Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Speak Now/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2022 [1].

Speak Now

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2010 album by Taylor Swift. It sold one million copies within one week—a record in the digital era. Because it was the first album Swift released after 2009's Kanyegate, Kanye was very much inspired by its success (among many others in later years) to claim that he made her famous. Stripped off all of this context, Speak Now is a decent album, though her vocals are a little nasally at points. The first FAC failed because it did not generate any interest, so I hope this second round would get more lucky. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Hello, thank you for the source review. The Barnes & Noble sources do say that the deluxe edition was released on January 17, 2012, so please verify again (there's an archive-url). For the Musicradar and Songwriteruniverse sources, I believe they are eligible to be used as WP:ABOUTSELF because they essentially are interviews. The indies.ca website is the official site of the Canadian Independent Music Awards. Ippantekina (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair. I will leave the two interviews for other reviewers to judge. My objections are withdrawn -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MusicforthePeople

[edit]

A decent if a bit long album for my liking. Some thoughts I have:

  • The genres are listed in a different order in the lead (country pop/power pop/pop rock) versus the infobox (country pop/pop rock/power pop). This suggestion might be more on the trivial side, but uniformity never hurts.
  • "Six singles supported the album" - I would have said "Six singles were used to promote the album".
  • Any reason why "Mean" is introduced in the 3rd lead paragraph, instead of the 2nd with the rest of the singles?
  • In addition to the above, no mention of "The Story of Us"?
  • In the Background section, link Nashville
  • Delink Kanye West in the Writing and lyrics section as he's already mentioned in the previous section. Just the prose mention, keep the picture caption link.
  • "In 'Innocent', Swift sings about ..." change this to "In the song" or "In the track" since its named in the previous line.
  • "Pain in the Art Studio, Nashville" change this to "Pain in the Art Studio in Nashville".
  • Unlink Nashville in Production section since its introduced in Background (and should be linked there per my earlier suggestion).
  • "Blackbird Studios, Nashville" change this to "Blackbird Studios in Nashville".
  • Like above for 1960s to 1960s
  • I'd summarise the support acts for the world tour, something like "Various acts opened the Asian and European legs, while Needtobreathe opened the North American shows and Hot Chelle Rae did the same for the Oceanic shows".
  • Delink Billboard 200 in the Commercial performance section as its already linked in the Background section.
  • The four full mentions of United States in the Commercial performance section should be shortened to US like the previous sections.

That's all I have; feel free to ignore any you think is unnecessary. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MusicforthePeople (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

My concerns from last time have been resolved. I have the following suggestions this time.

  • The second para in the lead uses number one quite often; can we rephrase one ("peaked atop"/"topped the [chart]"...)?
  • "some media criticized Swift's weak live vocals" - it sounds as though Swift's "weak" live vocals were a fact. It should be instead "some media criticized Swift's live vocals as weak" or "some media felt Swift's live vocals were weak".
  • ""Haunted" is about romantic obsession and "Last Kiss" is about" - is about.. is about.
  • "Swift recorded much of Speak Now with producer Nathan Chapman" - don't think we need to repeat Champan's role ("producer") here since it was just mentioned in the previous para.

I have read till the end of Music section. FrB.TG (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I have made changes here to eliminate prose redundancy, make small copy-edits and fix MoS/punctuation issues. Please check these carefully and let me know if I messed something up. Other than these and the comment below, the article is pretty much good to go in my opinion, but this should not affect my support.
Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. The NYC source simply says "gave a private performance for contest winners that was broadcast online" so I guess it was some sort of fan-contest? (I can remove it if it is too vague) I clarified that she performed for JetBlue at Kennedy Airport. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)

[edit]
  • The citations are well-constructed for the most part (though I have some comments about this below), but I would highly encourage you to archive web citations (like Citation 88) to avoid any potential headaches in the future when it comes to link rot and death. This is not a requirement for a FAC/FA, but more of a suggestion.
  • For the Billboard articles accessed through Google Books, I would make that clear in the citation by using the "via=" parameter. I think it would be helpful to visually distinguish these from the Billboard site. I would also include the ISSN for the Billboard magazines accessed through Google Books just so the citations are complete.
  • One problem with ISSN for Billboard sources is that they are not unique so I don't think it is constructive to add the same ISSN for all of them.
  • I'd link Tanner Stransky in his citation. That target article is not in the best shape, but since it exists right now, it should be linked.
  • Citation 165 should have a title translation since it is a foreign language. If there are other instances of this in the citations, I'd make sure to address those as well.
  • Citation 75 is missing the author (in this case Randy Lewis). I would recommend doing a run-through of the citations without authors to make sure others are not missed as well.
  • The citations are all reliable and high-quality, particularly for a music article.
  • Are there any academic studies or analyses of this album or this point in Swift's career? Apologies if this is already present in the article and I somehow missed it. Here are two potential academic sources (Taylor Made: Swift Branding and Taylor Swift and the Work of Songwriting), but I would do a look through Google Scholar.
  • I unfortunately don't have access to the said articles... but I added one to which I have access (via Wikipedia Library Platform)
  • There are other ways to get access to scholarly articles. I have found the Resource Exchange to be very helpful. But in order for this article to be comprehensive, you should look through scholarly articles to make sure that this article is not missing anything. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my observation it could take a while to proceed source requests. I'll try to look into ways to retrieve this paper, but would like to bypass the other because it appears irrelevant judging from the headline and the abstract.. I also added what I could find through Google Scholar. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is entirely necessary to include the access dates for the archived citations as the access dates are useful for identifying the last time a site was active and that information is not particularly beneficial anymore since an archive is present. Plus, having three dates (publication, access, and archives dates) does create unnecessary bulk in the citations.
  • I'm dubious about this; should I remove all access-dates?
  • I would, but that is just my opinion. As I already said above, these access-dates no longer serve a purpose since the links are already archived and they do just add clutter to the citations, but I will leave that up to your preference. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a spot-check, and everything looks supported by the citations (at least from what I have checked).

