybe, but I know that this album kinda slaps, especially the track "Our Song". I believe this article is comprehensive and well written for FA standards and I'm open to any and all comments regarding its candidature. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

I've been busy with a couple of things over the past few days, but I'll see if I can squeeze in time to review this by the end of the week. λ NegativeMP1 15:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the wait, I'm beginning the review right now. λ NegativeMP1 04:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, there isn't much I have to criticize about this article, but I do have two things.
  • The last sentence of the Release and promotion section, "From August 2019, Big Machine re-released the Taylor Swift singles on limited-edition vinyl. This was met with backlash from Swift's fans in light of the purchase of the masters of her first six studio albums.", would probably come off as a bit confusing to an unfamiliar reader. It reads like Big Machine purchased the masters (which they always owned) and simply re-released the singles. No context is given as to why the fans would have been mad, either. I think this sentence would make more sense if it was clarified that Scooter Braun bought Big Machine, a legal dispute followed, and that's why fans were mad. It would also make more sense to be written this way once the Taylor's Version of this album inevitably releases.
  • In the last sentence of the Reception section, it says that the album itself was a "cut" according to Christgau. In the explanatory footnote immediately afterwards, it says that a "cut" is a "a good song on an album that isn't worth your time or money". Based on this, it's impossible for any album, let alone this one, to be considered a "cut". The sentence should probably be reworded to say that the songs were labeled as "cuts" and that he just didn't like the rest of the album.
Ultimately though, these are minor nitpicks in an ultimately very well written article. Whether or not you want to make these adjustments is completely up to you, but I'd still like to see a response. λ NegativeMP1 05:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NegativeMP1, thank you very much for your time and review. I have addressed your two points accordingly; feel free to review the changes in prose and let me know if it reads more clearly now :) Ippantekina (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those two parts definitely read better now. Given that those were my only two nitpicks in this article, I'm happy to give my support. λ NegativeMP1 16:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • "who had produced her demo album" - I think "who had been producing demo recordings" is more explicitly stated in the source since it doesn't mention that Swift has a demo album, unless I'm mistaken
  • "she vows avenge" - "she vows to avenge"?
  • "Perone comments that this change" - Shouldn't we use past tense here?
  • A catchy wikilink would be useful
  • "Taylor Swift helped Swift earn a nomination for New Female Vocalist of the Year at the 2007 Academy of Country Music Awards, a Horizon Award at the 2007 Country Music Association Awards,[110] and a nomination for the Grammy Award for Best New Artist at the 50th Annual Grammy Awards (2008).[111]" - Is it possible to rearrange the sentence so that Swift's Horizon Award win isn't placed between two nominations?
  • "the infant Big Machine Records" - I don't think "infant" adds much here, but probably "newly formed" reads better?
  • I think there is a WP:REPCITE issue in the last paragraph of the "development and conception" section, I would double-check to see if there are any other similar incidents throughout the article

That's all from me. Very impressive work! Medxvo (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and review as always :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support :) Medxvo (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review! Ippantekina (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]

@Ippantekina:

  • According to Link-dispenser,
    • There are 2 potentially spammy links in refs.
    • 4 refs need an archive link.
  • In notes 4-6, instead of "for albums 1963–2015" say "for albums released in 1963–2015".
  • Mention "eponymous" album.

Vestrian24Bio 14:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vestrian24Bio, I've addressed your points above! Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 13:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  1. 59 and #65 and perhaps others use ProQuest as the URL, unlike most other news media articles that use links and a padlock if necessary. Speaking of, Billboard sometimes is marked as paywalled and sometimes not. I don't think #10 is a good source for that claim. I think I reviewed most of the sources in other FACses. Kinda wondering what makes "Nainby, Keith (2024). "More than Music: The Image 'Taylor Swift'". Examining Blank Spaces and the Taylor Swift Phenomenon: An Investigation of Contingent Identities. Lexington Books. pp. 81–128. ISBN 978-1-6669-4272-9." a reliable source. Did some light spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles published on Billboard Pro are sub-based and marked such accordingly. Most ProQuest URLs are no longer on the web and thus I used ProQuest to cite them. Could you let me know why #10 might not be a good source? Ippantekina (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a bit uncertain if a trade publication is a good source for a court case concerning BLP issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, Billboard is also a trade magazine which is widely used in Music/BLP articles. I can find substitutes of course, but I don't think Pollstar should be disqualified as a high quality source just because it is a trade magazine. Ippantekina (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. the book by Nainby, he is a scholar in philosophy and communications [2]. I believe he has the right credentials to a published book (or even a few). Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That leaves the Nainby source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I just replied above in case you didn't see it. Ippantekina (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess this is OK then, with the caveat that I don't know these sources very well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright.. so is this a pass? Ippantekina (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but with that caveat about unfamiliarity with sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge906

