Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hey Stephen/archive1

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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2023 [1].

---

Hey Stephen

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a lesser-known song by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, written for an album when she was 18 years old. I listened to this song after the highly publicized Taylor Swift masters controversy and I hate to admit I love the song more than I expected to. I believe this article is comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written for the bronze star. Any and all comments are very much appreciated, Ippantekina (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by GPT-4-assisted Esculenta

ChatGPG-aided review

I'll give this a try; this will be a little unusual. I'm conducting this review with assistance from the recent ChatGPT incarnation, GPT-4, and will be using this to help assess adherence to FA criteria 1a, 1b, 1d, 2a, 2b, and 4. I've fed it the entire article, and have asked the bot questions about it. The article's strengths, according to GPT-4: "Comprehensive coverage: The article provides a detailed account of the song's background, writing, release, performances, music and lyrics, critical reception, and personnel involved in both the original and re-recorded versions. Use of sources: The article cites a variety of sources to support its claims, including interviews, reviews, and other media publications. (note: I have not specifically entered in criteria to assess reliability of sources, so take this one with a grain of salt) Organization: The article is well-organized, with clear section headings and a logical flow of information. ... and weaknesses: Limited critical analysis: While the article summarizes various critical opinions on the song, it does not provide an in-depth analysis or exploration of its themes or impact on the music industry. Potential bias: The article predominantly focuses on positive reception and highlights of the song, which may give a skewed impression of its overall reception." I asked it "Do you think the article meets the Wikipedia Featured Article criterion: "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? Give examples to support your decision." GTP-4: "In my opinion, the article meets the Wikipedia Featured Article criterion for being well-written, as it features engaging and professional-standard prose. The article is comprehensive, informative, and demonstrates a consistent flow, making it easy to understand and follow. Examples to support this decision include: The opening paragraph provides a succinct and informative summary of the song, its background, and its reception. This paragraph sets the stage for the rest of the article and provides the reader with an understanding of the song's context. The "Background and writing" section details the songwriting process and inspiration behind "Hey Stephen," providing quotes from Taylor Swift herself to give a personal touch to the narrative. This section demonstrates the professional standard of the prose by weaving together both facts and direct quotes from relevant sources. The "Music and lyrics" section discusses the song's musical elements, genre, and lyrical content. It provides specific examples of the instrumentation used in the song, as well as references to critical analyses that help the reader understand the song's musical and lyrical significance. The "Critical reception" section presents both positive and negative reviews of the song, showcasing a balanced and unbiased perspective. It cites multiple sources and provides examples of the specific praise or criticism given by each reviewer. I tried to get it to probe for weaknesses in prose: "Are there any sentences where the prose could be improved to be more engaging and of a professional standard? Please give examples." GTP-4: "While the article is generally well-written, there are a few instances where the prose could be improved to be more engaging and of a professional standard. Here are some examples: Original sentence: "It is written in the key of G major and Swift's vocals span one octave, from G3 to G4." Improved sentence: "The song is composed in the key of G major, with Swift's vocals covering a range of one octave, extending from G3 to G4." In this revision, the sentence is slightly restructured to flow more smoothly and maintain a more professional tone. Original sentence: "Stephen Barker Liles, a member of the band Love and Theft, inspired the song." Improved sentence: "The song was inspired by Stephen Barker Liles, a member of the band Love and Theft." By reordering the sentence, it becomes more concise and easier to understand. Original sentence: "The song received mostly positive reviews from critics." Improved sentence: "Critics predominantly offered positive reviews for the song." This revision adds some variation to the sentence structure and makes it sound more engaging. Remember that these improvements are subjective, and different people may have different suggestions for enhancing the prose. The overall quality of the article is already quite high, but these minor adjustments can help to