Jump to content

Talk:Taylor Swift/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article was delisted primarily for many instances of subpar prose, unsourced/poorly sourced material, and excess detail

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'm really sorry to everyone who has contributed to this article, but it simply doesn't meet the GA criteria. Comments to follow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have the reassessment up within a few days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting it up sooner; I lost the draft I was working on and need to rewrite it. It could take some time since this is a big article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Take your time. I'll stand by to help out other editors who are going to address the issues. -- Chamith (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't completed the list of things to do yet, I will say now that it's going to be a very long list. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is going to be interesting :). And it's OK, I'm in no hurry --Chamith (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, it's been exactly two months now. Is your list complete now? -- Frankie talk 10:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't yet, but I'm working on it. I'll post when it's done. Not sure how long it's going to take. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Would it be OK if we closed this GA re-assesssment in the meantime? It's been sitting in the all the WikiProject alerts for months now. We don't want people to stop paying attention to the alerts because they aren't actionable. Kaldari (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, but will have it done by the end of the month if not the end of the weekend. Please don't close this now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • "pop rock" isn't needed when "pop" is already listed
  • I'm not sure if Swift's production work is enough to warrant a "record producer" listing
Fixed. sst✈ 12:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Where Swift grew up isn't really needed here, I would instead include how she became interested in a music career
Rephrase it yourself if you want to. sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "established her as a country music star" might come off as puffery
Rephrased. sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She received a Best New Artist nomination at the 2008 Grammy Awards" isn't really needed when she won other Grammy Awards
Removed. sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "worldwide hits" is too informal
Rephrased. sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "only" from "making Swift the first and only act"; this could change in the future
Not explicitly a problem per WP:CRYSTAL, but done anyway. sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The singles" in "The singles 'Shake It Off', 'Blank Space', and 'Bad Blood'" should be Its singles; this makes it more explicit that these are from 1989
Done. sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She is one of the best-selling artists of all time" is a rather contentious claim, be sure to support this with a VERY reliable secondary source
This has never been an issue with GAs and even FAs. The linked article provides sufficient sources for this. sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Are there compelling reasons why they should be included? What makes them notable compared to other songs mentioned in the lead section? sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your sentence basically means "if including it in the lead, it should be included in the lead". Please elaborate. sst✈ 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant it should also be in article body Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • I don't think it's really necessary to say she was named for James Taylor
Why? sst✈ 13:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This states Scott Swift is a Vice President, and mentions nothing about being a financial adviser
Fixed. sst✈ 13:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where Scott grew up and his family of bank presidents is irrelevant to this article
Why? sst✈ 13:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swift's mother, though American, spent the first 10 years of her life in Singapore, before returning to the U.S. and settling in Texas; her own father was an engineer who worked throughout southeast Asia" is completely superfluous
Why? This is a BLP. What is the problem with including information about the subject's parents?
I have to agree that this level of detail about her parents' lives is excessive. This is just an encyclopedia article, not a biography. Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austin isn't mentioned by name in the given ref, but can be found in sources like this
Added reference. sst✈ 13:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • no need to mention Wyndcroft is a co-ed private school
Removed. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The given references do not explicitly say Taylor and Austin were raised Presbyterian or attended vacation bible school "every summer"
Sentence completely removed, since the two given references are WP:SPS. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any specific age given in the source for when she moved to Wyomissing
Rephrased. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation doesn't mention West Reading Elementary Center
Removed. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "waterfront" isn't mentioned in the given source
Vogue magazine is definitely a reliable source. While the word "waterfront" is not mentioned in the source, WP:close paraphrasing should be avoided, so the use of the word "waterfront" is appropriate. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four musicals (what reference mentions) isn't exactly "numerous", and the ref doesn't say when she became interested in musical theater. Also, "theatre" should be spelled "theater" since American spelling should be used in articles on American subjects.
Replaced "numerous" with "four". "Berks Youth Theatre Academy" is a proper noun and is the exact same spelling as used in the source provided. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to say Swift won a talent contest at age eleven?
