Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song)/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [1].

Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known song by Taylor Swift, who is an indie artist. Any and all comments would be much appreciated :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(i wouldn't say "little-known", it has 1.6 billion views on YouTube, but that's irrelevant) 750h+ 13:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was sarcasm. AryKun (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irony? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The following sentence is not grammatically correct: (A pop song with hip hop beats and keyboards, the lyrics are about betrayal by a close friend.) It is describing the lyrics as "a pop song ..." and not the song itself so it would need to be revised.
  • Since Taylor Swift and Kendrick Lamar are identified with their nationalities, shouldn't the same be done for Max Martin and Shellback (i.e. saying "the Swedish producers" as opposed to just "the producers"). It would be best to be consistent.
  • Apologies in advance if I am just overlooking this, but I was curious about this part, (demonstrated a new aspect of Swift's artistry), and I could not really locate it in the "Critical reception" section. Could you clarify where this is supported? I see positive reviews describing "Bad Blood" as a 1989 highlight, but I do not see any larger consensus to support the "new aspect" discussed in the lead.
  • I am uncertain about the following in the lead, (featured among the best songs of 2015 on lists by NME and PopMatters). Are these two specific lists notable enough to highlight in the lead?
  • For this part, (consisting of many singers, actresses, and fashion models), I would cut "many" as it comes across more as a filler word. I can understand that it is likely there to convey just how many people are crammed into the video, but I think that readers can understand that without the "some".
  • Shouldn't the Ryan Adams cover be mentioned in the lead as it does have its own section?
  • Apologies for not catching this in previous FACs, but I have a comment about this part, (Taylor Swift had identified as a country musician). The source describes Swift as "the country/pop star", but I do not see where it says that Swift herself identified as a country singer until releasing Red. I think a stronger source will be needed to support this information unless I am overlooking something in the current citation.
  • It may be beneficial to cut back on some of the quotes in the "Critical reception" section. The information itself is very good, but certain parts feel quite quote-heavy. That being said, I could just be over-thinking this so feel free to disagree with me.
  • I am a bit confused by the WP:FUR for File:Bad blood taylor video.png. The rationale points out that it is "a single look in a very fashion-oriented video", but is fashion really one of the main reason for its inclusion? While looking at the caption and the section, I'd think the screenshot is more so about the "squad" and action movie vibes.
  • For this part, (consisting of female singers and fashion models), shouldn't it include "actresses" to both match the lead and better represent the video (as people like Ellen Pompeo are neither a singer nor a model).
  • I remember that the video for "Bitch I'm Madonna" received a lot of comparisons to the one for "Bad Blood". I think that information would be beneficial here as it would show the impact that this particular video had.
  • The article currently includes a parody version from How It Should Have Ended , which is only supported by a single citation. Why is this cover more notable than the other ones that I mentioned above, which are all supported by reliable, third-party citations? WP:SONGTRIVIA states the use of a song can be mentioned if it "is discussed by a reliable source". For each of the citations that I included above, the cover versions are the main subject of the articles. What are you defining as "notable" in the context of this FAC? If a cover version needs to be covered by multiple citations or have further support to be deemed notable, then that would call into question the inclusion of the How It Should Have Ended parody version (which again is only supported by a single citation). The criteria for inclusion is unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I'm not saying to not include them, I'm saying I'll look into them case by case to see what to include and what not. Ippantekina (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (and that he wanted to sing the songs from his perspective), I would avoid sing / songs in the same sentence.
  • I am a bit uncertain about this sentence: (Swift expressed her attitude towards Lamar on social media and called the event "surreal and bewildering".) It seems a tad overly wordy and I am not sure about calling this an "event".
  • The article says that Taylor's Version has an identical arrangement to the original and then goes on to discuss the differences so it seems a bit contradictory.
  • This citation is missing the publication date: here.
  • This citation is no longer active: here

