Wikipedia:Peer review/Red (Taylor Swift album)/archive1

Red (Taylor Swift album)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I would like to take this article to FA and would like some peer review of it.

Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments

This is super nitpick-y, but would it be possible to avoid repeating "album" in this sentence: The album's title refers to what Swift described as the tumultuous "red" emotions that were evoked from the unhealthy romance she was experiencing during the album's conception.
Would “Red’s conception” be acceptable? Otherwise will have to give this some more thought. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think naming the album on the second instance would be somewhat awkward. This may be a case where the word just has to be repeated. I cannot think of a good fix for this right now either. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, The final product was a genre-blending album that combines, I do not think "genre-blending" is necessary since later on in the same sentence, it already goes into more detail on how it blends genres.
Removed and reworked in lead. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, only critic has described Red as a fall classic so I do not think this is notable enough to include in the lead and it actually gives undue weight to this critic. Also, both links in fall classic seem excessive so I would remove them.
Removed in lead. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box for the File:Taylor Swift - All Too Well sample.ogg sample is incomplete. There should not be any instances of "n.a.".
I’ve addressed one of the two issues here & just have the “respect for commercial” one left. I’ll have to look for other examples on how to fill that field out. If you have any ideas or examples, please do share. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would look at recent album FAs to see how they write their audio samples. Whenever I have trouble with this stuff, I always go to recent FAs on similar subjects to see what other editors have done. I would go with recent FAs (i.e. within the last year) to insure that you are doing it in the way that is deemed the best for right now. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: How's that look? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some quick comments. I have only read through the lead so far so almost all of my comments are focused on that, except for the last point which is about one of the audio samples. I hope this is helpful and apologies in advance for doing this review with a more piecemeal approach. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Don’t worry about doing this piecemeal! I greatly appreciate you taking the time to give feedback. —-TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything so far! I am just glad that I can help. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few duplicate links in the article. Examples are The A.V. Club and AllMusic. These items should only be linked on the first instance in the article. If you want, you can use the duplinks-alt sidebar tool to identify duplicate links more easily. Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused on how citations are attributed in the prose. Michael Gallucci's article for The A.V. Club is mentioned in the prose for the "Lyrics and themes" subsection, but only the website is named in the prose and not Gallucci. It seems odd to wait to identify Gallucci until the "Critical reception" section. This is quite common in the article. The author's name is first mentioned in the "Critical reception" section even though their articles are brought up in the prose in an early section with only the website name mentioned. I would think it would better to attribute the author when you first incorporate the citation into the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This part, which builds up for a climactic finale, reads more like a positive review than an objective description of the song so I would remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a very nitpick-y note for this part, In the song, Swift sings, so apologies in advance. I would avoid having "song" and "sings" in the same sentence as it is rather repetitive. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Better or do you think more needs doing? Special:Diff/1034951816. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the "Impact and legacy" section title. Is it necessary to include both impact and legacy? It seems a little overkill to me since both words can be used rather interchangeably. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retitled to match 1989 (Taylor Swift album) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BawinV: Why did you revert this? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: I wasn't aware of this discussion here, but legacy and impact have different meanings despite the similarity. I recently added info on the album's impact on female country singers, hence I added the word "impact" to the subtitle to better cover the scope of the section. You can remove it if you want, but I think the current title better covers it all. Thanks. BawinV (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47 and BawinV: You could say that its impact on the artists is part of its legacy though. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the two words have different meanings, but I do not think they are distinct enough to the point that both are entirely necessary in a section title. I am in agreement with TheSandDoctor that the album's impact on other singers is part of the album's overall legacy. That is just my perspective though. Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BawinV: I was just looking through the supporting refs for the new addition...none of them (exception: I can't vew thetimes) explicitly mention Red? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BawinV: ^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to include them in Taylor Swift but that's a big article already. The sources talk about Swift's country-to-pop transistion (which happened with RED) and how it affected female country artists after her. Hence, I included it in RED's article where it would be most appropriate. BawinV (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the citations do not specifically mention Red or any of the album's songs, they do not belong in the article. The country-to-pop transition could be referencing 1989, which was Swift's first album marketed as a pop album. Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Aoba47 on this one, BawinV. Adding a sentence on this to Swift probably isn't a concern, but here it doesn't really fit per the above, especially in a wouldbe FA (if I can get these points ironed out, I could see it nominated within the week). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For citation 155, I do not think a majority of the quote is necessary. The parts about Lauren Alaina's opinion of Cole Swindell's song "Break Up in the End" should be removed entirely as it does not relate to this article at all. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Shortened. How does that look? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Do you think that we can collapse some of these resolved points again? I am fine if that makes the bullets out of order as they are independent and don't really matter chronologically (plus timestamps in sigs would preserve it). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, it is encouraged to only use audio samples that are representative of the album as a whole or say something about the album. The captions for the "I Knew You Were Trouble" and "All Too Well" samples clearly explain that, but I do not see a strong enough rationale for the "Begin Again" sample, as the audio sample is more so about the song and not about the album. I would either strengthen the caption to more clearly defend its inclusion or delete it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: That's a good point. What are your thoughts on it now that I've expanded it a bit? Happy to work further on it or remove it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not sure. It is a little better. I think it would actually be better to look to Perone's comment on the song (i.e. that while the album explores different genres, it closes with a country song). The current caption is rather vague. This part, The track brings the album to a symbolic thematic close., could really mean anything and it would better to use the caption to talk about something with the song's sound as that is the point of having an audio sample in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Played with it a bit more. Thoughts? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with this. It looks much better to me as it more clearly identifies how the sample is being used in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Songs" subsection is quite lengthy. This is a very well-known album so I am not surprised that all the songs have received so much discussion from critics, but a part of me thinks that it is too lengthy and would benefit from being condensed down, especially for songs that have independent articles. I would be curious to hear other editors' opinions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DMT Biscuit[edit]

