Talk:Evermore/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 03:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Taking this one (and putting the album on in the background, it's always nice when work has such an obvious soundtrack); I'll start by doing a careful readthrough, fix any obvious issues I find and note less obvious ones here, then circle around and check over the criteria. Not everything I note here is going to be directly related to GA criteria/a requirement for passing, and I'll likely make some stylistic suggestions you're welcome to ignore. This is only my second review, so please be patient if I miss anything or make any obvious mistakes. Rusalkii (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ronherry Okay, done. The article is very well written, thorough, and generally great work. I have some commentary on the writing down below but none of it changes my pass on that criteria.

Before passing it, I'd like to see the citations to Twitter replaced if possible, or an argument for why they're necessary and reliable in this case, and a more thorough check that everything that is actually a direct quote is in quotation marks rather than attributed as "According to X..." or something else that implies a paraphrase.

Please ping me when you reply, my watchlist checking is inconsistent at best. Rusalkii (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood! I'll go through your suggestions, make the changes you've listed, and ping you when I'm done! Thanks. ℛonherry☘ 06:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Very well written overall despite my many nitpicks down below. None of them interfer with a clear pass here.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Everything seems cited with no hints of original research. Earwig just turns up quotes. Googleing a random phrases are giving me things which I am pretty sure are copying from us rather than the other way around. My spotcheck below turned up a couple things which, while cited, should've been quotes and were instead unmarked. I'd like to see at least the Songs section checked more thoroughly for this; I'm willing to help out but given the number of citations don't have the time to work through it myself.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough, without getting too bogged down into detail. Not missing anything important I am aware of or can find with a quick google though I do not follow music industry news.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Slight tinges of the usual overly-positive tone towards performers, since our articles are usually written by fans. Nothing that would make me fail it on those grounds.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Some argument over the title ("Evermore (album)" vs the current), but consensus seems clear that it should stay as is. Looks like a bit of the perennial genre arguments and other snipping in the history but nothing out of the norm for a major music article.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Lots of images, all seem appropriate and reasonably placed. Cover art has fair use rationale which is quite standard. All other licenses seem in order.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Lead

• "with whom she had developed a creative chemistry" - seems unnecessary for the lead to me. Rusalkii (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• "wintry" doesn't seem like a particularly useful description here; I at least can't visualize what's wintry about the music and I've listened to it. Rusalkii (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii:  Done, above two. ℛonherry☘ 15:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• "In the US, its tracks "Willow", "No Body, No Crime", and "Coney Island" impacted pop, country, and alternative radio stations, respectively" - is "impacted" a technical term? otherwise seems like a weird use of the word. Rusalkii (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: Yes, "radio impact" refers to the action of sending a song to a radio format. ℛonherry☘ 06:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Willow" became Swift's seventh Billboard Hot 100 number-one song and her second in 2020 after "Cardigan", making her the first ever act to simultaneously debut atop both Billboard 200 and Hot 100 charts two times" - is this an important enough first to make the lead, given all the other firsts and chart-topping the album did? Rusalkii (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC

@Rusalkii:I think this is the album's biggest overall record. All others are either "female" records or "solo act" records. But if you insist, we can tweak it a bit. ℛonherry☘ 06:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a big deal either way and you'd know better than me what to emphasize. Rusalkii (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall a good lead, hits the highlights without being too long, reads cleanly.

Background + Conception

• "On November 25, 2020, a concert documentary titled Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions, shot at Dessner's Long Pond Studio in Hudson Valley, was released to Disney+. It detailed the making of Folklore with performances of its songs" - I don't see how this is relevant to Evermore. Rusalkii (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: Majority of the album's songs were written while making this film. That is explained in Writing section. ℛonherry☘ 06:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Without reading the background section that feels out of place on its own, could you either add some clarification there or remove that? Rusalkii (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• "She stated the rave reception of Folklore further encouraged her to explore more into its musical style" - "explore more into" feels awkward but I'm not sure how to reword it. Rusalkii (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: I reworded it as "experiment further with" ℛonherry☘ 06:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Dessner said he "didn't need to talk much about structure or ideas or anything" with Swift" - seems like a non sequitor Rusalkii (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: Removed it. ℛonherry☘ 06:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I would merge these two section; Conception feels like it would flow better after the quote in Background.

@Rusalkii:  Done ℛonherry☘ 06:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I meant a slightly different order. I've made the change myself, does this seem okay to you? Rusalkii (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Writing and recording

