Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor Swift/archive2

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2016 [1].

Taylor Swift[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC) and IndianBio[reply]

This article is about Taylor Swift, one of the most popular celebrities on Earth, a very unique songwriter (who only writers about her exes) and a not-so good singer. In 2012 the article became a GA but was delisted last year due to length and prose issues. I trimmed it down significantly (with the help of co-nommer) and also gave it a little bit of expansion - about 18k bytes. It underwent a highly profitable peer review with a thorough review from Wehwalt. I leave it up to you reviewers to decide whether or not it is ready for the bronze star. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed. The only one that worries me is this one, which has personality rights warning, although it appears to be free for public use.
  • Regarding the captions, can you modify some of them to read more unifying? Some suggestions bellow:
Pictured in Los Angeles during the Fearless Tour in 2010→Swift performing in Los Angeles during the Fearless Tour in 2010
link the Speak Now World Tour in 2012
Swift's 1989 World Tour grossed $250 million, becoming one of the highest grossing tours of all time→Swift at The 1989 World Tour, which grossed $250 million and became one of the highest grossing tours of all time
Swift in 2009→Swift at the 2009 Cavendish Beach Music Festival in Prince Edward Island, Canada
  • Notifying that I made suggestion on the prose during the peer review, and all of them were resolved.--Retrohead (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Have acted on on your suggestions. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing not related to the images. Please check the external links in the box on the upper right. You'll find some references in green indicating some links need to be updated. The ones in red are dead and need to be replaced. This was probably going to be mentioned in the source review, but it is better to be fixed now.--Retrohead (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are very common to occur; one particular source titled "You Belong With Me" was updated not long ago and yet again it needs fixing. I tried to 'fix' those anyway with checklinks, but it's not seem to work. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not the redirects, I'm talking about the urls of the references. For example, ref 7 has changed its url and I've updated it. You need to update the remaining links that appear in green and red. Once updated, the software will not remove them from the list.--Retrohead (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Retrohead: I am also talking about the sources - sources redirect. I tried to fix most of them, but many of them are still appearing in green. Redirects are common. Don't think they need to be changed, unless the link dies. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the links seem fine now. Good luck with the rest of the comments.--Retrohead (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support

Looks pretty good. Surprised at how few reviews there are, but I guess most Wikipedians were brought up on Frank Sinatra. Anyhow, some points, not requiring action:

  • Is one episode of CSI worth mentioning in the lead?
  • My favourite line in the article is "Swift was also honored by the Association with a special Pinnacle Award for "unique" levels of success, becoming the second recipient after Garth Brooks"
  • "Trenchfoot" is actually two words, but the quote matches the source. Meh.

Well done! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. - FrB.TG (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

I was pinged on my talk and am happy that I came: excellent reading, meticulously referenced, - I'd even think sometimes too much, - if there are two good sources I'd let go of a third. I found nothing wrong with the prose, no wonder after a peer review by Wehwalt. All these accolades are almost a bit boring, but what can she do if she gets so many ;) - I didn't know what "self-titled album" means, but that's probably just my lack of English. Image captions: Perhaps make them consistently full sentences or not, the former closed by a full stop, the others not. I like the image placement a lot! (You have probably no idea how rarely I say that.)

One minor issue: I'd have Influences first, then Musical style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, thanks so much for taking a look at the article - I'm glad that you enjoyed reading it. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp A very nice read. I made a number of minor edits just now, mostly for punctuation consistency issues. Here are just a few remaining comments I have:

  • "Teardrops on My Guitar" became a minor pop hit, reaching number thirteen on the Billboard Hot 100: At what point does a hit cease to be a minor hit and become a medium hit? Perhaps consider removing "a minor hit" and let the chart position speak for itself?
Replaced with moderate commercial success, hopefully better? – FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I Knew You Were Trouble" was a commercial success,[107]peaking at number two in the United States: This may imply that none of the album's other singles had a degree of commercial success, but (according to Taylor Swift discography) "Red" was a top-10 hit, and two of the other singles were top-40.
  • Subsequent singles included "Blank Space" and "Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar), which reached number one in the United States, "Style" and "Wildest Dreams" which peaked in the top ten of the Billboard Hot 100, and "Out of the Woods" and "New Romantics": Possibly find a way to rewrite this? It may not be clear whether only "Bad Blood" reached number one, and only "Wildest Dreams" was top 10. Also, there are a lot of instances of "and" in the sentence.
It's more clear now but the occurrence of and is still frequent. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian has praised Swift for writing about teenage "with a kind of wistful, sepia-toned nostalgia" over the course of her first two albums: Should this be "writing about teenagers"? Or something like "writing about teenage years"?