For clarity, I am working from this version of the article. I hope that this review is helpful. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article more thoroughly to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC, and I hope that you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thanks very much for your comments. I likewise hope that you are doing well :) Let me get back to you asap. Ippantekina (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, please let me know when you have addressed all of the comments. I also wanted to add that I agree with the below suggestion that the liner notes should be used as citations for the credits and personnel just to clarify to the reader where this information is being supported. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aoba, I've addressed all of your concerns :) Let me know if there are any points that I overlooked. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I noticed one more thing, and I think that should be it for me. The infobox includes both pop and hip hop for the genres and the Category:American hip hop songs is used, but the lead says that the song has "hip hop beats", which is also later used in the article alongside "prominent hip hop styling". The article currently does not support "Bad Blood" being described as a hip hop song as there is not an instance where a critic explicitly says this (as using things like styling and beats is not the same). I would either remove the genre from the infobox and the category or revise the prose (with an appropriate citation) that explicitly refers to this song as hip hop. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba47, thanks for the comment. I concur with your explanation, and I've removed the Hip-hop categorisation from the Infobox and the Categories. Let me know if everything's ok now :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing that. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

I will take a look at this one but it's probably best if I wait till all of Aoba's comments are addressed so that I don't duplicate things they said..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: pinging because Aoba has finished their review :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. A bit tied up today but will definitely take a look when I get a chance -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, just so you know this is here. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink

[edit]

I have an active FAC, so I figured I should review something. Why not thing song?

  • "Critics have retrospectively considered "Bad Blood" one of Swift's worst songs." - I was lukewarm on reviewing this article because I wasn't a big fan of the song, with the repetitive lyrics, which I was pleasantly surprised to see mentioned. No note here, I'm just really glad the lead goes very well with my thoughts on the song. I'm a musician, not the biggest Taylor Swift fan but I think she has some solid bops (just not this one), just for reference of objectivity.
  • "It incorporates surging keyboards" - as a musician I have no idea what a "surging keyboard" is
  • "When Rolling Stone asked him in 2017 whether he was "taking sides in a pop beef", he responded that he was unaware of it." - what does this have to do this with this song?
  • "it marked one of the largest jumps to the top in Billboard chart history" - by the very Wikipedia article linked here, Swift herself had two other songs with bigger leaps, so I'm not sure if this is accurate.
  • "It peaked within the top five on charts of South Africa (two),[48] Lebanon (four),[49] and the United Kingdom (four).[50] The song also reach the top ten in Hungary, Finland and Ireland." - the parenthesis take up just as much time as saying them individually, and #2 is nice, but there aren't any Wikipedia lists for "List of #2 singles". I suggest having the list here including all of the countries as top ten.
  • "the musicologist James E. Perone" - why the "the"?
  • Is it worth mentioning that the Youtube video has more than 1 billion views? I mention this because the article talks about Vevo, but doesn't follow up with the platform that Vevo was probably on.
  • " Judy L. Isaksen and Nahed Eltantawy—scholars in popular culture and journalism, and Hannelore Roth—a scholar in literature argued that Swift's idea of feminism was only applicable to famous and wealthy women. " - great point, but you might need another dash after Hannelore Roth - a scholar in literature.
  • "Roth added that by casting Lamar as the ringleader behind the female squad" - I didn't realize until this moment that Lamar was in the music video. Yes, I see his mention earlier in the long list of people, but that came after this: "The video features an ensemble cast consisting of female singers, actresses, and fashion models who were dubbed by the media as Swift's "squad".[79][80] Each member of the cast chose her character's name." So I thought it was a bunch of females who I weren't aware of. You might want to highlight this better, as opposed to it coming so late in the narrative.
  • " In 2016, "Bad Blood" was nominated for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance and won Best Music Video at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards,[103] and the single was recognized as one of the biggest songs of the year at both the ASCAP Pop Music Awards by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)[104] and the 64th Annual BMI Pop Awards by Broadcast Music, Inc." - this is a lot for one sentence.
  • A quick Google search suggests there have been a lot more covers. It even appeared in a TV show (or two).
  • Could you add a source for the "Credits and personnel" section? If it's the liner notes, is there a ref for that? Same for remix.

