Talk:A Place in This World

A Place in This World is currently a Songs good article nominee. Nominated by brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} at 07:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: 2006 song by Taylor Swift

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 31 December 2024 by reviewer SafariScribe (talk · contribs).

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.

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

Notability

In this edit, I added a notability cleanup banner to the article. And in my edit summary, I stated: I'm sorry to do this, but I do not think this song is notable. The only mentions of this song in reliable sources appear to be a couple of loosely tied sentences in rankings of Taylor Swift's entire discography, and per WP:SIGCOV, that just doesn't work. And due to the lack of certifications or charting (which can normally save articles like this), it also arguably fails WP:NSONG. I will be providing a more detailed rationale on my opinion on the articles talk page shortly. Here, I will be elaborating further on my rationale, as well as analyzing all of the sources. But first, I want to highlight my issues with the articles writing that makes me think it should not be a good article, since it is currently nominated.

The infobox genre is unsourced.
"Critics commended its songwriting" could easily be seen as false when every single critic opinion, all of which discuss is as part of Swift's discography as a whole, places it as one of her worst songs.
The entire first paragraph of the main article is not about the song at all, but rather giving context behind the album. I normally think that paragraphs like this are necessary and quite helpful to assist regular readers in understanding the articles subject, but there is a problem when it seems to be about a 5th of the entire article. I'm pretty sure its the largest complete paragraph in the article as well.
There are two sentences total that describe what the song actually is.

With the above concerns, I do not think that this article can possibly meet good article criteria 3, and to some extent, 2c. Now, I will go into depth about the article sources, which there's only 19.

Source review table

1: About Taylor Swift herself, does not mention the song.
2: About the album and Swift herself, does not mention the song.
3: I can't even tell what it is supposed to be about, but it does not mention the song.
4: An interview, which constitutes as a primary source and cannot constitute notability. Either way, it does not mention the song.
5: I can't check this one, but since its only cited to a sentence about when Swift graduated high school, I don't think it looks very good.
6: The first article that is technically about the song. However, it only really gives about a paragraph worth of information about what the song is, says that she performed live, and then just links a bunch of Twitter posts of fan reception. I would consider this to fall under trivial coverage.
7: Same case as six, but this time all of the coverage about the song itself is a quotation that would be considered a primary source, since they are the words of Swift herself and the songs co-writer, Robert Ellis Orrall.
8: Doesn't mention the song.
9: A citation to the album itself, which is definitely a primary source.
10: A similar case to 6 and 7. Half of the source doesn't even talk about the song, critical commentary or the words of Swift herself, but instead goes into detail about what Swift was doing on her Reputation Stadium Tour.
11: Actually offers some critical commentary about the song in the form of a whole paragraph about it. However, it still only really discusses it within the context of the album itself. It's arguably the most critical commentary that this article sources.
12: Only discusses the song within the context of Swift's discography, and offers very little substantial commentary. I'd be willing to maybe give more weight towards song rankings if it was higher ranked, but #272 out of 274 and this little discussion about the song makes me view this source as disposable. Trivial coverage.
13: Literally one sentence that, similarly to 12, places the song as one of the worst in her discography. Definitely trivial coverage.
14: Quotes the lyrics for one sentence, talks about the song for one more sentence, and then talks about the last time she performed it live prior to the Era's Tour. Trivial coverage.
15: Does not offer much critical commentary about the song, and it mostly just quotes a lyric. Trivial coverage.
16: A concert synopsis that mentions what Swift herself had to say about the song for a couple of lines and then moves on. Trivial coverage.
17: Can't check this one, but I'm going to be safe and assume it probably primarily talks about her peformance at the radio itself and not the song.
18: Mentions that the song was performed at the Eras Tour, and nothing else beyond that.
19: Same as 18, but with somehow even less coverage.

All in all, only about 6/19 sources talk about the song for more than one sentences, and only 1 gives it anything that I would reasonably consider SIGCOV, that being #11. So reasonably, I think this article fails WP:GNG. Although, WP:NSONG exists, which is where a song article that may have some flimsy coverage could possibly be saved or given a slight edge. However, there are some parts of NSONG that I want to highlight that go against this article rather than in favor of it.

Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This article definitely does not have enough detailed sourcing to warrant being stand alone.
Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.. And while this articles sourcing isn't primarily towards the album (and instead her whole discography), I want to say that I think this works against the strongest claim to notability I think this article has, which is source #11.
This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. A lot of the information about this song in the sourcing is direct quotations or paraphrasing from Swift's own words.

Combine this with two more nails in the coffin: the lack of the song charting anywhere or receiving any certifications, and I think this article being helped out by NSONG in any regard is not possible. All in all, I find this articles sourcing to be extremely flimsy and fairly low quality, and I do not think it warrants its own standalone article. I suggest redirecting or merging it back into Taylor Swift (album). I also do not think it meets the good article criteria. I will also be courtesy pinging the articles main contributor, @Brachy0008:, as well as its Articles for Creation reviewer @SafariScribe: for their inputs on my concerns and if they think a redirect/merge is necessary. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

idk i just wrote a draft and it got accepted. i searched up lots of sources (my main article writing strat] brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 07:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i would consider a redirect (i wiuld leave a copy of the article on my sandbox for debut tv) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NegativeMP1, I'll try to expand the article in the next couple of days and I'll let you know when I'm done so you can take another look. In the meantime, I think the GAN should be removed so it won't be confusing to a reviewer that might want to pick it up, especially with the January backlog drive going on. Pinging Brachy0008 to share their thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice to see, and I think that if sourcing for this song really does exist out there, you can probably fix it given your amazing work on other Taylor Swift song articles. I'm still hesitant on the notability part, but I'm open to having my mind changed. I also second your opinion that this nomination should be withdrawn in the meantime. λ NegativeMP1 09:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the kind words. I'll try to see what I can do, I think that this can be a reasonably detailed article with some work but let's see... Medxvo (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]