Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love Story (Taylor Swift song)/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2022 [1].

Love Story (Taylor Swift song)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Baby just say yes." Arguably one of the most enduring love songs of the 21st century, "Love Story" was Taylor Swift's first single to crack the Hot 100 top 5, and its resurgence on TikTok in 2021 attested to its timelessness. I have extensively rewritten the article and believe it is now up to FA standards. Ippantekina (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Romeo_and_juliet_brown.jpg: second source link is dead
File:Taylor_Swift_-_Love_Story_(music_video_screenshot).png needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. I have expanded the FUR for the screenshot, and an archive-url has been added to the Romeo and Juliet painting. Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartox — Pop 100 Airplay is a component chart of Pop 100; shouldn't be listed. Heartfox (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hate to see this languishing so I'll make a start but will probably have to finish it later as I need to go out in 20 minutes :-)

"a love interest unpopular to her family" - personally I would say "unpopular with" but maybe this is a US/UK difference....?
"who meet in a university campus" => "who meet on a university campus"
"The album spent more weeks on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart than any other albums" => "The album spent more weeks on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart than any other album"
"Juliet pleads, "This love is difficult, but it's real;"" - don't think that semi-colon needs to be there
That's what I got as far as the end of the Commercial performance section, back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

No need for a capital on Medieval, it isn't a proper noun (the other two are, though)
"She believed Gaston was a perfect choice for the male lead, "I was" - either change that comma to a colon or add a word after the comma such as "saying"
" The performances begun" => " The performances began"
"Swift emerged to upper level" => "Swift emerged to an upper level"
"The song was part of Swift's performance at the BBC Radio 1's" => "The song was part of Swift's performance at BBC Radio 1's" (the station is not called "the BBC Radio 1")
In the credits section the only instrument mentioned is "additional guitar". Do we really not know who played the banjo, fiddle, etc, mentioned earlier...?
"Swift re-recorded her first six studio albums from November 2020" => "Swift re-recorded her first six studio albums beginning in November 2020"
"Swift invited some musicians from the 2008 version to re-record with her, including Jonathan Yudkin on fiddle, Amos Heller on bass guitar, and Caitlin Evanson on harmony vocals" - ah, there they are :-) Surely they should be mentioned in the earlier credits?
That's the rest of what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude. Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all except the issue with the liner notes; I don't have the booklet of the original 2008 album and tried to look for the credits on MusicBrainz but apparently it's the same... Ippantekina (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The complete booklet is viewable on Discogs. Here is the page with the musician credits. Annoyingly, though, it doesn't specify performers by track...... :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Judging from the booklet, I assume all musicians play the same instruments for each song... but inputting them that way might be OR. What'd you say? Ippantekina (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I doubt there are literally three mandolin players, two bass players and two drummers on every track on the album, so presumably they don't all play on every track and therefore we have no way of knowing who played on this specific track, annoyingly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

Love the song. I've been an out and proud Swiftie since I first heard it! And the article is impressive. Just a few things that need addressing:

Punctuation that's not part of a quote needs to go outside quote marks per MOS:LQ
referencing the "balcony scene" in Act II, scene ii of Shakespeare's original play lose the "original"
As she was writing, she felt Romeo and Juliet could have been "the best love story ever told" if the two characters did not end up dead.[13] She thus made the two characters in "Love Story" end up with a marriage proposal, which she deemed a happy ending that they deserve.[13][14] Feels clunky given the quality of the prose elsewhere. Can we shorten it and find a more encyclopaedic phrase than "end up"?
Some links to commonly understood terms you can afford to lose: happy ending, fairy tale, demo, loud, Juliet, Romeo, psychologist, medieval (which, as Chris says, is not a proper noun), dance, re-recorded.
Anything on what Swift though of the song?
I'm a little bit concerned that the reception section is mostly one-sentence snippets of reviews but with no overall narrative. Are there any reviews of the reviews or similar sources that discuss overall critical opinion? I'm looking for more analysis instead of just quotes from talking heads.
On other Billboard's airplay charts lose the 's?
A critic that found the re-recording completely different from the original was Bob Lefsetz, who regarded it as "a bust, from the beginning" Again, more depth her would be good.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: @HJ Mitchell: Thank you very much for the comments. I'm in the middle of some real-life stuff some please be patient with me. I'd probably get back to Wikipedia and this FAC by this weekend. If you do get impatient with my inactivity, please do ping or Wiki-mail me. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging the comments. As dar as I'm concerned there's no rush. Just ping me when you're ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, HJ Mitchell. Thank you again for your comments and patience. I have rewritten the clunky part and tweaked the "Critical reception" section. The Bob Lefsetz comment reads unprofessional (even in the original source) so I removed it. Let me know if there is any remaining issue. Ippantekina (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still a lot of MOS:LQ issues. The reception section is a lot better but I'm curious that you seem to have culled some of the reviews. Otherwise I'm close to supporting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, thanks for getting back on this. The only review that I removed is the one by Bob Lefsetz (explained above), other than that I kept them all in the prose. Ippantekina (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: nudge-- Ippantekina (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy now. Excellent work. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