Why not? sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Faith Hill is mentioned here, I see nothing stating it was from Behind the Music
Rephrased. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no age given in the attributed citation for when she learned three chords and wrote "Lucky You"
Rephrased. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winning a poetry contest isn't really worth mentioning
Why? sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to say Dan Dymtrow is "New York-based"
Why? sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm missing something, while Maybelline and Abercrombie & Fitch are both mentioned, there doesn't seem to be anything in the document mentioning modelling or CD's
WP:UCS. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the given source states Swift was in eighth grade when performing at the RCA Records show case
Removed mention about eighth grade. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources don't say what year Swift got her diploma, and actually state she was home-schooled for her junior and senior years
Fixed, I think. sst✈ 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Career
2004–08
Career beginnings and Taylor Swift
  • The given reference doesn't state she moved to Nashville at 14
  • You already mentioned her deal with RCA, so no need to state again here that she signed with them
  • The given references don't include a year for when Swift performed at the BMI Songwriter's Circle
  • Neither of the sources given support "Swift left RCA Records when she was 15—the company wanted her to record the work of other songwriters and wait until she was 18 to release an album, but she felt ready to launch her career with her own material"
  • FN51 (Billboard) is used twice in a row after "The remaining unjust enrichment claim was settled out of court" when it only needs to be used once
  • I see a mention of an unjust enrichment claim in the source, but it doesn't say where that was settled
  • This says nothing about Scott Borchetta
  • "Taylor Swift was released on October 24, 2006" needs a citation
  • "Swift baked cookies and painted canvases to gift to radio station programmers who played her music" is completely unnecessary
  • I'm not sure if her television appearances for album promotion are needed
  • I see nothing in here supporting "Swift tapped into a previously unknown market: teenage girls who listen to country music"
  • "minor pop hit" is too informal, and also unnecessary when a chart position is given, though Billboard says it reached 52 on the Hot 100 rather than 13
  • No need for opening sales when a more recent figure is known (and included)
  • Why mention covers of other artists' songs when they weren't included on any of her records?
  • Meet-and-greet sessions would, if anything, belong in a tour article rather than here
  • CMT doesn't mention how many dates she played with Rascal Flatts or Eric Church being fired
  • "Swift later sent Church her first gold record with a note: 'Thanks for playing 'too long' and 'too loud' on the Flatts tour. I sincerely appreciate it. Taylor.'" is completely superfluous
  • Nothing in the given reference mentions how many dates she played with George Strait
  • I don't see anything in the source saying a number of dates for Kenny Chesney, or even the name "Flip-Flop Summer Tour"
  • "Bonfires & Amplifiers Tour" isn't found in the source talking about Brad Paisley
  • The citation for Soul2Soul II Tour says nothing about the number of days other than "select dates"
  • "Swift again opened" → "Swift also opened"
  • It isn't necessary to mention the Grammy nomination Swift lost when she won other nominations
2008–2010
Fearless
  • "Swift's second studio album, Fearless, was released on November 11, 2008" is missing a reference
  • See note in "Career beginnings and Taylor Swift" regarding number of songs she wrote alone
  • I'm not sure if "Swift appeared on many other chat shows" is really needed, and "chat shows" sounds somewhat informal
  • The release date for "Love Story" needs a citation
  • "became the second-best-selling country single of all time" is unsourced
  • Please provide citations for the releases of all the singles
  • See above note regarding opening sales when more recent figures are known
  • I see nothing here mentioning Europe, Asia, or even that Fearless Tour is Swift's "first headlining tour"
  • "Swift invited Hill, John Mayer, and Katy Perry to perform one-off duets with her at various dates during the North American tour, while support acts included Justin Bieber" belongs in the tour article rather than here
  • There is nothing in the given reference on Blu-Ray or DVD releases of Journey to Fearless, which describes this as a "3-part special" rather than a concert film
  • This doesn't give a name for Keith Urban's tour
  • Where's the reference for "She performed a cover of Alan Jackson's 'Drive' at the CMT Giants: Alan Jackson event"?
