Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Red (Taylor Swift album)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would like to take this article to FA and would like some peer review of it.

Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 01:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed comments
  • This is super nitpick-y, but would it be possible to avoid repeating "album" in this sentence: The album's title refers to what Swift described as the tumultuous "red" emotions that were evoked from the unhealthy romance she was experiencing during the album's conception.
    Would “Red’s conception” be acceptable? Otherwise will have to give this some more thought. —TheSandDoctor Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think naming the album on the second instance would be somewhat awkward. This may be a case where the word just has to be repeated. I cannot think of a good fix for this right now either. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, The final product was a genre-blending album that combines, I do not think "genre-blending" is necessary since later on in the same sentence, it already goes into more detail on how it blends genres.
    Removed and reworked in lead. —TheSandDoctor Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see, only critic has described Red as a fall classic so I do not think this is notable enough to include in the lead and it actually gives undue weight to this critic. Also, both links in fall classic seem excessive so I would remove them.
    Removed in lead. —TheSandDoctor Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box for the File:Taylor Swift - All Too Well sample.ogg sample is incomplete. There should not be any instances of "n.a.".
    I’ve addressed one of the two issues here & just have the “respect for commercial” one left. I’ll have to look for other examples on how to fill that field out. If you have any ideas or examples, please do share. —TheSandDoctor Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some quick comments. I have only read through the lead so far so almost all of my comments are focused on that, except for the last point which is about one of the audio samples. I hope this is helpful and apologies in advance for doing this review with a more piecemeal approach. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Don’t worry about doing this piecemeal! I greatly appreciate you taking the time to give feedback. —-TheSandDoctor Talk 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • From my understanding, it is encouraged to only use audio samples that are representative of the album as a whole or say something about the album. The captions for the "I Knew You Were Trouble" and "All Too Well" samples clearly explain that, but I do not see a strong enough rationale for the "Begin Again" sample, as the audio sample is more so about the song and not about the album. I would either strengthen the caption to more clearly defend its inclusion or delete it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47: That's a good point. What are your thoughts on it now that I've expanded it a bit? Happy to work further on it or remove it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still not sure. It is a little better. I think it would actually be better to look to Perone's comment on the song (i.e. that while the album explores different genres, it closes with a country song). The current caption is rather vague. This part, The track brings the album to a symbolic thematic close., could really mean anything and it would better to use the caption to talk about something with the song's sound as that is the point of having an audio sample in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47: Played with it a bit more. Thoughts? --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your patience with this. It looks much better to me as it more clearly identifies how the sample is being used in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Songs" subsection is quite lengthy. This is a very well-known album so I am not surprised that all the songs have received so much discussion from critics, but a part of me thinks that it is too lengthy and would benefit from being condensed down, especially for songs that have independent articles. I would be curious to hear other editors' opinions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DMT Biscuit

[edit]
Resolved points
Lead
[edit]
Background
[edit]
M&L
[edit]
Critical reception
[edit]
Accolades
[edit]
  • Apologies for intruding on this discussion. DMT Biscuit is asking whether or not Idolator would be considered a high-quality source that would be appropriate for a featured article. I have seen doubts about Idolator in particular being a high quality source. I would honestly recommend that you remove it since it is only used once in the article to reference the album's placement on year-end lists that already is well-supported supported by other publications. Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misread that as "readability" and got confused. Idolator is owned by the same company that owns Spin. WP:RSP states (for Idolator) that "there is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Impact and Legacy
[edit]
Personnel
[edit]
Red (Taylor's Version)
[edit]
Resolved points
If, at the moment, something is part of an article, it gets assessed for FAC just like any other part. If, hypothetically, we all know that next month it will be spun of into a separate article does not effect this.
A debate as to whether something should be in an article right now - as opposed to a different article or a new one - is a different issue and not, I gather, what is being queried.
Does that address the question? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: That does answer it, thank you! That is what I figured it would boil down to, but figured I’d ask anyways. Cc @DMT biscuit:TheSandDoctor Talk 15:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
[edit]

Ultimately, pretty good. Some tightening up and it should be FA ready. Ping me when it does go to FAC.

Drive by query

[edit]

"As per her contract with Big Machine, Swift released six studio albums under the label from 2006 to 2017. In late 2018, the contract with the label expired; she hence withdrew from Big Machine and signed a new recording deal with Republic Records" Why "hence"? As opposed to 'then' for example. Or why say anything? She didn't withdraw, her contract had ended; move on to say that a new one was signed. And is it known more precisely went her BM contract ended? This caught my eye while answering the "split off query", but if there is similar imprecise language it would probably be best to address it prior to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: that was indeed a weird wording. I’ve changed that whole “withdrew” bit to “she subsequently signed a new recording deal with Republic Records”. Good catch. —TheSandDoctor Talk 15:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7

[edit]

Article looks in good shape. Some comments.

Resolved
  • "Critics are dubious about the genre that best describes the album" I don't think "dubious" is the right word here.
  • The first paragraph of the Red (Taylor's Version) is unreferenced.
    Resolved. It wasn't referenced as it was a merge from a standalone article and referenced in the following paragraphs. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section came on me out of the blue like an unlisted bonus track on a CD. Fearless (Taylor's Version) has its own page, so maybe this should have one too?
    @Hawkeye7: Same here. It was merged after a brief discussion at Talk:Red (Taylor's Version)#Notability. I don't really think it has a place here and that it should be put back how it was. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheSandDoctor and Hawkeye7: I performed the merger, so I can explain. The short version is that Red (Taylor's Version), in its current state, is not notable. It does not have significant coverage in reliable sources for it to have its own article, similar to Fearless (Taylor's Version) when it first started out. I also think that WP:TENPOUNDHAMMER applies here a bit, because nothing but the cover, the title and the release date has been revealed yet. I think that either keeping the section on this page or moving the section to its own page in draftspace would be a good idea until more is known about the album. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
    This point is now moot as it has been spun off again. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

[edit]
Resolved
  • Thanks for making all of those adjustments, they are reading well.
  • For Critical reception, Jon Dolan from Rolling Stone lauded Swift's autobiographical lyrics resulting in songs that linger on like "tattoos" change to Jon Dolan from Rolling Stone lauded Swift's autobiographical lyrics which are depicted/represented/shown in songs that "linger on like tattoos"? Just a heads up, in the FA nomination, some editors may call for this section to feature less of "A said this", "B said this". Only speaking from experience as it has happened to me before.
  • Those are pretty much all of my major comments. I'll be happy to pop in again once the article is nominated for a FA. Well done! SatDis (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]