• "She wrote the title track "Evermore" with Alwyn (alias William Bowery) and sent it to Vernon, who added a bridge. Dessner realized they were creating a counterpart to Folklore only after the duo wrote more than seven songs. He composed "Tolerate It" on a piano in 10/8 time signature and sent it to Swift, conjuring a scene in her mind upon hearing the track; she sent it back with finished lyrics." - the sentence in the middle breaks up the flow here. Rusalkii (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: Sorry, I do not understand. haha. Will you please explain me your concern here a little more? Thanks ℛonherry☘ 06:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a sentence about a specific song, and then a sentence about the album in general, and then another sentence about a specific song, and the middle sentence just feels kind of out of place here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Dessner narrated, "we played all night and drank a lot of wine after the fireside chat—and we were all pretty drunk, to be honest"." - seems unnecessary. Rusalkii (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• "Vernon was profoundly involved in Evermore more than Folklore." - awkward phrasing. Rusalkii (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii:  Done, above two. ℛonherry☘ 06:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• "Critics have dubbed Evermore a sequel, B-side, second chapter, or a companion record to Folklore." - does this need all of these synonyms? Rusalkii (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rusalkii: Haha, I thought so too, but critics use all these different terms to describe the album, I did not want to cherry-pick. Shall we put those terms inside a note-tag then? ℛonherry☘ 06:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's okay to just pick one or two. I'd go with "a sequel or companion record", I think that conveys the two main meanings. Rusalkii (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rusalkii:  Done ℛonherry☘ 05:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Evermore has Swift mostly exuding "the 'unhappily ever after' anthology of marriages gone bad" - "exuding feels weird here. Rusalkii (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• "It depicts a difficult girlfriend..." - this might be my personal feelings about the song talking, but I think "difficult" isn't a great description here. I'd drop the adjective altogether. Rusalkii (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• "...revealed to be a character named Dorothea, later in the album.[35] Chronicling a young woman in an age-gap relationship,[44] "Tolerate It" is...." - here and in a couple other places it's unclear when you start the sentence that this is a description of a new song instead of a continuation of the old one. 04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• "and her personal redemption" in Wikipedia's voice seems a bit off, likewise "poignant". "thrilling", "heart-rending". Rusalkii (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• ""Closure", the fourteenth track, is Swift's kiss-off to its subject..." - what subject? unclear from the article. Rusalkii (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rusalkii:  Done all except "kiss-off to its subject". In musical literature, the people to whom songs are addressed to are generally called as the subject. Unlike other songs in the album, Closure is not fictional. Its subject is a real person, and their identity is purely speculated in the media and was never confirmed by Swift. So that is why the sentence has it as simply "subject", but if you think it needs more description, we can do something about it. But I do not know how else we can re-word it. ℛonherry☘ 06:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've added "unnamed subject", I think that's a little clearer. Rusalkii (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall this section feels slightly crowded, but I feel that way about most such sections in music articles and don't know what you could do differently while still covering all of the songs. Good content, could probably do with an edit by someone who doesn't care at all about Taylor Swift but nothing egregious in that vein and I am not qualified to do that.

Art direction

• "The Times of India opined that Evermore embraces "1960s-era Laurel Canyon"." This doesn't tell me much; am I just really out of the loop or this actually a relatively obscure reference? Rusalkii (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rusalkii: I think they are talking about the album's visual aesthetic. Should I remove it, keep it, or reword it? ℛonherry☘ 06:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd remove it. Rusalkii (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rusalkii:  Done ℛonherry☘ 05:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• "last glow of an autumnal sunset" - kind of flowery. Rusalkii (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rusalkii: Removed. ℛonherry☘ 06:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• "The Wall Street Journal opined that Swift's "every aesthetic decision is deeply intentional and inevitably influential", and her hairstyle in the artwork is "more than just a braid", a poignant statement." I don't think it makes sense to include this without elaborating on what it is a statement of. Rusalkii (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It could be clearer from the intro that this section is about the visual art direction, I thought it just meant general artistic direction at first.

@Rusalkii:  Done all. ℛonherry☘ 06:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Release and promotion

• "On December 14, 2020, Swift appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live!." I don't understand why this is here. Rusalkii (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  She was promoting the album. ℛonherry☘ 06:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've clarified that in the text. Rusalkii (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• ""No Body, No Crime" was sent to US country radio on January 11, 2021, aside "Coney Island", which was promoted to US adult album alternative radio on January 18, 2021." - what is "aside" doing in this sentence? Rusalkii (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

   Done ℛonherry☘ 06:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "and likened their nature to a campfire setting" - awkward phrasing. Rusalkii (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• "expertful" - is this a word? Feels strange to me. Rusalkii (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• "subtle growers" - weird phrasing to have in wikipedia voice. Rusalkii (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii:  Done, all three. ℛonherry☘ 07:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Fewer critical or mixed reviews than I would like to see, but since it overall got a positive reception that doesn't seem particularly unbalanced. If there are negative reviews in major publications not mentioned it would be nice to include them here.

@Rusalkii: I checked Metacritic, and it shows 3 mixed reviews and 0 negative reviews. This article has 2 mixed reviews, so I added one more. ℛonherry☘ 07:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Rusalkii (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "Select year-end rankings of Evermore" table is necessary, over just vocally noting a couple of the more prominent ones, but I am a known grump about listing lots of endless chart positions and rankings everywhere so feel free to disregard that.

