Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2023

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2023 [1].

2002 FIFA World Cup final

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I had a FAC, so thought it's about time I tried one, using an article I wrote and brought to GA a couple of years ago. The article is about the 2002 edition of the World's most important men's football (soccer) match, the FIFA World Cup Final. Although it was the first to be held in Asia (Japan and South Korea), this final was between two of the giants of Europe and South America with seven previous titles between them - Germany and Brazil. After much drama prior to the 1998 final (a current FA article similar to this one), it was a more positive match for Brazilian star Ronaldo, who scored both goals and earned the man-of-the-match award as Brazil registered an easy 2–0 win... As usual, any and all comments gratefully received, and I'll be happy to do reciprocal reviews for anyone who asks.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose from Therapyisgood

  • Encyclopedia Brittanica is kind of a weak source, can you get anything better?
  • Not a requirement, but no archives on any of The Guardian references?
  • Per WP:FORBES is McMahon, Bobby a contributor or a staff writer there?
  • The tournament comprised hosts Japan and South Korea, holders France what does "holders" mean?
  • Looking at the Portuguese page here, what do you make of sources two and three there?
  • He was followed by Émerson Leão, who was dismissed in 2001 after winning four of eleven games in charge not sure "in charge" is needed here.
  • their biggest win in a World Cup as of when? Is this currently the record?
  • running in the penalty area and hitting it with his toe past goalkeeper Rüştü Reçber, as Brazil won 1–0. the source doesn't say he hit it with his toe.
  • Should ref 37 have an ndash in the title?
  • Brazil were considered the favourites to win the match by bookmakers, with odds of 2–5 compared with 7–4 for Germany. I don't know what 2-5 or 7-4 means, can you explain?
  • and as of 2021 he is regarded by many observers as the greatest of all time.[40][41] a third reference would really help out the weighty "greatest of all time" claim.
  • 11,670 Swiss francs can you convert this into 2023 euros and usd? I have no idea how much that was.
  • They went on to win the 2014 World Cup, their sole tournament victory since the 2002 final needs citation. plus while for Brazil, 2002 remains their most recent World Cup title as of 2023. is uncited too.
  • Is this of any help?
  • According to here and here Ronaldo tied Pele's career WC goals record of 12 but that isn't mentioned. Also Brazil was considered one of its weakest teams to be in a World Cup. Is that worth mentioning? Additionally there is nothing on the celebrations which occurred in Brazil (which is covered in the second link) or the reaction in Germany... the lack of evaluation of the newspapers.com sources is making me lean oppose as not thorough enough to be a FA.
  • here and here for more runup, including Germany's odds according to bookmakers.
  • the fact that they never met before in world play before this final isn't mentioned. or that Germany only reserved 1k tickets to the final b/c they didn't think they'd make it there.
  • here is an interesting aside that some stations in USA played the final on tape delay.
  • more. I covered all of newspapers.com for the term "FIFA World Cup final" from 2002 but feel free to look yourself.
  • Drive-by comment: There is a claim sourced to SportBible, which probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Also missing is the viewership for the final from the hosts and/or finalist nations. SounderBruce 07:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it is well over three weeks in with little sign of a consensus to promote I am timing this one out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2023 [2].

Campbell's Soup Cans

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a set of paintings and subsequent variations/derivations by Andy Warhol. This is a seminal piece of art. It is one of 17 paintings listed at vital articles level 4 and one of 10 contemporary art works listed at vital articles level 5. I was the nominator when it previously failed FAC1 on 20 January 2007 and when User:Raul654 relisted the failed nomination which passed on 26 March 2007. It was delisted on 5 March 2021. It seems that there were many citation needed and NFCC issues. I have updated and expanded the article, which now seem fit for relisting.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFA (to be updated if re-promoted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. You now need to add this nomination to the top of the list of FACs. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

You are. Feel free to attract the attention of editors who you think may be willing to review - and this is defined fairly broadly - so long as you do so in a neutral manner - which your proposed edit does. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pings:

From Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 @SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Nikkimaria, Czar, Politicsfan4, DrKay, and Z1720:
From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans @Manderiko, AnonEMouse, AaronY, Circeus, Dark Shikari, Raul654, Xyzzy n, Ceoil, 17Drew, SandyGeorgia, Balloonman, Johnbod, Tyrenius, and Michaelas10:
From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 @GeeJo, Christopher Parham, Tony1, AndyZ, Rlevse, and SandyGeorgia:
Top 10 editors by edits at Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans @Tyrenius, Research Method, MartinGugino, ChrisRuvolo, Modernist, TeeVeeed, Franciselliott, and Wafulz:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extending additional invites to the most active editors of the page not listed above @Gkklein, Bus stop, Mandarax, Gurchzilla, and Research Method: for edit count @Dsavla, Simon KHFC, Wehwalt, Wafulz, Lindseytoni, and Gleb95: for text added @TheQuandry, Pauljrmillers, Gkklein, and OckRaz: for characters count added.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC) That was a typo for User:Mandarax-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal and procedural archive. Before a FAC can proceed, @FAC coordinators: should determine that prior objections have been addressed. Multiple issues previously identified at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 were not addressed before this nomination, including:

  • The issue of non-free images (the subject of a lengthy discussion above)
  • A commercial source (Sotheby's) used to cite commentary and price when it had the items for sale (not indeependent,and also see WP:NOTPRICE, WP:NOTCATALOG [3])
  • Unattributed opinion throughout, see the oddly labeled section, "Messages" for example
  • Uncited text was also raised at FAR: see "The" Premiere section (a section heading which breaches MOS)
  • MOS review needed (this was raised at FAR). Examples, the text refers to image placement throughout (see image above, image to the right). Inconsistent citation formatting still (eg what is the author name format). Page numbers on books missing on multiple.