All in all, a great read! There were only a few small spots where I wondered "huh what's up with that". Let me know if you have any questions Ippantekina (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hurricane, thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there's anything that I missed. Ippantekina (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks, you got them all! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck from NegativeMP1

[edit]

Forthcoming, will try to have this done over the weekend. λ NegativeMP1 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this. I've started it, though. λ NegativeMP1 17:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the long wait. I've Spotchecked specific uses of about a fifth of the article's references (46), plus a few extra in areas where I felt was needed. I did not check SFNs as I have no method of verifying those. Hopefully that’s satisfactory. Specific checks:

Spotcheck list
  • 2 verifies the text.
  • 6 ditto.
  • 7 ditto.
  • 10 ditto, though is there a reason why it’s marked as requiring a paywall when it does not? Or is there something I’m missing here?
  • 12 doesn’t specifically say that Bad Blood is hip-hop, but discusses it in the context of a paragraph about the album’s hip-hop tracks. So verified. The second use of the source later in the section is also verified.
  • 17 ditto.
  • 18 ditto.
  • 21 ditto.
  • 22 ditto, and I assume good faith in 23 and 24 (which are used to cite the same statement) based on the article titles. But don’t count those towards the spotcheck.
  • 25 ditto.
  • 26 ditto, but as a similar case for 10, unless something weird is going on with my browser this source does not require a paid subscription. I can access it completely for free.
  • 27 does not mention Kendrick Lamar’s remix in the source text. It also, once again, does not require a sub.
  • 30 verified.
  • 31 ditto.
  • 34 ditto.
  • 37 ditto.
  • 43 ditto.
  • 59 ditto.
  • 60 ditto.
  • 67 ditto.
  • 68 ditto.
  • 69 ditto.
  • 74 ditto.
  • 76 ditto.
  • 77 ditto.
  • 78 ditto.
  • 82 ditto.
  • 85 ditto.
  • 92 ditto.
  • 102 ditto.
  • 123 ditto.
  • 128 ditto.
  • 132 ditto.
  • 133 does verify the fact it was a track-by-track cover, but it doesn’t specifically name Bad Blood. I think that’s good enough, but someone else might disagree. The whole Bruce Springsteen thing is verified, though.
  • 141 ditto
  • 183 ditto
  • 195 ditto.
  • 201 ditto.
  • 202 ditto.
  • 203 ditto.
  • 207 ditto.
  • 205 ditto.
  • 212 ditto.
  • 216 ditto.

Generally the sourcing looks good, but there’s some areas that I think need to be addressed, primarily 27 as it failed verification. λ NegativeMP1 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the source review! I've addressed the issues and found a replacement ref for #27. Ippantekina (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks good. Support λ NegativeMP1 16:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image placement seems OK. Does the sample File:Bad Blood.ogg discuss an aspect of the song that drew particular attention? Since this article is mainly about the song, I am not sure that File:Bad blood taylor video.png meets the "significantly enhances the understanding of the article topic" prong of WP:NFCC#8. The ogg file has no ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do ogg files require ALT texts? The screenshot of the video provides context for the music video itself -- a significant portion of the article is devoted to that. Ippantekina (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: per {{Listen}} alt text is applicable to audio files that contain videos. In this case I don't think the ogg file requires alt text as it's not a visual file. I believe the music video screenshot adds to the understanding of the "squad" discussed in a prominent section of "Music video". Ippantekina (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that is sufficient to meet the "significant" and "article topic" parts of the rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: You had the same issue with the music video screenshot for You Belong with Me. How would you interpret criterion #8 of NFCC? I'm assuming that you are not thinking of "Music video" (which is a section of the article) as significant enough to be an article topic? What if "Music video" is an important aspect of the article topic, which is true in this case; would that still not suffice? Ippantekina (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that at WP:FFD, significantly enhancing the understanding of an article section often isn't held to be sufficient for a non-free image. Personally I think it's borderline and potential such concerns need to be noted in the FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from. I think the video screenshot in this case can be justified: the music video of this song attracted in-depth commentary (the lead does mention this as well) and had a significant impact on the attention/success this song received. Definitely a pass imo. Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

What makes The Quietus a reliable source? It seems like we are using mainstream sources and consistent formatting, otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source for Music articles, listed at WP:RSMUSIC. It was also selected by The Independent as one of the best music websites. Ippantekina (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: nudge. Ippantekina (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2024 (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/Bad_Blood_(Taylor_Swift_song)/archive1&oldid=1251406537"