further polish the text and align it with the Wikipedia Featured Article criterion for well-written prose." Me: "Do you think the article meets the Wikipedia Featured Article criterion: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"?" GTP-4: "Based on the information provided in the article, it seems to meet the criterion of being comprehensive, as it covers major aspects of the song, including its composition, lyrics, production, and critical reception. The article also places the subject in context by discussing its inspiration, Taylor Swift's career at the time of the song's release, and its impact on her subsequent work. The article addresses the following key aspects: Background and inspiration: The article explains the circumstances surrounding the creation of the song and the real-life inspiration behind it. Composition and lyrics: The article discusses the musical structure, key, tempo, and lyrical content of the song, providing an understanding of its overall composition. Production and release: The article provides information on the song's production, its release as a single, and its inclusion on Taylor Swift's album "Fearless." Critical reception: The article summarizes the general critical response to the song, including both positive and negative reviews. Commercial performance: The article outlines the song's performance on various music charts and its certifications, highlighting its commercial success. Music video: The article describes the music video for the song and its reception, offering insight into the visual interpretation of the song. Impact and legacy: The article discusses the song's influence on Taylor Swift" Me: "Do you think the lead section is appropriately concise, summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections?" (i.e. criterion 2a) GTP-4: "Yes, the lead section appears to be appropriately concise, effectively summarizing the topic and preparing the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections. It provides a brief introduction to "Blinding Lights," touching on its release, style, critical reception, and commercial success. By offering an overview of the most important aspects of the subject, the lead section sets the stage for the more detailed information found in the rest of the article." Me: "Do you think the article stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style?" (i.e. criterion 4) GTP-4: "Yes, the article seems to stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses a summary style. It presents a concise overview of the song's background, composition, production, release, reception, commercial performance, music video, and impact. The article refrains from digressing into tangential topics or providing excessive information that would detract from the primary focus. Instead, it offers readers a coherent and structured presentation of the subject, making it easy to understand and follow." Me: "what are the drawbacks to the article and potential areas of improvement?" GTP-4: "While the article is generally well-written and comprehensive, there are a few areas where it could potentially be improved: Prose improvement: Some sentences could be rephrased to make them more engaging and professional. For example: Original: "It has been widely regarded as one of the best songs of 2020." Improved: "The song has garnered widespread acclaim, with many considering it among the best songs of 2020." Additional sources: The article could benefit from the inclusion of more diverse and authoritative sources to further support its claims and add depth to certain sections. Impact and legacy: While the article mentions the song's critical reception and commercial success, it could delve deeper into the impact the song has had on popular culture, its influence on other artists, and any long-term effects it has had on the music industry. Images and media: Including relevant images, such as the single's cover art, or embedding a video of a notable live performance, could enhance the article's visual appeal and provide additional context for readers. By addressing these areas, the article could become even more comprehensive and engaging, further meeting the Wikipedia Featured Article criteria." Ok, sorry for the wall of text but I thought the analysis would be interesting for other reviewers, in terms of what this (and similar) tools can do at this time. In general, the chatbot seems to like the article and thinks it meets the FA criteria it has assessed, although it suggests some possible improvements. I hope these comments are interesting and perhaps useful. Esculenta (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Esculenta, I appreciate your review aided by ChatGPT, but I think some comments are out of place i.e. some bits mentioning "Blinding Lights" (which is a Weeknd song?) or "It has been widely regarded as one of the best songs of 2020." (this song was released in 2008). Not sure if you could double-check the review and remove where it doesn't fit with this FAC? Much appreciated, Ippantekina (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Much of it is fine, mind, but owing to the obvious drawback of AI-generated content, of course there will be ones that are confusing.

