Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Out of the Woods (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) 23 June 2022 [1].

Out of the Woods (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift. Ms. Swift may be an overselling musician (her albums sell millions whether critics like them or not) but she is also a gifted songwriter, and this song is one of many testaments to that statement. I believe the article satisfies criteria for an FA, and I look forward to any and all comments. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • In the lead's second paragraph, I'd avoid starting two sentences in a row with "was released". The sentence structure for both sentences are also very similar in general so I'd revise them further to avoid repetition.
  • This part, Swift struggling to escape from a magical forest battling against nature, does not really make sense to me. Maybe change it something like, escape from a magical forest while battling against nature?
  • I have a question about this part, Pitchfork ranked it among the best songs of 2014, from the lead. Is this review notable enough to single out in the lead? I do not think it is notable enough to single out in this fashion.
  • I do not think this sentence, 1989 was released on October 27, 2014, by Big Machine Records., is necessary in the "Background and production" section. I do not think the album's release date really fits in this section.
  • In the second paragraph of the "Background and production" section, I'd avoid repeating "1980s sound" in two sentences in a row.
  • This sentence, The track was produced by Swift and Antonoff, and Swift's vocals were produced by Max Martin., is quite repetitious by repeating Swift and produced twice.
  • Was there any coverage or commentary on why the record label released the music video before promoting the song as a single?
  • No media reported on the song's radio release... I guess Swift planned to release the video only, and the radio push was a later move resulted by the surrounding buzz. Ippantekina (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any outright negative reviews for this song?
  • Thus far critics seem to love it! Except Rob Sheffield who is quite lukewarm.. Ippantekina (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The premiere date for the music video is repeated in two separate sections.
  • I do not think the wolf wikilink in the "Music video" section is necessary.
  • I believe this song was included in Miss Americana. Did that receive any coverage to be considered notable (if I am correct that is)? I am basing this off tunefind so it could be wrong.
  • It does get covered in Refinery29 but given that it is Swift's documentary, it is pretty natural that the documentary features many of her previous songs. And most media focused on the original track "Only the Young", so I'm afraid there is not enough notability for discussion. Ippantekina (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did this song appear on any year-end charts?
  • My search turnt up nothing, unfortunately. Probably by the time it was released, the hype around the album had died down. Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I have focused my comments primarily on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article another time to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking time reviewing the article. I have responded to some of your comments and will proceed within the next few days. Hope you have a great week ahead too! Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses so far and take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, thank you again for reviewing the article. I have addressed to all of your comments. Let me know if the prose needs further work. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my peer review. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for taking time reviewing the article. I will look into your PR if I have time. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMusicEditor[edit]

Thanks for your help on Bleed American. Can't be sure if I'll be amazing help, but I will give this a look! dannymusiceditor oops 01:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your source choices are excellent. I will take your word and allow another to review the content inside them if that must be done.
  • Lead: "Music critics praised "Out of the Woods" for its production and narrative lyrics." I understand a lead should be a summary, but this seems too brief even for the lead without some sort of context. Anything in particular you could highlight while still maintaining some generality? Something multiple sources had consensus on?
  • When did the song go platinum? A month and year would do fine.
  • Background and production: You say that Antonoff chopped his backing vocals - I have no idea what this is. Can I have a link to this technique? Is it Chopping (sampling technique)? If so, that article's awful, and maybe a note should be put somewhere in this article to explain it with the source given.
  • I would suggest the same for loop to Loop (music), although I know what that is.
  • Release and commercial performance: I think "It is track number four" is unnecessarily wordy and though a valid thought for the "brilliant writing" aspect of a featured article, I think you may be trying a little too hard to sell it there. It would suffice to say "It is the fourth track".
  • I see "track number four" and "the fourth track" can mean two different things. Speaking of track list order, I prefer the former. Ippantekina (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be important to timestamp when the domestic certification was achieved (RIAA). If you disagree, ignore my corresponding lead suggestion.
  • I added a timestamp in prose but not the lead, because I find it a tad detailed for the lead.
    • You're on the right track, but I was bold and gave it a shot myself. Let me know what you think. dannymusiceditor oops 22:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception: "contemporaneous" is a mouthful. What are you trying to refer to, exactly? Those around the time of its release?
  • Yes, reviews that were published around the time this song was originally released. What other word choice do you have in mind?
  • Personally, I would prefer to start the sentence with "Upon the song's release," and so on. dannymusiceditor oops 22:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Sam Lansky and Brian Mansfield, and in their corresponding references.
  • When you say she "finessed" her country songs, is this the prose equivalent of saying she BS'ed it? I don't know if I love this line, but I admittedly don't know how I would write it instead. That very, very rarely happens to me, mind you.
  • Ah, so we're talking about Taylor's overarching evolution of her songwriting ability! This makes much more sense, I like it better this way. dannymusiceditor oops 22:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video: I do not see why it needs to be "the snowy mountains" instead of simply "snowy mountains".
    • That's all I have. Let me know if you have any follow-up remarks or questions! dannymusiceditor oops 02:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much for taking time the article. I'm glad you found my comments at Bleed American FAC helpful, and I have responded to your comments above. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have a few responses above. Assuming these are responded to, I will subsequently offer support. dannymusiceditor oops 22:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can now confidently support this nomination. dannymusiceditor oops 16:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

I managed to get some time off so here I am!

