Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Our Song (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2022 [1].

Our Song (Taylor Swift song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We may know about Taylor Swift the pop star, the serial dater, or the climate criminal with 170 private jet flights from January 2022 so far. But back in 2007 she was just a country-music goody-two-cowboy-boots singing about boys, boys, boys. This song, the sweetly titled "Our Song", is packed with yeehaw-esque banjo and twang and was number one on the country chart for six weeks. After months-long work, I believe this article is now up to FA standards. Looking forward to comments, Ippantekina (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment (full review to follow)

[edit]

More comments

[edit]
  • What's a "freshman year"?
  • It's a term for first high school year in the U.S. Linked to avoid confusion for non-US readers.
  • "Swift wrote and co-wrote all of the album's eleven tracks" => "Swift wrote or co-wrote all of the album's eleven tracks" (you can't both write and co-write the same song)
  • "which made she think" => "which made her think"
  • "and uses Southern accent," => "and uses a Southern accent,"
  • "brought by her move from Pennsylvania to Tennessee as a teenager" => "brought about by her move from Pennsylvania to Tennessee as a teenager"
  • "it employs a conventional narrative and a "massive pop hook [sic]"" - why the "sic" here?
  • I would add the year of TMcG's hit to his photo caption for context
  • "and twenty-four weeks in total" => "and twenty-four weeks in total on the chart"
  • "which had predominantly seen the domination of" => "which had predominantly been dominated by"
  • BTW, unless I am missing something, the source on that sentence just says male musicians and doesn't say anything about their age
  • The source said that Swift's music was atypical for the adult audience. Reworded to keep source integrity.
  • I'd also add a timeframe to that sentence, as the source only mentions country music being dominated by males during the 00s
  • "including the Red Tour (Pittsburg, July 2013)" - Pittsburgh spelt wrong
  • That's what I got - great read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I will post a full review sometime next week, but I do have some comments below for the time being:

  • The lede repeats that Swift wrote the song in the first and second sentences.
  • The "Release" section is quite short and I believe would benefit from being folded into the "Writing and production" section (á la "Style"). I would go that route instead as it makes the prose more cohesive and engaging (at least in my opinion).
  • I would expand the WP:FUR for the audio sample, specifically for its purpose of use to better justify its inclusion.
  • For this part ("Our Song" recalls the little moments), I would use a different verb than recalls as it is anthropomorphizing the song a bit too much in my opinion.
  • I am not sure about this wording (the lyrics are about a young couple using the regular events in their lives to create their own song). It seems a little too wordy.
  • All of the credits and personal should be discussed in the prose. There are some who are only mentioned in the separate section, like Rob Hajacos and Bruce Bouton, and not in the "Writing and production" section.

I hope these comments are helpful for now. I will post a review sometime later next week as I am trying to balance my time on Wikipedia with off-Wiki work, but I thought I should help here since I have some experience with song articles. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time reviewing the article. I look forward to the full review soon. Ippantekina (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Let me know when all my comments above have been addressed. Apologies for the delay in my review. I will try to get to a full review later this week. It is a matter of scheduling and time management on my part, but I also want to make sure I do my full due diligence as a reviewer by reading through the article very carefully multiple times. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know I will post my review tomorrow. Apologies for the delay and thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede says positive reviews focus on the hook and lyrics, but the "Critical reception" section does not make these trends obvious (at least to me).
  • That still does not really address my concern. The "Critical reception" section does not have a sentence that specifically says the "conversational lyrics" were praised by critics. I would recommend including some sort of topic sentence or a sentence saying that this was something praised by critics. Right now, the lead and the article do not really match. If the hook is praised in multiple reviews, you could also do the same for that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Taylor comment on Big Machine re-releasing this song on vinyl in 2019?
  • I would link refrain to help readers who are not 100% familiar with music terms.
  • In the "Music and lyrics", I would attribute the "a playful tone" part as that is more of a description applied by a critic than an objective fact and it would be best to avoid any potential confusion that Wikipedia is presenting this in its own voice.
  • This is more a clarification question, but what is the intended structure of the "Critical reception" section? I get that the first paragraph focuses on contemporary reviews and the second on retrospective ones, but how did you structure the information within the paragraphs?
  • Because reviews are universally positive, I only divided them into contemporary and retrospective. I do spend more time on reviews from more reputable critics (Frere-Jones, Sheffield, Johnston etc.) and less on lesser-known ones (NME, Vulture). Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would look to my response to my above point on the lead. I think pulling together the positive reviews about the hook and then the lyrics might be something to help bring this some more structure. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, Billboard described it as, the author should be attributed in the prose as the article has consistently named the author and work. I have the same comment for this part, Reviews from NME and Vulture highlighted. For me, it is a matter of consistency.
  • There are a few areas where numbers over ten are spelled out ("seventeen at the time", "at fourteen years old", "seventeen years old at the time", "and twenty-four weeks in total") and I thought they were supposed to represented as numerals.
  • In the "Chart performance" section, there are two sentences in a row that start rather similarly: "In August 2014" and "By July 2019". I would change one of these instances to avoid having the prose appear like a list.
  • I think "neighboring" in this part "In neighboring Canada" is unnecessary.
  • The prose does not mention the song's appearance on a South Korean chart in 2012. Also, is there any information on why that song charted several years later in South Korea?
  • I am curious to know why it charted in 2012 as well! I chose not to mention it in prose because throwing in the chart position without a backstory is potentially confusing, but I'd like to hear what you and others think. Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the full context is not known, the South Korean charts should still be present in the prose. All of the charts should be represented in the table and in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the "Music video" section repeats "directed" twice.
  • For this part, as part of an iTunes-exclusive live EP, I would link extended play and spell out the acronym.

