Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blank Space/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) 14 November 2020 [1].

Blank Space[edit]

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When Taylor Swift announced she would go full pop six years ago, almost everyone (including me) rolled their eyes until they realized that the music was actually pretty good. For this article, I can ensure that all existing literature has been exhaustively reviewed to create a concise and informative article without straying into excessive fancruft and trivia. While I think it's ready for the bronze star, I'm open to any suggestion concerning possible improvements so that the article could reach its full FA potential, HĐ (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor concerns regarding the lead's tone...
  1. "Swift took inspirations from the constant tabloid gossip on her image..." What does "image" refer to? Appearance? Personality?
  2. "Blank Space" is an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod to Swift's image as a seductive and psychopathic woman." She is referring herself as "a seductive and psychopathic woman," as I know. Maybe put that in quotations?
  • Overall, decent good article to be FA. GeraldWL 05:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for the comments. I have revised the lede accordingly. HĐ (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 Looks great to me. I corrected one warning message.

Image review
  • Three images. All have appropriate licenses. One has fair use rationale.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much for your review, HĐ (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The chorus contains the lyrics "I've got a long list of ex-lovers / They'll tell you I'm insane / But I've got a blank space, baby / And I'll write your name" According to the lyrics at MetroLyrics and the music video (go to the 1:18 minute mark), there is no "I've" in "I've got a long list of ex-lovers". Is there a reliable source that quotes the correct lyrics? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Starbucks lovers currently points to Blank Space, but there is no mention of it in the article. Why was the mention of the misheard lyric removed? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I don't consider the misheard lyric bit encyclopedic as it's rather trivia (unless the misheard lyric contributed to the song's or the brand Starbucks's sales or reputation in a proven quantitative way). I also think that the redirect should be deleted since there's no point for a meaningless term to exist on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear more about opinions on this should there be contradicting views though, HĐ (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand, not everything belongs in Wikipedia. Thanks for fixing the issue. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I am putting this up more as a placeholder. I will read through the article and provide feedback by the end of the week. If for whatever reason I do not post further comments by Saturday, feel free to ping me as a reminder.

I actually disagree with the above assessment on the "Starbucks lover" misheard lyric. I can understand how this may be seen as trivial, but it did receive coverage from third-party, reliable sources. It was covered twice by Billboard (1 and 2) and has been mentioned in other sources (Glamour, Bustle, Insider, Entertainment Weekly, and People to name a few). It even got to the point where it inspired a Kickstarter project (which you can read about here).