To provide examples for broader comments. "It does not provide an in-depth analysis or exploration of its themes or impact on the music industry" or "it could delve deeper into the impact the song has had on popular culture, its influence on other artists, and any long-term effects it has had on the music industry" should not be applicable points to make when discussing an album track that barely charted. The "prose improvement" comment provides no real improvement; it just makes it more wordy. Let alone saying the article discussed the key or tempo or the song had a music video, a major impact on Swift, or a single cover---all of which are nonexistent.

@Esculenta, I noticed through your contributions that you have begun using GPT to review GANs and FACs en masse. If you were indeed to continue using it for such a purpose, I highly recommend you practice oversight with the reviews it generates by making sure they match with the article. This should be a given, because it seems you yourself seem to acknowledge that the text generator has limitations. Thank you. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't intend to add a support/oppose on any FACs, this was basically a trial run to see if there was any output that might be useful for improving the article; feel free to ignore or hat this conversation. p.s., most of the reviews are at peer review. Esculenta (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Eli

For your handy comments at my Open Arms (SZA song) GA, I want to give back and review this. Seems like it's been cooking for a while now; good job with the expansions.

• Several words you can opt to cut:
  • "which was released" the "which was" can go.
  • "Continuing on" the "on" can go
  • "Swift chose to write songs" "chose to write" can be simplified to "wrote"
  • "could relate to her songs" can be trimmed to "relate to Fearless"
  • "Swift touring on the road" simply say "Swift's touring"
  • "starts with Swift's hums [...] the track ends with her humming" merge into "starts and ends with Swift's hums", which the Sheffield source can on its own support
  • "has her singing with girl-group-styled ad-libs" simplify to "features girl group–styled ad-libs"
• Reword to "girl group–inspired" and "upright bass–propelled" with an en dash per MOS:SUFFIXDASH; the hyphenated versions look clunky. Ensure the necessary tweaks happen on the prose too
  • The prose also says the ad libs are girl group–inspired. You may wanna note this in the lead
• "included 'Hey Stephen' to the set list" nitpick - on the set list, perhaps?
• "has a face" breaks the tense consistency and can give readers whiplash. Perhaps rewrite to " had a 'face' ", enclosing in quotation marks only the word face
• Do we need to hyphenate high school and fairy tale?
• Include "a 2019 public" in the masters controversy wikilink so it doesn't run afoul of MOS:EASTEREGG
• The link to masters is missing
• Ditto MOS:SUFFIXDASH with "Big Machine–owned masters"; should probably change that to "Big Machine–owned ones" to minimise repetition
• Speaking of repetition, "Swift's lead vocals at Swift's home studio" and "charted on singles charts"
• MOS:NUMNOTES says "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures", so keep that in mind when listing chart peaks
• "McBride's husband John's recording studio" clunky; "the recording studio of McBride's husband, John"
• "such as waiting for somebody by the window[b] and rain[c]" with this structure, the implication is that waiting for somebody by the rain is one of these motifs that "Stephen" embodies, which it does not; make it the first item in the list
• "Kelsey Barnes commented" 1) repetition and 2) WP:ELEVAR. It doesn't hurt to use "wrote" as main verbs for some of these
  • For example, "dubbed the track 'hummable pop' " -> "wrote it was 'hummable pop' "
• "Telegram & Gazette said;" that semicolon should be a colon (MOS:")
• "selected the song as an example of Swift's songwriting on the album" this kind of writing works better if we're discussing this in the composition section, but this is a review we are describing
  • Suggestion: "Rosen wrote the song was exemplary of Swift's songwriting on Fearless and therefore made the album's 'peculiar charm' stand out: 'Her music...' "

This article is insanely close to FAC quality, so once again props to that! Do ping me when all the issues have been resolved/responded to. Love lots, ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 09:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Your Power, thanks for chiming in to review this article! I have addressed all except the hyphen v. endash issue. I wrote i.e. "upright-bass-propelled groove", "girl-group-influenced drums", "high-school and fairy-tale imagery" to comply with the rule for hyphenated compound modifiers. I do agree with the endash thing on "Big Machine–owned masters" though. I stand my ground that the hyphenated compounds are the way to go, don't you agree? Ippantekina (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Update, I actually changed them to i.e. "girl-group–inspired". Hope this makes sense! Ippantekina (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ippantekina ? This is not quite right. "girl group" does not act as a modifier towards "inspired" here; in fact it's the other way around ("inspired" acts as a suffix towards "girl group", which side note is not hyphenated). By this logic, the hyphen is not necessary.

If you remain unconvinced that it should have a hyphen, a compromise you can pick would be to reword the relevant phrases entirely to avoid any confusions that may arise from these constructions. E.g. change the lead's verbiage to "...song that features drums inspired by girl groups, a groove propelled by an upright bass, and a subdued Hammond B-3..." or tweak a phrase in the music section to "singing with ad-libs evocative of girl groups" ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 11:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked for now! I'm still dubious (not to question your or anyone's credentials though, just that I often see phrasings like "country-music-loving red states" or "gossip-tabloid-reading moms") so might Gog the Mild want to weigh in on this? The use of "girl-group-inspired" vs "girl group–inspired" vs "girl-group–inspired"? Ippantekina (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it is worth I believe that "girl-group–influenced", as currently in one of the captions, is correct. The "drums and vocals" is a synonym for "influenced by girl groups" and so "girl group" is the modifier. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh well. Either way this comment is on a nitpick level, and nothing is really stopping me from a support. Thank you for addressing things quickly and for your patience. I hope you have a nice weekend! Love lots, ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 06:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

• Taylor Swift albums discography can be linked to "studio album".
• "By re-recording them, Swift had full ownership of the new masters..." I would replace "had" with something like "gained".
• Introduce Christopher Rowe before mentioning him.
• Ditto with Serban Ghenea.
• "Swift released a snippet of "Hey Stephen (Taylor's Version)" onto her Twitter account..." Forgive my ignorance, but would it be "onto" or "on"? I am unsure.
• "The title character..." Change "title" to "titular".
• Who is Kelsey Barnes? She could use an introduction.