No concerns turned up in the spotcheck.
Not sure Spotify and iTunes Store should be italicized as they aren't on their respective articles. 7digital is also a music store and it isn't italicized so it should probably be consistent.
Is there a better source than Facebook for the Malaysian chart (ref 202)?
BBC is italicized in the references but not in the prose. MTV News typically seems to be in the publisher field too but it's italicized here. AllMusic is italicized on ref 160 but not on 41 and 182. What system has been followed with regards to this?
Ref 102 appears to be dead
Ref 122 should not be marked as dead but as url-access=limited.--N Ø 14:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might appreciate a ping, Ippantekina. No hurries, though.--N Ø 14:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, thanks for the ping. I believe all are addressed now :) except for the Malaysian chart; I looked for a source from the RIM but apparently they have been switched to Facebook since... Ippantekina (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Sorry it took a while to get to my comments. I support since it looks like this is ready for promotion and the article's coverage on the original and re-recorded songs is in-depth. Good work. Here are a few suggestions:

Love Story" featured on 2008 year-end lists -- perhaps just some tweaking to say it was ranked at etc..
In Fearless album reviews -- I think mention of Fealess and album together is a bit redundant. Perhaps a little tweaking and keep omit album.
Some critics were more reserved in their praise -- perhaps instead of 'more reserved', should it be 'mixed'?
Filming took two days in August 2008 -- was completed in two days.
performing the song on a ballroom-influenced stage -- very minor, but should it be ballroom designed or themed? --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Pseud 14. I have tweaked a bit accordingly. Hopefully you are safe and healthy now!-- Ippantekina (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article! All good now. Thank you for the well wishes, likewise! --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

"The lyrics narrate a troubled romance between two characters who end up with a marriage proposal" - Maybe "The lyrics narrate a troubled romance between two characters which leads to a marriage proposal"?
"critics have considered this one of Swift's best singles" - I'd probably go with "it" instead of "this"
"has sold over six million copies in the U.S. and 18 million copies worldwide" - Avoid "has"
"made Swift the youngest person to single-handedly write and sing a number-one song on the Hot Country Songs chart" - Swift didn't sing the song on the chart so would this be better as "made Swift the youngest person to single-handedly write and sing a Hot Country Songs number-one song"?
"She was inspired to write it by a love interest whom she never officially dated" - "to write it" could be omitted here as the previous sentence sets the precedent quite well.
"After finished writing, Swift recorded" - Shouldn't this be "After finishing writing"?
"referencing the "balcony scene" in Act II" - does "balcony scene" really need the quotes?
"It was the top-performing single on US airplay of 2009, ranking number one on the year-end Radio Songs chart" - The first part of this sentence is redundant imo and is not directly stated in the source. Could this just be swapped with "It ranked number one on the year-end Radio Songs chart for 2009"?
Hyphenation might be appropriate for "eight-times platinum" and "ten-times platinum"
"It was the sixth-best-selling single of 2009 worldwide, selling 6.5 million copies" - There's repetition of "selling" here
"estimated worldwide sales of "Love Story" stood at 18 million" - copies?
Are there articles that can be linked for either of the BMI award ceremonies?

I will note that I have not had the time to look at the Taylor's Version section. Prose review is based on the sections above that.--N Ø 16:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, do ping me when you finish the review as I now only have ample time during weekends. Thanks for taking up the review. Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a few that are not addressed from the last batch of comments. There's still a "has" in "has sold over six million copies in the U.S. and 18 million copies worldwide". "Ten times platinum" and "eight times platinum" are still not hyphenated. There's a repetition of "selling" in that one sentence and the "18 million (copies?) (downloads?) (equivalents?)" part.--N Ø 14:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaranoFan: Done all except for the "has sold" part. Imo "sold" alone implies that the single stops selling in the present; may I know your rationale behind this? Ippantekina (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the "has" slightly switched tense from the preceding sentences but this isn't a big deal in my opinion. Happy to add my support.--N Ø 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

Well over four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless there are further signs of a consensus to support over the next two or three days, I am afraid that this nomination is likely to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, Harry would apparently come back to this FAC within a few days, and there are two active reviews. I know this has been stalling for a while, but I think it is unfair to close this unless all the reviews are inactive. Ippantekina (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ippantekina, I wasn't able to get to it this weekend. I was down with COVID since last week and only got to my computer now. Will post review in the next day, apologies for the delay. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, take good care of your health! Ippantekina (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

For this part, inspired to write the song by a love interest, I'd use a different wording than "love interest" as I find that term more often applied to fictional characters than real-life people. I have the same comment for this part, by a love interest whom she never officially dated, in the article.

