Talk:Taylor Swift/GA2

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

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 14:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll write the review ASAP. Thanks!  →TSU tp* 14:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AdabowtheSecond kindly put this article forward for consideration. He's not a regular contributor to the article so I'm not sure if he'll be around to respond to any issues raised. If not, I'm happy to make any changes necessary.Popeye191 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made a quick view over the article and it looks pretty good, but there are just few issues which can be solved. Having 850+ edits is a great thing. If this gets promoted, then it is for sure that the credit goes to you. Great work..  →TSU tp* 16:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i don't want to take the credit in anyway at all credit goes to Popeye191 in my opinion. I adore this article it is really great. I'm a big fan of Swift so i hope this page will be one time a featured article i think Popeye191 can take it there. Popeye is a amazing contributor to the page and should get all the credit. Finally i'm a regular editor on One Direction related articles, the main article of 1D is now nominated for GA aswell so i won't be around for the issues raised for this article. I hope Popeye191 can take it from here AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I know you don't mean to take credit - it's flattering that you thought the article was ready. Best of luck with the One Direction nomination! Popeye191 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget me guys! Bit busy in my real life, but will find time for this one. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is atrocious, riddled with fancruft, synthesis, wretched sourcing, and inaccuracy. One needs look no further than this disputed content, where neither the factual claims nor the assertion of significance in the edit summaries are properly supported by the Wired magazine piece cited as the key reference. This bloated mess would be better cited as a BLP violation than a "good article", little as that designation means. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch! The article is far from perfect but I feel confident in saying that it's much better than it was a few months ago. I am very open to suggestions for improvement and had intended to ask for a peer review before GA nomination. I find you to be a very poor communicator. And now to address the "disputed content" - you deleted information because the source was a blogger. I referred you to the Wired article, where The Lefsetz Letter's music industry standing was discussed. If you are unhappy with Wired's credibility (?), here are alternative links to The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. Popeye191 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would help if you read the sources you cite. The Washington Post piece, for example, states "Lefsetz is something like Jim Cramer with a country-music obsession and a distaste for the synthetic drums of Top 40 pop. Basically, he comes off as kind of a nut." That's hardly consistent with your characterization of his work as "highly respected." This dissonance between what is claimed here and what sources actually say is one of the article's major flaws, as is documented repeatedly by my edits. Now please respond to the points I actually made rather than changing them into statements you find easier to dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion of Lefsetz's musical taste or writing style is irrelevant. I supplied the Washington Post reference to show that he is considered influential and, in the opening paragraph, he is described as "one of the music industry's most influential analysts". I am acting in good faith and am doing my very best to respond to your concerns. If anything, you are the one misrepresenting the article, which states: "Basically, he comes off as kind of a nut. Yet his acumen draws readers who include some of the most powerful figures in the music business." Popeye191 (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. First of all, I quoted a complete. discrete paragraph, and your suggestion that it's misrepresentation wouldn't come from a reasonable editor arguing in good faith. Second, it's hardly on point to argue about his purported influence, since I objected to your description of him and his work as "highly respected." The Post article pretty much characterizes him as the music industry's equivalent of a loopy talk radio personality, a field in which respectability and influence are not exactly solidly associated. Third, a point you're conspicuously avoiding, the Wired article doesn't support the claim it's cited for, just another example of the slipshod sourcing and OR/synthesis that permeate this dreadful article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my edit summaries, I argued that The Lefsetz Letter is a reliable source - the reasons I gave were that it is "highly respected" and "a highly influential industry newsletter". I stand by those assertions and believe they are supported by the Washington Post link. To be clear, you think that The Washington Post does not characterise him as highly influential and respected by those in the music industry? If so, we need outside assistance to end this disagreement.