That's all. I'm pretty much ready to support once you address these. Moisejp (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, thanks much for the suggestions - followed each of them. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It all looks good. I did a further tweak of the sentence about 1989's singles. I'm happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Fn 7: there's no publication date, only a retrieval date, which is one year earlier than the publication date on the website.
  • Fn 12: is there a link to the story, or is it off-line only?
I don't think it's available online.
  • Fn 18: is there a better way to title this than the file name?
  • Fn 29: is there a title to the article?
  • Fn 51 is a dead link.
  • Fn 52 is a dead link.
  • Fn 153 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 168: is there a title to the article?
  • Fn 170 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 172 needs a publication date.
  • Fns 185, 187 aren't formatted at all, which makes them look different from the other magazine cites.
Ref 185 (now 182) is formatted properly but the publication date to it is not known.
  • Fn 191 needs a publication date.
Publication date not available.
  • Fn 213 is a dead link.
  • Fn 214 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 222 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 231 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 245 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 246 won't open for me, but that could be a temporary problem with the website.
It works fine for me.
  • Fn 247 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 248 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 252 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 258 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 259 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 267 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 268 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 269 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 274 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 276 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 277 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 279 doesn't list the author's name (it's at the bottom of the article.)
  • Fn 281 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 286 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 289 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 292 doesn't list the author's name and has the wrong title.

That's all for now, I'll check back later. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review - for someone who's done source reviews in the past, this is really bad news. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. It's tough, with a popular article and many sources, to keep everything in order. All looks good now. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: do we have a consensus for closure? – FrB.TG (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly, on first glance, but I'll have to go through it later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but there's something about the second sentence, "Throughout her career, she has become one of the most popular female contemporary singers"... "Throughout her career" implies she's always been "one of the most popular female contemporary singers" but "has become" suggests she wasn't always. What are we actually trying to say here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having played with the opening paragraph a fair bit, I think I'm getting a little close to this one so will recuse from coord duties now to be on the safe side. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for your help. I think it might be fair to ping @Laser brain: for assistance. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already done -- we always let each other know of recusals. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments I've picked the "Public image" section more or less at random:

  • "Swift's personal life has been the subject of constant media attention" - starting from when?
  • "For Ben Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, she is "the whorish face of doomed America"" - why are we prominently quoting a fringe figure abusing the subject of the article in an really awful way?
    • "These have been addressed, but this para now feels a bit incomplete: can it be said that there's lots of interest in her personal life, along with commentary on it or similar? The NY Times quote comes a bit out of the blue now, and it's not clear why Abercrombie & Fitch was mean to her. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swift considers her to be a role model" - is the article referring to Michelle Obama here?
  • "but unlike her contemporaries, she is modest in appearance, and according to New York Daily News, finds it easy to "keep [her] clothes on"" - this sounds rather Victorian-era language. What's meant by "modest" isn't clear, and "finds it easy to "keep [her] clothes on"" isn't great (bear in mind that young female pop stars come under pressure from their management to behave in certain ways publicly - presumably Swift has chosen not to take this path for whatever reason, but this language is judging others who have).
  • "She was included in Time's annual list of the 100 most influential people in 2010 and 2015" - quite an honour, and seemingly out of place in a para on her appearance given that she's known for a range of things - I note that a similar judgement by Forbes appears in the next para on her wealth rather than her looks. On what grounds was she judged influential? Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the few comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: thanks for the comments and it seems that was the end of 'em (unfortunately). Could you strike out the comments you consider resolved for the coordinators? – FrB.TG (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done: a couple need a bit more work (I would like to see more material on why she was judged highly influential - presumably this is an acknowledgement of her dominance of pop culture at the time). Thanks for the quick and response BTW. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: done both, I think. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks great. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (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/Taylor_Swift/archive2&oldid=1079644494"