Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Welcome to New York (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 November 2023 [1].

Welcome to New York (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As if Taylor Swift was not popular enough, she made a NYC tribute song to keep up with Jay-Z or Frank Sinatra. In my honest opinion, this song will never be considered a NYC tribute classic. But hey, at least the synths are fun to listen to! I believe this article is well-written, well-researched and neutral, and I would appreciate any and all comments. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MusicforthePeople

[edit]

I don't have too many comments; feel free to ignore those you think are more trivial.

  • For the audio link at the bottom of the Infobox, the song title is capitalised as "Welcome To New York" as opposed to "Welcome to New York" as per the rest of the article.
  • in support of her fourth album, Red, – needs the year of its release in brackets since that hasn't been established.
  • landmark of her life – would "in her life" be better?
  • 1980s artists Prince and Cyndi Lauper – I would have put these in alphabetical order.
  • Dan Caffrey from Consequence said – pipe this as ''[[Consequence (publication)|Consequence of Sound]]'' as that's what the publication was called at the time. Pipe it in the reference as well.
  • In Consequence, Sasha Geffen opined – change this in prose and in the reference to Consequence of Sound per above, but don't link it in prose because that'll be overlinking.
  • The A.V. Club needs unlinking in the critical reception section as it is already linked in the previous section.
  • For ref #22 (Boston Herald), author should be Jed Gottlieb (per archived ref).
  • For ref #67 (Clash), author should be Mat Smith (per archived ref).
  • For ref #68 (Billboard), author should Glenn Rowley (per archived ref).

That's all I've got. MusicforthePeople (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! I've addressed all comments except where I left my remarks. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fine by me. Support MusicforthePeople (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The infobox says this song was a promotional single, but neither the lead nor the article say this and there is not a citation to support it. This song may have been released a week prior to the album, but that does not automatically make it a promotional single without any confirmation from the label or more definitive evidence.
  • I took the guidance from WP:SINGLE?. Although some perennial sources say that this song was released as a "single" it is not the case.. and marking it as a mere song would undermine the fact that it was released as a standalone download track prior to the album's release. I therefore think promo single is an appropriate designation here :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree. Just because a song was released prior to an album that does not automatically make it a promotional single or even a single of any kind. I have seen instances of songs being released in the lead-up to an album and not being promoted as singles. I know that the promotional single designation is tricky for Wikipedia, but unless there is a citation, ideally one either from Swift or the record label, that explicitly calls this a promotional single, then I do not think it should be labeled as such. Aoba47 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few sources called it a "single" WSJ, MTV, UPI though we both know this is an incorrect categorization. Alas, I am dubious because WP:SINGLE? seems to have been created upon consensus from music editors. The track was definitely used to promote the album as a standalone iTunes track, just that it was not pushed to radio as an official single. Although the prose does not call this a "promotional single" per-se, from an editorial perspective I think the "promotional" label in the infobox is useful to demonstrate that the track received a special release treatment instead of being made available alongside the rest of the album. Ippantekina (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree calling it a single would incorrect categorization as there is seemingly no evidence of it being sent out to radio or any promotion from the record label that it was a single. Thank you the WP:SINGLE? link. I have looked through it again, and I do see the point about "preview tracks" being "promotional singles" and since this was done through a consensus from music editors, I can respect it. This is not an issue for me and would not hold up my review in any way. I am just hesitant about something as a single, even as a promotional single, without some sort of official confirmation or further evidence explicitly saying it, but I do get the argument made for this designation. The issue in this likely me to be honest. I am probably just way over-thinking this so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this "promotional single" designation is sometimes blurry, and I thank you for bringing up a valid point. I think for now the "promo" designation within the infobox should suffice, but I am open to discussion should other editors question WP:SINGLE?. Ippantekina (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for being understanding about it. It is a blurry point, but I do respect consensus and I can understand the rationale behind calling this a promotional single. I think you have a very mature mindset about it, and that is always good to have and something that is inspiring. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the lead says that this song was inspired by Swift's 2014 move and since it was released in 2014, wouldn't be fair to say that this song was recorded in 2014 and include that information in the infobox? I am not sure if that would count as original research though if this information is not explicitly stated in a source.
  • That makes sense, and thank you for the response. I should have been clearer in my message. I was more so wondering that since the timeline seemed to lean a certain way if there was a source that explicitly said that, but my comment was poorly-worded. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part, (included the track in the set list of the 1989 World Tour), from the lead. The article says that Swift has performed this song elsewhere, including as a "surprise song" on other tours. By only mentioning this tour in the lead, it could give off the incorrect impression to readers that Swift had only performed the song live during this tour.
  • I do not think Nashville requires a wikilink. It is not linked in the 1989 article, and it is a rather recognizable city that I think would go against linking convention on here for well-known cities.
  • For this part, (She came to New York unattached to anybody romantically), why not just say that she was single as "unattached to anybody romantically" seems unnecessarily wordy?
  • For this sentence, (In contemporary reviews, music critics characterized the genre as synth-pop.), I would bundle the citations to avoid citation overkill.
  • This could just be a matter of personal preference, but having the "Release" section just be a single paragraph visually looks odd in my opinion. Again, it could just be a matter of preference so it may be best to see how other reviewers receive this organizational choice.
  • I have a question about this part, (Swift was named an official tourism ambassador for New York City). I remember there being criticism about this choice, as shown in The Seattle Times and The Mercury News, as well as more positive reactions of course. Would that be relevant in this section? I am on the fence, but it is not really about the song and I could see that being a tangent.
  • In this sentence, (The synth production also received some negative comments as being "cheesy" and "lifeless".), it is not clear who is saying those quotes. I would more clearly attribute them in the prose.
  • For this part, (Swift said it "absolutely" made her think), I would paraphrase the quote. It is nothing particularly insightful to the point that it justifies a single-word quote, and the meaning could be conveyed with a different word choice.

