Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1989 (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 Mike Christie via FACBot (talk) 9 February 2019 [1].

1989 (Taylor Swift album)[edit]

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 1989, the album that effectively eliminates the Country Princess reputation of American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift and transforms her image into a pop star. After excessive trimming and adding appropriate information, I believe the article is now ready for the gold star. I would like to hear all comments regarding the existing problems so that I can address them. Thank you! HĐ (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part (Songwriting process for the album began in 2013,), I believe it should be “The songwriting process” instead. The same comment applies for this sentence (Songwriting process for Red's follow-up began concurrently with the commencement of the world tour.) in the body of the article.
  • I don't think "The" is needed because the recording/songwriting process is not something the reader already knows (Pardon my clumsy explanation, but I believe grammatically speaking the current wording is okay. Correct me if I'm wrong :)
  • Thank you for the explanation. I will leave that up to other editors. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The lyrics mainly address), I would remove “mainly” as I do not believe it is necessary.
  • Romance is the main theme, but this does not apply to all songs as explained in later sentences. Fixed
  • For the body of the article, I believe you have to use Taylor Swift’s full name and wikilink it upon the first mention in the article (i.e. Swift's fourth studio album Red was released in 2012 to commercial success, debuting atop the Billboard 200 with first-week sales of 1.2 million copies.) as the lead and the body of the article are treated separatedly (i.e. things must be linked in both).
  • Done
  • For this part (that was inspired by pop music of the 1980s), I am uncertain about how helpful the wikilink really is, as I would believe that 1980s pop music is rather diverse (similar to how today’s pop music can have several different styles/approaches). The same comment applies to the use of the link in the lead.
  • I think the link gives readers a glance of how music evolved in the 80s. The detailed inspiration for Swift's album is already explained in the article (experimentalism with synths, drums etc.)
  • I do not see how the image of Swift performing “Wildest Dreams” is really relevant to the “Music and lyrics” section. Same goes for the “Commercial performance” section. Both images seem rather disconnected from the topics being discussed in that section (which really has nothing to do with her live performances).
  • Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the photo in the "Commercial performance" section. While the photo in "Music and lyrics" section may be irrelevant, I would like to keep it because the article is a long read, and I can't find other means to effectively accompany the article.
  • Pop music is linked multiple times in the article, both (incorporating more pop-oriented styles) and (1989 is a pop album that features).
  • Done
  • For this part (The album was released), I am not sure a link to a section in the same article is particularly helpful.
  • Removed
  • You have "Billboard 200" linked twice in the body of the article.
  • Removed
  • I found this sentence (While promoting 1989, Swift had tie-ins with Subway, Keds, Target and Diet Coke.) in the main Taylor Swift article. Should these promotional tie-ins be mentioned here as well?
  • Added

Overall, wonderful work with the article. It is a little strange to think that this album was released almost five years ago at this point. Makes me feel super ancient lol. Either way, once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks so much for the comments. They were really helpful assisting the article's refining process. I revisited the album the other day and felt so old too, lmao. I have addressed your comments above, please feel free to add further comments/suggestions :) — HĐ (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. Reading through this article made me revisit the album as well, and I honestly still enjoy it. I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC on a much less popular topic? Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Nick-D[edit]

Sorry, but this article isn't ready for FA at present. I'm concerned about it being taken straight to FA after a new version was posted four days ago, especially as it's a reasonably high-profile article covering a well known album by a major music star. As a result, I'm not confident that FA criterion 1e (in regards to stability) is currently met. It would have been helpful for the article to have gone through some combination of a peer review and GA nomination, which could have helped to address the concerns voiced in the nomination statement that the article may still have problems - FA is not really a venue for problem-solving.