  • "took part in a joint, televised concert with rock band Def Leppard in Nashville" needs a citation
  • "Swift sang her song 'Fifteen' with Miley Cyrus at the 51st Annual Grammy Awards and performed a self-penned rap skit with T-Pain at the CMT Awards" is completely unnecessary
  • "made her stage entrance to Petty's recording of the song until 2013"..... reads awkwardly, and I'm not sure it's even necessary
  • "featured on his fourth album"..... let's be specific and mention Battle Studies by name
  • This doesn't even mention Swift
  • Unless I'm missing something, Martin Johnson and Robert Ellis Orrall aren't said to have co-written "You'll Always Find Your Way Back Home" and "Crazier" in the Hannah Montana movie production notes
  • From what I can find, "Today Was a Fairytale" is the only song of Swift's mentioned in here
  • This says her cover of "Breathless" was for a "Hope for Haiti now" campaign, not an album
  • No need to say Kanye had previously been involved in other award show incidents; just keep the focus on the 2009 VMA's
  • Is it really necessary to say Taylor likes Kanye's music?
  • Neither source says anything about her "hard feelings" (or lack thereof) towards Kanye following the VMA's incident
  • Two days is not "a few days"
  • The "bona-fide mainstream celebrity" bit isn't really needed
  • Keep the focus on the awards Swift won at the 2010 Grammys; no need for the total number of nominations
  • I'm not sure "other accolades" should be linked to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift
  • This only says she was the youngest recipient for Entertainer of the Year by the Country Music Association, and mentions nothing about being "one of only six women" to win
2010–12
Speak Now
  • The release date for Speak Now is missing a citation
  • "savage" and "musically diverse" should be in quotation marks since they are part of a critic's opinion
  • The Rolling Stone review doesn't say anything about Swift as a songwriter, only that her tracks are among the "smartest songs released by anyone in pop, rock or country"
  • "JFK airport" should read John F. Kennedy International Airport
  • talk shows and morning shows aren't really necessary to include
  • All the singles except for "Mine" are missing citations for their releases
  • "major" in "major commercial success" isn't really necessary
  • Not sure what the previous link says since it's dead, but this gives a figure of 5 million copies sold for Speak Now, not 5.7 million, and is from September 2011 rather than February 2012
  • The one-off duets for Speak Now World Tour are better suited for that article rather than here
  • Writing lyrics on her arm is trivial
  • Covers she performed belong in tour article, not here
  • the whole bit on Lefsetz isn't really necessary
  • I'm not sure "other awards" should be linked to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift
  • This doesn't mention her winning Songwriter/Artist of the Year at the Nashville Songwriters Association
  • CBS News doesn't explicitly give the name of which album won "Favorite Country Album" at the AMA's, and while I personally understand how people would think it's talking about Speak Now, it's better to use a reference that specifically mentions the album by name such as ABC
  • The bit with James Taylor isn't really necessary
  • Rolling Stone only mentions Swift herself writing "Safe & Sound", though I do see other writers listed in Entertainment Weekly, so that should be used in place
  • It might be because of a subscription issue, but Hot Press isn't displaying the John Paul White quote used here
  • I don't see anything in Deadline.com saying "Safe & Sound" was the lead single for the soundtrack to The Hunger Games
  • "It won Best Song Written For Visual Media at the 2013 Grammy Awards" is missing a citation
  • Let's keep the focus on what the song won, so no need for Golden Globe nomination when she lost
  • No need to mention Dr. Luke produced "Both of Us", which isn't even in the given reference anyway
2012–14
Red
  • [www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2012/10/17/taylor-swift-red-interview/1637307/ USA Today] doesn't say how many tracks Swift wrote herself or co-wrote with others
  • The references after "there is experimentation with heartland rock, dubstep and dance-pop" don't exactly say it is experimentation
  • It might be due to subscription issues, but I can't see any commentary on Red here
  • This says "over 70 radio stations", which isn't necessary 72
  • Again, I'm not sure if "chat shows" is encyclopedic or even necessary to mention
  • "performed at award ceremonies in the U.S., the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Australia" isn't supported by the given reference
  • All of the other singles need citations for their releases, and no need to include "(for country radio)" or "(all for pop and international radio)"
  • "'We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together' and 'I Knew You Were Trouble' were both international hits"..... "hits" is too informal, and the given source doesn't demonstrate international success
  • This doesn't say how many shows The Red Tour has
  • The guest list is better mentioned in The Red Tour's article instead of here
  • The number of fans that attended isn't mentioned in its attributed reference
  • See above note regarding Golden Globes when she didn't win
  • "with a number of other artists"..... "a number of" is somewhat of a stretch
  • "featuring guitar work by Urban—the trio performed the song live on three occasions" is unnecessary detail
  • Not sure if "She performed an acoustic version of 'Red' with Vince Gill and Alison Krauss at the 2013 CMA Awards" is needed, and its reference is dead to begin with
  • The given source doesn't say what song Swift performed with The Rolling Stones
  • When she's previously won other Grammys, no need to mention the Red losses
  • "Similarly, Swift's fourth album did not win any awards at the Country Music Association's annual ceremony. However, Swift was honored by the Association with a special Pinnacle Award for 'unique' levels of success; Garth Brooks is the only other recipient"..... overkill, just say "Swift was honored by the Country Music Association in 2013 with a special Pinnacle Award for 'unique' levels of success, becoming the second recipient after Garth Brooks".
