Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Romantics (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) 30 December 2020 [1].

New Romantics (song)

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though it failed to enter the US top 40, "New Romantics" by the pop star Taylor Swift has proved to be a critical darling over time. For a song that received little press coverage like this one, I believe the article has done a great job covering the subject matter comprehensively, and that it satisfies the criteria of a Featured Article. I am open to any and all suggestions to improve the article. Thank you, HĐ (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Aoba47

I will leave a few comments here as a placeholder. I have actually never heard this song and am only vaguely aware of its existence. I will try my best to post a full review in the coming week, but if for any reason I do not put up further comments by next Wednesday, please ping me as a reminder. Here are some quick comments.

This is a clarification question, but I am guessing that Swift (or Martin or Shellback) did really discuss the writing and recording process or any of their takes on the song?

To my knowledge, no... Martin has a reputation of not discussing anything regarding his songwriting, and Swift only PR'ed the standard edition of 1989. As this song was originally a "bonus track" on the deluxe edition, it received little coverage from critics when 1989 was first released (except for Rob Sheffield, who was obsessed with this song), HĐ (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I had assumed, but I just wanted to double-check. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this part in the lead, was released as a promotional single through Big Machine Records on March 3, 2015, and was released to US radio stations, avoid having "was released" twice in the same sentence.

Reworded, HĐ (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article (“Okay ladies, now let’s get in formation!”: Music Videos and the Construction of Cultural Memory) could be useful as it includes more information about the music video, and it would be a nice way to incorporate an academic source.
- Thanks for the source, but I'm seeing that it covers music videos by Beyonce and Janelle Monae? I haven't seen where "New Romantics" is discussed... HĐ (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - New Romantics is at page 90. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you! HĐ (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For this sentence, The song's title is a reference to the cultural movement in the 1970s and 1980s., I would actually put the New Romantic movement instead just to be clear and avoid a potential easter egg. I would recommend the same for the lead.

Done. It's a very useful article! HĐ (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Jessie Morris sentence, I am not sure if "partnership" needs to be in quotes.

Swift didn't seem to have a public endorsement for Apple Music, so I'd keep partnership in quotes.. HĐ (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification here. Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Bustle article (Fans Can Finally Watch 'New Romantics' On Vevo) would be helpful to the article. It is mostly about the music video, but I also think it would be helpful to expand upon the reaction of the video's wider release on Vevo.
I would add a part about fans being upset about the music video. Based on the headline of the Sydney Morning Herald article, it seems to discuss this. I would use this Seventeen article (Here's Why Some Fans Are Upset About Taylor Swift's "New Romantics" Music Video) to further support and discuss the fan backlash/disappointment with the music video release.

I am hesitant to include the Seventeen source because it seems like a teenage tabloid magazine... HĐ (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventeen article was not the focus of my comment as it was more of a suggestion. I was more so focusing on the fan backlash to the music video's limited release, and I think that could be a useful bit of information to briefly add to the article to show that the criticism about the release was not just from journalists. If this information is already covered in the Sydney Morning Herald article, then that citation should be fine by itself. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure how to include this... While the fans might have been disappointed, as a temporal response, there is no quantifiable method to "measure" how exactly it impacted the situation. Unlike, for example, the backlash regarding Swift's squad during "Bad Blood" era, which was covered in public/academic discussions as well, this fan backlash mostly circulated within Swift's fanbase, so I'd consider it rather trivial, HĐ (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow-up, and I understand and appreciate your explanation. It was just something that I noticed while reading the article, and I wanted your opinion about it. I agree with you that in the larger scope of things, it is very trivial after looking at it again. Aoba47 (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This New Statesman article (A line-by-line analysis of Taylor Swift’s new song Call It What You Want) points out a specific lyric in this song while discussing Swift's use of fairy tale imagery in her career. It could be useful.

Thank you. The article is indeed helpful! HĐ (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "Live performances" section is so small, could it be combined in the "Release and commercial performance" section?

You are right. Merged, HĐ (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that you archive your sources to prevent link rot and death. You could try using the IABot. It used to work great for me, but I have been having issues with it lately where it sometimes works and sometimes gives me an error screen. Aoba47 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really useful tool... but I've unsuccessfully tried to archive the URLs... Probably I'll wait for a day for two till the bugs are fixed, hopefully, HĐ (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I used to love IABot, but I actually am starting to dislike it now because I am getting so many errors. It may be more worthwhile (yet more time-consuming) to go to Internet Archive and do it all manually. I will of course not let that hold back my support for this FAC, but it would be useful to preserving this a FA whenever it does get promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I have used IABot to archive some of the links. I hope that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much! I really appreciate your help, HĐ (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just glad I can help. I thought I might as well help with the smaller and more annoying technical stuff like this. Good luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox says that this song was recorded in 2014, but I do not see this mentioned anywhere else in the article or a citation to support this information. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, HĐ (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47 for your comments! I believe I have addressed your concerns accordingly. Hope you are having a great time, and as the end of this year is near, I hope you are safe and sound and ready for a fresh start ahead, HĐ (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I am taking a WikiBreak for the rest of the month, but I thought I should help as soon as I saw this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would specify in the lead that the music video was an Apple Music exclusive, especially since this received a lot of attention from journalists.