Resolved points

Lead[edit]

"genre-blending" - A little bit fancruffy, its eclectic mix is expressed either way.
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"lyrical prowess" - Akin to above, maybe just change it to lyrics.
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and dubbed Red a fall classic" - This seems trivial, best reserved for the folly of forums.
Removed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"2010s decade" - 2010s, or decade? Either/or is fine but together is clunky.
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

"'learn from them'" - I don't see why this is in quotes. It could be infered as editorializing.
@DMT Biscuit: Looking at the source, those are her literal words from a quote. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DMT Biscuit: ^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, cool. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M&L[edit]

"The first half of Red consists of back-and-forth country and pop songs sandwiched in-between each other" → The first half of Red consists of country and pop songs intertwined ~~between~~ with each other.
Good idea. Implemented. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"all of which were produced by Swedish pop producers Max Martin and Shellback" - So close to its first mention seems redundant. Could be come a note.
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"erupting" → "dynamic", less fancruffy.
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"James E. Perone" - Since he is without further introduction, for the best, Perone should do fine.
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

"genre-spanning" - see first instance.
@DMT Biscuit: How does this look? Special:Diff/1034370026 --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMT Biscuit (talk • contribs) 13:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades[edit]

High-quality realibity of Idolator?
@DMT Biscuit: I don't quite follow? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for intruding on this discussion. DMT Biscuit is asking whether or not Idolator would be considered a high-quality source that would be appropriate for a featured article. I have seen doubts about Idolator in particular being a high quality source. I would honestly recommend that you remove it since it is only used once in the article to reference the album's placement on year-end lists that already is well-supported supported by other publications. Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Aoba47. DMT biscuit (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I misread that as "readability" and got confused. Idolator is owned by the same company that owns Spin. WP:RSP states (for Idolator) that "there is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, great. DMT biscuit (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I have seen an editor who did not think Idolator was a high-quality source so I would be ready to defend it in a FAC if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I'm glad that we were able to clear this up. Thank you for bringing this up, @DMT biscuit: and @Aoba47:. DMT -- do you think that we could collapse some of these resolved points? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMT Biscuit: Ping failed above so repinging. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; consider any resolved points null and void. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impact and Legacy[edit]

High-quality realibity of Insider?
@Aoba47 and DMT Biscuit: Insider is listed as no consensus in WP:RSP. I have no problem removing it from the article at this time, but have started a much narrower RfC with hopes of getting some consensus for future reference. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, if the consenus is render undecided I have no umbrage with it's inclusion. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already been sceptical of the "fall classic" note, moreso that I see it's cited to a student newspaper. A student newspaper is pushing it at GA, certainly not FA standard.
Removed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel[edit]

Are you in possession of the liner notes? That's usually better than AllMusic, whose readability is contested.
I unfortunately don't own the album's iteration and was planning on waiting for the new one. We could reliably cite it regardless though probably. Do you have a copy? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. A cursory glance on Discogs' digital scans was far from forthcoming. But waiting for the new iteration is perhaps the best idea, in the long run. We'll see at FAC. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DMT Biscuit: That makes far more sense now. This point is why I got confused above. It is typoed as "readability" instead of "reliability". Ah ha! I'm not insane --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. Partly muscle memory, partly talk page solipsism. DMT Biscuit (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red (Taylor's Version)[edit]

Resolved points

Considering it's likely to be split off, following its release. How do you think this section should be handled in the context of GA/FA? Genuine inquiry.
@DMT Biscuit: I wish I knew the answer to that one and was considering it myself. I was admittedly surprised when it was merged, as I figured it could stand on its own two feet already (pre-merged form). I wonder if it should be treated differently or the same. Perhaps the FAC coordinators may know if we ping? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should certainly be brought up :) DMT biscuit (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Would one of the coordinators be willing to comment on this point? I agree that it is an interesting question and is one I have as well. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If, at the moment, something is part of an article, it gets assessed for FAC just like any other part. If, hypothetically, we all know that next month it will be spun of into a separate article does not effect this.

A debate as to whether something should be in an article right now - as opposed to a different article or a new one - is a different issue and not, I gather, what is being queried.