In addition to those previously raised, unaddressed issues:

  • Odd unencyclopedic section headings: Message, Conclusion ?? Ampersand for "and" in a section heading ? "The" Premiere.

I suggest a well-attended peer review before this article returns to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Sandy. This is clearly not yet ready for FAC and so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. As well as PR - as Sandy suggests, a well-attended one would be best - a trip through GoCE may help.
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 17 September 2023 [4].

Execution of Benjamin Moloise

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Benjamin Moloise, a member of the African National Congress, who was executed for his alleged involvement in the killing of a policeman. This policeman had played a part in the capture and subsequent execution of three ANC members. However, doubts remain about whether Moloise was truly involved in the murder. Nevertheless, his execution drew significant international condemnation, leading to economic sanctions by foreign governments and mass protests. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

[edit]

While it's good that this article has been developed, it's really at GA standard and needs quite a bit of work to reach FA status.

  • I'm a bit surprised that the sourcing is mainly news stories from the time
  • Did the Truth and Reconciliation Commission cover this case? Volume 2 of its report very briefly notes in as part of a footnote of "Other cases of judicial executions for political offences known to the Commission"; the TRC defining the execution as being for political reasons might be worth noting. Other volumes might provide further analysis.
  • "that assisted in capturing three African National Congress (ANC) members" - 'who had assisted' perhaps?
  • "later turning to poetry and religion while on death row for two years" - this is jumping ahead - I'd suggest moving it to later in the article
  • The second para of the 'Early life and background' covers several key topics very briefly: this should be expanded.
  • The background section needs more material about the apartheid era of South Africa, especially in regards to the way in which the criminal justice system was used to protect white rule, the frequently arbitrary nature of punishments handed out and the brutal treatment of many black prisoners. What the ANC was and the tactics it used also need to be covered.
  • "The South African government, while readily tapping into the talents and expertise of black citizens, " - I think I see what you're trying to say here, but read literally this is totally false
  • Why was Moloise arrested?
  • Why did Moloise confess? Was this an instance of the South African security police using torture or other rough treatment to force a confession?
  • "Moloise would be convicted of murder by the Transvaal Supreme Court in September 1983" - the tense of off here, and please provide the date. More details of the trial would be desirable (e.g. was a jury involved, what did the prosecution argue, how did the ANC contribute, etc?)
  • How did this matter reach the attention of the UN Security Council? Did it have a history of issuing similar statements?
  • More broadly, the article doesn't explain why this incident gained such prominence internationally
  • The first para of the 'United Nations resolution' reads oddly: why do these minor details matter?
  • "and the Western preference to maintain a lower profile on the subject" - the western governments were crippling South Africa with sanctions at this time, and campaigning against it politically, so this seems hard to justify.
  • Reference 8 is cited to the Washington Post, but the source is actually the New York Times
  • What happened between January and August 1985?
  • "emphasizing the presence of new evidence that might warrant a case review" - what evidence?
  • The first and second paras of the 'Execution' section read like a newspaper story
  • "Moloise was executed at Pretoria Central Prison around 7 am" on what day?
  • "The White House criticized the execution," - buildings don't talk: I presume that you mean the Reagan Administration here?
  • " As a response, they introduced sanctions against South Africa that impacted trade, transportation, and investment" - this seems odd, given that there were already very extensive sanctions covering all these topics against South Africa. Did the Nordic countries tighten these sanctions?
  • The claim in the image caption that "African and Western nations debated over South Africa's apartheid policies" seems unjustified. It's also not clear what this image adds.
  • Was Moloise's body reburied after the end of Apartheid?
  • The article repeatedly describes Moloise as a poet, but doesn't cover his poetry. It seems more accurate to also describe him as an upholsterer given that this was his occupation. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by UC

[edit]

Very much agreed that the article is not there yet. Nick has given some useful close-reading points; I'll try to go at a more macro scale.

  • Many parts of the article seem very brief, almost cursory. The murder itself only takes up two sentences, for example.
  • The Judy Peace source cited about black police officers seems to be an autobiography or personal reflection. That isn't really a reliable source for establishing matters of fact, especially about South African society writ large.
  • More generally, as Nick alluded to, there seems to be almost no use of later historical or academic work on the events described here. Using contemporary newspapers for matters of fact here has major problems: firstly, the obvious that South African newspapers will inevitably have reflected the racial divides that defined SA society; secondly, murders, trials and executions are by definition shadowy, and contemporary reports are almost certain to include details that were speculative, inaccurate or later re-evaluated. There is a place to discuss how the crime and execution were reported and perceived at the time, but that's a different thing to using those reports as authoritative sources for what happened.
  • The Trial section is another brief one. There may also be WP:UNDUE weight on the defence here: they are quoted directly at great length, while very little of the other participants in the trial comes out.
  • Agreed with Nick on the first paragraph of the UN section: we need to take a step back from the narrative and focus on the key events, rather than trying to re-tell the story in a journalistic fashion. This is also a problem when we come to discuss the riotes after Moloise's death.
  • There are rather a lot of images for the amount of text, and most are only indirectly related to the subject matter (e.g. the ANC flag and the "Whites Only" sign: one could argue that they are more for decoration than to explain and clarify.
  • The prose needs a good look to comply with the MOS: a few contractions stuck out to me and errors with MOS:POSSESSIVES.
  • Parts of the article are more essay-like than encyclopaedia-like: By equating Moloise's plight as a black individual under apartheid with broader struggles, the poem might unintentionally diminish the unique challenges of apartheid and use them to bolster Irish nationalism., for instance.
  • The Legacy section discusses streets and poetry, but seems to be missing any sense of the political legacy, if any, of Moloise's death.