  • "McGraw, Hill, Urban, Flatts, Strait and Brad Paisley presented Swift with the award, while Mick Jagger, Simon, Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, Ethel Kennedy and Justin Timberlake recorded video messages" is completely unnecessary
  • Not sure if the quotes on Swift's ties with country music are really needed
  • "Swift won three MTV Europe Music Awards in 2012, including the honors for Best Female and Best Live Act"..... not sure why her winning three awards is included here if only two of her wins are mentioned. Given how "Best Look" (the other award mentioned here) does seem somewhat trivial to include compared to the others, let's just go with "At the 2012 MTV Europe Music Awards, Swift won the honors for Best Female and Best Live Act".
  • The given references for AMA's and Nashville Songwriters Association only talk about 2012 ceremonies
  • Gawker shouldn't be italicized, and I'm not sure if it's a good source to begin with, so including its commentary is questionable
  • I'd take out the quote from Westboro Baptist Church since this indicates it came from Radar Online, a very unreliable source that easily could've made the quote up
  • This says she should "stay away" from Michael J. Fox's son Sam, not to "stay away" from "young men in the audience"
  • "while discussing what the journalist describes as"..... actually, two authors wrote it, so using "what the magazine described as" would be better, though I'm not sure if Madeleine Albright's quote is necessary to include
2014–present
1989
  • As far as I can tell, this only mentions Max Martin being an executive co-producer, and doesn't say anything about Chapman, Payami, or Greg Kurstin, though I did find Swift being listed as an executive co-producer here
  • "Swift herself described 1989 as her first 'official' pop release and parted ways with some members of her longtime band" isn't really needed, and why is "parted ways with some members of her longtime band" included if this band wasn't previously mentioned in the article?
  • The only home I see mentioned here is one in Los Angeles
  • "was remarked upon"..... awkward phrasing, just use "deemed her the 'Queen of Celebrity Social Media'", which is what the given source describes her as. Also, be more specific and say Vulture called her this"
  • "many chat shows" again is questionable phrasing and might not even be worth mentioning
  • Rolling Stone doesn't give the names of any award shows she performed at, and let's try to find a different source regarding The Voice since this article is basing that off of the unreliable gossip magazine Us Weekly
  • "The album's lead single, 'Shake It Off,' was released in August 2014 and reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100. Three further singles have been released; 'Blank Space' and the remixed / single version of 'Bad Blood' were released as the second and fourth singles, respectively, with both of them reaching number one in the United States. The third single, 'Style', was a top ten hit in the United States as well, reaching number 6." is completely unreferenced. Also, "Billboard" needs to be italicized, and "hit" is again too informal.
  • Nothing in the fourth paragraph after "As of February 2015, 1989 had sold over 8.6 million copies worldwide" is really necessary to include. It also makes the paragraph look ridiculously long, and "wasn't" is too informal per WP:CONTRACTIONS.
