Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the album that scrapped the country-pop girl-next-door image of Taylor Swift and transformed her to a fully-fledged pop megastar. Buoyed by chart-topping singles, strong sales, and critical plaudits, the album was definitely a landmark in Swift's career as well as the contemporary music scene. Having passed GAN and gone through a PR, I believe this article is now qualified for the bronze star. It'd be much more precious if the article gets promoted in time to be featured in TFA on 27 Oct., to commemorate the album's fifth birthday. Looking forward to comments and suggestions, HĐ (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (Contemporary critics noticed Red's emerging departure from) in the lead, I do not believe that “contemporary” is needed as you do no distinguish between two groups of critics (like contemporary and retrospective reviewers) so the qualifier does not seem necessary here.
When you first mention Ryan Tedder in the “Production” section, should there be a short descriptive phrase to introduce him? A majority of the names have this when you first mention them, like “Swedish pop producers Max Martin and Shellback” and “English producer Imogen Heap”, so I am wondering if the same should be done with Tedder for consistency’s sake? This is up to you, but I thought it was worth pointing out.
For this sentence (She acknowledged that her previous album Red blended country and pop elements, thus envisioned a "blatant pop" production for 1989 because "if you chase two rabbits, you lose them both”.), shouldn’t “envisioned” be “envisioning”?
For this part (Swift's familiar themes), I would use “recurring” rather than “familiar”.
I do not think that “thereform” is really necessary for this sentence (It therefrom expresses self-discovery, a difference from her previous releases.).
I have a question about this sentence ("Bad Blood" is about betrayal by an unnamed female peer.). Shouldn’t the article briefly mention how critics believed the song was about Katy Perry. This received a lot of attention from the media during the song’s release, and it is a little odd that it is not mentioned at all here. I think that it warrants mentioning in a brief sentence.
As Swift did not explicitly state whom the song is about, I think this kind of information is best reserved for the song's article itself (I also think it's kind of gossipy to include this). HĐ (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is understandable; the only reason I brought this up is because I found the "unnamed female peer" part to be extremely vague. But I do not have strong feelings either way about it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added tiny bits of info; it's weird not to include this since the media went crazy on this after all, HĐ (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you. I would revise the current wording though because it reads somewhat awkwardly to me, specifically due to the repetition of the "whom" clauses. Aoba47 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded; hope it flows better, HĐ (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That reads much better to me. Apologies for all of the comments, but I was just trying to help improve the article as much as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
During my past FACs, I have always been told to only use audio samples if they are representative of the album as a whole. I would revise the “Out of the Words” caption to focus more on how Swift said it best represents the album as I think that would be a stronger justification for its use. I am not entirely certain about the use of the “I Wish You Would” sample as it does not appear to represent the album as a whole. The sample seems to be more focused on the individual song rather than the album. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
The two songs whose samples I included certainly have significant features of the album itself; caption needs to be succinct, and I think at this point, the captions for the two samples are enough for readers to figure out the 1980s influences on the album. I could put more info into the captions, but I don't think that's advisable... HĐ (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that you add more to the captions. I was suggesting that you revised to better reflect how the song represents the album as a whole, like for the "Out of the Woods caption, I do not think it is necessary to repeat this part "was inspired by one of her relationships which she felt fragile" because an audio sample is usually used to illustrate a song's instrumental/genre rather than lyrical content (at least to me). A caption like ("Out of the Woods" incorporates heavy 1980s-styled synthesizers and percussion; Swift said it "best represents" the album) would be a stronger fit. I am still not entirely convinced about the “I Wish You Would” sample, but I will leave that to whoever runs the media review. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (On August 18, via a Yahoo!), I would add a wikilink to Yahoo!.
The song ”We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together” is wikilinked twice in the article.
The word “guitar” is wikilinked in this part (features guitar in its instrumentation), but the word was used in this earlier sentence (the "standard drums-guitar-bass-whatever" generic song structure) so it should be wikilinked there instead.
I don't like wikilink in quotes but I'll see, HĐ (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I would just remove the wikilink altogether as I am pretty sure most people know what a guitar is. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (where she explained to Tedder her desired artistic direction that had already been formed in her mind), I am not sure if (that had already been formed in her mind) really adds much to the sentence. It could be removed in my opinion with losing any information.