Reading randomly-selected parts of the article also shows that the prose is not presently of FA standard. The key problem is that the article frequently uses constructions which are well suited to lightweight news articles, but aren't really suitable for encyclopedia articles. This often leads to a lack of precision, and greatly over-frequent use of the passive voice. Some examples to demonstrate this concern include:

  • " The album was noted for its mild departure from Swift's signature country sound" - noted by whom, and if Swift was doing something different, did she really have a "signature" sound?
  • Fixed to active voice. And Swift's "signature" country sounds were widely acknowledged by music critics
  • "During this time, the "America's Sweetheart" reputation of Swift was suffering from what The New York Times addressed as "a backlash"" - "addressed" isn't the right word here
  • Fixed
  • "The singer remained silent amidst intense media scrutiny" - read literally, this means that she didn't talk to anyone at all, which I suspect isn't the case.
  • "At the 2013 American Music Awards backstage in Los Angeles, Swift revealed" - had this previously been hidden?
  • "Swift confirmed in February 2014 that she was working again with Max Martin and Shellback" - had this previously been the subject of debate or speculation which needed to be "confirmed" one way or the other?
  • "They produced the majority of the album" - this seems needlessly imprecise given that liner notes, etc, are usually very specific about who did what.
  • I have revised the "Background and Production" section
  • "The album mainly addresses the emotions and reflections ensued from romantic relationships, Swift's common theme, and therefrom occasionally expresses self-reinvention" - this sentence is over-complex.
  • Done
  • " At 5 PM ET on August 18, via a Yahoo! live stream at the rooftop of the Empire State Building, Swift ultimately revealed the then-anticipated album's details, including the title 1989, cover artwork, and release date; the cover is a Polaroid picture with the words "T. S. 1989" written underneath, and the release date was expected to be October 27" - likewise, this is a very complex sentence, which also contains excessive detail.
  • " The Los Angeles Times' writer Randy Lewis expressed that this strategy was to ensure Swift's audiences would continue to support her following the singer's decision to eschew her signature country styles" - passive voice.
  • "the media predicted that the incident would not affect sales nonetheless" - only one news story is then referred to, not "the media", and the story states that "music experts" believed that this wouldn't harm sales which seems more useful.

I'm also concerned that the article only currently references online news stories and websites. Searching Google Scholar for articles and books on Taylor Swift since 2015 [2] produces some academic articles which discuss this album (including specific songs) and Swift during the era in which she recorded and toured it. As such, I'm also not confident that criterion 1c (well-researched) is also currently met. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Hi, thanks for your input. Regarding criterion 1e (stability), the article's content had been badly neglected (with edits mostly concentrated on chart positions/data etc.). The contents I edited, mostly focused on Composition/Development/Critical reception, are sourced and verifiable, so I don't think there will be an edit war. Regarding criterion 1c (well-researched), several academic journals have been written on Swift herself, but results for the album in specific show the otherwise, and even so-called academic articles utilize online sources as well. Given the album has been released within five years' time, online news/analyses are sufficient at the time being. Regarding the prose, I have addressed your comments above and will revise the article. — HĐ (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that edit wars are likely, but the natural evolution of re-writes has not yet taken place, and you are effectively asking FA reviewers who don't have specific knowledge of this topic to consider the article before readers and editors with a deep interest in it have had a go at the text. The prose examples I noted above are examples. To be frank, the text is not in state which warrants a full read through for consideration of whether it meets the FA critera at present. I'm not sure why you're dismissing those sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not against academic sources. But as much as I want to include academic sources in the article, the pieces I have read so far all reiterate what has been stated on online reviews/websites that one can easily access to. Therefore I think that the lack of academic papers does not affect the inclusion of information. After all, the current article contains all necessary information for readers compared to fellow FAs on contemporary music albums that I used to model this article on. — HĐ (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for withdrawal[edit]

  • @Laser brain: I would like to have the nomination withdrawn as I'll be getting extremely busy with future school exams. Will bring this for GAN firsthand and reconsider for future FAC. Thank you in advance, — HĐ (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2019 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1989_(Taylor_Swift_album)/archive1&oldid=883125267"