Talk:1989 (Taylor's Version)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 15:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Been obsessed with the re-recording of "New Romantics" the past few days :) In the meantime, there are outstanding concerns regarding the citations on the article talk page. Best, NØ 15:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Prose review
Doing the prose-focused part first. I'll do comprehensiveness checks at a later date with a second read-through.--NØ 07:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "as released on October 27, 2023, via Republic Records." - I do not use "via" in this context, generally. Isn't the album released "by" the record label?
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Extended editions of the album additionally feature the re-recorded versions of the soundtrack song "Sweeter than Fiction"" - Would it be appropriate to mention which soundtrack it's from?
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "The album topped record charts in at least 18 territories" - The 18 territories claim needs to occur in a secondary source to be used here. I am not seeing this repeated or cited in the article body.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You haven't used an oxford comma here: "with emphasis on the production, Swift's vocals and the vault tracks" but have used it here: "with the vault tracks "Is It Over Now?", "Now That We Don't Talk", and "Slut!" occupying the top three spots". I believe this has to be consistent.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Swift conceived 1989 to recalibrate her artistry to pop after marketing her first four albums to country radio" - Admittedly, I find that she "marketed her first four albums to country radio" to be quite a bold claim. It might be best to stick to "promoted" as the source does, as "marketed" implies the albums were conceived with the sole intention of getting airplay.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "American businessman Scooter Braun" - His article seems to describe him as "entrepreneur, music executive, and business magnate", so ideally I would just suggest picking the most relevant one of those.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "the ownership of the masters to Swift's first six studio albums, including 1989, transferred to him." - There should be a "was" here or it sounds like the ownership transferred itself...
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "In August 2019, Swift denounced Braun's purchase and announced that she would re-record" - Quite nitpicky on my part, so apologies in advance, but is it possible to avoid using "denounced... announced" in such close proximity?
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "The re-recorded "Wildest Dreams" was released on September 17, 2021" - Maybe keep with "re-recording of "Wildest Dreams"" or "re-recorded version of "Wildest Dreams"", as "re-recorded "Wildest Dreams"" is a bit jarring.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "she performed in blue outfits, representing the color that she associated 1989 with" - Sorry if I'm reading too much into this, but I am not seeing that Swift associated this color with 1989 in the sources. One source seems to suggest this was an audience observation.
 * ✅ clarified that it is the color Swifties associated the album with. Ippantekina (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "The standard edition 1989 (Taylor's Version) consists of 21 tracks" - standard edition "of" 1989 (Taylor's Version)?
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Am I experiencing the Mandela effect, or were the 1989 bonus tracks on the Target edition and not on a "deluxe edition"? :P
 * Billboard said it was a deluxe edition.. I suppose it is Swift's tradition to release her deluxe albums to Target specifically. Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "who produced multiple songs on the 2014 recording alongside Max Martin" - It's really much simpler to just say 1989 instead of "2014 recording"
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "According to NME, the album is a work of 1980s-inspired synth-pop" - "a work of"??
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe a link to Retro style?
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "According to Clash, the re-recording has a "cleaner" instrumentation" - I am curious about this sentence's placement in the Music and lyrics section. Usually, "clean" is a positive compliment and represents a subjective opinion, right? I could be wrong about this.
 * I think "cleaner" in this sense means "more polished" which is a description. Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Unlike Swift's previous re-recordings, 1989 (Taylor's Version) does not feature new guest vocalists." - This seems trivial. Just because the previous re-recordings had guest vocalists does not mean this one was also going to have them.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Variety's Chris Willman felt that some production elements of the vault tracks seem to have been influenced by Swift's tenth studio album" - Tense switch
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "It is composed as a "dreamy", slow-paced, mid-tempo pop song" - Avoid unattributed direct quotes: "dreamy". Also, "high-drama", "crashing", "breathy", "sashay away", "wind chime-y", "feelings of unfinished business", "cruel memories", "an odd squawking sample", in subsequent sentences.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * These are positive / complimentary descriptors: dreamy, glistening, sensuous, intense romantic feelings, anthemic chorus, odd squawking sounds, tightly packed internal rhymes. Opinions should be attributed. You could probably just remove most of these adjectives, though, as they are not integral to understanding the "Music and lyrics".