 * I still feel that the Wired article supports my assertion that The Lefsetz Letter is a legitimate, reliable source: “At every label,” says Scott Rodger, manager for Paul McCartney and Arcade Fire, “from the mail room to the A&R department to the chairman’s office, I guarantee they all read him.” The Wired reference is used three times during the article. On the first occasion, it is provided as a second source to give more background to Lefsetz's relationship with Swift. On the second occasion, it is used to support the statement: "Bob Lefsetz, one of the most vocal critics of her 2010 Grammy performance, has said he believes the song is addressed to him." The Wired article states: "In the album liner notes, Swift’s highlighted letters spell out the message “I thought you got me.” (Lefsetz says she told him “You get me” several times.) [I have now also added a second link to Lefsetz's blog, in which he mentions Swift writing "that damn song about me".]. On the third occasion, it is used to support the statement: "Swift and Lefsetz had corresponded occasionally by email and telephone." The article states: "Swift got in touch with Lefsetz, occasionally emailing or calling him." Which use of the reference to you object to?Popeye191 (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I couldn't have found a better demonstration of my point than this. First of all, that "link to Lefsetz's blog" you claim to have added is actually a duplicate link to the Wired article . Second, as should be clear from the text excerpts you posted, that article does not adequately support the claim you cite it for. Third, when one actually tracks down the quote you provide from Lefsetz's blog, it turns out to be from the opening sentence of an April Fool's Day spoof piece! . There's a reason that, outside of your edits, Lefsetz is mentioned here in only two other artist articles, and both of those are borderline-deleteable puff pieces masquerading as articles . The whole Swift vs the middle-aged blogger silliness is utter fancruft, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. And while it's an unusually bad sourcing failure, it's far too typical of the lousy, BLP-violating sourcing in this mess. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I copied and pasted the wrong link - I obviously intended to link to Lefsetz's blog rather than Wired. This has now been rectified (using a newsletter other than the April 1 one, which I accept confuses the issue). Do you approve of the new link?


 * Your original argument was that The Lefsetz Letter is not a valid source. Is this still your contention? You believe that The Washington Post does not characterise Lefsetz as highly influential and respected by those in the music industry?


 * Your new argument is that the Lefsetz criticism is fancruft and should not be included on that basis. I would argue that the Grammy criticism was one of the biggest moments of Swift's career to date, and that her return to the Grammy stage two years later, singing a song about the event, is also worthy of inclusion. Other wikipedia articles are not the place to ascertain Lefsetz's relevance to Swift's career. Even The New York Times mentioned some of Lefsetz's criticism in a Swift profile. Popeye191 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do I approve of the new link? Of course I don't; it doesn't support the claim it's cited for. A vague reference by Lefsetz that Swift wrote something about him somewhere doesn't come close to supporting the claim that he's the principal subject of a specific song. The rest is conjecture, synthesis and OR, and, like so much of the article, isn't BLP-compliant. And you misconstrue my arguments wrt Lefsetz as well. The Post article most certainly does not portray him as "highly respected" in the industry; it presents as a well-known and popular crackpot, a Glenn Beck (or, if your politics prefer, Keith Olbermann) for the music industry. That none of the non-Swift music articles (dubious puff pieces aside) cite his views shoul be taken as a telling indication of his significance for an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The two links read together are quite clear. Also, the sentence originally said "it is believed" that "Mean" is about Lefsetz but I changed it after you objected. (There are plenty of very reliable, broadsheet sources which support that particular statement). What is "the rest"?


 * Respected v influential is just semantics - "one of the music industry's most influential analysts", in the words of The Washington Post, is as valid a source as a "respected" analyst. However, because it concerns you, I dug up a Daily News article which refers to Lefsetz as "a respected music industry reporter". Again, I don't believe references to other wikipedia articles make for a convincing argument.


 * We've hit a brick wall in this discussion and probably need outside input.Popeye191 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Edited Popeye191 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Review

Sorry for getting here late (was at hospital). Lets do it in steps, first of all fixing minor. When you'll address the issues, I'll be also doing few minor edits to help or to direct. Once the issues are resolved, add ✅ after the task.


 * I see that there are many pictures of her, but they all probably lack WP:ALT. See my edit. Please add such alt to all images


 * Please fix this


 * Refs in the lead. They are not causing any trouble but it is better to not to have refs in the lead a the topic gets covered so remove those 2.
 * Ref in the lead sometimes should be kept, so why to remove those as they aren't causing any problem. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem if kept but if the topic is later covered in the article and there are refs (even if not), then it doesn't make sense in keeping them.  →TSU tp* 18:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also see that the topics in the lead are covered properly in the article later.