To clarify, I am not saying that all of this should be used. However, I believe based on this type of coverage, a brief sentence about it being a commonly misheard lyric should be added to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if misheard lyrics are that notable to be included, especially when people could just come up with some hilarious bits with any popular song. Given that misheard lyrics are a rather common phenomenon ([2]) that is not exclusive to some songs and is part of a temporal reaction to the song's immediate release, I'd choose to not include the "Starbucks lovers" part, HĐ (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I normally agree that misheard lyrics are not notable enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but I disagree with you here. In my opinion, this particular misheard lyric has been covered in enough publications to warrant a small reference. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Aoba47 here. It is well enough sourced in WP:RS that there should probably be a brief mention of it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence, "For the lyrics, she conceived "Blank Space" as an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod to her reputation as a flirtatious woman resulted from her dating history with numerous high-profile celebrities, which blemished her once wholesome girl next door image.", seems unnecessarily wordy. I would cut down "an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod" to just "a satirical nod", and I would try to condense the sentence more.
  • I reworded it to "a satirical self-referential nod to her reputation as a flirtatious woman with a series of romantic attachments." Do you think it's better?
  • It seems better to me. I do not see the need for both "satirical" and "self-referential", but that is more of a personal preference so it should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a similar comment for the audio sample's caption, specifically this part, "an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod". I'd cut it down to just "a satirical nod". Satire by its very nature is already exaggerated and often self-referential so I think the use of adjectives here and in the lead can come across as somewhat repetitive. I have the same comment for this sentence: "Talking to GQ in 2015, Swift said that she envisioned the song to be an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod to her reputation."
  • You are right. I reworded both
  • For this part, "Musically, the track is an electropop number", I'd say "it is an electropop track". I get what you mean by "number", but it does not sound right to me in a Wikipedia article.
  • Reworded
  • For this part, "her boyfriend's loyalty", wouldn't "fidelity" be a better word choice rather than "loyalty"?
  • Reworded
  • Would there be a way to word this part, "upon suspecting her boyfriend's loyalty and is ready to change boyfriends right after a breakup", without repeating "boyfriend" twice in the same sentence?
  • Removed the latter part
  • I am uncertain of the value of this line: (The chorus contains the lyrics "Got a long list of ex-lovers / They'll tell you I'm insane / But I've got a blank space, baby / And I'll write your name".) I have received this note in a past FAC, but it is not encouraged to just quote lyrics if there is not a clear significance or critical commentary. So I would either add more to this part or remove it.
  • Added a bit of interpretation
  • I am uncertain about the structure of the second paragraph of the "Lyrics and music" section. It has a lot of similar sentence structures (i.e. X critic says Y opinion), and I think you are positioning the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Fact, and PopMatters as taking the song literally rather than a joke, but I am not sure if that was intended or if I am just reading too much into it.
  • Yes, I provided the interpretations to cite some examples of those who took the song seriously. I'm not sure if indicating an overall statement (i.e. "Those who took the song seriously") would be a case of original research or not, though.
  • I see your point, and I agree with you. I think it would be helpful to add some further sentence variation to the paragraph, but it is not something that would prevent me from supporting this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, "Swift and Martin employed a sparse production for "Blank Space" as Swift", do you mean "Shellback and Martin" as Swift did not produce the song.
  • Yes
  • I'd change "works" to "music" in this part, "that of New Zealand singer Lorde's works". I've always been told to avoid words like "works" as they are rather vague.
  • Reworded
  • I am uncertain about the final two sentences in the "Lyrics and music" section's final paragraph as they read more like a review than a more objective view of the song.
  • I think they are more of an analysis rather than a judgement to be included among the critical reviews
  • I am probably over-thinking it. The two sentences, specifically the Baesley one, sound more like praise to me than an analysis, but I will leave that up to other editors as it could just be me overthinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article, you specifically say the song was released "to US rhythmic crossover radio on November 10, 2014", but in the lead, it just says "to US radio stations on November 10, 2014". Should rhythmic crossover radio be included in the lead?
  • I think that's rather too specific and would overshadow the song's release to other radio formats
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What separates the "Critical reception" and "Recognition" sections? They seem rather similar to me.
  • I merged it as a subsection

These are my comments up to the "Music video" section. I hope this is helpful. I am only focusing on the prose right now. Hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should this part, "but Yahoo! leaked it a day before", clarify that the leak was accidentally and not intentional?
  • Yes, clarified
  • This is more of a clarification question, but for this part, "go to other rooms in the mansion to find interactive easter eggs", are there any examples of these easter eggs?
  • Added
  • I'd add a descriptive phrase for Gone Girl to be consistent with how A Clockwork Orange is represented in the prose.
  • Yahoo! is linked twice in the article. So is Entertainment Weekly. I'd check the entire article to see if there are any further duplicate links.
  • I think the Shane Dawson parody should get a brief mention as it was covered in Glamour.
  • I would say Louisa Wendorff's cover also should get a brief mention as it was mentioned in a few sources (12345 to name a few).
  • The Postmodern Jukebox cover has also been mentioned in a few sources (12345 to name a few).
  • For this part of a footnote, "Those who compared "Blank Space" to Lorde's work", I'd change "works" to "songs".

This is my full review on the prose. I hope it is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comprehensive prose review. It really helps, — HĐ (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I still think the "Starbucks lover" misheard lyric has enough coverage to warrant a small mention. I agree that misheard lyrics are often not notable enough for inclusion, but this one (at least in my opinion) has been brought up in enough sources for a brief inclusion. And this is coming from someone who 1) cannot hear the misheard lyric and 2) think it is kind of stupid and played up more for publicity than anything. I will read through the article again tomorrow to make sure I caught everything. Hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Aoba, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, HĐ (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with the review. I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: From what I understand, the convention is to strike your "comment" header and replace it with "Support from..." --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen arguments for and against this practice, and I have seen editors that do it and others that do not so I would say it was not a firmly established convention either way. My support is already clearly established. Aoba47 (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Fair enough. -TheSandDoctor Talk 05:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a good question so thank you for asking. I just wanted to err on the side of caution. Aoba47 (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor I've made a small grammatical fix and clarified a sentence, but that's it. Looks good to me and is written to an FA standard. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis[edit]

This article is meticulously referenced with high quality writing. Apologies that I haven't got many suggestions, but just a few notes;

  • Inspired by 1980s synth-pop and its experimentation - I understand the meaning, but literally, is 1980s synth pop able to experiment?
  • in 2013 that her "dating history has..." - "has" should be paraphrased as "[had]" so that the sentence reads cohesively.
  • she noted that "Half the people - capital H in the quote should be a lower case.