I hope my comments are helpful. I believe this should be everything. Once everything has been addressed, I will check through everything again. Apologies again for the delay. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for taking time reviewing the article. I have addressed your comments above. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I have c/e'd the "Critical reception" section and added the South Korean chart in the prose. Let me know if the article needs further work. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience and apologies for the amount of comments in my review. You have done a wonderful job with this article so I hope my review does not come across as too much or rude. I think it is worth saying in the prose that the South Korean chart appearance was in 2012 to avoid any potential confusion that it was at the same time as the other charts. The "Critical reception" section looks good to me, but I would prefer to wait to see how other reviewers respond to it before giving my support. Apologies for that. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it is my concern also that the prose is up to the highest standards. Ippantekina (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. I will keep a close eye on this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping me updated about this FAC on my talk page. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • All of the sources seem to be reliable for the purposes they are used.
  • Billboard should be italicized in the titles for ref 44, 46 51
  • Isn't AllMusic usually in the publisher field? (ref 35, 93)
  • JSTOR is italicised in ref 30 but not in the prose.--NØ 18:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review.--NØ 12:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (Pass)

[edit]
  • File:Taylor Swift - Our Song.png is perfectly fine.
  • File:Taylor Swift - Our Song.ogg is of appropriate length and is effective in demonstrating the caption.
  • Source link for File:Tim McGraw.jpg is dead and I couldn't locate an archive on Archive.org. File:Tim McGraw Dallas 2009.jpg seems alright for a replacement. Also it might help for accessibility purposes if the alt text was a bit more detailed and described what he is doing in the picture
  • This just needs an alt improvement now, and please put it in a conventional Information template with description, date, source, author, etc. fields.--NØ 04:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot that imported File:Taylor Swift (6966861583).jpg seems to have copied over a lengthy description from the flickr page. It could probably be done away with in favor of a 1-2 sentence description as I am unsure what the copyright status of this text is.--NØ 07:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the image review. I added an archive-url to Tim McGraw's photo. Not sure if the bot's direct copy of text from Flickr affects copyright, but I assume that text is also available under the same license as the photo. Ippantekina (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other problems with this text than just copyright, like the shouting, an unverifiable quote from Taylor, quotes from secondary sources (Billboard?), and promotional links (which might signal the text was copied from Music News Australia?). An image that will be displayed on the main page one day should have a succint one-two line description that readers can easily understand.--NØ 04:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy if this were to be quickly resolved as I'm about to get a bit busy and do not want to cause another "Out of the Woods"-type hold-up.--NØ 05:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved all on Commons. Ippantekina (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

Lead

  • "Music critics lauded Swift's songwriting on "Our Song" for creating conversational lyrics a memorable hook" - something is odd about "creating controversial lyrics a memorable hook". Should it perhaps be "making" instead of "creating".
  • "The song featured on Rolling Stone's 2019 list of the best country songs by female artists since 2000." The word "song" repeated twice here.
  • "A success on country radio, the single made Swift the youngest person—seventeen at the time—to single-handedly write and sing a number-one single on the Hot Country Songs chart" - maybe write seventeen as a numeral. The word "single" is written thrice here.
  • ""Our Song" peaked at number sixteen on the Billboard Hot 100 and was certified four times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)." Since the abbreviation RIAA is not used elsewhere in the lead, you can remove it.
  • The abbreviation for Music Canada (MC) should be removed from both the lead and body as it is not used beyond these two instances.
  • "The video won Video of the Year and Female Video of the Year at the 2008 CMT Music Awards." The word "video" is repeated thrice in close proximity.