[edit]
  1. I just realised that in the track list section, it says that all traks are produced by Nathan Chapman expect where noted, and even though Chapman is the main proudcer of the album, due to the way it is listed, with the song name and different producer, it makes the list feel cluttered and a bit unorganised, so perhaps we could add a column for the producer(s). Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I might do the edit. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's a good way to go for, since the whole column would be repetitive anyway. Ippantekina (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But I think it makes it a bit confusing. On the deluxe some tracks are produced by others. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that makes sense. Let me implement the change as it is not a major disruption anyway. Ippantekina (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it look now? @Jorge906: Ippantekina (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that's better. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The source link for File:Taylor Swift - Taylor Swift.png no longer works, at least for me. I get a "The page you're looking for can't be found" error message. When putting in a new link, I always find it helpful to include an archived version as well to avoid this kind of potential headache in the future.
  • For this part, (She traveled from her hometown in Pennsylvania), why not name her hometown with something like "traveled from hometown of West Reading, Pennsylvania"? It is not absolutely necessary, but I think that it would be better to specific rather than leaving readers to wonder where her hometown is in Pennsylvania.
  • I think that for this part, (her father transferred his job to Nashville), it would be helpful to somehow clarify that Swift's father is a stockbroker for Merrill Lynch, as that would more easily explain how the family could so easily move to a completely different state to accommodate Swift's dreams of being a singer. This is not meant to put down Swift in any way, but that is the kind of privilege that not a lot of people have. It would also help to clarify the later part on how Swift's dad was able to buy a stake in Big Machine.
  • I could just be overly nitpick-y with this one, but for this part, (Narrated from the perspective of a teenage girl in an American small town), I was wondering if "performed" would be more suitable than "narrated". I more so associate narration with spoken-word and while music can have spoken word elements, I was just uncertain about this word choice. Again, I could be just over-thinking this.
  • I am uncertain about the wording in this part, (guitars, fiddles, banjos, mandolins, and Dobro), as it is primarily listing instruments until the end when it names a brand of guitar. I think that the Dobro part could be better clarified for readers who are unfamiliar with it, as a brand is not quite the same as a fiddle or a banjo.
  • While I can understand the purpose of the "Picture to Burn" audio sample, I am less certain about the "Tim McGraw" one. The caption for the "Tim McGraw" sample is specifically about the song and is not related to the album. The caption would seem more appropriate for an article about the song. The caption should be more about how this song represents something about the album.
  • I would avoid the following sentence construction, (with each edition containing bonus tracks and music videos), as the "with X verb-ing" phrasing is often discouraged in FA writing.
  • There are two sentences in a row, (according to Rolling Stone, following the Dixie Chicks controversy in 2003) and (According to the communication studies scholar Clementine Oberst), that use "according to". I'd revise one of these instances to avoid repetition.
  • I have a quick question based on this part, (Many of Taylor Swift's aspects set the blueprint for Swift's later albums—the country-pop sound). Did anyone comment that since Swift started with a more pop-oriented version of country with her debut album, this could have helped to more easily transition her as a pop artist with 1989? I understand if that is not covered, but I just curious. It is easier for a country star to reinvent themselves if pop was always a part of their music from the start.
  • I think her pop roots are discussed more extensively if it's Fearless ("You Belong with Me"), but I think the current prose mentions the pop sensibilities so it should suffice. Ippantekina (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following source from Diario de Cultura should have an English translation for the Spanish title included in the citation. I would also put the title in title case to match the other citations.
  • I am not sure either. I would put in title case just to be consistent with the other citations, but this is not a big point and would not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. I honestly do not have that much to add. I hope that this review helps with pushing this FAC over the finishing line. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer, but I do not imagine that I will find anything substantial. I am curious on how the re-recording of this album will sound. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba, your comments are helpful as always. I'll get back to this asap. Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I am able to help. Take as much time as you need. I enjoyed reading this article. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would appreciate any help with my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as always Aoba! Ippantekina (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2025 (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/Taylor_Swift_(album)/archive2&oldid=1292059104"