I hope this review is helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I do not miss anything. To be honest, I am not a fan of this song, but as someone who unironically enjoys "Shake It Off", I can of course appreciate fans of this song. Not going to lie though, I hardcore rolled my eyes at the part about Swift overcoming her fear of New York City; having the luxury of buying a penthouse in a wealthy neighborhood would do that. Anyway, best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I will look into them as soon as I can, and in the meantime I've responded to one of your points above. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take as much time as you needed. I have left a response to your response. I respectfully disagree and I think for something to be called a promotional single it would need a citation, ideally from the artist and/or the record label, to support it. That being said, the promotional single v.s. single v.s. song line is rather murky, which I think adds more reason to have a citation to support when naming something a single of any kind. Aoba47 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update, but I could not find any further issues with the article, so once all of my comments have been addressed above, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your patience! I have addressed all of your comments accordingly. Ippantekina (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in my response. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time or interest, I would appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with your FAC and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

I think it might be due to different geolocations.. either way I removed the YouTube URL as it is not of substantial importance to the article. Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

[edit]
  • no issues with source quality
  • PR Newswire ref should be formatted as Template:Cite press release with Big Machine as the author
  • spotchecks not done
  • https://doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2021.1956270 includes a few sentences about the song but is not cited. I can clearly see two new sentences and/or citations in the article based on this source.
  • this book includes some very useful sentences that can clearly be cited in the article but aren't.

At least two scholarly works are omitted from the article. Please incorporate! Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox, I do not have access to the book. Could you send me (via email) the document if possible? Will look at the Taylor&Francis article with my Wikipedia Library membership. Ippantekina (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heartfox, thanks for the source review. I found the two scholarly sources to be very useful and have incorporated them. I've also looked for further scholarly sources but so far these two are the most substantial. Let me know if the source review passes and if spotcheck is required. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additions. Waiting on book page number (I can try to visit my university library on Tuesday and get it) and on "Taylor's Version" section. Heartfox (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

I've made some edits here and there to the prose that you can revert if you disagree with. Will try not to screw anything up

  • "gone through media attention for her" — I'm not sure this reads the best with "gone through" since media attention isn't an event that you undergo but more something that just happens to you, if that makes sense
  • "an answer to "Empire State of Mind" (2009)" — as someone who's never listened to the full version of "Empire State of Mind", is it an answer to the song as a whole or some specific lyrics or something?
  • "generated interpretations as Swift's support" — interpretations by whom??
  • "After writing the lyrics, Swift went into the studio with Tedder." — is this bit necessary? I mean, isn't it the standard for every song to have its lyrics written then taken into the studio?
  • "The track is three minutes and 32 seconds long." — I think the numbers need to be consistent (digits vs spelled out) here as per MOS:NUMNOTES
  • "reached the top 20 in Hungary (16),[38] Canada (19),[39] Spain (21),[40] Australia (23),[41] and Denmark (27)." — ...is it supposed to say top 30??