  • The Guardian doesn't mention any dates in The 1989 World Tour after October or any concerts in Ireland or Australia
  • Supporting acts should be listed in 1989 World Tour's article, not here
  • "Swift collaborated with other artists during the 1989 era" seems to suggest she wrote and/or recorded material with others, so "performed with" would be a more accurate description
  • "she is the only artist to be awarded this title twice"..... since "only artist" could change over time, it's safer to use "first artist". I'd also get replace the semicolon with a comma and use "becoming the" instead of "she is the"
  • Again, no need for Grammy nominations she lost when she's won in the past
  • "one of the 2015 Time 100, in the 'Icons' category" → "one of the Time 100 Icons of 2015"
Artistry
Influences
  • Marjories' maiden name isn't really needed
Done sst✈ 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This mentions her being drawn to storytelling, but not to sound
Removed "sound" sst✈ 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be because of subscription issues, but Time isn't showing anything on Shania for me
  • "Rimes" should read LeAnn Rimes
Done sst✈ 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find Bon Iver in the given source
Removed sst✈ 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she still has 'unwavering devotion' for Spears"..... given how its reference is from 2009, things could've changed since then, so I'd go with "Swift has said she has 'unwavering devotion' for Spears"
Done sst✈ 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't mention her listening to All-American Rejects in high school
Removed sst✈ 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see Ingrid Michaelson in the attributed reference
Removed sst✈ 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't explicitly say she's a fan of Pink
I cannot find what you are talking about in this section. sst✈ 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing in this explicitly saying she's a fan of Kelly Clarkson or Avril Lavigne
WP:Close paraphrasing should be avoided sst✈ 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see The O.C. or Grey's Anatomy in the provided citation
  • Is being a fan of hip-hop really worth including?
  • Shawn Colvin isn't mentioned in the given source, though can be found here
  • As far as I can tell, Linda Ronstadt isn't explicitly said to be an influence in either of the given citations
  • Carly Simon isn't mentioned in any of the attributed references
Lyrical themes and style
  • Really short paragraphs are discouraged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
  • New York magazine says "none made great records so explicitly about their teens" when talking about other artists, not "few"
  • Not sure Janis Ian is worth including
  • "The Best Day", "Never Grow Up", "Ronan", "22", and "Bad Blood" are not mentioned in either of the given references
  • This is from Slant Magazine, not Slate
  • What is "third-verse" supposed to mean?
  • "POV" should read "point of view"
  • "The writer added"..... this is Slant, be specific
  • "Even her earliest material is characterized by thoughtful – perhaps meticulous – word choice and deliberate melodic construction, with nary a lazy rhyme or aimless tune to be found" is not in the given reference
  • Unless I'm mistaken, nothing in here supports the statement "Swift uses autobiographical detail in her work"
  • "and, more recently, fellow celebrities" → "and other celebrities"
  • I'm not sure "mine her personal life for music" (what the source says) can be interpreted as "us[ing] autobiographical detail"
  • As far as I can tell, nothing in this supports the statement "all her songs are not factual"
  • The given source doesn't say her songs are based on observations
Musical style
  • I find no mention of pop in this, though did find it here. However, I should note that it doesn't say explicitly she intends to make more country albums.
Vocals
  • The second paragraph is a bit short and probably best merged with the others per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
  • This doesn't even mention her vocals at all
Public Image
  • This should be its own section rather than a subsection of "Artistry"
  • What significance does "Swift has high Q Score and Davie-Brown Index ratings, reflecting a high level of public awareness (90 percent) and popularity (80 percent) in the U.S." have?
  • I see nothing here mentioning a use of social media to reach out to fans
  • "Taylor interacts with her fans" should have Swift instead of "Taylor" per WP:SURNAME
  • Billboard doesn't mention Instagram at all
  • The given source doesn't even mention awards ceremonies
  • Unless I'm missing something, the given references don't say fans copy her fashion style while at her concerts
  • The bit on her hair style(s) is superfluous
Impact and recognition
  • I'm not sure if this section is worthy of inclusion or WP:DUE weight; it seems like simply a collection of "Taylor Swift is awesome!" posts
Product endorsements
  • The given reference doesn't mention Rivers Cuomo, Pete Wentz, Travis Barker, or any "backing band"
  • "launched two Elizabeth Arden fragrances, Wonderstruck and Wonderstruck Enchanted" is uncited
  • Diet Coke isn't mentioned in the given source
  • "released her third Elizabeth Arden fragrance titled Taylor by Taylor Swift, and continued her partnerships with Sony Electronics and American Greetings. Swift also partnered with a number of companies during the Red Tour; AirAsia and Qantas acted as the official airlines for the Australian and Asian legs, while Cornetto sponsored the Asian leg of the tour." is entirely unsourced
  • "1989" in "While promoting 1989" should be italicized
  • Fragrances shouldn't have italics
Acting work
  • Can't this be integrated into "Career"?