That is all. Rather on the short side, but hey, what can we expect from a four-minute song? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in to review, Unlimitedlead. I have resolved all except: 1, the link to "studio album", which I find unnecessary.. 2, introducing Rowe and Ghenea, as these two are already introduced with context (i.e. Rowe produced/ Ghenea mixed...) introducing them again (i.e. "producer Rowe produced/ mixer Ghenea mixed...") is rather redundant. Happy to resolve any remaining issues. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Optional: "for her second studio album, Fearless (2008), released by Big Machine Records." IMO this would read better as 'for her second studio album, Fearless, released by Big Machine Records in 2008.' Similarly for "her re-recorded album Fearless (Taylor's Version) (2021), which was released by Republic Records."
• Link unrequited love.
• "but a few regarded the track as generic". The article does not use the dimutative "a few", nor imply this. Which makes me suspect that either the lead or the main article need tweaking.

• Changed to "some"

• "if Stephen was a real-person name". This is a little clunky, in that "Stephen" is obviously "a real-person name". Could it be phrased a little more felicitously

• Tweaked.

• "including the masters of Swift's albums the label had released" → 'including the masters of Swift's albums which the label had released'?

• Done.

• "By re-recording them, Swift gained full ownership of the new masters". I think I know what you are saying, but this struggles. Eg, what is "them", and Swift didn't gain "full ownership of the new masters", she always had it.
• "including the copyright licensing of her songs". Again, she didn't "gain" this. Could the situaion be explained in a little more detail?
• "which devalued the Big Machine–owned ones." What does "ones" refer to? Songs, new maters, something else? And "devalued" in what sense? Monetary terms?

• Explained.

Suggestion: "Swift had full ownership of the new masters, which enabled her to control the licensing of her songs for commercial use and therefore substituted the Big Machine–owned masters." → 'Swift had full ownership of the new masters and substituted them for the Big Machine–owned masters, which enabled her to control the licensing of her songs for commercial use.'

• "The re-recording of "Hey Stephen", subtitled "Taylor's Version", was released as part of Fearless's re-recording, Fearless (Taylor's Version)." It seems to me that this sentence would read better if it were in chronological order. (Ie, at the end of the paragraph.)

• Tweaked.

• "Maria Sherman of NPR Music said it evoked classic Motown girl-group record". Does "it" refer to the drum beat?

• Yep.

• " "Hey Stephen" both starts and ends with Swift's hums". Do you mean '... Swift humming'. (If not I am unsure what you mean.)

• Yes; tweaked.

• "has her singing with girl-group–styled ad-libs." Do you mean 'has her singing with girl-group–style ad-libs.' Or is "-styled" acceptable in US English?

• Tweaked.

• "the track ends with her humming to the band". You have already said that it ends with her humming. How is it known that she was "humming to the band"?

• That's what the source says. Should I tweak it?

Weell, if the source explicitly says so you don't have to. But one wonders if the source isn't using a bit of artistic licence. Let it pass.

• "lyrical motifs that recur on many of Swift's other songs". Should "on" → 'in'?

• Tweaked.

• "waiting for somebody by the window." "the window" or 'a window'?

• I'd keep "the window" as it's a common phrase, at least in American English.

• Is there any critical reception relating to "Hey Stephen (Taylor's Version)"?

