Wikipedia:Peer review/Taylor Swift/archive1

Taylor Swift

I and IndianBio significantly trimmed it down in the past few weeks. I believe it has improved a lot from the pruning. I have listed it for PR for further improvement of prose and references. An FAC is planned for if everything goes well. Please leave your comments regarding its prose; I'll really appreciate the help.

Thanks, FrB.TG (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Emir of Wikipedia

I like that you have trimmed it down, but could it be trimmed down even more? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see where else it could be cut. It's now of acceptable length. FrB.TG (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That's okay. I added some alt text for images which lacked it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you should look at submitting it as a featured article candidate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Emir! I will probably wait another week and see if editors comment. And then I will try my luck and be prepared for whatever the outcome might be. FrB.TG (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Hi. I'll have some more specific comments soon, but one thing you can start with is deciding whether you want to use the serial comma, and make sure all instances match accordingly. Currently there is inconsistency throughout the article. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the oxford comma from the article. FrB.TG (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in getting back to this. I was single-mindedly concentrated on my own nomination, but now it's done, and I'll give a thorough read-through to this article. Here are a couple of comments so far.

• Lead: "Swift penned every track on her Speak Now (2010) album without any co-writers." This feels wordy to me, but if you disagree it's not a major issue. I guess that in pop music these days it's expected most artists will always collaborate with someone, hence the emphasis "without any co-writers"? If this emphasis isn't required, I'd just say something simpler like "Swift was the sole writer of every song on her Speak Now (2010) album." Or "Swift wrote all of the songs on her Speak Now (2010) album by herself." Moisejp (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that way emphasis is put on it. I wrote it that way since it's very, very rare that pop stars entirely write their album without any help from other songwriters.

• "She was the youngest woman to be included in the third of these and ranked first in the latter." I think "latter" should only be used in series of two (the former vs. the latter). Off the top of my head, I'm not sure the best way to suggest rewording this sentence (and possibly the sentence before it) accordingly. Moisejp (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This also came up in Talk:Bradley Cooper#Former and Latter, another article I expanded; see the explanation. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree that the definition "situated or occurring nearer to the end of something than to the beginning"—e.g., "the latter half of 1989"—applies here. I haven't checked the usage you have in Bradley Cooper, but the usage you have here in Taylor Swift is meant to denote the last in a series, except that the series in this case is four, where the term should only be used in a series of two. Moisejp (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done. FrB.TG (talk)

Brief comments fro Brianboulton

Responding to a request on my talkpage. This is well out of my normal spheres of activity, although I have reviewed artiste biographies before, years ago, and learned a few things. I won't have time to do a full review here, but I'll just mention a few points that you might consider:

• Possible excessive citation: 367 is an awful lot for an article of this length – around twice what I might expect to find. I am sure they are not all necessary; for example, Taylor's mother's former employment is cited to three separate sources. And there's a quadruple citation further on for an entirely routine sentence, and numerous doubles.
• Sources of dubious reliability: I've not looked very far, but who/what is "LeHigh Valley Music" (ref 11)?
• The sentence "At the age of nine, Swift became interested in musical theater and performed in four Berks Youth Theatre Academy productions" is cited to a semi-hysterical rant hosted by Fox News, which only incidentally verifies the text. I would never cite Fox News as a source for anything except what it itself had said.
• I'd say the same stricture applies to the use of the Daily Mail as a source ("the worst newspaper in the world")

It may not be reliable, but in this case it is used for a direct quote from the artist, nothing original. FrB.TG (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I remember that a common feature of artiste biographies was the number of verbatim quotations, from the subject and others, incorporated in the text. This tended to give articles more a magaziney flavour rather than the sense of a neutral commentary was missing. I see that in this article Taylor quotations, while not overwhelming, are in reasonable supply, and could usually be paraphrased without detriment.

