Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Delicate (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 March 2021 [1].

Delicate (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2018, everyone thought Taylor Swift was no longer relevant, until she launched a massive tour and released this song, which slowly climbed onto the charts and raked in hundred millions of YouTube views. After expanding the article from reliable, high-quality sources, including one peer-reviewed journal paper, I believe this article now meets FA status. Thank you in advance for any comment regarding the article's prose and sourcing issues. HĐ (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by Guerillero[edit]

Spot-checks not done

The thing that you knew was coming. Why are these high quality sources

  • Removed since I think it is of marginal reliability
  • All Access is powered by Mediabase, which monitors airplay information across the U.S. and provides information for other music industry magazines [2]. The editorial board consists of music industry insiders, radio managers, and contributors to other publications i.e. Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, [3]. Subscribers to All Access also gain access to Billboard Pro [4]
  • À la All Access in Italy. It has partnership with many record labels and networks including Universal, MTV, Warner, to name a few, to promote songs on Italian airplay [5]
    • The about makes it seems like a PR agency. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how you're getting a PR agency from that?? It's a company that monitors radio airplay in Italy and also happens to publish statements from record labels indicating when they make a song available for radio airplay in the country. If you look at the bottom right of the reference the writer of the statement and the record label who employs them are clearly visible. In the article, the source is obviously citing the "radio date" only. EarOne has also been cited/noted by Rolling Stone Italy. Heartfox (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Meh. I won't stand in the way -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with a non-primary source
  • I was initially dubious about whether a "student journal" should qualify as high quality. I believe that this journal does satisfy in terms of quality, if my understanding of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is sufficient. The advisory board consists of professors in the music and media fields, which sort of explains that the journal is not wholly dependent on student operation. It has an open DOI access, which (to me) does not appear as original research, and proves that it has been vetted by the scholarly community.
    • I go back and forth on this one, tbh. I want to wait for other reviews to comment on it --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed among reliable sources at WP:RSMUSIC. Reuters acknowledged Slant among the reliable side of online publications, alongside the New York Times, WSJ, and LA Weekly. The magazine is quite valued within the film review community, with Cineaste describing it as "smart, idiosyncratic, well-written".
    • Works for me. We (the people who write FAs about pop music and the people who do source reviews) should probably work out WP:HQRSMUSIC to make these sorts of things easier. Sources can easily be RSes, and on WP:RSMUSIC, without being High Quality RSes to pass through FAC. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I will do my standard grumble about the use of Apple Music. Also

  • RÚV need a language code

--In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 23:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the source review. I think Apple Music usage can be justified in this case, given that digital music releases most likely happen on such sites, and the two remixes in the article seem to have been released to Apple Music only. HĐ (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, HĐ, that is as good as we have. I just don't like it because the source isn't in the industry of reporting correct dates, but of providing music --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

  • Swift described the song as one of Reputation's few songs about vulnerability → suggest changing to "Swift described the song as one of the few on Reputation about vulnerability" or something similar to avoid "song" twice in the same sentence.
  • The song's accompanying music video → maybe change "accompanying" to something else, reword, or remove it as it's already used two sentences before.
  • dancing in a pouring rain → I don't think "a" is necessary.
  • I am uncertain if that would be grammatically correct..
  • inspired by the tumultuous relationship with the media that she had experienced. → I would cut this; already explained in the background section
  • wondering, "Could something fake like your reputation affect something real, like someone getting to know you?" → I would cut this or the previous quote; both mostly say the same thing.
  • I had to go to the Slate article to fully understand what he was saying about her being liberated.
  • The song incorporates R&B elements, dense synthesizers, and house-influenced beats. → I would expect this to be a bit more detailed than a copy of what is in the lead.
  • The music video images are missing alt text
  • social media account → social media accounts?
  • Specified that it was Twitter.
  • She later uploaded the video → she didn't upload it herself
  • Rephrased.
  • Five sentences for Payne is a bit of undue weight I think, given that in the previous paragraph six sentences are given for three critics combined. I would replace the em dashes with commas and cut her comments down by a couple sentences.
  • I cut down one sentence... The rest are rather hard to remove since they provide in-depth analysis on the video's content. HĐ (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • throughout the year → redundant