  • I think it is self explanatory that the release of promotional singles precedes an album, so do we need to mention "Before 1989's release" separately?
  • Should the radio formats be mentioned in the lead? I think "US radio" leaves the reader wondering which ones they were.
  • Abbreviations need not be included unless used subsequently in the article: RIAA, ARIA, BPI, IFPI.
  • Do we need to mention if the other tracks were on the standard or deluxe editions? Seems a bit excessive for the scope of this article. It doesn't seem the Recording Academy source makes this distinction. I would say "Jack Antonoff, who produced "Out of the Woods" along with two other songs for the album—"I Wish You Would" and "You Are In Love""
  • I would highly suggest running the bot to add archives to all the references.
  • I unfortunately do not have access to the bot; could you refer to me the link to the bot, or help me with this task if possible..?
  • "According to the liner notes of 1989, "Out of the Woods" was produced by Swift and Antonoff." - I thought we had already established Antonoff produced the song in the previous paragraph.
  • New York is a state and LA is a city so it should be consistent which one you're mentioning after the studios.
  • "and echoing "oh-oh" background vocals" - is there a better way of saying this? maybe "and background vocals echoing the words "oh oh""
  • Couldn't "inspired by a tumultuous relationship and its resulting anxieties that Swift experienced" just be "Resulting anxieties Swift experienced because of a tumultuous relationship"
  • Speculations that Styles may be the subject have drawn coverage in a few reliable sources, do they not deserve any mention? (Billboard, Fuse, The Hollywood Reporter)
  • I think any pre-2020 song by Swift can be attributed to a real-life romantic partner, but I choose to avoid including the information unless Swift confirms it herself (per WP:SPECULATION #6 Wikipedia does not include rumors) Ippantekina (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "premiered a 15-second preview of "Out of the Woods"" - maybe go for "premiered 15 seconds of "Out of the Woods""
  • "Big Machine in partnership with Republic Records" -- maybe just "Big Machine and Republic Records"
  • A bit nitpicky on my part but you could try to vary the sentence structure in the sentence about its Hot 100 debut and the following one.
  • "Swift's lyrical craftsmanship and storytelling, which she had honed on her previous country songs" -- I would remove the "country" bit because I don't see what genre has to do with craftsmanship and storytelling.
  • Actually a lot of 1989 reviews commented how Swift was able to retain her storytelling from country music, so I think the genre is significant enough to retain. Ippantekina (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The video was filmed on location in New Zealand" is a weird sentence to me.
  • Is embedding the Behind-the-scenes clip necessary? These are pretty standard but I have never seen them being used like this before.
  • Is there a reason the individual dates on which the performances happened are not included? I think they are on most song FAs.
  • I would link set list.
  • "a stripped-down piano rendition" - Since the piano is an instrument and not a musical style, could it be "a stripped-down rendition of "Out of the Woods" on the piano" instead?
  • "praised the stripped-down version over the synth-pop production for better conveying the emotional sentiments of the lyrics" - "thought this version conveyed the emotional sentiments of the lyrics better than the synth-pop production" to avoid the repetition of "stripped-down"
  • The charts table and Certifications need a caption for accessibility.
That's all I got.--NØ 06:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed accordingly except where I responded per above. Let me know if the article needs further polishing. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing most of the comments. Just a few things:
  • The abbreviations RIAA, ARIA, BPI, and IFPI are still included even though not used again.
  • I think keeping them would make it easier for readers to figure out what they are in the table-- Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the reason we are still separating the standard and deluxe tracks? Is there any proof Antonoff's contributions to the bonus tracks were lesser than the standard ones?
  • The deluxe version is sometimes neglected in album reviews (the 1989 reviews speak for itself), so it is sensible to keep the separation so most readers know that the album has two versions. Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Zealand is just as if not more known than NYC and LA so it doesn't need to be linked.
  • I have added archives.--NØ 08:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Support--NØ 10:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Taylor Swift had been known as a country singer-songwriter until her fourth studio album Red (released in October 2012),[1] " I'd get rid of the parentheses and use commas.
  • "she had persuaded the tabloid media to not circulate it.[22] " I might say "publicize" rather than "circulate"
  • "how the couple has to deal with its aftermath" I might say "the two have" rather than "the couple has" as they are not a couple at that stage.
  • "The video's filming locations in New Zealand included the mountains of Queenstown and on Bethells Beach.[59]" There's a problem with the last words, which don't meet up exactly with the earlier part of the sentence. "The video's filming locations in New Zealannd included ... on Bethel's Beach".
  • "Swift is seen running through a magical forest that forms around her, being chased by a pack of wolves as she struggles to escape while animate roots constantly follow her." I think you need an "and" before "being" because otherwise it is (taken literally) unclear whether she or the forest is being chased.
  • "nature settings" I might say "natural settings"
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Wehwalt. I have addressed them accordingly. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Source 92 should be marked as being in Polish.
  • Source 95 is titled "CHART: CLUK Update 8.11.2014 (wk44)" not "CHART: CLUK Update 8 November 2014 (wk44)". Titles should be left as they are and not majorly changed to suit the article's formatting.
  • Spot-checked about three or four sources. No issues with accuracy. FrB.TG (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the source review. I have addressed your concerns. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, consider it a pass. FrB.TG (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • No, but critics highlighted the bridge in quite a few reviews-- Ippantekina (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK-ish ALT text, except for the sample. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review. I have responded to your comment above, Ippantekina (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 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/Out_of_the_Woods_(song)/archive1&oldid=1094684014"