These are points for you to consider. I hope you'll get more input from other reviewers; in general the article looks tidy and well presented, and I don't think it will need major work to bring it to featured standard. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian! I am on it and will soon sort them. FrB.TG (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have now sorted all of your queries. Cheers - FrB.TG (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead

I was asked for input and I'll gladly help as much as I can:

• "became the youngest songwriter ever signed by the Sony"–Can we replace songwriter with artist/musician/singer, since Taylor Swift is not only a songwriter.
• Her third single, "Our Song",–if this is the third single from the debut album, it's better to be written "The album's third single".
• she has been honored by the Nashville Songwriters Association and the Songwriters Hall of Fame–this is little debatable; by honored she could have been given a plaque, or introduced as a member in those institutions...
• Her father is a financial advisor, and her mother is a homemaker... they are still doing these jobs? It's been almost 30 years since 1989, and by my calculations, her parents should be in their late 50s or early 60s. Most other biographies on musician usually state "her father was". If her parents are still working let it stay this way, but you'll have to revisit this some day.
• About the MTV incident with Kanye West, hasn't Obama called West "a donkey" for that?

Yeah, he did call West a jackass but I believe that belongs more in his biography than here. FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is it accurate to shuffle these sentences like this: "Red was released on October 22, 2012. The album was a critical and commercial success, and incorporated new genres such as heartland rock, dubstep and dance-pop"?
• Have you considered making the third paragraph of "Songwriting" first? I think the section should start with "Swift uses her real-life experiences as an inspiration in her work" and then list magazine's opinions on her.
• A Rolling Stone journalist–Can we have the journalist name (ex. Rolling Stone's [insert journalist's name]), or if you don't want to be that explicit, just Rolling Stone would be fine.
• During the 2008 presidential campaign, she supported... since she made a public service announcement, I think promoted is a better option.
• Why not merge those two paragraphs of Awards and achievements? I know it's awards vs sales, but since they are related, I don't think the focus will drastically shift.

On this one, I think it is good as it is, since they are not too short to make for a paragraph.

From reading the article, I can say it is rightfully listed as GA. When you plan an FA nomination, I'll post a more detailed review. Hope I helped.--Retrohead (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Retrohead - I have adopted most of your suggestions. I will let you know when/if I file for FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• Some initial reactions. I've skimmed the article and read in more detail through the end of the bio sections. It reads very well and I'm sure can be made FAC worthy. Some comments:
• You are inevitably going to get the complaint that the article at 7k words is very long for a person of Ms. Swift's (few) years, and that there are FAs on other significant musical figures who lived long and busy lives that are shorter. I write articles on presidents that long and I have to cut them so be warned. Neither we nor the reviewers are paid by the word. I suppose it's not the longest FA, but will that be true in five years, if you are covering a young woman at this level of detail? I would look at cutting some of the "reaction" quote, that is, Swift does something and we immediately learn what the NY Times thinks about it. Some of that is good, as a tree does not make a sound when it falls in the forest unless captured on social media, but I feel some of it is making the article long and impeding the narrative. And eventually will have to get cut as this article takes the longer view of a longer career.