It was only available for a week, so I don't know how to put it effectively... Would something like It was available exclusively on Apple for a week before being distributed elsewhere work? HĐ (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me, but I would specify that it is Apple Music. Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and also added some bits in the prose, HĐ (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence, Swift and the two producers also served as songwriters., sounds a little weird to me. I would specify that you mean in the context of this song.

Done. Agreed that it sounds weird. HĐ (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a clarification question about this part, To this end, she cut ties with former longtime producers in favor of prominent mainstream pop producers. The "cut ties" part seems a little strong to me. Was there any animosity between Swift and her country producers to the point that she cut them off completely? I had assumed that Swift just decided to work with pop producers, but did not actually "cut ties" with country producers (if that makes sense).

Reworded, HĐ (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this covers everything. Once these comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments once again. Please let me know if the article is okay by now, HĐ (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with the review and for all of your responses and work. I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. I think you have been doing a lot of great work with the 1989 articles so congrats with that. I hope you are also staying safe and sound (pun intended) and you have a great end to your year. 2020 has definitely been an experience lol. Aoba47 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by TheSandDoctor

Some comments that I anticipate turning to a support

"...seven out of 13..." - this mixing of literal numbers vs words seems odd to me. Shouldn't it be one or the other? The rest of the sentence is all in word form.

Done, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"For PopMatters's Corey..." - I know that this one is more personal taste and both are (somehow) technically correct, but "PopMatters's..." really doesn't look right to me. I strongly prefer "PopMatters'..."

Reworded, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The chorus starts..." is a disambig link. What you probably want is refrain (Chorus (song) redirects there)

Retargeted, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lyric "The best people in life are free" -- having a capital "The" in the middle of the line seems rather odd. Would it not be better to have it lowercase?

I added commas, hope that works, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...exclusively on Target..." -- that doesn't read right. Wouldn't "at Target" be more preferable?

Done, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"They favorably likened the song to the works of Chvrches" -- I think "Baesley likened" would be better here.

Done, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

labeling it as "this work of genius,... -- I think cutting out "this" from the start of the quote and going with labeling it as a "work of genius..." would better fit the flow here

Done, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...the magazine commented..." - reads kind of funny to me here. Would it not be better as ", with Rolling Stone commenting that..."?

Reworded, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The critical reception section uses "lamented" or its synonyms throughout the critical reception section. Could this be reasonably consolidated?

Changed one instance to "commented", HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, TheSandDoctor. I have revised the article accordingly. Please let me know if the article needs further work, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thank you for the tweaks. Support --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Taylor_Swift_-_New_Romantics_(Official_Single_Cover).png: source link is dead

Archive-url added, HĐ (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taylor_Swift_-_New_Romantics_sample.ogg: NFCC#1 fields need improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added rationale, HĐ (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (passed)

If it is not proper to do a source review alongside a prose one, then please let me know. I thought I should help with this one since I'm reasonably experienced with music articles on Wikipedia (although I am still learning a lot still). My comments are below:

Spot checks not done as the nominator is an experience FA writer

I would consider linking the author's names in the citations if they have a Wikipedia article. Examples include Rob Sheffield and Stephen Thomas Erlewine.

Done, HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 15 leads to an "Internal Server Error" message. I have tried Googling the article in question, and I still get this error screen. I would mark the link as dead so the archived version is the first one presented in the citation. I get the same error screen for citations 2 and 16.

That's weird because when I retrieve the web pages they run smoothly... Probably it was a one-time service mainteinence? HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried it again, and the links are working. It must have been a temporary thing. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 19 says Pop Songs, but leads to the Mainstream Top 40 page. I would use the title from the article to avoid potentially confusing readers that click on the link.

Weird how Pop Songs redirect to Mainstream Top 40. Do you think we should keep the former or the latter? HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note. I just noticed in the talk page that Pop Songs is the informal title, and the "Mainstream Top 40" name is the official title used by Nielsen, HĐ (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing so. I forgot that this was an automated link so I know you do not have a lot of control over it. It should be fine. I was just a little confused when I first clicked the link because I thought I was sent to a different chart. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 27 is still alive, so I would mark it as alive. I think the citation is just missing the "url-access=alive" bit.