@Rusalkii: Year-end rankings are a key component of critical reception of all album articles though! A year ago, Music wikiproject editors formed a consensus to include a maximum of 10 rankings as part of album articles. ℛonherry☘ 07:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Commercial performance

To be honest my eyes glaze over when reading these sorts of numbers so I don't have sentence by sentence commentary here; I didn't notice any significant issues. Overall I would cut this section by a lot but this is another thing I am a known grump about and I've seen FAs with as much detail.

@Rusalkii: I tweaked it. ℛonherry☘ 07:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I notice there are no non-Western charts here except Singapore, does that reflect its performance or is there something to add about them? Rusalkii (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: Swift is consistently the best selling female artist in Asia every year since 2014. The thing is, 95% of Asian countries do not have official charts. Only Japan and Singapore had charts during Evermore's release (2020). India and Philippines launched their charts last year. China is set to launch its chart next year. We do have streaming chart data from these countries, but streaming chart data are considered superfluous by wiki's Album article guidance essays. ℛonherry☘ 07:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. Is there a good way to work in a sentence or two about the album's reception in Asia, even if doesn't rely on official charts/streaming data? Rusalkii (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: I found Malaysian data from the lead single's article that we can use for Evermore. I'll add it to the prose. Folklore, another Taylor Swift album GA, has also included Malaysian data this way. ℛonherry☘ 06:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Awards + Legacy

• "Following Evermore's release, replicas of the flannel coat Swift wore on the cover artwork quickly sold out on Farfetch.[160] Swift was the world's top paid solo musician of 2020,[161] and the highest paid in the US...." - the transition between these two sentences feel very awkward, but I'm not sure where else the first one would fit. Rusalkii (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rusalkii: I will move the line to Art direction ℛonherry☘ 07:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I would merge these both into a section called "Response" or something like that, "Awards" is very short and "Legacy" seems premature and the section is mostly about immediate reactions.

@Rusalkii:  Done ℛonherry☘ 07:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Track listing, Credits and personnel, Charts, Certifications and sales, Release history, See also

I assume these are all standard? Release history seems unnecessary to me, but if many music articles have it that seems fine.

I'm not sure what benefit there is in linking all of these chart lists in the see-also. Rusalkii (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: Release history is a standard component of album articles. I'm not sure about the stuff in See Also, but I have seen the same chart lists in several album articles. ℛonherry☘ 07:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that seems fine to me. Rusalkii (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Skimmed the entire list, sources seem standard for this sort of article. A lot of various prominent newspapers, doesn't rely too much on any one source. Cite Unseen is flaggin Insider for me but WP:RSP says that their culture coverage is usually reliable, Rolling Stone likewise. I don't love the citations to tweets - 118 (@billboard), 134 (@officialcharts), and 172 (@taylorswift13).

@Rusalkii: I removed the officialcharts and taylorswift13 tweets, but I believe the billboard tweet should stay. That tweet is from the official accounnt, and comprehensively gives us an image that lists all the year-end charts she topped, easier to view; otherwise, we would have to cite each and every year-end chart separately from billboard's website, which will clutter the prose and take up for bits of space. ℛonherry☘ 08:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Rusalkii (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Spot check:

• "In comparison to its predecessor, the development of Evermore was a more experimental process, during which the duo did not subject themselves to any limitations.[6]": Yep, talks about being experimental and Dessner mentions "limitations" in the interview.
• ""No Body, No Crime" was inspired by Swift's "obsession with true crime podcasts/documentaries".[10]" Yep.
• "Dessner said mixing the album's 17 songs was a "Herculean task" and that the sound engineer Jon Low thought it would not be finished on time." Yep and yep.
• "and "misty atmospherics".[19]" Yep.
• "and narrative mythmaking.[12]" Yep.
• "Variety observed that "warmth amid iciness" is a recurring lyrical motif.[24]", Yep, though I think that "recurring lyrical motif" should also be in the quote given that's word-for-word what they said.
• "a chill chamber folk[41]" Chamber folk is good, but "chill" here seems to imply mellow/laid back, while the article uses "chilly" and contrasts it too hot, so this use seems a bit misleading.
• "It contains references to The Great Gatsby.[50]" To be honest the references other than "beautiful fool" seem like a reach but it does contain at least one reference and Elle seems like a fine source for music analysis, so no argument here other than personal grumbling.
• "and a pulsing keyboard arrangement,[13]" This is a direct quote and should be marked as such.
• "While Folklore adapts a grayscale monochrome, Evermore employs colors.[57]" Yep.
• "The CDs were released on December 18, 2020.[68]" Yep.
• "In less favorable reviews, Chris Richards of The Washington Post found the album overlong and rejected the notion of categorizing Swift's 2020 works as indie.[88]" Yep and yep, though most of his complaints don't seem to be about the length - if I was mentioning anything here it would be complaints about the lyrics.

@Rusalkii:  Done all. I've went through all of your points, and made the majority of the changes you adviced. I did request some clarifications and countered some suggestions. Please look into them. Awaiting your response. Thank you! ℛonherry☘ 08:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ronherry with the minor source issues cleared up every everything looks good to me. I've left a couple follow-up comments above but nothing that interferes with me calling this a pass. Good work, and thank you for all your prompt responses! Rusalkii (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.