Does that address the question? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: That does answer it, thank you! That is what I figured it would boil down to, but figured I’d ask anyways. Cc @DMT biscuit: —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason as to why note 7 doesn't have citations?
That's a good catch. Was referenced in prose but missed in the note. I've corrected that. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

Ultimately, pretty good. Some tightening up and it should be FA ready. Ping me when it does go to FAC.

Drive by query[edit]

"As per her contract with Big Machine, Swift released six studio albums under the label from 2006 to 2017. In late 2018, the contract with the label expired; she hence withdrew from Big Machine and signed a new recording deal with Republic Records" Why "hence"? As opposed to 'then' for example. Or why say anything? She didn't withdraw, her contract had ended; move on to say that a new one was signed. And is it known more precisely went her BM contract ended? This caught my eye while answering the "split off query", but if there is similar imprecise language it would probably be best to address it prior to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: that was indeed a weird wording. I’ve changed that whole “withdrew” bit to “she subsequently signed a new recording deal with Republic Records”. Good catch. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

Article looks in good shape. Some comments.

Resolved

"Critics are dubious about the genre that best describes the album" I don't think "dubious" is the right word here.

Perhaps conflicted is better. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Changed to "conflicted". That was a good idea, @DMT Biscuit:! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the Red (Taylor's Version) is unreferenced.
Resolved. It wasn't referenced as it was a merge from a standalone article and referenced in the following paragraphs. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This section came on me out of the blue like an unlisted bonus track on a CD. Fearless (Taylor's Version) has its own page, so maybe this should have one too?
@Hawkeye7: Same here. It was merged after a brief discussion at Talk:Red (Taylor's Version)#Notability. I don't really think it has a place here and that it should be put back how it was. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor and Hawkeye7: I performed the merger, so I can explain. The short version is that Red (Taylor's Version), in its current state, is not notable. It does not have significant coverage in reliable sources for it to have its own article, similar to Fearless (Taylor's Version) when it first started out. I also think that WP:TENPOUNDHAMMER applies here a bit, because nothing but the cover, the title and the release date has been revealed yet. I think that either keeping the section on this page or moving the section to its own page in draftspace would be a good idea until more is known about the album. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
This point is now moot as it has been spun off again. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did the album win any awards?
Which one? What do you mean? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC); clarified 18:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I appreciate you taking the time to review this. Could you please clarify the point above about winning awards though? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I wanted to know was whether Red received any awards, but I somehow overlooked the Accolades section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming/clarifying, Hawkeye7! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis[edit]

Resolved

Well done with the lead. Reading this article for the first time, I now have a clear understanding of the topics covered in the article.
- I think the final sentence of the lead about the re-recording is a little too brief, however. Could it follow more of the description seen at Fearless (Taylor Swift album)?
  Modified slightly. Thoughts? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Background is a great summary of Speak Now and Fearless, but it feels quite detached from Red. Is there any way to include a lead-in of sorts at the end to transition the sections? Or... could this "Background" be integrated into the next section as an introduction? Purely because it is quite small.
@SatDis: Good point. Borrowed some material from 1989 as it covered Red. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Both look a lot better! SatDis (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Was reverted. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. SatDis (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recording and production is an excellent section, well done.
--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where it says By October 2011, she had written around 25 songs., do we know if any of those songs were included on Red? That would be very interesting to include, if known.
We don't know if any of them were included as no track names are given. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the lead, could you change It will feature all 30 songs that were meant to be on the 2012 album. to something like It will feature 30 of the songs that Swift originally wrote and expected to include on the 2012 album.?
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Composition, "straight-up pop" is used ("straight-up" is an informal term). Could be changed to "pure pop" or similar?
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- When listing the songs and genres, is there a reason the [23][29] citations come after "Sad Beautiful Tragic" and not "Begin Again"? Instead of "identical", could "reminiscent" be used?
  @SatDis: Not every ref discusses every song. Only 23 (shows as 26 for me) actually talks about "Begin Again" at all. Identical->reminiscent switch made. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hints of sex, a theme Swift had not written about Could you add "previously written about" or specify that it was not a theme in her previously released music? It's possible she had privately written about it.
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the media file, Swift's most radical sonic innovation sounds slightly like WP:PUFFERY. SatDis (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no objection to it being cited to critics in the body beside the file, I copied the same convention over. Now reads Regarded by critics as.... How does that look, SatDis? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making all of those adjustments, they are reading well.
For Critical reception, Jon Dolan from Rolling Stone lauded Swift's autobiographical lyrics resulting in songs that linger on like "tattoos" change to Jon Dolan from Rolling Stone lauded Swift's autobiographical lyrics which are depicted/represented/shown in songs that "linger on like tattoos"? Just a heads up, in the FA nomination, some editors may call for this section to feature less of "A said this", "B said this". Only speaking from experience as it has happened to me before.
Those are pretty much all of my major comments. I'll be happy to pop in again once the article is nominated for a FA. Well done! SatDis (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]