Has this been to Peer Review? It's got a comparatively short edit history and, I'd suggest, is fairly early in its journey to FAC. Usually, I like to look at FAs on similar topics when assessing my work or others': I don't think we have any on executions at the moment, but we do have Lynching of Jesse Washington and, for another anti-Apartheid activist, Steve Biko. Nelson Mandela is also an FA, but may be of less value as a comparison.

Essentially, I think this is a case of WP:NOTYET: the subject matter is absolutely ripe for an FA to be written about it, but a bit of time and perhaps collaboration is needed to bridge the considerable gap between GA and FA status. Please do ping me if it does come to Peer Review; I'll be more than happy to help there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Based on the comments above this does appear to be nominated prematurely so I'll be archiving it shortly. GA is something but such an article really should go through peer review before FAC, and I'd strongly suggest that before considering a renomination here. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 17 September 2023 [5].

South India

[edit]
Nominator(s): Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a region of India. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a455bcd9

[edit]

A few comments on image:

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed all the image issues. Removed where not sourced and added alternate as suggested wherever feasible.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Solved for me! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]

Will review the article soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Airship

[edit]

In my opinion, the article does not meet 1c) and 2c) of the featured article criteria—the quality of sourcing is below what should be expected. There are significant instances of WP:CITEKILL, many references are missing basic information such as page ranges, location, publisher, etc., but above all there are far fewer high-quality sources than should be expected from an FA. Among varied instances, the article has two sources from the nineteenth century, "Popular Karnataka Food Items You Have To Try". 21 October 2020., "Census of India: Comparative speaker's strength of Scheduled Languages-1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2011" (PDF). (without the PDF), Limca Book of Records. Bisleri Beverages Limited. 2001. p. 97. Retrieved 18 November 2012., Oliver, Valerie. "History of Spin Top". www.yoyomuseum.com. Retrieved 16 April 2017., and many others I chose not to highlight. To be an FA, the article needs to incorporate far more high-quality sources and to cite them correctly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on the sources. Have taken your comments as well and have actioned on the concerned ones. If you have any other concerns, it would be helpful if you could point to specific sources so that I can work on the same.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

With no commentary for over a fortnight, this nom appears to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. I'd suggest taking it to peer review (pinging the users who have stopped by here, and others who might be interested) before considering a renomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 14 September 2023 [6].

Fearless (Taylor's Version)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Taylor Swift's re-recording her past albums, I discovered deep cuts which I now very much enjoy (case in point: "Hey Stephen"). This article is about the first re-recording of hers: a re-recording of her 2008 album Fearless. I sometimes startled at how good Swift's songwriting was when she was a teen upon first listen, and I bet you'd feel the same. After rewriting the article and bringing it to GA, I believe it is now up to FA standards. I'd appreciate any and all comments and feedback. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Imma let you finish, but Red is the best era of all time! (reserving a spot) --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Any updates with the review? @Guerillero:, Ippantekina (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • 2000s decade - I think decade can be dropped, as 2000s already refer to the decade from that year to 2009
  • it won four Grammys including one for Album of the Year. -- including Album of the Year
  • Written in Swift's teenage years -- written during?
  • The production has a clearer fidelity and more defined instruments -- suggest if you can attribute this in the prose as well
  • @Ippantekina: apologies for not being more clear, suggest if you could attribute it to the critic/publication that stated such, as you did with the succeeding sentences. i.e. The Guardian said or writer opined, etc. Hope that clarifies. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing track, "Bye Bye Baby", whose demo had been circulated on the internet for years -- the demo of which had been... (I think "whose" should really only be used with people, not non-human things like a song)
  • Pitchfork listed the album in their list -- listed and list seems repetitive, perhaps change to included or named or something along those lines.
  • Other tracks whose snippets -- same as above. I think you can tweak perhaps to say snippets of other tracks made available to social media
  • In the weeks after the album's release, Swift released -- perhaps some tweaking to avoid repeating release
  • It made headlines for records -- this line reads a bit MOS:PUFFERY, perhaps something like it achieved...
  • Not a source review, but quick look in your references show that it is in title case. Just a couple maybe worth tweaking per MOS:CONFORMTITLE ref 12 "winners" should be in upper case and ref 85 could use a language paramater and a trans-title parameter if available.