Rephrased. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this part, and imagine themselves as lovers in a prior era. I have not watched the music video in a long time, but is it clear in the video that the characters are imagining these historical scenes? I do not remember this connection being clear in the video, but it has been years since I saw it.
For this part, 16th-century play, I do not think the time period is necessary to include in the prose.

Removed. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, in this part, "This is difficult but it's real, it matters,", the comma should be on the outside of the quotation marks as punctuation is only included in the quotes if it is a part of the actual quote. I'd double-check throughout the entire article for this kind of thing.

Done. I'm also trying to double-check any quotation MOS issues. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link demo for readers who may not be 100% familiar with the concept.

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read this part, The country-music version, I was somewhat confused because it was not previously established that two versions of the song were made. Do you think it would be beneficial to briefly add a sentence before this that says a country and pop version of the song were created to avoid this kind of confusion?

Rephrased a little. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be more consistent with how critics are attributed in the prose. There are instances only the publication is attributed (i.e. Rolling Stone described the electric guitars) and other times where the publication and writer are attributed (i.e. according to Billboard's Kristen He).

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this quote: the song could "easily be an emo rocker". I do not have access to the citation, but does the source refer to the song as a "rocker"? I only ask because it seems more like a description of a singer than a song.

You can access to the source through the Wikipedia Library Platform; I double-checked at the article does say "emo rocker" to describe the single. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has this part, music critics praised the production as catchy , but I do not see this information represented or supported in the "Critical reception" section.

Reworded to make it match with the prose. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my personal opinion, but I do not find parts like, rated the single four stars out of five, to be particularly useful to readers. Unless the number rating is notable on its own, I would instead keep the prose focused on the actual contents of the review.
I would think the Robert N. Watson part would work better in the second paragraph, which is about the responses to the song's literary references.

I think it's more appropriate to include it where it is atm, because it discusses the Shakespearean narrative in the context of Swift's image and artistry, and is congruent with other retrospective reviews (whereas Perone 2017 discusses the song in the context of Fearless album review..) Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify how Justin Gaston was hired? The prose says Swift's friend recommended him, and then the next sentence says Swift contacted him after his elimination from Nashville Star. So was he recommended to Swift while he was on the series? I was just a little confused by the timeline, especially since Gaston is introduced as a former contestant.

Reworded. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd modify the "Synopsis" subsection of the "Music video" section to reflect that it has information on reviews and is not just a summary of the video.
Were there any reviews for the "Thug Story" parody? It just seems like the type of thing to generate something, but music journalism, and journalism in general, was quite different in 2009 vs. now.

The first round of search turned up nothing. Will do a second round to see if anything pops up. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. I had a feeling that this happened. In my opinion, it seemed like this parody has largely flown under the radar at the time and has subsequently fallen into obscurity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any notable covers of this song?
I do not think the Taylor Swift masters controversy is clearly defined in this part, in objection to talent manager. I have seen clearer links to this in other articles, such as Fearless with dispute regarding the ownership. I'd also say that this link warrants inclusion in the lead to explain why a re-recording was done in the first place.

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were there are negative reviews for the re-recording, aside from the more mixed Robert Christgau review?

Originally I included a negative review (cue the review by HJ Mitchell above) but since it was unsubstantial, I removed it. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any live performances of the re-recording?

She did sing "Love Story" at a 2022 concert with Haim in London, but because the two versions are essentially the same song, do you think it is more appropriate to include it in the "Live performances and other usage" section and not in the re-recording's section? Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the original and re-recording different versions as they are different from one another. They may be the same song, but they have a different production and in some sense, it is like she is covering herself. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dubious on this one as quite a few media outlets reported that Swift sang "Love Story" (without the "Taylor's Version" subtitle) with Haim Variety Rolling Stone; I'm thinking of adding this to the Live performances section.. Ippantekina (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine then. Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I will re-read the article a few more times once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, thanks for taking time reviewing the article. I have responded to some of your comments above. Hopefully we'd get this done :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. There are a few spots that you have not responded to, and I would greatly appreciate some responses to those points. After that, everything should be good, and I would be more than happy to support at that point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my above response, the points that have been left unaddressed are the following: "imagine themselves as lovers in a prior era" quote and whether or not they were covers. Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the lead accordingly. Regarding the covers, even though some indie/rock bands covered it for their albums ([2] [3]), I don't think they are notable for inclusion as the articles don't discuss the covers in depth. Ippantekina (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.