  • The given source doesn't describe her role in Valentine's Day
  • The Lorax and New Girl are both missing citations
  • "had a supporting role in the film adaptation of The Giver" → "had a supporting role in the film The Giver"
Philanthropy
  • This seems bloated; the second (awards for helping others) and sixth (LGBT work) paragraphs seem like they would belong more in a "politics" section
  • Keep MOS:PARAGRAPHS in mind, which discourages really short/really long paragraphs
  • "The space includes three classrooms and an exhibit space, and houses interactive activities such as a musical petting zoo and a 'wet' classroom space to make concert posters and other art projects" is close paraphrasing to the source, which says "The new space will house interactive activities such as a musical petting zoo and a 'wet' classroom space to make concert posters and other art projects"
  • No need to include states for Reading Public Library and Nashville Public Library
  • This doesn't say "most" books were placed in circulation
  • "reportedly making the biggest contribution"..... try to find something more definitive than "reportedly"
  • See above note regarding "Hope for Haiti Now" album
  • I don't see anything in the given source saying Swift participated in the telethon for Tennessee floods or that the money was sent during it
  • "recent" in "recent tornadoes" should be avoided per WP:RELTIME
  • "The nomination for "MTV VMA social activism award" isn't really needed if she didn't win the award
  • The references about "Mean" and homophobia don't specifically mention it being in high schools
  • Rolling Stone says "Ronan" was for a 3-year-old boy, not a 4-year-old, and let's be more specific and say that proceeds went to the "Taylor Swift Charitable Fund"
  • I'm not sure if meeting with sick fans or meeting privately in hospitals really fits here. Either way, "Swift has met with many sick fans through the Make-A-Wish Foundation" is a stretch since there are only three fans in total mentioned throughout the given references.
  • "Got Milk?" doesn't really belong here
  • Try to find a different source for UNICEF Tap Project, because this is based off of "TheBoot", which is a questionable source
  • "a number of benefit concerts" would need more examples than just two
  • A period is missing after "Shriners Hospitals for Children"
Personal life
Family
  • This entire section is completely unnecessary, and "Swift the the godmother to actress Jaime King's son Leo" doesn't even have a reference attached
Residences
  • None of this is needed except for her New York City home, which could be mentioned in "Career" section
Relationships
  • Her relationships here seem to be given in a prosified list; add transitions so it seems less dull
  • Given how the "career" section mentions media scrutiny over her relationships, it could help to get rid of this section and integrate her relationships into that section
  • There is nothing in the attributed references supporting the assertion that Swift "was romantically linked to musician John Mayer from late 2009 until early 2010"
  • No need to state she and Jake Gyllenhaal weer "seen together" after a break up
  • Is Conor Kennedy really significant enough to include?
  • The bit on Swift not dating at all after January 2013 or any of 2014 and her quote on it are completely trivial
  • In June 2015, not "by"
  • Again, Forbes needs to be italicized
Politics
  • This should be its own section, not a subsection of "Personal life"
  • "In 2010, former U.S. President George H. W. Bush attended the taping of a Swift television special in Kennebunkport, Maine, and later described Swift as 'unspoiled' and 'very nice.'" is nothing but fluff. If anything, it would be better to give Swift's political views on Bush.
  • "she doesn't" should be "she does not" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
  • "Swift has spent time with the Kennedy family and has spoken of her admiration for Ethel Kennedy" is completely trivial
Awards and achievements
  • This is probably better simply titled "achievements"
  • I only count five Grammy wins from the attributed sources, though this can be fixed by using other sources in body in place
  • It might be because of dead links, but I only count 6 AMA wins
  • This only mentions winning seven Academy of Country Music Awards, and doesn't say anything about Country Music Association Awards
  • Billboard Music Award and Emmy wins are unsourced, and "Billboard" should be italicized
  • "one of the top five music artists with the highest worldwide digital sales"..... let's be more specific and say "The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) ranked her first on the list of Top Global Recording Artists of 2014"
  • It isn't really necessary to list her U.S. album sales here when worldwide figures are already given, though I could understand listing song sales
Discography
Filmography
  • Roles in Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience and Hannah Montana: The Movie are unsourced, and none of character names listed under "film" are previously supported within the article
  • I only see support for her having roles in two episodes of SNL, not four
  • The names of her CSI and New Girl characters aren't supported within the article
References
  • Dead links need to be fixed
  • There should be no bare URL's or incomplete references; all citations need authors (except for things like Swift's official website), titles, names of works, and publication dates/accessdates
  • "Forbes" needs italics
Done sst✈ 15:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AllMusic.com" should read AllMusic
  • "Udel.edu" should read University of Delaware
  • What makes "New York Social Diary" reliable?