The article is well-written, well-researched in its coverage and analysis of the album, and seems to present all viewpoints fairly. Great work here! Pseud 14 (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt review, Pseud 14, I have addressed all points accordingly except one to which I replied. Ippantekina (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response Ippantekina. Replied to above as well. Nothing major to hold up my review. Support based on prose. Btw if you have some spare time and inclination, would appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

"The Other Side of the Door", one of Taylor's deepest cuts, is one of my favorite songs of all time. I am pleased to review its mother album; comments to follow over the next few days at a relatively slow pace. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, although I am quite busy these days. Apologies for any delays. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information about when the album was re-recorded? Currently the infobox only states the release date.
  • The only info we have is Swift began re-recording in November 2020, but that is insufficient..
  • "Swift and Christopher Rowe produced the 20 re-recorded tracks...": If we are being technical, six of the tracks were not "re-recorded" as they were never released to the public.
  • The 20 re-recorded tracks do not include the 6 Vault tracks
  • "On April 8, singer-songwriters Olivia Rodrigo and Conan Gray, whom had been recruited by Swift...": What is meant by "recruited"?
  • Apparently they were contacted by Swift.. reworded.
  • Are there any sources reporting on the similarities between the original album cover and the Taylor's Version cover? I feel like a lot more could be said than just "The cover is a sepia-toned photograph of Swift..."
  • Thanks to a new list from Billboard we managed to extract some extra info!
  • "The vinyl LPs came in two editions, one golden in color and the other red; the latter available on Swift's website and the other at Target": I think you have reversed the two.
  • Done
  • "...and at times lost the earnestness before": This could be rephrased.
  • Tweaked

That is all from me at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Unlimitedlead. I have replied to your comments above. Let me know if I missed anything! Ippantekina (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

I will try not to screw anything up.

  • I'm seeing a few instances of duplinks
  • I removed two but kept one (CMA Awards) as I think it's useful in this case - CMA Awards is linked twice, in "Background" and "Accolades and impact", which are two sections that are pretty far away from each other. Ippantekina (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "catapulted Swift into mainstream prominence beyond the country-music scene" — Nothing to fix, but I'm just imagining a 19-year-old Swift being literally catapulted for some reason.
  • "had full ownership of the new masters, including the copyright licensing of her songs, which devalues the" — it switches from past to present tense, which reads a bit awkward to me
  • "all 19 tracks on the original Platinum Edition release (2009), which includes 13 standard-edition tracks that were first released in 2008 and six Platinum-only bonus tracks" — very many "tracks". Could this possibly be reworded to avoid repeating "tracks" so many times?
  • "her vocal inflections down to the details" — "details" seems kinda vague. Aren't inflections sorta details in themselves? Can we just say "every vocal inflection" or something.......?
  • "harmony vocals, but uncredited as a" — but was uncredited?
  • "she texted Urban when he was Christmas shopping, and he agreed to record with Swift after listening to the tracks sitting at a food court" — is it relevant that he was Christmas shopping and at a food court?
  • "David Payne recorded them" — Apologies if this is obvious, but, as a non-music expert, what part did he record? The instruments?
  • "Swift's vocals were the most significant change" — sounds like an opinion; does it need attribution?
  • "it came more from the chest " — reads a bit awkward to me
  • In #"From the vault" tracks, "You All Over Me" is the only song without a description of what it's about. So, um........ is there a reason for this?
  • "Pitchfork included the album in their list of the most anticipated records for spring 2021." — this sentence doesn't really fit in with the rest of the paragraph, which talks about mostly talks about pre-released songs and the success of said songs
  • Interesting, should I remove the whole bit? Ippantekina (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not overly concerned about this, but I feel like the reason it was on the list didn't have anything to do with the marketing and was just more due to Swift's star power. I'll leave it up to you with what you wanna do with it.
  • "Jonathan Berstein thought otherwise and said the re-recorded tracks are "less slick"" — the tense switching feels a bit awkward to me

Overall, a very interesting read! Side note, do you think she's announcing 1989 TV tonight? Pamzeis (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It happened Pamzeis (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pamzeis for the review, I very much appreciate it. Also I'm stoked for 1989 re-recording as well! But I'm not sure how it's gonna turn out. Of the re-recordings so far Red was the most satisfying to my listening experience whereas Speak Now was not as gratifying, maybe because she lost that breathless inflections in "Mine" or "Back to December" that once made them so emotionally engaging. But nonetheless let's anticipate 1989 TV this October! Ippantekina (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yeah, I agree that Red was the best of the re-recordings so far, and Speak Now the weakest, since I feel like it was lacking the same emotion she had with the OG (which is understandable given she isn't 18 anymore). I will say that I enjoy the vault tracks on Speak Now more than Red and Fearless though. Best of luck with this nomination! Pamzeis (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]
Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request. Image source, placement and licence seem mostly OK but I wonder if the cut-out File:Taylor Swift - Don't You (sample).ogg has a special significance. Not all images have ALT text, and they mostly don't describe what the image is or so it seems to me.