Marked as live, HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The publication date for citation 29 says April 14, 2016, but the article has April 13, 2016. I honestly was not paying that much attention to this when looking through the citations, but I notice this one day difference again for citation 30, where the citation says April 7, 2016 but the article says April 6, 2016. Do you know if there is a particular reason for this?

I'm pretty sure it can be attributed to time zone differences... Mine is UTC+7, so it probably goes a date sooner than the U.S. time zones. I have retrieved the sources you cited one more time, and my screen still reads April 14 and April 7... HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I had assumed, but I just wanted to double-check with you. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In citation 40, the "New Romantics" entry is signed with the initials B.S., which I am assuming is referencing Brittany Spanos who is named as one of the article's writers.

Indeed, but as the list is compiled by the whole staff, I wouldn't add author names to the template cite ref. However, I added her name as the commentator, HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I have copy-edited the part in the article about her. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In citation 44 , an author is given in the article (i.e. Jane Song), and since the initial J.S. are listed after the "New Romantics" entry, I think it is safe to say it was written by her.

Done, HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get an error screen for citation 53.

The link is autogenerated by {{single chart}}. I'll find a way to replace the link, HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am very inexperienced with the autogenerated chart links so apologies for not being able to help you there. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider all of the citations to be from high-quality sources which are appropriate for a music article.

Thank you, HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following source (The Words and Music of Taylor Swift) from ABC-Clio has a whole page on the song that may be useful. The writer talks about the song's "coolness" and actually says the song is more reflective of 21st century pop than 1970s and 1980s pop.

Thank you for the source. However I cannot access to the book because no preview is available (at least for the pages where "New Romantics" is discussed...) HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange. The preview is available on my end, and I can access the page on "New Romantics". I will put in a direct link to the page from the book (here) and if you still cannot access it, I can try taking a screenshot or something so you can see it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the link you attached, and the preview is not available. I'm pretty sure the preview is only available in select locations.. HĐ (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, since you have access to the page, I would really appreciate if you could add some bits of info. Or, you could attach a quote from the source, and I'll incorporate it myself, HĐ (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting how Google Books preview can vary so wildly from region to region, but I've also had some inconsistencies where sometimes a book has the preview option only for it to be absent a week or so later. I will email you screenshots of the text so you can incorporate it in as you see fit. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: I do not think you have email active on your Wikipedia account so if possible, could you send me an email so I could send you the screenshot from the source? Thanks in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Sorry, I had not set up an email beforehand... Updated, and waiting for your mail, HĐ (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have sent you the email. I know some users prefer to not have an email set up so feel free to deactivate it if you prefer. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for a very useful and credible source. I have added some analysis to the "Music and lyrics" section. HĐ (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less certain about this source (A SIMULATION STUDY OF TEXAS HOLD ’EM POKER: WHAT TAYLOR SWIFT UNDERSTANDS AND JAMES BOND DOESN’T), but it is from a credible journal (Australian Mathematical Society). Just wanted to raise it to your attention.

I believe I can safely omit the source since it mainly discusses about probability in poker, which is referenced in the lyric "I'm about to play my ace". As that is something remotely related to this article, it may qualify as Trivia (However it does seem interesting!) HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed as much, but I just wanted to raise it to your attention (and because I think it was quite silly but still interesting). Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Please let me know if anything requires further clarification. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review. I believe anyone can review sources regardless of whether they have reviewed the prose or not. Your help is much appreciated, HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses, and I am glad to help. I have responded to your points above and once some relatively minors things are ironed out, this should pass my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hey, just to let you know that I have removed Bustle per WP:RSP, as there is no consensus on whether it is reliable or not. HĐ (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Homeostasis07

Lead

It was written by Swift and its producers, Max Martin and Shellback. → It was written by Swift alongside producers Max Martin and Shellback.

I kept "its producers" to specify that the two are also the song's producers, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"New Romantics" was made available for digital download as a promotional single on March 3, 2015, by Big Machine Records. It was released to US radio as the seventh and final single from 1989 on February 23, 2016, by Republic Records in partnership with Big Machine.

I see another review mentioned the original sentence above, but maybe what they were suggesting was to just remove the repetition of "was", as it's quite awkwardly worded here. How about: ""New Romantics" was released digitally as a promotional single on March 3, 2015, by Big Machine Records, and serviced to US radio as the seventh and final single from 1989 on February 23, 2016, by Republic Records in partnership with Big Machine.

The merged sentence is rather too long, so I wouldn't merge... HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many critics lamented that the song did not make the cut of 1989's standard edition; they hailed the song's energetic and lively atmosphere, ranking "New Romantics" among Swift's best songs of her career.

"make the cut" reads a bit too "album reviewer"-ish to me, and "among Swift's best songs of her career" is a bit jarring. How about a more formal: "Many critics lamented that the song did not feature on the standard edition of the album; they hailed the song's energetic and lively atmosphere, ranking "New Romantics" among the best songs of Swift's career."