  • Rolling Stone needs to be italicized
  • YouTube is discouraged for potential copyright concerns
  • Remove "via Google Books" since it doesn't publish newspapers
  • "Esquire.com" should be Esquire in italics
  • "Readingeagle.com" should be Reading Eagle in italics
  • "Raretaylorswift.webs.com" is a fansite; remove this
Removed together with the statement it supports. sst✈ 13:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogspot is not reliable at all and shouldn't be used
Removed together with the statement it supports. sst✈ 13:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the "Blogs.mcall.com" reference is reliable (despite being hosted on The Morning Call), but it should read "Lehigh Valley Music"
  • Celebuzz is absolutely not reliable
  • Digital Spy shouldn't be italicized
  • "Inc.com" → Inc.
  • "BMI.com" → BMI
  • "Majorlyindie.com" should read "Majorly Indie", but is this source reliable?
  • Blender (magazine), Business Insider, and Marie Claire need to be italicized
  • Remove "music" from "Rolling Stone Music"
  • Remove "News" from "CMT News", which isn't supposed to have italics
  • "Mlive.com" should read "Michigan Live" or Booth Newspapers
  • "Articles.mcall.com" should read The Morning Call and be italicized
  • "Gactv.com" → Great American Country
  • "Azstarnet.com" should read Arizona Daily Star, and needs italics
  • Since Shelly Fabian is not listed on WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table, I'm not sure if the "About.com" reference currently used is reliable
  • "robertchristgau.com" → Robert Christgau
  • Are "press.discovery.com" or "The Boot" reliable? Either way, "press.discovery.com" should read "Discovery Press Web"
  • Don't italicize Walt Disney Pictures
  • "seventeen.com" isn't needed when Seventeen in italics is already used
  • Associated Press and MSNBC shouldn't have italics
  • Us Weekly (aka "Us Magazine") is a gossip magazine and therefore not reliable
  • "Lefsetz.com" should read "The Lefsetz Letter" or Bob Lefsetz
  • I'm not so sure about using Fox News as a ref
  • Is "StockRants" reliable?
  • Great American Country shouldn't be italicized
  • "vulture.com" isn't needed when New York (magazine) is already included in ref
  • "Berkshireeagle.com" → The Berkshire Eagle (in italics)
  • "Post-gazette.com" → Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (with italics)
  • HipHopDX doesn't have a space before the "DX"
  • What makes "Nashville Scene" reliable?
  • Complex (magazine) needs italics
  • Billboard again needs italics
  • Daily Mail and "The Huffington Post" aren't exactly the best of sources
  • Gawker is questionable
  • "E! Online" should just read E!
  • Time (magazine) shouldn't be fully capitalized
  • Is "Access Hollywood" a good reference?
  • Buzzfeed isn't a reliable source
  • "Vulture" shouldn't have italics
  • "Hitfix.com" → HitFix
  • "msn.com" should read MSN without italics
  • "Billboard.com" → Billboard
  • AOL isn't a reliable source
  • Is "Metro Pulse" reliable?
  • Amazon.com is not good source for anything other than release dates
  • "News.sel.sony.com" → Sony
  • "Artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com" → The New York Times
  • Refinery29, Hollywood Life, and Starpulse are unreliable
  • "Allstatenewsroom.com" → Allstate
  • Not sure what to say about "Look To The Stars", "Sys-con.com", or "Yardbarker.com"
  • Tumblr, New York Post, PopCrush, and Mirror are not good references to use
  • "Time.com" → Time
  • What makes "Buzzsugar" or "Hollyscoop" reliable?
  • "Music-mix.ew.com" → Entertainment Weekly
  • "songwritershalloffame.org" → Songwriters Hall of Fame
  • "Deltaskymag.delta.com" → Delta Air Lines
  • "Idolator" shouldn't be italicized
Overall
  • Well-written?
  • Prose quality: Needs a thorough copyedit
  • Manual of Style compliance: Many problems
  • Verifiable?