Is Spencer 2010 a well-cited biography? #134 has an error message. [7] and [8] throw 404 messages. Source formatting seems consistent; can't say much about the reliability as this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar and I would never use such sources myself but I don't write in this field. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I think the ogg sample's usage is justified, but I'm open to discuss its significance. Alt-texts have been added to all photos. I've set the url-status to "dead" for the 404 links. Might I ask what do you mean by "well-cited biography" i.e. is it about its reliability? Ippantekina (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am trying to gauge if Spencer 2010 is a "high quality reliable source", which it would be if e.g it was commonly cited and had a reputation for reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I can determine so, but I have used Spencer 2010 in several other FAs and it was published by ECW Press which is an independent publisher, so I think it should suffice. Ippantekina (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. Sorry to be harassing you again, but I am looking to close this one. How is the source review looking? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass, with my usual caveat about nonfamiliarity with the topic and lack of spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Just scrolling down the older FAC list and found this article, thought I might be able to comment on it. GeraldWL 08:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 07:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Might wanna link to the wiktionary of back catalog, and wikilink studio album
  • done
  • You might wanna detail which movie that last song was used as a soundtrack on
  • done
  • "indie-and-electronic-oriented" --> "indie- and electronic-oriented" consistent with Music section: "frequencies incorporating mid- and low-frequency elements"
  • done
  • "in the English-speaking countries"-- "the" usually denotes that these countries were already mentioned prior, so I'd say remove the "the"
  • done
  • "and musicologist James E. Perone commented that Fearless transformed her status from a prodigy to a "singer-songwriter superstar"." Maybe I'm just being nitpicky, but considering it has been established that Fearless "catapulted Swift into mainstream prominence beyond the country-music scene", this Perone comment feels excessive and doesn't really add anything to me.
  • "effectively transferred to Braun" can be linked to the controversy article
  • "create a "the same but better" version" --> "create a "same but better" version"
  • done
  • "American singer-songwriter Colbie Caillat"-- could drop the "American" since other mentions of other artists also don't go specific into the nationality
  • done
  • Why is footnote b in a footnote? I feel like it suits in prose too, as an extension to paragraph 2 sentence 1
  • "she contacted him via texts" --> "she approached him" I don't feel the need to be specific on her texting
  • "and Dessner and Bella Basko" --> "Dessner also collaborated with Bella Basko" to avoid the repetitive "and"s
  • Tweaked
  • done
  • "that many teenagers related to"-- past or present tense?
  • tweaked.
  • "The production has a clearer fidelity and more defined instruments—Pitchfork critic Dani Blum wrote: "The sound is brighter, the mix is clearer, each peal of guitar is sharper." Blum's comment can easily be merged into the first fragment, to something like "The audio has a clearer fidelity, richer soundscape, and more defined instruments, with Pitchfork critic Dani Blum noting "each peal of guitar is sharper."" or something.
  • done
  • done
  • "less nasal and more from the chest"-- might wanna link Chest voice
  • done
  • "In Slate, Carl Wilson wrote"-- feels abit awkward, suggest "Slate's Carl Wilson wrote"
  • done
  • "on Swift's 2020 albums Folklore and Evermore"-- "Swift's 2020 albums" can be dropped since there's already an establishment prior, what those two are
  • done
  • Link GMA
  • "exclusively at Target Corporation"-- Target is the store, T. Corp is the company. The CD is not available at the company but the store, so the "Corporation" can be dropped
  • done
  • "of which 737,000 were pure sales"-- might wanna link record sales; for once I asked myself "are there impure sales?"
  • done
  • "In the wider English-speaking world" --> "Within other English speaking countries"-- English-speaking countries are not in a separate world
  • Duplicate link of the CMA
  • "Mikael Wood in the Los Angeles Times downplayed" --> "such as from Mikael Wood in the Los Angeles Times who downplayed" and change the preceding semicolon to comma. Currently the transition feels forced and it's like they're two separate sentences.
  • done
  • Is it common for music articles to refer all following mentions of the artist in track listing to their surname?
  • In the tracklisting, for the first track you mentioned Swift in her full name but then for the rest you simply refer to her as "Swift". I mean this won't affect my judgment of the article since it's all fine for me, but this is my first time seeing a tracklisting doing this kind of contraction. GeraldWL 04:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pseudo [a] footnote can be better changed to the more commonly used asterisk (*); considering there is an actual [a] footnote prior, they might be confused to as being correlated.
  • done
  • In "Release history", Various can be italicized to denote that it refers to various countries not a country called Various
  • Why putting the MusicBrainz in authority control and not ExLink with the Discogs?