Once everything has been addressed, I will do another read-through the citations and at that point, this will very likely pass my source review. I hope this was helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies if I had overstepped my bounds by posting another source review. I was unaware that one was already conducted and I was merely judging this based on the request here and I should have checked through all the reviews here first. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two reviews are almost always better than one—it's always possible for a reviewer to overlook something! (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Message to coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Do we need one more support to meet the threshold of minimum three supports? If so, may I ask is it possible if one coordinator recuse to review? Thank you very much, Ippantekina (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ippantekina, consensus to promote isn't just a matter of minimum three supports. I can't speak for the other coords but I have little time for reviewing these days. Off the top of my head, perhaps FunkMonk or Zmbro could stop by?

Comments by Pseud 14

[edit]

The article is well-written, well-researched in its coverage and analysis of the album, and seems to present all viewpoints fairly. Great work here! Here are a few suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

  • which visited Asia, Europe, North America, and Australasia – I think if we are referring to continents, Oceania would be used.
  • some media commented Swift performed with weak vocals. – perhaps critics instead of media
  • which received media gossip during the album's promotional rollout. – “gossip” seems to be somewhat informal, perhaps “media attention”
  • Enchanted unfit for the album's grown-up perspective. – perhaps “mature perspective“
  • That will be all from me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments. I have addressed them accordingly. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The lead says negative reviews criticized the lyrics as immature and unrefined while the article says the mixed reviews were about the heartbreak and vengeance themes. The information in the lede does not appear to be supported in the article.
  • Shouldn't the lede mention something about the album's retrospective reviews or impact since it has a separate section?
  • "Continuing her songwriting tradition of earlier albums" is overly wordy. How about "Like with her past albums" or something similar?
  • I am curious on the structure of the article. 1989 goes from the recording/production process to the album's music and lyrics while this article intermingles these two. Is there a reason for this structure?
  • Because Swift wrote the album by herself before going into the studio with the producer, the article first discusses the writing process and lyrics, and then the music and styles. I hope it makes sense.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. It is important to have a structure that best fits the subject matter so I am not opposed to having something different than what is viewed as the "standard" for these album articles. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance if I am wrong about this. I thought Swift purposefully wrote the entire album by herself to make a point that she is a legitimate songwriter. It reminds me of how Damon Albarn claimed she did not write her own music. Is there anything to this, specifically did Swift talk about this? Again, I could be misremembering this point.
  • Although around that time she said it happened naturally, she did reflect in a 2019 interview that she did so to prove her critics wrong. I added this bit to the "Impact" section.
  • "Before its release, Big Machine" is not grammatically correct as it reads like it is Big Machine's release instead of the album's release.
  • For the Guinness World Records sentence, I would include the year that this occurred to give the information more context. Also, this information may change so it is best to pin this down to a specific year.
  • I believe the "Commercial performance" section should be after the "Critical reception" and "Accolades" sections.
  • To me the "Commercial performance" following the "Release and promotion" section is more logical because of the direct link between PR and sales.
  • Understandable. It does not really bother me, and since none of the above reviewers have pointed this out as an issue (at least from my understanding as I could have likely overlooked it by accident), then I think this current structure works because of the reason you have provided above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain of the last paragraph of the "Critical reception" section. It jumps around from positive to mixed to negative reviews and back so the structure seems unclear to me. Wouldn't it be clearer to go from positive to mixed to negative?
  • I wrote the first two paragraphs focusing on the lyrics, and the last on the production.
  • I am uncertain about the opening sentence for the "Impact" section. I would attribute who made this claim. Was it critics, academic, etc.? It appears there is a contrast made between Swift's country music identity and the personas adopted by female pop artist, but I am curious if there were any discussions about Swift and her contemporary female country singers? Were these discussions limited to pop music?
  • Could you expand on this sentence: "Billboard commented that it set the standard for other pop singer-songwriters in the early 2010s".
  • It simply said "a standard-setter for all pop singer-songwriters at the beginning of the 2010s"; do you think it's wise to remove this claim?
  • It looks like you have already removed this claim from the article. I agree with this change because if that was the full extent of the information provided in the source, it does not provide enough context or real information to be included in this article as it is not really saying anything. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't the Pitchfork source be a better fit in the first paragraph? The first paragraph seems to be more of a discussion on Swift's identity, and that way, you can focus the second paragraph on discussions surrounding the songwriting and its influence.
  • I am surprised the "Impact" section does not have more on retrospective reviews. I would look at 1989 as a clear example of how to do this. This article already uses retrospective reviews as citations (such as this one), but they are not used in the prose.
  • Could you specify how Vulture connected this album with Reputation?
  • I rewrote the "Impact" section to make it clearer on how Speak Now relates to Swift's career.

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. I have also done some minor copy-edits to the article (here) and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for reviewing the article. I have responded to your concerns above, and for those where I did not reply, I have addressed them within the article. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to everything. I have left my responses to your responses above. I support this FAC based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC which is also about a music topic. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Either way, best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Speak_Now/archive2&oldid=1104142627"