 →TSU tp* 20:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Section "Awards and nominations" - Can you expand it a little. 3-5 more lines will do great. Also, do move the section from the bottom to above "filmography".
 * ✅ -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 21:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I have read through the article and I hardly find any problems. It is just near to pass but few minor issues exists:


 * "2012: Upcoming fourth studio album" - rename this header to "2012 - and present"


 * There are many refs without name of the author so please see that you can at least fix 80% of them.
 * Few refs are WP:Bare urls.
 * The lead says nothing about her style or her personal life and influences and her public image and her relations.
 * Added public image, songwriting style
 * Lead surely talks about where she comes from, but relationships are things which I din't found in any of the Wikipedia articles. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and didn't add personal life information for this reasonPopeye191 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I agree that it should not be in the lead.
 * No problem. I agree that it should not be in the lead.


 * remove this from the lead as it has already been covered later in the article: "The New York Times considers Swift to be "one of pop’s finest songwriters" while Rolling Stone describes her as one of the best songwriters in contemporary "pop, rock or country"" And also mentioning a particular review in the lead aint a good idea at all.

Fix them and it is clearly a pass :)  →TSU tp* 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Influenced by, , and , Taylor Swift is recognized for her artistry profoundly for her celebrated songwriting style. for the lead; I don't know who particularly influences Swift. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is 1 more thing,

In the see also section, there is TBA (2012). Is it the confirmed name of the album? If not then please remove it don't put anything unless it is declared.


 * Few minor fixes


 * Her father, Scott Swift, is a Merrill Lynch financial adviser -remove, after Swift
 * What's wrong with the further information?? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Arrey, I m asking to remove Comma after swift not the info. It'll look like this- Her father, Scott Swift is a Merrill Lynch financial adviser— TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 07:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops! I got it now, my apologies. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Swift moved to Nashville at the age of fourteen, having secured an artist development deal with RCA Records - please re-phrase a bit
 * -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Swift's second studio album, Fearless, was released in November 2008 - no need of, after fearless
 * It makes sense to me - The New Yorker uses commas in the same place. Popeye191 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Swift released a cover of Tom Petty's "American Girl" exclusively through Rhapsody in June 2009 - exclusively? either re-word or remove the word


 * In November 2009, Swift became the youngest ever artist, and one of only six women, to be named Entertainer of the Year by the Country Music Association. -> In November 2009, Swift became the youngest ever artist and one of only six women to be named Entertainer of the Year by the Country Music Association.
 * -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Swift was included in Time's annual list of the 100 Most Influential People in 2010 - at which position?
 * The Time list doesn't use rankings Popeye191 (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Swift released her third studio album, Speak Now, in October 2010 - no need of ,
 * See above Popeye191 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Swift's song "Mean" won Best Country Song and Best Country Solo Performance.[236] She also performed "Mean" during the ceremony - Make the Mean itallic and remove ""
 * I think songs are supposed to have " " while album titles are italicizedPopeye191 (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in the first one. I have a doubt weather it is necessary to include " " again as it is just repeated in the previous line. Sorry about asking for itallic, and what about replacing "Mean" with It? — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 08:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the second mention to "the song" Popeye191 (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bob Lefsetz, one of the most vocal critics of her 2010 Grammy performance, has said he believes the song is addressed to him -> Bob Lefsetz, one of the most vocal critics of her 2010 Grammy performance, believes that the song is addressed to him


 * ref 427 is a dead link - can you find another?
 * -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dolly Parton has said she is "extremely impressed" by Swift's songwriting - Please remove picture of her and add whatever she said in the article rather then keeping her image. Clearly off-topic pic
 * -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That is it. Few problems like over use of, can be found at other places also but it is good to go for GA now after this. — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Have gone through the article more then 5 times now and don't see any major issue. Great work! I have passed it though if someone is planning a FA for this, then it is still a long way to go. — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)