Talk:Midnights

Is every track listing for each edition necessary?

I am opening this for a consensus discussion but I don’t believe that the Til Dawn Edition tracks need listed as it seems a bit redundant as “Hits Different” is on the Lavender Edition and “Snow on the Beach (ft. More Lana Del Rey)” and “Karma (ft. Ice Spice)” is on the Late Night Edition so I just don’t think the Til Dawn Edition tracks are necessary to mention as it’s mentioned it was released and is in the release history and it doesn’t make any significant difference. But that’s me. 2600:1015:B127:726B:445E:63B6:DEF5:44B5 (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

Hi, bejeweled is also a single. It has a music video in Taylor's official YouTube channel 124.195.197.243 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Christgau removal

RE this: Are you kidding me? There are two huuuge paragraphs of praise, about 6 to 8 looong sentences each. And one tiny bit from Xgau of all people can't be included to a paragraph that barely goes into anyone's reservations? Incredulous. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 12:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It was brought up that the wording is vague. I think any reader with a basic understanding of the English language can parse out for themselves the meaning of this, which to me basically means that because the music is more textured than the otherwise usually tune-focused Swift has done, it is consequently less distinct. On the other hand, it could also be interpreted as more textured music led to less focused (or more confused) lyrics. But I think the former reading is more likely. Either way, to argue that this is vague and yet such summaries as "the sound could have been better" or the production was "redundant" (neither getting into any more specifics, ... it's silly. And the other sources, with all due respect, are either not as notable or not as engagingly written, or summarized, in that paragraph. And the writing should be engaging. I'm pretty sure there's a guideline or an essay on better writing (on Wikipedia) that mentions that... 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 14:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I figure you are attempting to include Xgau because you are a fan of his work. The Critical Reception section has enough reviews and anymore reviews, be it Xgau or anybody else, are not required. Midnights is a year-old album and Xgau's review is also as old. The other reviews were added here first when the article was being created, with which the article passed WP:GA. The Critical Reception section is fine in its current size, so do not fix what's not broken. Please quit the point-making edits. "There are two huuuge paragraphs of praise, about 6 to 8 looong sentences each" is factually false. The first para is praise, the second para focuses on specific comments about the album and the third the mixed comments. Considering the album has a metascore of 85%, the prose is obliged to be 85% positive and 15% mixed and that's exactly how it is right now. The critical reception section, in its current state, is commensurate with the metascore. ℛonherry☘ 21:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 00:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Should it be listed as More Lana Del Rey even on wikipedia?

Just seems like an odd way to handle it, especially without details why it’s written that way. Some new people could look at it as actually featuring an artist called More Lana Del Rey 47.223.58.232 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Peer review

Midnights

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this to FAC and make it earn the bronze star.

Thanks, Ippantekina (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding a placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:FAC peer review sidebar

I have added this article to the FAC PR review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• For this part, (Sounwave, Jahaan Sweet, and Keanu Beats shared credits on two tracks), I think that it would be helpful to clarify that this means production credits or something along those lines. I was a bit confused when I first read this part, as I was not sure what these credits referenced. I can understand wanting to avoid any unnecessary repetition as "produced" is used later in the same sentence, but I think clarity here would be more important than that.
• For this part, (and Aaron Dessner produced additional songs), why not include the exact number of songs he produced? It also seems that Sounwave produced one of these additional songs. Is this notable enough to mention in the lead as well (as the lead currently only mentions Sounwave's work for the standard edition)? It may be too trivial or specific, but I still wanted to ask since the lead focuses a lot on who produced what for the album.
• I am not sure the quotation marks are needed for this part, (to an "alternative"–leaning musician). Also, is there a clearer definition of what "alternative" is referencing in this context? A wiki-link may help here with that.
• This may be me just being super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part, (Jack Antonoff, who had produced all of Swift's albums starting with), I wonder if co-produced would be a better word choice or changing it to produced songs for all of Swift's albums instead. The current wording could read that Antonoff was the sole producer for all of those albums, which is not the case.
• Why is Joe Alwyn's nationality included in his descriptor? I can understand why hip-hop is used to describe the producers as it provides context for the reader, but I do not really see the necessity for including Alwyn's nationality here, especially when it is not done for any of the other people in that section, such as Zoë Kravitz or Lana Del Rey. It just comes off as random.
• I wonder if more context could be added to this part, (but it also contains cryptic lyrical details that allude to her personal life and public image), as Swift has left these kinds of clues for her fans to discuss and speculate on in her past music. It just feels like this part is missing, particularly since Swift's connection with her fans is well-documented and researched. Did any of the coverage for this album bring this up?

I hope that these comments are helpful so far. I do not notice anything major, and I am primarily pointing out more minor nitpicks. My review is up to the "Production and music" section. I actually have not listened to this album in full, but I do really enjoy "You're on Your Own, Kid", which I randomly enough first heard in a fan-made video for The Real Housewives of Atlanta. Best of luck with this peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• While I do understand that repetition can be inevitable at points, I would still look through the first paragraph of the "Production and music" section as it does make multiple sentences with "co-produced" being used in a similar way. Again, I get that repetition is just going to happen when it comes to discussing things like this, but it is noticeable and detracts from the prose when it is over-used.
• I am confused with the sample discussion for "Karma". From my understanding, a sample is when a song adapts something from a pre-existing song. I looked at the citation and it says that Keanu Beats made the sample in 2019, but what does sample mean in this context? Did Beats create a sample and then this was sent to Swift? If so, what did Beats sample in the first place. This is made even more confusing as the sample is not mentioned in either the track listing in this article and the "Karma" article.
• This is another nitpick-y, but I do not think "flickering" makes sense in this context, (holding the flickering flame of a lighter). The cover is a static image so there is no indication that the flame is in fact flickering. It is not supported in the citation either.
• For this part, (embarked on the Eras Tour, a concert tour that she described as), I am not sure the "concert tour" description is needed as I would believe most readers would already know that. It could be shorted to something like ", which she described as".
• Shouldn't it be noted that "You're Losing Me" is available on streaming and is no longer limited to concert-exclusive merchandise?
• I was about confused by this part, (and the positive public image she had curated since her 2017 album Reputation), as Swift has obviously been creating a positive public image before this album. I looked at the source, which more so focuses on how Swift was able to turn around negative publicity with Reputation, and I do not think that matches what is said in this article.

That should be it for me. Apologies again for posting my comments in the wrong place. I hope that everything is going well with you, and great work with the article as always. Aoba47 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Aoba, I have tweaked the prose based on your suggestions. Regarding "sample", I think in this context (based on what the source text says) it means like a demo/rough draft and not a "sample" in the sense of interpolating. I hope it makes sense :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in my response. Thank you for the explanation for the "sample" part. That makes sense to me, and it clears that up for me. Best of luck with this peer review! Aoba47 (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)