For this part (Swift finalized the record upon completing the Asian leg of the Red Tour by mid-2014), I would use “in” instead of “by”. Something about the “by” word choice sounds awkward to me.
Portions of the "Media data and non-free use rationale" box for the "Out of the Woods" sample is incomplete (i.e. has n.a.).
I have a question for this sentence (Its music video received widespread media attention for featuring Swift's high-profile celebrity friends including Karlie Kloss, Lena Dunham, and Selena Gomez). Neither of the sources provided at the end of the sentence support this part (featuring Swift's high-profile celebrity friends including Karlie Kloss, Lena Dunham, and Selena Gomez).
I believe Drowned in Sound should in italics.
I would be more consistent on whether or not you use the Oxford comma. You seem to use it in a majority of the article, but there are some instances were it is absent, such as (Swift had tie-ins with Subway, Keds and Diet Coke) and (She re-added her entire catalog to Spotify, Amazon Music and Google Play).
Great work with the article, and once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, thanks for your detailed comments as always. I have addressed all of your concerns, apart from those where I left a reply. HĐ (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I suggested a possible revision to the "Out of the Woods" audio sample and a suggestion for the "guitar" wikilink, but these are not enough to hold back my support for the article's promotion. Again, you have done awesome work with the article. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Going to give this a look. Taylor Swift is decidedly not one of my favorite singers, but album reviewers are getting thinner these days so I’ll see what I can offer here. ToaNidhiki05 14:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
Really good lede! Only suggestion: I would merge the last two sentences of the second paragraph together.
I would not personally do that because it'll create a lengthy sentence... HĐ (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance
Its sales performance therefore was subject to considerable media speculation > Its sales performance was therefore subject to considerable media speculation
Change uses of "fold" (currently ninefold, sixfold, fourfold, and threefold) to "x times platinum" or something like "9× platinum".
References and footnotes
I've personally gone ahead and added archive links via IABot so that's out of the way.
Note A has a period at the end of the sentence but notes B-E do not. I would add periods to B-E as well.
Note A is a full sentence while notes B-E are not, so I wouldn't add full stops to the mentioned notes
I would change source 51 to be Taylorswift.com since Official Website is a description on our end, not theirs.
Add International Federation of the Phonographic Industry to the website or publisher column of the two individual sources in 163. The third source in 163 also needs a website or publisher.
As indicated "... compiled by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" I don't think it's needed to recite the publisher in every single source, HĐ (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed all except where noted. Thanks so much for your comments, HĐ (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations are reasonable. Article looks great - great job, HĐ! This would make a fantastic addition to our featured articles and impressively would be a Half-Million Award article. Thanks for taking on this high-profile page and hopefully this gets approved after it gets another look or two here! ToaNidhiki05 15:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary critics noted the album's emerging departure from Swift's signature country styles of previous releases. -- a bit awkwardly worded. Reading the sources, I'd personally rephrase this as "Contemporary critics noted that album's departure from the signature country style of Swift's previous releases."
Also, there are 11 instances of the use of "Swift" in this section alone, and quite an abundance of the surname throughout the article. Don't be afraid to use "her" or "she" whenever appropriate, to break up any overuse.
She confessed that she had been "intimidated" by the city, but ultimately found her way to enjoy it. - I think you could expand on this, as it's a bit too unexplanatory as it currently is. The source says [In New York as opposed to California], "She can walk down the street to get dinner, or go furniture shopping with friends in Brooklyn. Even the paparazzi are better." But I'm unsure of whether that's an actual quote for Taylor Swift or the journalist's editorializing, so I wouldn't feel comfortable quoting that. I'd suggest paraphrasing to "She confessed that she had previously been "intimidated" by the city, but explained she could live a normal life there, citing her interactions with paparazzi: "They don't provoke me [in New York], or ask weird questions. And a lot of them are long-lensing it—which, if you have to have paparazzi in your life, is such a better way."
Production
they would take her ideas with a different direction that challenged her as a songwriter → they would take her ideas in a different direction which would challenge her as a songwriter?
her signature country styles - unnecessary plural; "signature country style" would be better here.
Borchetta ultimately accepted Swift's artistic decision and that her new songs would not impact country radio. - could probably do with a comma after 'decision', and changing "her" to "the".
Heap helped completing the track → Heap helped complete the track
Swift described the 1980s as an experimental period when artists forsook the "standard drums-guitar-bass-whatever" - I know "forsook" is the simple past tense of forsake, but I think "abandoned" would be the more appropriate word here.