Best of luck with the nomination. If you get the chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my FA review at Bluey (2018 TV series). Thanks. SatDis (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks so much for taking time reviewing the article. I have addressed your concerns accordingly. I'll try my best to take a look at your FAC in the near future, and if there's a delay (because I'm quite busy these days), just let me know! HĐ (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Courtesy ping --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: ; may I know the progress on this FAC i.e. whether the consensus has been reached or prose issues have been resolved etc. since it has stalled for over a week? Thanks, HĐ (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had it on the urgents list for a while, as it needs more substantial review. I'm non considering archiving it any time soon, but I'll give you a heads-up. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

  • received 8× Platinum certifications from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) suggest reword to "was certified 8× Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)". it's not supposed to be plural i don't think.
  • Done
  • Linked
  • that the media portrayed her the media portrayal of her
  • Done
  • first came out "was released" may be more formal
  • Done

* It took the number-one position the dash may need to be changed per MOS:NUMERO

  • I love the flow of the third paragraph in the "release and commercial performance section"
  • Thank you :)
  • 9.2 track-equivalent units 9.2 million
  • Done
  • Long Island— primary rmv space
  • Changed to a colon
  • Kubrickian link to "Kubrickian" in Wikitionary ([[wikt:Kubrickian]])
  • Done

Looks great, almost there. Heartfox (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more refs that could be archived, I suppose. Heartfox (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article. I believe I've addressed your concerns accordingly :) HĐ (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Heartfox (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Will do soon - Aza24 (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for the delay – hopefully the nomination should be ready after this review...
  • Formal spotchecks not done, but as I was going through the refs I glanced at some of the information and found no issues
  • Some missing retrieval dates, 6, 8, 13, 28, 29, 174, 178
  • assuming 157 should have a language parameter link the rest (43, 147 as well)
  • The format is automatically generated at {{singlechart}}, so I guess it should be updated at the template which I'm incapable of... HĐ (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one of them it is, for the other two I was able to add the parameters
  • What makes ref 2, on medium, reliable? If the author is this Paul Zollo I think that rationale would suffice, but consider using an authorlink here to avoid any signs of unreliability
    @Aza24: The fact that it is actually published by Medium's publication, Cuepoint, and is edited by Jonathan Shecter. I suspect it would be that Paul Zollo. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • ref 6 has the issue date but not the actual date (March 15, 2013 – it's in very small text)
    I updated the archive listed to one I just took with Wayback to actually show the date. The January 2017 one in that article somehow missed that bit of text (even from a CTRL + F search). Anyhow, fixed. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 10 appears to be missing an author (Jada Yuan?)
    Fixed. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 65 has the wrong date... lol
    Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 77 should really be "Sullivan, Kevin P."
    Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Record Report can be linked in 145
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability looks good if the Medium post is justified. Aza24 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Hi, thank you for taking your time reviewing the article. I have addressed your concerns as above, with helps from TheSandDoctor, HĐ (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

  • Thanks for pointing that out. I have added captions for tables, HĐ (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Absolutely love Taylor Swift so I'm really happy to see this article getting some TLC. :) I only have a handful of quibbles from a read through.

  • her fifth studio album 1989 (2014) is a little jarring and potentially confusing because the album name is a year. Can we perhaps put it in prose instead of parentheses (eg, 1989, released in 2014)? Or move the sentence about release (last sentence of the first paragraph) up to be the second sentence.
  • Nice recommendation. Done, HĐ (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • acts erratically upon suspecting her boyfriend's fidelity surely you mean infidelity?
    Good catch hehe. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • pop production for her fifth studio album, 1989 (2014) same concern as in the lead.
  • Inspired by 1980s synth-pop with synthesizers, drum pads... Do the sources cite any examples of particular songs or artists that she found inspiring?
  • "a girl who's crazy but seductive but glamorous but nuts but manipulative" As a direct quote, that needs attribution (see MOS:QUOTE#Attribution) and it needs a reference immediately adjacent to it.
  • Any particular reason note 1 is a footnote and not included in the prose?
  • I feel like multiple attributions can kind of obstruct the flow, so I leave it in the note, HĐ (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in partnership with Swift's then-label I can't remember the MoS section but the "then" is frowned upon.
    Reworded to "...in partnership with Swift's label at the time, Big Machine, released...". Feel free to tweak further. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. I have addressed your concerns accordingly, HĐ (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked closely at the references, but everything looks in order to me. Excellent work. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your review, HĐ (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2020 (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/Blank_Space/archive1&oldid=988741314"