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "which, upon clicking, produced one of 89 puzzles with or without an accompanying hint" - should this be "upon being clicked"? otherwise it sounds like the blue vault is doing the clicking.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Shortly thereafter, Swift unveiled the back covers of the album" - wordy
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "1989 (Taylor's Version) was released on October 27, 2023, to music streaming services and in vinyl LP, cassette tape, and CD formats." - why not mention here it was Republic who released it?
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "The standard edition contains 21 tracks, five of which are designated "From the Vault", indicating unreleased songs that were written for 1989 but did not make the final track list in 2014" - This description is very helpful but doesn't it appear too late in the article? You have been discussing vault tracks in a few sections by this point, so this should probably be in the note after the first mention of the term.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Doubt the deluxe edition qualifies as a "surprise release" when it was released just hours after the previously announced standard edition. I would avoid using the term here.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "and observed there are no jarring changes" - maybe add "that"
 * "Rachel Aroesti described Swift's vocal performance as "richer and more mature yet hardly distractingly so" and felt the pertinent vault tracks added more depth to a classic" - It is best to keep this focused on the re-recording. I would suggest: "Rachel Aroesti described Swift's vocal performance as "richer and more mature yet hardly distractingly so" and felt the pertinent vault tracks added more depth to 1989"
 * "1989 was not critiqued seriously by many rockist "cultural gatekeepers" such as Pitchfork in 2014 but its Taylor's Version "shines a lot brighter"" - By "shines a lot brighter", isn't he just saying that the Taylor's Version drew more critical reviews? The way this is presented makes it sound like this is a comment on the quality of the re-recording. This can maybe be removed.
 * Does the Critical reception section follow any themes for bifurcating the paragraph? It is not immediately obvious on what basis it has been organized.
 * ✅ I rewrote and reorganized the whole section. Ippantekina (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Republic Records reported global opening-week sales crossing 3.5 million units" - maybe "Republic Records reported global opening-week sales of over 3.5 million units"
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "In the United States, 1989 (Taylor's Version) sold over one million copies by its fifth day of release, marking Swift's record-extending eleventh album to sell 500,000 copies and sixth to sell one million copies in a single week" - This could be much more concise: "In the United States, 1989 (Taylor's Version) became Swift's sixth album to sell one million copies in a single week and her record-extending eleventh album to sell 500,000 copies". The "fifth day" is basically the whole week so nothing important is lost by not mentioning that.
 * "eclipsing the original album's figure by 400,000 units" - Avoid "eclipsing" (WP:Sensationalism). "surpassing" is simpler.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "The album marked Swift's 13th chart-topping album" - close repetition of "album"
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "1989 (Taylor's Version) further reached number one on albums charts of many European territories" - Probably avoid "further", as this suggests this was somehow less important than debuting atop the US chart.
 * ✅ Ippantekina (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have this CD myself but I would suggest checking for typos in the Personnel.--NØ 07:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, many thanks for taking up this review. Please ping me or put this GAN on hold once you finish examining the article. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'll do the remaining checks during the weekend. This is the comprehensive review of the prose currently in the article so feel free to work on this as there is a lot here.--NØ 19:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comprehensiveness checks passed on GA level. You may want to look at the source currently in refideas before an FAC. Also I've made some copyedits which you hopefully don't mind. Just awaiting responses on the bullet points above that are without reply now.<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 16:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review. I have addressed all points accordingly, including rewriting the "Critical reception" section. Let me know if there remain further issues :) Ippantekina (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks ready to me :) Congratulations!--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 19:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)