I read the whole article and these were my immediate thoughts as I went through it :) Great work! Heartfox (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Lmk if the article needs more work. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The spaces between the Payne em dashes shouldn't be there per MOS:EMDASH, and the access date for ref 42 is odd given the published date. Heartfox (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant "2021". Revised. HĐ (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Congratulations on another great article. Heartfox (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • In the lead, there are two sentences in a row with "perceived" (i.e. perceived image and perceived reputation). Would it be possible to change one of these instances?
  • Changed one, perceived reputation to "blemished reputation"
  • The repetition of "Swift" in this part, Swift and Martin manipulated Swift's vocals with a vocoder., seems rather awkward to me. Also Swift is not credited as a producer for the song, so do you mean "Shellback" in the beginning? I have the same question for when this is repeated in the "Production and composition" section.
  • In the interview Swift used we, so I assumed it was her and the other producers. Changed to "Martin and Shellback"
  • In the lead, I would include a brief part about how critics considered the music video to be an autobiographical reference and the plagiarism allegation since it does form a separate subsection (i.e. Analysis and reception).
  • Added.
  • This is very nitpick-y, but I find the music video summary to overly wordy, and I think it can be condensed somewhat to be more concise.
  • I cut down some words here and there. It was a hard task because the video is so cinematic lol.
  • Is there a reason why the prose does not clarify what number single this is from the album?
  • Added a note.
  • For this part, Swift continued to be a major target of, I would say was a major target of instead as continued does not really make sense in this context as the previous sentences do not refer to Swift being a tabloid target prior to this.
  • Rephrased.
  • I have a comment for this part, "Delicate" is the fifth track on Reputation. I do not think it is particularly notable or worthwhile to mention where this song appears on the album track listing. I could see this being notable if critics discussed this in a meaningful way, but right now, it seems trivial.
  • The following paragraphs of the Composition section talks about how the track differs from its four preceding songs, so I do think it is relevant to some extent.
  • In the "Production and composition" section, I think the iHeartRadio sentence is awkwardly constructed. I think the first two paragraphs in this section could be improved to better convey the information. For instance, it seems off to start the first paragraph a sentence on how Swift wrote the song, then go into production information for the rest of the paragraph, and go back into the song-writing process for the second paragraph.
  • I rearranged the whole section; the first paragraph is about the credits and recording locations, the second about the songwriting inspirations, and the third about critical analysis of the song.
  • That looks much better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was intrigued by the R&B elements bit as this sounds like a very pop song to me. I believe the R&B elements part is sourced through this New York Times article (but correct me if I am wrong here). Apologies in advance as this will be super-nitpick-y, but the source says "soft-core pop-R&B" not just R&B. I think saying just R&B elements is a little misleading.
  • I adhere to WP:EXPLICITGENRES. As the Times does not exactly describe this song as "pop-R&B" (but among the few of the album that are), I think it is best to leave it at "R&B elements"--or I could rephrase it to something like "R&B sensibility". This is different from the source I used for electropop--Time--which explicitly describes "Delicate" as an "electro-ballad".
  • I still disagree with connecting this song with R&B as I do not see how this is supported in the Times article. You are correct that the "soft-core pop-R&B" part is not explicitly tied to this song, but it is the only instance in the article where R&B is mentioned. I would suggest removing the R&B part entirely as I just do not see this being supported by the source. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with your opinion. Removed R&B. HĐ (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "released" is used many times throughout the "Release" section. I know it is inevitable considering that this is what the section is about, but it may be worthwhile to find ways to revise some of these instances.
  • Revised some instances to "available".
  • In a random aside, I think it is interesting that a critic compared the video to "Lucky" when I think a more apt comparison would be to the video for ""Overprotected" (The Darkchild remix) since both focus on the singer's relationship with fame and have a sequence with dancing in the rain lol.
  • Haven't checked out the Overprotected video, but I think critics did so because "Lucky" was a more popular song (which is really catchy and memorable imo).
  • In the "Live performances", I would avoid having two sentences in a row saying (On X date) as it comes across too much like a list and makes the prose not as engaging as it could be.
  • I tried my best to make it not like a list, but I guess for live performances I cannot include much.
  • Unfortunately that is the best image I can retrieve from Commons... Would it be a miss to remove it from the article?
  • I would remove from the article as it is a low-quality image and it is awkwardly cutting across section titles anyway, but I will leave this up to whoever do this image review. I will leave this up to you as the image will not hold me up from supporting and it will likely be more beneficial to get other editors' opinions about it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any notable covers that can be included here? I know that Kelly Clarkson as one of the many, many, many songs she covers on her talk show. I was just curious if there were any notable covers out there as this song was very popular. Apparently, Kelsea Ballerini also did a cover of it (according to Billboard).
  • I don't really know about this... A popular song can be covered by other musicians, so I don't see how it could be beneficial to the article as an encyclopedic entry (inspired by a comment at the "Shake It Off" FAC). I'm open to discussion on this, though.
  • That's a fair point. I did not have a strong opinion either way tbh, but I just wanted to ask you to get your opinion on it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why the "The Making of a Song" video is only included as an external link and not used a source? I have not seen the video, but I would think it would have at least some helpful information?
  • The video is more or less what Swift had shared during the iHeartRadio interview. It's just that it features more scenes where she writes in her bedroom, which I think is a way for fans to get close and personal to her. Not much substance to add (you could watch to verify my words and check out whether I missed something..)
  • Thank you for the follow-up explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article one more time to make sure I do not miss anything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, which are as helpful as always. HĐ (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. Once the R&B issue is cleared up, then I will support this. My issue is that the Times article does not explicitly connect the song with R&B. I would recommend removing the R&B part entirely since it is not really accurate to the source. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again for the review. I believe everything is good now. HĐ (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support the nomination for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan[edit]