Reworded, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Production

There is a redirect to Sterling Sound Studios, if you want to include it at the end of this section.

Linked, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

The song's title is a reference to the New Romantic cultural movement in the 1970s and 1980s. → of the 1970s and 1980s.

Done, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Release and commercial performance

Pretty info-heavy with not much editorializing, so not much to complain about here. But I think the sentences in the 3rd paragrph beginning "Laura Bertens, a scholar in art history and cultural studies, ..." could be moved further up the paragraph, since her commentary relates exclusively to the actual music video, and not the sequent Apple Vs. Spotify commentary. How about adding Bertens's commentary to just before the sentence beginning "Complex's Jessie Morris deemed this release part of Swift's "partnership" with Apple Music, ..."?

Good idea. Done, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Upon the release of 1989, Corey Baesley from PopMatters deemed "New Romantics" and the other two deluxe edition bonus tracks more "compositionally daring" than the standard edition. → "than any track found on the standard edition."

Done, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Glamour (magazine) is a "high-quality" reliable source. This can be excised to no detriment of the article as a whole.

Agree. As it's more of a lifestyle magazine than a music magazine, I removed Glamour, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support once most of these are addressed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Thank you for taking time reviewing the article. I have responded to your concerns above. Hope you are having a great week, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Made a minor edit to the article's lead to fix an "of" repetition that my review inadvertently caused. Feel free to rephrase that if you want. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with the changes you've made. Happy to support this for promotion. Hope the rest of the nomination goes well for you, HĐ. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Heartfox

Rolling Stone in 2019 included the track on their list of the 100 best songs of the 2010s decade. A few others were not as impressed, deeming the song forgettable. I would switch these sentences

Done, HĐ (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin maybe "the former"?

Could you specify which "Martin" are you referring to? HĐ (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant including Swedish hitmakers Max Martin and Shellback; Swift also recruited Martin as co-executive producer — I think it could flow better with the second "Martin" as "the former" instead of repeating his name twice in the same sentence

Thank you. Done, HĐ (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

among the few songs "songs" is redundant

Removed, HĐ (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the song entered the US Billboard Hot 100 chart dated March 21, 2015, at number 71. did it chart after that date? what happened after that?

It seems no further info following that date is available.. But it did climb to number 46 in 2016, HĐ (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

which required paid subscription which required a paid subscription (?)

Done, HĐ (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is there a citation that shows the image is of her performing "New Romantics" and not another song or something?

Sadly no.. HĐ (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the caption maybe change "performing" to "performed" then to be accurate.

Good idea! HĐ (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only comments above :) Heartfox (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article :) HĐ (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: I've replied above. Heartfox (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. I've addressed your concerns accordingly, HĐ (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support, great work! Heartfox (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

@Nikkimaria: have your image concerns been addressed? And I'd love to see someone outside the pop culture editing sphere look this over also ...Ealdgyth (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

"The lyrics are about Swift reigniting her hopes and energy after the heartbreak she had endured." This seems to be a key claim and I would expect it to be cited to a consensus of knowledgeable commentators. I can't see that it is cited at all. The next cite is Jagota, and I can't find this supported there.

That is the result of me trying to paraphrase what the writers said. For the Jagota source: After a certain amount of pain, sometimes your best defense is to channel the burning energy of your big hopes and desires ... . The Stuff source also said of the theme as celebrating the heartache and joy of being young. The Carl Wilson review wrote: So many of Swift's older songs are marred by the way she portrays herself as the victim in all the relationship dynamics, a passive way of getting revenge. That pattern has all but vanished on 1989 (he later cited "New Romantics" as an example). I hope my paraphrasing was close to the original's meaning, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the Wilson quote above supports any of the sentence in question. I could quibble as to where "the heartbreak" comes from, but if you could put cites to Jagota and The Stuff immediately after the sentence I shall be content.

Added. Hope it's fine for now, HĐ (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Sydney Morning Herald's Karl Quinn labeled the release a "cynical move", through which Swift implicitly encouraged her fans to subscribe to Apple Music to balance the competition with streaming platform Spotify, which she had been critical of regarding its free streaming services that provided low royalties for artists." I think that this sentence is trying to cover too much ground. It could do with being split.

Split, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Credits are adapted from liner notes of 1989." A picky point: shouldn't that be 'from the liner notes'?

Fixed, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"writing that "she can do it better than anyone else"." Is "she" Swift or Chvrches?

Done, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone new to pop music articles, not to mention modern pop music, I found this well written, readily comprehensible and MoS compliant. If the quibbles above could be resolved I would be happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to your concerns accordingly, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2020 (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) 04:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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