NØ

[edit]
  • ”Swift had full ownership of the new masters, including the copyright licensing of her songs, which devalued the Big Machine-owned masters.” – The original masters being devalued is subjective, add attribution.
  • ”six were Platinum-only bonus tracks” – What is a Platinum-only bonus track?
  • ”There were minor parts where Swift tweaked and improved upon to create a "same but better" version” – I'm still picking up a Grammar mistake with the usage of "where". Shouldn't it be "that"? Also, it should be clearly noted "same but better" is a quote from Swift and not a fact.
  • ”For instance” – Redundant
  • ”Swift said by including these unreleased tracks, the re-recorded album proved that "the artist is the only one who really knows that body of work". – Oddly placed quote and this doesn’t add much to the reader’s understanding. Also, Swift’s quote in the note after this sentence has several grammar mistakes so use sic as appropriate.
  • I'm still seeing the "the artist is the only one who really knows that body of work" quote in the article.
  • ”Rowe recorded Swift's lead vocals at Kitty Committee Studio, which is Swift's home studio in London” – “which is” could be removed
  • Not done?
  • ”Jack Antonoff and Aaron Dessner, who had produced Swift's 2020 albums Folklore and Evermore, worked with her in producing the "Vault" tracks” – convoluted
  • Not done?
  • ”11 of which were solely written by Swift. [Note: Including two versions of a same song: "Forever & Always (Taylor's Version)" and "Forever & Always (Piano Version) (Taylor's Version)]” – This makes no sense since a song is only written once
  • Lyrics-wise yes, but if two versions have different arrangements then I don't think we should consider it one. I can reword it to something like "Swift is credited as the sole writer on 11 tracks" if you agree. Ippantekina (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Serban Ghenea mixed the entire re-recorded album” – who mixed the Vault tracks and why don’t they get a mention?
  • ”they incorporate prominent pop and pop-rock sensibilities” – what is pop-rock sensibilities?
  • ”although she sang the same notes and retained a light country-music twang” – A “light” country-music twang? Do you mean slight…?
  • “Swift's vocals were the most significant change: […] they became richer, deeper, and more controlled” – This reads like a rave review from Pitchfork. Why is this in wiki voice??
  • Someone may not click the note, and to them this is stated as a fact. Something like "A multitude of critics thought that ... Swift's vocals were" should appear in the prose.
  • ”Swift managed to recreate her once-teenage vocal inflictions and mannerisms, her matured voice made the album sound "like a sentimental family member's speech at a wedding, a reunion, a memorial" – This is again an entirely subjective critical review and does not belong in the Music and lyrics section.
  • This is definitely positive.
  • ”For Lee, the said changes made the re-recorded tracks lose the original's sense of earnestness” – the “said” changes?
  • Does “Vault” really need quotation marks every time it is used? We don’t put quotes around words like remix, a cappella, etc.
  • The word “Vault” appears in every sentence of the first paragraph of the “From the vault” tracks section.
  • ”the "Vault" tracks are about derailed romantic relationships” – derailed by whom?
  • ”alongside pulsing synth drum loops” – “pulsing” again seems like the type of word that shouldn’t be in wiki voice. Seems subjective whether a track "pulses" or not...
  • ”the narrator makes sarcastic remarks at a former lover” – the narrator? Who is this?
  • So, Swift? Why can't we say the name for this track but we can say it is Swift and Urban singing on "That's When"?
  • ”The song contains the line "Mr. casually cruel", which references the track "All Too Well" from Swift's 2012 album Red” – Nice fact for the song article but excess detail for the album
  • ” NME's Hannah Mylrae said it incorporated a production resembling Swift's 2014 album” – Prose redundancy. Just go for “said its production resembled Swift’s 2014 album”. Also, it's "Mylrea"
  • ”In "Don't You", a sparse track” – A sparse track? I’m not sure what this means…
  • ”"Bye Bye Baby", which had its demo circulated on the internet prior for years” – This has nothing to do with Music and lyrics
  • This has not been removed and I am not sure why.
  • The Fearless TV logo image is used purely decoratively. Visual identification is not required simply for the words “Taylor’s Version” being added to the title. Remove this
  • This has not been addressed. Please see MOS:IRELEV. We regularly have to discourage fans from including decorative images in articles so putting one in an FA is an absolute no-no and sets a terrible example.
  • I'm conflicted myself as the image might give some context (though might be minimal) because the cover itself doesn't show the title nor the extended subtitle. I would argue this image is more than being merely decorative, though I understand its inclusion might be debatable. Ippantekina (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Fearless (Taylor's Version) was preceded by a rather minimal campaign that relied on social media” – Remove “rather”
  • ”Pitchfork included the album in their list of the most anticipated records for spring 2021” – I’m not sure about swapping “albums” for “records”. Pitchfork’s list is specifically about the most anticipated albums.
  • ”The following day, she released "Love Story (Taylor's Version)" as the lead single from the re-recorded album” – “from the re-recorded album” is unnecessary… It’s amply clear from the preceding sentences it is not the original album being talked about.
  • ”In the hours leading to the album's release” – “leading up to the album’s release”
  • ”posted clips of themselves acting to excerpts of "You Belong with Me (Taylor's Version)" on TikTok” – what acting did they do? Did they play roles?
  • ”Other snippets made available on social media were "Fifteen (Taylor's Version)" on Snapchat” – The snippets weren’t the songs, they were of the songs
  • ”She again appeared on Good Morning America to preview "Fearless (Taylor's Version)" – It is not clear when this happened. And do we really need “again”…?
  • ”Related merchandise including clothes and accessories all featured the extended moniker "Taylor's Version". – Sorry but how is this noteworthy? Seems obvious an album’s merchandise bears its name…
  • Not addressed.
  • Ben Sisario’s comment is again something entirely subjective and randomly placed, and I am not sure it is of encyclopedic value
  • ”Fearless (Taylor's Version) was released on April 9, 2021, via Republic Records” – Avoid “via” and go for active voice
  • This has not been addressed.
  • ”In it, she recreates her pose on the original album cover but looks at an opposite direction.” – This is grammatically incorrect… It should be “looks in the opposite direction” since there is only one opposite direction.
  • I am not sure why you insist on "at". I ran it on Grammar checkers and it should definitely be "in" the opposite direction.
  • ”The standard physical copies were made available for pre-order on Swift's website, and CDs with collectible posters available for pre-order exclusively at Target Corporation.” – This reads odd. Is there a missing word here?