I have removed some information which might not be very important. It now stands at 6.6k words, close enough to Katy Perry which is at 6.4k words although Swift has released more albums than Perry. FrB.TG (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's my thought that the lede does little to draw the reader into the article. If they don't know who Taylor Swift is, the first paragraph doesn't do much to attract them, as one could escape the first paragraph wondering if she were a star or a one-hit wonder. The lede is the opportunity to "sell" your subject to the reader, and it should hit the highlights. Especially so the first paragraph. I would use the four paragraphs you are permitted, let the lede paragraph summarize her fame, and use the next three for the chronological.
• Reading's probably worth a link in the first paragraph of the body. It's connected enough to her as her birthplace.
• "She also traveled regularly to Broadway" very romantic but I wonder if you should put it that way. I don't know that you go to Broadway for any purpose other than say, seeing a show or performing in one (except if you are in NYC and going to the actual street). Maybe "Manhattan's Theatre District"? Or it might be better to say "New York City".
• "local festivals and other events" you somewhat dance around but never actually state that she grew up in the suburban Philadelphia area. It might help to give the reader some placement.
• "In Tennessee, Swift attended Hendersonville High School for her freshman and sophomore years.[24] Later, to accommodate her touring schedule, the singer transferred to the Aaron Academy, a private Christian school that offered homeschooling services. She maintained an excellent grade and completed her final two years of course work in twelve months.[25]" This may be too much detail, to be reduced perhaps to "Swift initially attended public high school, but after two years transferred to the Aaron Academy, which through homeschooling could accommodate her touring schedule, and she graduated a year early with excellent grades."
• "In Nashville Swift worked with experienced Music Row songwriters" I would advise a comma after "Nashville" if only to separate the two proper nouns.
• "to form his own independent record label, Big Machine Records. She became one of the label's first signings," I would cut the second "label"
• It strikes me that Swift's comment about the West incident might be safely cut without harm to the narrative, or at the very least moved to a footnote. I am thinking length.
• "In March 2014, Swift relocated to Manhattan, New York City." I would just say either "Manhattan" or "New York City", and I would choose the latter because there's no confusion. If she had moved to one of the other boroughs, say Staten Island, you'd. The way I view it, you'd only, in common speech, in my experience growing up in the New Jersey suburbs, you'd only say "move to Manhattan" if you were moving from, let us say, Queens. For what it's worth.
• I'll stop here and see what you think of these before continuing.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Wehwalt - your comments definitely improved the article more. I look forward to any more comments you have to make. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Done some more, hope to finish this weekend. Sorry, it's a busy time. I'm not finding much to criticize here:
• The second paragraph of the 2014 section contains the phrase "at the such and such awards" several times. I would try to vary the phrasing some.
• I would link the genres mentioned at the start of Artistry
• "emo bands like" I suspect none of the three spoken of describes themselves as emo, though admittedly two of the three were featured in a book on that "genre".
• Regarding the back-to-back quotes regarding McCartney, they should probably each be given a reference. Would an ellipsis be practical here? That would eliminate the need.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

All done - return when/if you can; no pressure whatsoever. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's the remainder. I don't see any reference issues, by the way, at first look. When you've done these, I'll read it again.

• I think "Public Image" needs an introductory sentence. Having Rolling Stone testify to her polite manners (maybe "polite manner"?) when that hasn't been discussed before is a bit abrupt. Possibly the sentence from the second paragraph beginning "Swift's personal life" would be a good opener.

• I would clarify that the Obama spoken of is Michelle. Possibly by substituting the term First Lady with appropriate pipe.

• "by post" as she is American, it would be "by mail". I would also changed "sent" to "delivered" as without that, the second part doesn't really make sense.
• I would make it clearer that the T-shirt was anti-Swift.
• "However, Swift has said that she is unwilling to discuss her personal life in public,[236] considering it "a career weakness".[239]" I imagine "it" is "personal life" but I'm not sure I'm getting the full meaning you intend, because that makes personal life a career weakness.
• "The media considers Swift a sex symbol" this seems a broad, opiniony statement resting on a thin reed. An "according to ..." should be inserted.
• "finds it easy to ..." I don't think the editorial voice should be in the position of vouching for someone's chastity. Inline attribution seems called for.
• "From 2011–15, she appeared in the top three of Forbes' Top-Earning Women In Music with earnings of $45 million, $57 million, $55 million, $64 million, and $80 million respectively.[248] " Is 2016 not out yet or did she not make it?

The former! FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• "As of June 2016, Swift's net worth is estimated to be $250 million" I think past tense "was".
• "Scholastic" I imagine the publisher is meant, so I would pipe there.
• The charitable ventures, though laudable, may be another area where paring may be in order. For example, "The money was used to buy books, fund educational programs, and to help pay teacher's salaries." That's basically everything a school does except for buses and football team.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Adapted most of your points. FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Wehwalt: just in case you've forgotten this (you said you would look at it again) but no probs if you are busy. FrB.TG (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I was waiting in case there were any more peer reviewers, but it doesn't look like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A big thanks to everyone who participated in this peer review to make the article better. Closing it now. FrB.TG (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)