Can already tell it had a major glow up since the last time I was here. I will leave some comments soon.--NØ 04:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Swift explained that, while she could feign disinterest in what others have to say about her, things began to get complicated" -- Is the usage of "have" and "began" correct here? It's a little confusing if the feigning of disinterest happened in the past or is currently happening. The quote directly after this part seems to go back into present tense.
  • Switched all to past tense. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part still feels a bit off to me: "things turned complicated 'when you meet somebody that you really want in your life'". But I'm no Grammar expert so I'm going to leave this to your preference.
  • In this part: "really emotional, and really vulnerable, and ... sad but beautiful", maybe the repetition of "and" can be eliminated.
  • "At the beginning of the song, Swift confesses to her love interest that, because her reputation has "never been worse", he must have liked her for herself." -- I think this part is sung in present tense in the song. Maybe it's just me but the way this is framed seems to imply he stopped liking her.
  • Changed to the exact lyrics. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[breaking] free from the pressures of society and acts freely as though nobody is watching". - I believe "act" should be singular here.
  • Revised to "breaks... and acts". I hope it is grammatically correct. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last sentence of the Critical reception section, the citation for the 2019 ASCAP Awards will probably look better at the end of the sentence.
That's it. The article is really well-written.--NØ 09:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments. I believe I have addressed them all. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--NØ 16:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Images are adequately licensed. I would keep the performance image, it may not be the greatest quality but I don't think it detracts at all from the article. The sound file should be shorter, I think it's longer than necessary to convey the fair use purpose and it's best to keep under 10% of the track. (t · c) buidhe 10:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cut it from 23.2 to 22.6 seconds. Not a dramatic change, but still short enough and under 10% of the original. Thank you for the image review. HĐ (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stated purpose of this non-free content is that it "illustrates Swift's manipulated vocals by a vocoder." I don't see how 22.6 seconds is necessary for this purpose. I think it could be done with more like 5 seconds. (t · c) buidhe 07:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, I updated the non-free rationale, which illustrates the muted pulse (as discussed in Pitchfork) and the synthesizers as well. I choose not to expand the caption because I believe it is supposed to be succinct, but I could expand it to include all matters the sample is supposed to illustrate. HĐ (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, does this resolve the issue? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Yay, another Taylor Swift song! Not my favourite from Reputation but still worthy of attention. Are you planning to bring any of her back catalogue up to FA? This is a well-prepared nomination; I just have a few minor suggestions, after which I'll surely support. Note that I'm looking at prose/MoS/readability and comprehensiveness, not sources.