  • ”It achieved records such as the first re-recorded album to reach number one and the biggest sales week for a country album since 2015.” – Not sure about “achieved records” since this isn’t exactly Guinness Book of World Records stuff. Just say “It became the first re-recorded album to reach number one and achieved the biggest sales week for a country album since 2015.”
  • ”which set the record for a female musician” – Same with this. Just say something like she was the first female musician to do this.
  • ”By July 2023, Fearless (Taylor's Version) had accumulated 1.81 million album-equivalent units, of which 737,000 were pure sales, in the United States.” – A lot of commas here
  • ”In the wider English-speaking world,” – What is the wider English-speaking world???
  • ”the album broke the record for the fewest weeks between two number-one albums by the same artist with its peaking atop the chart 17 weeks after Evermore” – Very oddly framed
  • ”it helped Swift surpass the Beatles' record for the fastest duration to have three number-one albums” – this reads like it was the fastest an artist got their first three albums to number one. I can think of maybe “the shortest gap between three number-one albums” as a clearer way to put this
  • Curious why you have made no change to this.
  • How is People's Daily a high quality source? I’m seeing a direct association with the Chinese Communist Party and WP:CHINADAILY is highly frowned upon for similar reasons.
  • I am not an expert but per the link you cited sources could be used "cautiously and with good editorial judgment". I believe an article about a non-political, entertainment matter is fine, but I'm open to discussion if the source reviewer disagrees. Ippantekina (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced, personally.
  • ”They complimented how the production emphasized the instruments, which brought forth a crisper and warmer sound” – This isn’t a fact. Say “They thought the production emphasized the instruments”. You’ve used “thought” for less positive opinions like Bernstein’s…
  • What you have done does not address my concern. "They complimented how the production emphasized the instruments" still presents the production emphasizing the instruments as a fact, when another critic in the very next line seems to disagree. It should be "They were favorable of the production, which they thought emphasized the instruments ..."
  • It’s “Bernstein”, not “Berstein”
  • Have you given all critics equal weightage in the Critical reception section? I’m seeing Petridis, McCormick, and Keefe’s names repeated multiple times but the ‘’Clash’’, ‘’The Independent’’, ‘’NME’’ and ‘’Pitchfork’’ reviews do not get a single mention in the prose…
  • ”The Guardian's Alexis Petridis and The Daily Telegraph's Neil McCormick wrote that Fearless (Taylor's Version) made them reminisce about Fearless as an outstanding country-pop album filled with catchy melodies.” – So they’re praising the original ‘’Fearless’’ from what I understand? Given how text-heavy this section is, I’m not sure this warrants inclusion
  • I don't think so? Otherwise, you might as well include reviews for the original album...
  • If so we'd also need to remove the entire third paragraph which discusses reception of the lyrics. I know the bit might come across as redundant but it gives context of how the re-recording gave the critics a second look at the original album; it might also be noteworthy that Petridis gave the original Fearless a less-than-glowing review back in 2009 but commended the re-recorded Fearless (except for the "Vault" tracks). Ippantekina (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine said the "Vault" tracks are the album's most appealing” – Looks kind of odd. Remove “album’s” maybe since this doesn’t seem to be detrimental to conveying the meaning
  • Not done? "'Vault' tracks are the most appealing" also conveys the same point without one extra word.
  • ”Swift pulled Fearless (Taylor’s Version) from contending for the Grammy Awards and Country Music Association Awards” – She pulled it? What does that mean? Aren’t artists allowed to just not submit albums for Grammy consideration?
  • ”Republic Records representative explained to Billboard that Swift decided to do so because the original Fearless remained the most-awarded country album up to that time, and because she wanted the awards committee to focus on Evermore, which was submitted for all eligible Grammy categories.” – This is too long…
  • ”In Variety, Willman wrote” – If people can remember Willman’s first name they can also remember he writes for ‘”Variety’’.
  • Not sure if you didn't understand this point? But since you're not repeating the full name "Chris Willman", and assuming everyone remembers it is Chris being talked about, you can also remove "Variety" since said people would also remember the publication he works for.
  • Were there any other critics except Mikael Wood who criticized the re-recording project? There was a lot of discussion online so surely there is more discourse about it in the context of a cash-grab?
  • Cue Variety, "But the minority adversarial reactions to Swift’s album are kind of like the similar reactions to Phoebe Bridgers smashing her guitar on SNL". I did look for critics from reputable sources but it seemed most of them were music blogs that were unfit for inclusion. Ippantekina (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all that being said, it's coming to an oppose on criteria 1d: neutrality and 1a.--NØ 05:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaranoFan:, I appreciate you taking time reviewing this article. I am not sure if I am being sound, but it seems you opposed on criterion 1d mainly due to the "Critical reception" section? (My assumption is because for most parts it was more of grammatical/wording issues). For that section, I took advice from WP:RECEPTION (cue "Consolidate details", "Don't overuse direct quotations"). Certain critics are mentioned more not because they are given more weight but because their texts add substance to the existing claims. For other claims that you deemed "subjective", i.e. Sisario's and Wilson's commentary, they are properly attributed and add context to the existing text. Ippantekina (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have missed quite a lot of comments, actually, which I am not sure if it's deliberate. I would suggest making sure they are all addressed soon. Also, it should be "Max Bernstein", not "Berstein", in the Personnel section as well. Make sure that there are no typos.--NØ 09:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, thanks for the push! I actually have not addressed all of your comments and was about to get back to it after the weekend. Do expect some time (no later than Tuesday) as I'm juggling between stuff but my previous comments were by no means exhaustive in regards to your review. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to all points. Do let me know your thoughts if you have time, and btw have an enjoyable wikibreak :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NØ, just a ping to make sure you are aware of the above comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, while waiting for their reply, could I go ahead with a new FAC at this point? Ippantekina (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. That is for when nominations have met the minimum requirements and seem well on their way to promotion. It is not completely clear that this is what is happening here. Let's wait a bit and see how this review turns out. @FAC coordinators: for information. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. However the reviewer has said they have no further time to contribute to this FAC, so I assume their oppose on the ground of criterion 1d sticks, at least for the time being. I do hope we receive further comments on that front (if coordinators recuse to review I'd be more than happy..) and I stand my ground that this article satisfies NPOV, but if after further comments we don't reach consensus then so be it.. Ippantekina (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noted the prose improvements but the work needed to address the 1d concerns should be done during a peer review outside of the pressure of the FAC process. The article would benefit from a rewriting and extensive reviews from uninvolved users. I am afraid I have run out of time to help with this article. The logo image should definitely go, though. If you really want to use images you can use pictures of Olivia Rodrigo and Conan Gray in the section. The CCP source also needs to go. A spotcheck should also take place at the PR, since there seem to be source-text integrity issues as well as close paraphrasing e.g. the article says "Many complimented the production as crisper and warmer", but "crisper and warmer" seems to be an unattributed direct quote from NME. This is "attributed" to four critics in the note but these words are not used by any of them. Also, you have included eight 4+ star reviews in the review table so at least one of them should be replaced by the 3 star review from Slant. For added neutrality, the less positive reviews from Pitchfork and LA Times should be added into the Critical reception section. Obviously, it's up to the coords to decide if my concerns hold water. Good luck--NØ 07:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we both agree, your concern is now primarily regarding neutrality/NPOV. "Crisper and warmer" are not meant to be exact wordings but paraphrased variants (i.e. Empire, "The production can’t help but sound smoother, the quality of the playing more nuanced"; Gajjar, "The subtler changes are observed in more pronounced beats"; Harbron, "All the changes made [...] simply make them shinier [...] banjos are crisper, guitars are fuller, drums are heavier"). Not sure if a 3-star review by Slant adds substance since the table includes one such rating by AllMusic and the aggregate score on Metacritic is 80+, and the LA Times criticism is exclusively toward Swift's alleged capitalist act, which is covered in a separate section. I'd like to restate that the "Critical reception" section is designed such that it includes commentary that adds substance and forms a narrative, otherwise the critics and publications are summarily included in notes (cue WP:RECEPTION). Nonetheless let us hear from the coordinator regarding this. Ippantekina (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "Two "Vault" tracks feature guest vocals from Maren Morris and Keith Urban" → I would add ", respectively" at the end of this sentence as it makes it seem like both artists appear on each track.
  • done
  • "a songwriter and a recording" → "a songwriter, and a recording"
  • done
  • "She subsequently released her second studio album" → Unless the album was self-released this wording is misleading; same for "Swift released her next four studio albums", "she would release the re-recording"
  • done
  • "Swift publicly denounced" → can remove "publicly" as this is already stated in the previous sentence: "public dispute"
  • done
  • "on Good Morning America" → not really necessary
  • "were Platinum Edition bonus tracks" → could remove "Platinum Edition" as this is known from the previous sentence
  • "in mind" → unnecessary
  • "Urban agreed to record" → rerecord?
  • "...found them to have 'indelible melodies and choruses with the efficiency of a Nordic pop factory'" → what is the purpose of this sentence?
  • "found certain tracks" → perceived certain tracks
  • "Pitchfork included it in their list of the most anticipated albums for spring 2021" → seems rather unremarkable unless this was covered by secondary sources or other publications also listed it as anticipated
  • "February 11," → year pls
  • "The following day, she released "Love Story (Taylor's Version)" as the lead single" → citation was published a day before "released" and does not identity it as the lead single
  • "It was first re-recorded album to reach number one" → missing a "the first"
  • "The album made Swift return to the top of Billboard's Artist 100 chart for a record-extending 47th week" → no one really cares about the Artist 100, was this event covered by a publication other than Billboard itself?
  • The second and third commercial performance paragraphs seem a little unorganized/unfinished
  • I would agree that People's Daily does not seem to be a high-quality source
  • I would agree that claiming "crisper and warmer" to be a paraphrase when it also happens to be verbatim from one of the citations attributed to the consensus is problematic
  • ", but" introduces NPOV issues
  • "Praise also directed toward Swift's vocals" → I don't think this works grammatically
  • Either keep the perceptions in the "music and lyrics" section or "critical reeption", don't repeat stuff like "and at times lost the earnestness of the original recordings" when this was written in a previous section
  • Are the track lengths listed in the liner notes?
  • "withstood the test of time" WP:FLOWERY
  • " others appreciated them " → "others" claimed but only 1 critic cited?
  • I would cite Universal Music Japan website instead of commercial outlet CD Japan
  • Brazil release needs trans-title parameter
  • Vinyl release given as "Various" but US cassette "United States" only but same website cited?
  • "Various" but only US apple music cited? I know this is pedantic but pls make sure the release history is backed up with proper verification
  • CNET is considered iffy at WP:PERENNIAL, consider replacing with a different publication
  • There are more than a dozen journal articles with "Taylor Swift" in the title on Taylor & Francis alone, surely some information could be extracted and at least one journal article cited for the background section or something

The commercial performance section could use expansion/revision, and the critical reception is not as crisp and direct as I would expect it to be, feels kind of muddled with too much thoughts from individual critics, feels directionless at times. Once these issues are addressed, I believe this would be a great article that is not overly long, is accessible, and has depth. Best, Heartfox (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Heartfox. I will look into them shortly. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

@Gog the Mild: taking all the comments here as well as my current schedule into consideration, I would not be able to wrap this FAC in the near future. Given that I might be active again in quite a few months, I would like to withdraw this FAC for now. Should I go active again I might initiate another FAC with all points here resolved. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ippantekina, I'll action on Gog's behalf. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2023 (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/Archived_nominations/September_2023&oldid=1177853433"