'Pre-release promotion
Following the live stream, Swift announced that she would handle out a total of 1989 → announced that she would distribute a total of 1989.
Footage videos of the sessions → Video footage of the sessions
Distrubition
would not affect sales nonetheless - double negative; "nonetheless" should be removed
Singles
On February 17, Swift announced that she would release the three deluxe edition-included tracks to iTunes Stores in the US as promotional singles one at a time, releasing then the first, "Wonderland". - awkwardly worded; suggest re-writing to "On February 17, Swift announced the release of the three deluxe edition bonus tracks as promotional singles exclusively on the US iTunes Store, beginning on that date with "Wonderland"."
Critical reception
while noticed the album's "treated hooks and doctored vocals" that had been a trademark of Swift's music, applauded her departure... → while noticing the album's "treated hooks and doctored vocals" had been a trademark of Swift's music, applauded her departure...
By contrast, Entertainment Weekly's Adam Markovitz was critical of the heavy synthesizers that undermines Swift's conventionally vivid lyrics, → By contrast, Entertainment Weekly's Adam Markovitz was critical of the heavy synthesizers, which they said undermined Swift's conventionally vivid lyrics,
Sorry about the length of time it has taken for me to complete this review. I can't edit Wikipedia like I used to a decade ago. =(
Commercial performance and subsequent sections:
Nothing I'd change here, although I was initially going to suggest retitling 'Ryan Adams's cover'->'Ryan Adams' cover album', because s's is not something I'd write myself. But apparently it's perfectly acceptable nowadays, so I don't mind if you keep it the way it is. Nothing to complain about formatting-wise in 'Track listing' and 'Personnel', and every link in 'Charts', 'Certifications and sales' and 'release history' is archived. So happy to support this once the above is fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: I've addressed all of your concerns, hope you could check them at the earliest time ;) OAN: the apostrophe should almost always be added even if the subject ends with an 's' according to the Oxford Dictionary (just figured this out recently as well!) Thanks for reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes you've made, so can support now. Good luck with the nomination. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources appear to be working according to the external links checker tool. They are reliable and appropriate given the subject of the article.
I have one small format questions: Any particular reason why iTunes Store is not wikilinked in the references?
My mistake for neglecting that. Added, HĐ (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is an easy mistake so no worries. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An editor from the first FAC raised concerns about the lack of scholarly sources in the article. I do not have an issue with this; I looked through Google Scholar for scholarly sources, and I did not find anything new/substantial to add here.
I have done a brief spotcheck, and I found only one thing: I cannot find the "overproduction" quote in Ref 102.
I tried to rephrase the bit but I don't think it's worth mentioning anymore. I probably made up the term "overproduction" when trying to interpret Sheffield's review, HĐ (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. Thank you for addressing it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is outside the scope of a source review, but I am curious if the article should include information about Scooter Braun or Taylor's apparent plans to re-record her music? It may not fit this article as this is more about Taylor's first six albums as a unit, but I thought this point was worth raising.