Production and release

  • I suggest not duplicating captions in alt text; if there's nothing different to say, the alt can be simply "refer to caption".
  • "Pennsylvania-born Taylor Swift moved to Nashville, Tennessee at fourteen years old, in 2004, to pursue a career in country music." - just "at 14 years old" should suffice. I would move "in 2004" to the beginning of the sentence to avoid placing two numbers so closely.
  • "She wrote or co-wrote all of the album's eleven tracks, including three by herself—"The Outside", "Should've Said No", and "Our Song"." After "wrote or co-wrote", it becomes clear that she wrote some tracks all by herself so it becomes a little repetitive to see "by herself". I would mention the three tracks right after writing about her solo songwriting.
  • "She conceived the song as an upbeat track with lyrics relatable to her classmates, writing it within twenty minutes." Numerals should usually be used for numbers 10 and above.
  • ""Our Song" was later included on the track list of the international version of Fearless, Swift's second studio album, released in March 2009." It's not clear if it was the album or the track that was released in March 2009.

Music and lyrics

  • "In the song, Swift sings with twangy vocals[23] and uses a Southern accent, brought about by her move from Pennsylvania to Tennessee as a teenager; Swift pronounces the pronoun "I" closer to the monophthong "ah", sings the words "car" and "heart" with a non-rhotic accent, and plays on the lack of verb agreement in Southern American English in the lyric "your mama don't know"." This is an incredibly long sentence. It has too many commas and too many and's. I suggest ending it where the semi-colon is placed.
  • "Music critics debated whether "Our Song" is country music." This sentence begins and ends with "music".

More later. FrB.TG (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for the review. At MOS:NUM integrals larger than nine "may be expressed either in numerals or in words", so I don't think it's necessary to switch all to numerals as long as they are consistent throughout the article. Other than that, I have addressed your issues and improved the prose accordingly. Looking forward to the full review-- Ippantekina (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving these although my point about not repeating captions in alt is still unaddressed.

Critical reception

  • ""Our Song" was one of the "Award-Winning Songs" at the 2008 BMI Country Awards." I'm not sure what "award-winning songs" means. Did it win any specific award? If so, it's better to mention the category. Or is "award-winning song" an award in itself?
  • "Critics praised Swift's melodic songwriting for creating a catchy hook." The way this is currently phrased, it implies "melodic songwriting" is a fact.
  • "Nate Jones of Vulture and Jonathan Keefe of Slant Magazine lauded the memorable hook and melody" - see directly above ("lauded the memorable hook and melody"). It should be something like "...lauded the hook and melody as memorable" or "...called the hook and melody memorable".
  • "In Pitchfork, Johnston selected the track as one of Swift's early songwriting demonstrations for earnestly portraying teenage sentiments, which made her stand out among teen idols who sang music written for them." Who is them here? I assume it's teenagers, but the only noun in form of person mentioned here is teen idols.
  • "Alexis Petridis from The Guardian commended the "snappy, self-referential lyrics"" See my point above about presenting opinions as facts.

Chart performance

  • "It reached number one on the Hot Country Songs chart dated December 15, 2007, giving Swift her first number one on the chart." Repetition of "number one".
  • "The song's jump from number six to number one on the chart marked the biggest jump to the top since Tim McGraw's "Just to See You Smile" (1998), which also ascended from number six to number one." This one uses "number one" and "number six" twice.
  • "August 2014", "July 2019", "80,000 digital" - WP:NBSP needed.

Live performances

  • The section uses U.S. but elsewhere it's US. Be consistent.
  • "Rascal Flatts' 2008 tour" - as per this section of apostrophe article, all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation.

This should be the end of my review. Let me know once you have addressed these. FrB.TG (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all are addressed now. Thank you again for the comments, and let me know if the article needs further work. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on all criteria except sourcing. I didn’t take a look at the sources but the passed source review above indicates I don’t need to worry. Great work as always. FrB.TG (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2022 (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/Our_Song_(Taylor_Swift_song)/archive1&oldid=1110930673"