  • Reference layout: Quite a mess
  • Reliable sources: Not up to par, especially for a BLP
  • No original research: Numerous statements are not supported by the given references, and dead links make things harder to verify
  • Broad in coverage?
  • Major aspects: As far as I can tell, this contains all the essentials and there are no glaring omissions
  • Focused: Many unnecessary details need removing
  • Neutral?: The "Impact and recognition" section and length of "Philanthropy" might be WP:UNDUE weight, and there is a potential instances of puffery in the lead
  • Stable?: Lots of big changes over the past few months, including content disputes and edit wars that led to full protection
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images?
  • Keep or Delist?: Sorry for taking to so long to post this and getting sidetracked so much in the process, but I cannot in good conscience let the article remain as a GA any longer in its current state after thinking things through as there are far too many problems right now. Delisting it as a result without putting the reassessment on hold. Unstable articles are an automatic fail per the GA criteria, anyway. It is very unlikely that anyone could resolve the above issues within seven days even without stability concerns. Referencing and excessive detail are also major concerns. DO NOT RENOMINATE IMMEDIATELY AFTER ADDRESSING THE ABOVE COMMENTS. If anyone is interested in getting this up to par again, I strongly recommend first putting it up for peer review after resolving the listed problems. It would also probably help to take this to the Guild of Copy Editors. Regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I've relisted it per WP:GAR, which explicitly says other editors should be given time to respond. You've delayed this two months, so what's another week or two? Calidum 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Also, since you are a prior contributor to this article, it is questionable whether you should have initiated this individual reassessment at all, let alone delist it. A community reassessment would be much more appropriate. sstflyer 03:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Popeye191, Acalamari, Sofffie7, QuasyBoy, and IPadPerson: pinging major recent contributors to this article. ⛅✈ 16:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever did make edits to the article beforehand, none of them were major as far as I remember. It would only be problematic for me to initiate this if I made major contributions. While I would normally put GAR's on hold and leave notifications, the reasons I delisted this without putting on hold were instability (which is a quick fail per WP:WIAGA), an instance of borderline close paraphrasing (which would be a quick fail if counted as close paraphrasing), and way too many issues with prose, referencing, text not following sources, and unnecessary detail. It's highly unlikely anyone could've solved all the problems any time soon. Not really worth relisting either way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to your delisting there had been only two edits in the previous week, so instability was clearly not a valid factor to delist by even if there were problems before then. (Someone tried delisting an article due to instability earlier this year in an abrupt review-and-delist, and was reversed.) The instructions say you should give other editors time to respond; as it's taken you two and a half months to post the review, urgency is not a concern here. Add me to the growing consensus that an immediate delisting was not in order, and that the article's contributors should be given at least a week to address the issues raised. This is quite a comprehensive review, and given your 24 edits to the article (less than a third of one percent of the total and none of them significant additions) I think an individual reassessment is probably not out of line, but since the goal of reassessment is to get the article back to GA level, the opportunity needs to be offered. Pinging ChamithN, who was standing by back in August to work on improving the article once the review was posted. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on stability, though it was more problematic when I initiated this and was counting a span of multiple months. Probably would've applied if it hadn't taken me so long to compile it (which took much longer than I initially expected). I was indeed aiming to be comprehensive for anyone who wanted to make this a better article and did a thorough spotcheck of the 500+ references, which was probably why it took so long to write up. If people insist on having at least some time to work on this, so be it, and I apologize if I delisted too soon, but they only have until October 7th since that is one week after the review was posted. It will take substantial work to be up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are trying to delist this article instead of improving it or allowing others to improve it. Given your experience with music articles, you could easily have done all the fixes to keep this at GA. sst✈ 08:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly wouldn't be able to do so on my own. I initiated this because the article was (and still is) quite a mess. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that Snuggums was quite hasty in delisting, I think we ought to give him/her credit for this extensive review. -- Chamith (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving me credit as well as for fixing some dead links and touching up the "early life section", but I'm afraid there are still significant issues within the article after a week, so I'm now going to officially delist it as a GA. Feel free to renominate at GAN after getting rid of excess detail AND making sure all text is supported by given references. Closing this reassessment now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taylor_Swift/GA3&oldid=1137220378"