Hope this helps :) I'm excited to listen to this one on 1989 TV, though I can only remember the chorus of this song after listening to it a few times. Good luck with this nomination! Pamzeis (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Could we have the page range for Busa.
  • "and performed it on select dates of her later tours." What was select about the dates? Wiktionary defines select as privileged, specially selected or of high quality.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

The release of the song's rerecording warrants the inclusion of relevant information in the article. Once this is done, the new additions would have to be assessed by a reviewer, possibly one of the current ones, against the FA criteria. The nomination would only be deemed ready for closure after a reviewer has evaluated the new additions. FrB.TG (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, FrB.TG, and congrats on your role as FAC coordinator! (might be a late congrats by now but still :P) Duly noted on the request for the song's rerecording. I'll add it to the prose and will wait for a reviewer on that bit as well. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the information for "Taylor's Version" re-recording. Waiting for another review.. Ippantekina (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • What is ' "Welcome to New York" feat" '?
  • References: article titles should consistently be in sentence case, per MOS:TITLECAPS.
Umm. They are still a mix, eg compare cite 34 with cite 32. And you now have nearly all article titles in title case.
Should be fine now. Ippantekina (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Busà: could you give the page range?
done. Ippantekina (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and performed it on certain dates of her later tours" seems a little clunky. Perhaps ' and sometimes performed it during her later tours'?
Ok, but you need to do something about "certain"; maybe 'some'?
  • Main article: "In the lyrics, a narrator expresses their newfound sense of freedom". In the lead this is attributed directly to Swift: "Swift's relocation to New York City in April 2014. Its lyrics explore her newfound freedom". Which?
freedom, oh, freedom, well, that's just some people talkin' / Your prison is walkin' through this world all alone.

I have not reviewed the whole article, but I have looked at all of the changes since FrB.TG's comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cuepoint seems like a suspect source --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was published by the Recording Academy who has a page on Medium's Cuepoint. Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, what do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of come backs above. If I don't comment, then I am content with your response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all should be done now :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine to me with the extra information -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FrB.TG, I have looked through the updates to cover the re-release and consider that this has now been satisfactorily included. I have also reviewed some other areas, but not sufficient to constitute a full review. Nevertheless, all the areas I have reviewed seem to be up to FA standard and I found no reason why it should not be promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Why is the Critical reception section included after Live performances and other uses? Most of the critical reviews surfaced upon release whereas the performances were accumulated gradually over time and logically belong below the former section.
  • Hasn't the Taylor's Version received more critical analysis than just the two sources included here? Also the Ryan Adams cover album has received more than 25 critical reviews of which only two are cited here?--NØ 07:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To cite one randomly, PopMatters's Evan Sawdey had some interesting insights that are not included: "Right from the onset, with the sound of seagulls and building string sections, Adams’ tackles “Welcome to New York”, 1989‘s weakest track by a mile, as an open-air acoustic strummer that wouldn’t be too far removed from his 2002 odds-and-sods collection Demolition. It’s a vast improvement over the sparse keyboard sheen of the original, Adams’ additional piano plinks and slight melodic variations giving the tune a warmer, more humanistic treatment, all while thematically echoing back to his own mainstream breakthrough “New York, New York”."--NØ 07:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The critical reviews also feature retrospective ones for that matter, and for the Adams's version I did a quick check through the Metacritic database and 3 of the 25 reviews mentioned his cover of this song. Will look for ways to incorporate them, thanks for letting me know. Ippantekina (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update Added context regarding Adams's cover. Reviews of the re-recording are fewer as they focus more on the Vault tracks but I managed to squeeze something. Ippantekina (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaranoFan, would you say you're satisfied Ippa's changes in response to your concerns? FrB.TG (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't reviewed any of the pre-existing prose but I am satisfied with the incorporation of reviews of the Adams cover.--NØ 15:21, 6 November 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/Welcome_to_New_York_(song)/archive1&oldid=1183866813"