  • In the background section, I'd suggest adding a sentence or two about Swift's career up to the that point and her transition from country to pop. Nothing too duplicative of the album article, but just a little bit of context for a reader wondering where the song fits in her career.
  • I added something about 1989's blockbuster success. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She had short-lived romantic relationships with Scottish producer Calvin Harris and English actor Tom Hiddleston. I would avoid name-dropping short-term romantic partners, no matter how reliable the source. It's tabloid gossip and adds nothing to the reader's understanding and in my opinion is unbecoming an encyclopaedia.
  • Roger that. Removed. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her "good girl" reputation This comes somewhat out of the blue. Can we say a few words about it for context?
  • blemished from publicized disputes this is a major theme of Reputation (down to the title of the album, and I'm thinking of LWYMMD and This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things) but I don't get that sense from the background section.
  • I think this adds something for readers to understand why she made the album. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • became increasingly reticent on social media but how much of that is a publicity stunt? After five studio albums, she has an established fan base and doesn't need to use social media to drum up sales, but by withdrawing from it the few things she does post attract a lot more attention.
  • I do not get what you are trying to say here... What should I do with this bit of information? I personally think that including it as it is right now could be beneficial to readers to understand the consequences of Swift's overexposure over the previous years. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • having maintained an active presence suggest "having previously maintained".
  • Swift wrote "Delicate" as her confession to a prospective lover suggest you add "lyrically" to make clear we're talking about writing lyrics as opposed to writing music. Or better yet, find a different opening phrase to avoid repetition from the previous paragraph.
  • Watch for punctuation placement; it should go outside quote marks except where it's an integral part of the quote (MOS:LQ).
  • I think it should be resolved by now. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of Spotify Singles series As part of a Spotify Singles series? The Spotify Singles series?
  • Is tosses her heels really encyclopaedic language? Also, the way that paragraph is written sounds like it's been copied and pasted from somewhere. Suggest you double check that you're paraphrasing the source material in your own words.
  • I trimmed here and there. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are poignant moments: at one scene There's no MOS shortcut for this but I really hate colons in mid-prose. Can we have an emdash (—) instead?
  • Done. I also prefer the emdash. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the digital era: in terms of narrative Same complaint, but this one can be substituted for a comma.
  • "breaks free from the pressures of society and acts freely as though nobody is watching" You need a ref straight after a direct quote (end of sentence is fine, but this one is a few sentences away).
  • Done. Thanks for the advice~ HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marching and stomping" and "animalistic squatting" is this quoting Payne or is this supposed to be in Wikipedia's voice? Likewise "insincere or fake" and "dorky".
  • Specified that it is in Payne's voice. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fashion choices, modes of gossip, dating habits and dreams of a comfortable middle-class life" needs a ref after a direct quote.
  • Ditto "[got] bigger the longer audiences have spent with it". Also, I would take the "got" out of the quote marks to eliminate the square brackets.
  • Reputation Stadium Tour (2018), which she launched in support of Reputation Can you think of a better way to phrase that? The reader can guess that the Reputation tour was supporting Reputation.

Must dig out my Reputation tour t-shirt! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. I am not particularly fond of this song on Reputation, but I find it uplifting that its chart success helped Swift maintain her superstardom after the underperforming singles "Ready for It" and "End Game"--the latter is one of my favorites. Let me know if there is anything left that needs to be addressed. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the softer songs on Reputation, I prefer "Call it What You Want" but it's still great to see this article being brought up to FA standard. I'll leave it to you to decide what, if anything, you want to do with the social media line but Swift's use of social media is quite sophisticated and I'm not sure we should attribute so much to her lack of presence on it in the run-up to the release of a new album. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 19 March 2021 (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/Delicate_(Taylor_Swift_song)/archive1&oldid=1013324162"