• Most focused on how the two versions sound the same, but I found two reviews that added some substance. Ippantekina (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

One suggestion above, which I think may clarify a sentence a little, but supporting nonetheless. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild. I have addressed your comments accordingly. Let me know if the prose needs additional work! Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Image and media review

• File:FearlessPrudentialCentMay2010.jpg has a clearly defined purpose in the article and appropriate WP:ALT text. I would modify the parenthetical year in the image caption as I initially thought it mean the tour was only in 2010, and that is obviously not the case so I think (pictured in 2010) would avoid that potential misinterpretation. Both the source and author links work. It is not required for a FAC, but it may be nice to archive both, although I tend to recommend archiving pretty much anything to avoid potential headaches with link rot and death. On a non-reviewing note, I like this photo.
• File:Hey Stephen by Taylor Swift (sample).ogg has a clearly defined purpose in the article and a complete WP:FUR. Both the audio caption and the WP:FUR do a solid job in my opinion of justifying the sample's inclusion. The sample length is appropriate given the length of the actual song.

Everything looks solid here. I would just change the one thing about the year in the image caption. Apologies for this super nitpick-y remark. I have honestly never heard this song before, but I am not super well-versed in Swift's catalog. Once my point has been addressed, this passes my review. Aoba47 (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the media review, Aoba47. I have amended the caption. The photo reminds me of the simpler days when I was in middle school and saw images of a country-bumpkin Swift everywhere lol. I found nothing on the Wayback Machine but have captured an archive of it; will add it shortly as the Wayback Machine is overloaded atm... Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my point. This passes my image and media review. Not too sound weird, but there is something sweet about this image to me. There is a nice simplicity to it if that makes any sense. I would be curious to know how Taylor Swift would react if she ever found out about the work editors like yourself have put into her Wikipedia articles. Best of luck with the FAC and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

I also started listening to Taylor Swift after learning about the masters controversy and this song is one I very much enjoy but hadn't thought deeply about. Knowing who Stephen is and recognising what I like about the musical style (like the ad-libs, humming and other embellishments) will enrich my listening experience going forwards. This is mostly a source review but I have also considered the other FA criteria.

Spotchecks: #6, #21, #22, #27, #34, #38, #65, Spencer (2010).

Unusually, I couldn't spot a single issue with any of the spotchecked sources/prose content. Every source appears reliable to me, including a few I wasn't familiar with and investigated. I couldn't find so much as a comma out of place in the reference formatting.

Some wording change suggestions, but feel free to reject:

• Repetition of "some" could be avoided in: "some reviewers remained positive but some regarded the track". For instance: "some reviewers ... while others".
• "where she included 'Hey Stephen' in the set list" would be more concise as "where the set list included 'Hey Stephen'"
• "Midway through the performance, Swift went down the aisle" – Took me a couple of reads to get that this was during every performance of the tour (or at least the established routine through the tour). Maybe changing "went down" to "would go down" would make this clearer.
• "The decision came after" repeats "after" from the previous sentence, so perhaps "The decision followed" is cleaner.
• "waiting for somebody by the window" – I think it being specifically a "bedroom window" (as the source says) is key to the imagery.
• I don't get: "which biographer Liv Spencer attributed to the impact of Swift's touring that 'sometimes means too many goodbyes'". To make the construction simpler, it might be split into two sentences and/or the quote from Spencer could be avoiding by rewriting in your own words.

The article is comprehensive, the music sample is well-chosen and well-captioned and is overall in excellent shape. — Bilorv (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv: thanks for taking time reviewing the article! The suggestions definitely helped finesse the prose so I acted them accordingly. Many thanks, Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article, Ippantekina. I'm very happy to support, on sourcing and on the other FA criteria. — Bilorv (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv. Just want to share that I was also in sort of the same boat with you. On first listen "Hey Stephen" was rather dismissive (I only focused on re-recordings of "Love Story"/"You Belong with Me") but on second listen the humming caught me off-guard. Didn't pay attention to the back story but after improving this article this track now ranks highly on my T-Swift playlist. Matter of fact it ranked #1 on my Apple Music Replay last year... Ippantekina (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Heartfox

• "It features a production that critics described as "smooth" and "playful"" → per MOS:QUOTE, "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion"
• Songwriting Universe → website title appears to be Songwriter Universe
• Yahoo! article is from PopCrush, which I don't think is a high-quality source. The original Boot article is here, which I would cite instead

That's it! Heartfox (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Heartfox, all done. Regarding the first point, as writing the sources in prose is rather clunky, I resorted to include them in footnotes, which is acceptable per the MOS. Ippantekina (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The song is not a controversial topic, so I think that works. It does say that "critics described", not that it is, so that should be fine. Support. Heartfox (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 02:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.