I would wait until Swift finished re-recording all of her albums... For now I think it's better to leave it for the main Taylor Swift article. HĐ (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. I agree with that, but I thought I might as well ask since you are more knowledgeable about it than myself. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with this - it's surely worth noting that Swift intends to re-record the album, especially given how unusual such an act is. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Swift has not started re-recording, she just announced the plan once on a live television performance that will take place next year. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I don't deem it necessary to include this bit of information for the time being, HĐ (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just have two small recommendations (the iTunes Store and Rolling Stone parts). Other than that the sources are comprehensive and well presented. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't express how grateful I am to have your input on both prose and sources! Much appreciated, HĐ (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. Just trying to help as much as I can. Everything looks good to me. Good luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: As you opposed the previous nomination and it doesn't appear you were pinged at the subsequent Peer Review or this nomination, would you mind taking a look to assess the progress against your previous concerns? --Laser brain(talk) 12:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: Not weighing in as a reviewer, but just stressing that I consider Nick-D's commentary to be valid and actionable before I would consider promotion. I did a light library search this afternoon and came up with lots of stuff, many of which seems to cover themes, feedback, and production that you haven't covered. I think the article could be expanded considerably with sources available through the library. --Laser brain(talk) 18:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I searched for articles published from 2015 on this album and found most of the sources to be either kind of off-topic (Swift's career as a whole, Swift's public image amidst the Kanye West controversy etc.) or written by non-professionals (some papers are written by undergraduate students seeking to complete their degree). That said, I'd try to dig into this more, and if there's barely anything I find substantially useful, I want to have reconsideration on whether the lack of scholarly sources really impact the comprehensiveness of this article, HĐ (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may have to use an actual library search or enlist the help of a librarian. Google Scholar is not always the best tool for performing library searches. --Laser brain(talk) 11:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not equipped with such tools at the moment. I have a Wikipedia Library Card access to Foreign Affairs, which does not have pop music coverage... I also think it's questionable if a five-year-old pop album is notable enough for scholarly publications found in a public library. HĐ (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: You have some misunderstandings about the nature and usefulness of a library search and the help a librarian can provide. Google Scholar is useful if you know exactly what you're looking for. However, a library (public or academic; most of them have subscriptions to the same databases) can provide a curated search and help you focus on particular databases or individual journals. These searches extend to more than peer-reviewed academic journals and include many other publications and books. --Laser brain(talk) 12:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I did reach out for help from my university's library as well as the city's public library to no avail (they have a few books covering pop music but very generic information i.e. names of pop stars through each decade). It's not that I disregard the necessity of academic sources, it's that I've done my best within my capability and found that at the moment I find scholarly sources unsubstantial to this article. HĐ (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Based on a fairly quick look at what sources have been used and some spot checks, I'm afraid that while the article is much improved I don't think that the FA criteria are met. In particular, I continue to have concerns regarding prose quality and the use of sources. Some examples
I'm not seeing any use of the various academic papers which cover Taylor Swift and this album I noted in the previous FAC. This could be particularly useful in lifting the 'Critical reception' section from being a collection of reviews into something thematic. Is there a reason for this? (for instance, that the papers aren't actually useful? If so, why not?)
The album is relatively 'young' and thus I don't find the 'scholarly' sources from Google Scholar substantially useful -- the album's production, songs, and reviews are widely covered by contemporary media, which is easily accessible through online platforms. I don't want to add a few academic papers only to make this article appear well-researched (which I find pretentious), when most, if not all of the information can be easily accessed through online news and reviews. A small update, as most of the papers I found are not that credible for the article (as I responded to Laser brain above), I have hardly found any reviews that are actually beneficial to this article, HĐ (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a reason to favour news stories over journal articles, which are generally considered gold standard sources, or academic papers given that academic-style work can be assumed to be of a higher standard than something a journalist has written (often in a hurry to meet a deadline). Works written after a period of time has elapsed or which take a broad picture can also be very helpful in putting a longer-term perspective on a topic. From a quick check of some of the sources which show on Google Scholar this scholarly work on Swift's songwriting looks rather handy, this has a useful snippet on what the album meant for her long-term career and this provides interesting analysis of some of the songs. I'm not sure why they aren't useful. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, Pitchfork has also recently published a retrospective review of the album which could be combined with other references to discuss the extent to which it's stood the test of time - as I understand it, it's often regarded as a classic of its genre (it's actually one of my favourite albums!) Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I get it right, I guess you might want the Music and Lyrics section to be more elaborate by, say, explaining the details of each and every song on the album. That's fine for me to do, but I'm reluctant to do so because the album has a rather cohesive composition (synth-pop songs about love, nothing experimental or groundbreaking imho), and because Swift personally didn't reveal much behind-the-scene inspirations (she usually wants listeners to interpret songs themselves). The book may come in handy to include details of each song. I'm not sure if she is praised for being at the cutting edge of postmillennial pop with her most recent album 1989 adds that much substance (this should need more analysis on how and why the album does so). The songs mentioned in the third source -- Shake It Off, Blank Space, Bad Blood are massive singles and have standalone articles detailing their respective themes; that's not to say the comments (Shake It Off is about self-awareness, irony; Blank Space is about portrayal of Swift being involved in endless relationships, Bad Blood disdains a friendship turned sour) are identical to what is already in the article. (That said, I'd keep finding for academic sources, and will find a way to include the recent Pitchfork review) HĐ (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any fixed expectations of what can be gained from consulting these sources, as I haven't read them in detail. Something which jumps out at me from them though is that they provide a useful thematic analysis of the album's songs. I imagine that they can also contribute to the article in other ways. Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I can say so far is that the sources I've gathered don't seem to contribute to this article in a very significant way. I wouldn't expect much scholarly attention on a five-year-old pop album anyways... HĐ (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"On behalf of NME, Matthew Horton considered Swift's transition to pop "a success"" - but he only gave it 7/10, which is hardly a ringing endorsement - it's lower than the Metacritic average
Horton barely said anything negative about the album, which I find odd as well given the score. HĐ (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for interrupting this discussion. Horton does raise one point of criticism in this sentence (Barring a late collapse into soft-rock mush on the drifting ‘This Love’ and weepy ‘Clean’, Swift’s plunge into pop is a success.) so he seems to dislike the album's final two songs which he referred to as "a late collapse into soft-rock mush". Just wanted to point that out. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Shane Kimberlin writing for musicOMH was skeptical about whether Swift's transition to pop on 1989 was successful, but praised the album for showcasing Swift as an artist who was not conformed to boundaries and the lyrics for embracing more positive themes" - this sentence is very complex, and doesn't read well
"which he found outstanding from the mainstream pop scene." in the edit here also reads awkwardly. Just to stress, I'm noting examples here. The article unfortunately still has too many constructions like this. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the article has too many such constructions, but I find most of the article concise and easily understandable, per previous editors' input and the PR. Just saying, I hope you won't let certain examples define the whole article, HĐ (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These examples are fairly typical of the article's prose I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
" In a less favorable review, AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine accused Swift of being aloof in celebrating temporal pop subjects" - I'm not sure what a "temporal pop subject" is
" Its sales performance was therefore subject to considerable media speculation" - where is this stated in either of the sources cited? The Billboard story doesn't discuss media coverage at all, and I can't see this in the NYT (which discusses industry expectations).
The closest quote that indicates this is ... has been the subject of nervous speculation in the industry for months from the NYT article. My rephrasing might have blemished the meaning a bit, HĐ (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"She confessed that she had been "intimidated" by the city, but ultimately found her way to enjoy it" and "conveying her transition from initial intimidation to courage to indulge in the city" - the grammar is a bit off here
Would you mind elaborate? Is it the grammar or the flow? What particular alternate wording would you recommend? HĐ (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the first, something like "She initially found living in the city to be intimidating, but came to enjoy her new surrounds" might work. For the second, something like "and recalls her experiences settling into the city" given that the article has already summarised what these were. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"marking the official departure from Swift's signature country sound" - what does official mean in this context? The use of "signature" here is also confusing - if this smash hit album used a very different style, was her style at the time really country?
It was marketed to be so; Swift described the album as her first "official" pop album, do you think adding quotation marks would convey it better? HĐ (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a fairly meaningless term. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"On August 18, via a Yahoo! / ABC News live stream at the Empire State Building, Swift ultimately revealed the then-anticipated album's details" - what's meant by "ultimately revealed" isn't clear. Could this be replaced with something like "gradually"?
"and the release date was expected to be October 27" - expected by whom?
"Its music video received widespread media attention for featuring Swift's high-profile celebrity friends " - passive voice, and over-complex as a result.
I don't understand how this is passive voice... HĐ (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "Media coverage of the song's video was focused on its appearances by Swift's high-profile celebrity friends" Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Live performances' section is rather uneven - it focuses on listing multiple routine promotional performances (do they all, and all the songs Swift played in them, need to be mentioned?), and barely mentions the massive world tour. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The tour has its own standalone article, so I don't want to discuss much about it here -- a quick glance at it (the highest-grossing tour of the year) would be enough in my honest opinion. And the performances included are part of the album's promotion schedule, so I wouldn't remove them in the least, HĐ (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It also seems odd to list Swift's set list on multiple promotional appearances, which is basically trivia, but exclude her recent statement that she's going to re-record the album which is highly unusual and significant. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you find it sensible to just list appearances on talk shows/awards and omit the specific songs performed? The recording masters dispute is not unique to this album, it's significant to Swift's career as a whole. That's not to say the plan has not even started yet... HĐ (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HiNick-D, I have quickly addressed some of your comments above. HĐ (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment - With open opposition regarding the thoroughness of research and no progress on that front, this does not have consensus for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please get help as necessary with researching and employing a more thorough survey of the available literature. --Laser brain(talk) 14:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 14:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
