Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fearless (Taylor Swift album)/archive1

Fearless (Taylor Swift album)

 * Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ignore this part if you do not care about pop culture—POV: it's 2009 and you turn on the radio. After some electronic Gaga-esque songs, you hear acoustic guitars and mandolins? It is so cheesy, but you can't resist the adrenaline rush of the refrain, "Romeo take me somewhere we can be alone," and you begin singing along. One night you tune in for the VMAs because pop culture is fun. Some moderately attractive blonde girl is speaking, and out-of-nowhere Kanye West snatches her mic and says, "Yo Taylor, I'll let you finish but—" Oh, snap, grab your popcorn fast. But your attention is now wholly on that blonde girl: Taylor Swift. You realise she is the author of that cheesy guitar-mandolin-whatever tune. Damn it, you listen to the whole album, and you find the songs insanely catchy with beefy hooks that engrave in your brain.

Main point: this article is about the 2008 album by Taylor Swift when she was a country music goody-two-cowboy-boots. Although it contains skippable cookie-cutters and Swift's below average vocals, it offers a mildly pleasant listen. After an extensive GAN and a thorough copyedit, I nominate this article for FAC candidacy, believing it satisfies the criteria. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Source Review by Guerillero (pass)

 * If the Swifties who have written an FA about her work in the past think this is close, I will do the source review -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Go ahead. -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are these high quality reliable sources? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.musicomh.com/reviews/albums/taylor-swift-fearless
 * One of Metacritic's critic sites, was mentioned in the Independent and Daily Telegraph as one of the music review sites among BBC and The Quietus . Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perfect, withdrawn -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * http://www.countryaircheck.com/pdf_publication/Issue_106%20-%20Sept.%208,%202008.pdf
 * A Nashville-based trade magazine. According to their About Us, the founder had had 23 years as an industry insider for Radio & Records, specifying in country music. Their board members include members of the Country Music Association, and the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Withdrawn-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.songwriteruniverse.com/taylorswift123.htm
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20110929103301/http://www.unratedmagazine.com/Document.cfm?Page=Articles%2Findex.cfm&Article_ID=495
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20110724085733/http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/3322
 * These three links are interviews with Swift. The first two are independent webzines, and the last is a student magazine. They are not reliable for musical criticism, but in the context of reviews, they are acceptable. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20091220121726/http://blog.gactv.com/blog/2009/12/17/taylor-swift-%E2%80%9Cfearless%E2%80%9D-ly-sets-a-new-precedent
 * A news site by GAC Family. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still uncomfortable with this one. Is it possible to replace it? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I replaced it with the Spencer book ref. Ippantekina (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is more or less a blog and the author seems to have done little other work -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with the Spencer book ref. Ippantekina (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You cover the popular press, but there is little mention of academic work. What did you do to make sure that this article is comprehensive? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of the material I found through Google Scholar are either self-published sources (dissertations, theses) or re-published news articles. I used the Wikipedia Library Platform but most sources discuss Swift's career in general. The most comprehensive one I have found so far is the Spencer book which discusses much of the album's conception and recording. Regarding the album's content and impact, the popular press is comprehensive enough to give readers how significant this album is. Trusted music critics such as Jody Rosen or Jon Pareles are, I believe, on par with academic sources. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The source review is a pass. Ready for spot checks -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TheSandDoctor
Overall I think that this is okay, but have one point here: Otherwise I think it looks okay. -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we define what the ""Triple Crown" of country music" is? I linked to Academy_of_Country_Music_Awards as it was the only thing I could find, but she isn't listed there? We need to confirm this and define (or link to) whatever it is because, as it stands, I have absolutely no idea what this is talking about.
 * I tried to figure out what Billboard means by "Triple Crown" but it is not the same as the Triple Crown Award by the ACM. Since Billboard is the only source discussing this type of "Triple Crown" (three top prizes for a country album by the ACM, CMA, and Grammys), I removed it as it is potentially UNDUE. Ippantekina (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing that. I support this nomination. -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support. Ippantekina (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Image and media review (pass)
Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review of the article, but I will look through the images and media. Apologies for that. My comments are below:


 * File:Taylor Swift - Fearless.png: The cover has a completed WP:FUR, appropriate WP:ALT text, and a clear purpose in the article.
 * File:Colbie Caillat playing in Paradiso, Amsterdam 03.jpg: The image has a clear purpose in the article since it is situated next to information about Caillat and Swift. It also has clear ALT text. The source link is active and the licensing seems clear to me.
 * File:FifteenSample.ogg: I am uncertain if this audio sample is entirely necessary. I've been told to keep non-free media to a minimal and only to use it for instances where it illustrates a point that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. The audio sample is currently being used to discuss a common theme through the album's lyrics, and I believe readers can understand that just by reading the prose.
 * File:You Belong with Me by Taylor Swift.ogg: By comparison to the above, this audio sample has a clearer purpose as readers may not be familiar with these genres and sounds so it adds a better understanding to the topic that cannot be accomplished with just prose. The WP:FUR is complete. For the timed text, I'd recommend adding text for the instrumental part (something as simple as instrumental would work) as I honestly thought the timed text was just not working when I first listened to it.
 * File:Taylor Swift at 2009 MTV VMA's 2.jpg: The source link works and I trust the licensing. It has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article.
 * File:Taylor Swift Fearless Tour 03.jpg: The source link works and I trust the licensing. It has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article. It is a good image choice as it fits the space allotted without crossing over into the other section headings (at least in my view of the article).

My only real issue is with the "Fifteen" audio sample. It's a great song, but I do not see a strong rationale for its inclusion. I have a minor suggestion for the "You Belong with Me" audio sample, but it is super, super nitpick-y. I hope this is helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the image review. I have tweaked the TimedText to "You Belong with Me". I believe a sample for "Fifteen" should be included because many critics singled out that song in Fearless album reviews. A 21-second sample does not do justice to the very intricate narrative, but a glimpse of it, through this sample, is pretty sufficient (the opening line "Abigail gave everything she had to a boy who changed his mind" is pretty striking, don't you think?) Ippantekina (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the instrumental part to "You Belong with Me". I am still somewhat on the fence with "Fifteen". I do not think lyrics alone is a great rationale, but I can see how an audio sample would help readers to better understand how these themes are explored and performed in the song rather than by just reading it. For that reason, the audio sample works for me. This FAC passes my source and media review. Best of luck with the FAC! Taylor Swift is very well represented on Wikipedia because of editors like you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your image/file review. Should other editors deem the "Fifteen" rationale too weak, I shall remove it. Ippantekina (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Aoba on the "Fifteen" sample. The FUR implies that it is used mostly for its lyrics, which is replaceable with text and therefore fails WP:NFCC. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. I was uncertain if I was being overly harsh with my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I added a review from Jody Rosen which is quite significant. Though it does not reappear in the prose, I believe it justifies its inclusion here. I removed the "Fifteen" sample and included another for "The Way I Loved You". I believe its use is justified by the critical discussion on its sound and instrumentation. Ippantekina (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in my response. I am not convinced "The Way I Loved You" sample works for this article. The caption is about this specific song, when it would be more ideal to have a sample that would better illustrate something that is more representative of the album as a whole. For instance, I could see a sample for "White Horse" and "You're Not Sorry" to better illustrate this point, "a more balladic production also feature pop hooks", but that is just a suggestion. I also preferred the "Exemplifying Fearless's sound," part of the original "You Belong with Me" caption as that was what really solidified its purpose in the article for me. I am pinging to get their opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging in case they missed my response. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. I removed the bit "Exemplifying Fearless's sound" because it comes off as OR. I believe any cut on this album can be used to demonstrate the pop hooks, but "The Way I Loved You" works specifically because Perone's commentary links it to a genre (seemingly) disparate to country, plus the guitar in the sample is close to what Perone described, unlike a sample of "White Horse" or "You're Not Sorry", which, if used to demonstrate the pop hooks, is rather vague. Ippantekina (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My issue with both audio samples is they are about the individual songs and are not being used to represent something about the album as a whole. If "Exemplifying Fearless's sound" is not supported by citations, it should not be in the caption, but that was the part that justified its inclusion the most to me. Unless Perone contrasts grunge and country, that comparison could also fall into OR. The "White Horse" or "You're Not Sorry" part was only a suggestion, and I agree that it's weak, but upon further review, neither audio sample has a particularly strong rationale for an album article, and seem more geared to a song article instead. Apologies for the double ping . Just wanted to get their opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The way the NFCC is written is to err on the side of non-inclusion of non-free content if we can't find a strong justification for why it's important to reader understanding. I mean, any of our readers can just go over to youtube to listen to the music so I don't see any audio files as essential in this case. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. From my experience, I've always been told to only use audio samples in album articles if they somehow represent something about the album as a whole (such as genre, instruments, etc. that would benefit from sound rather than just prose alone). I think audio samples can be helpful, but I believe a stronger case would be necessary here for both. I think it is possible though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree readers can go directly to YouTube to find music, but as a reader I do expect an album article to contain one or two samples to get a rough idea of what the album sounds like/talks about (this is my personal viewpoint, I am uncertain what other readers expect in samples in an album article). Because this album is consistent throughout, as discussed in the prose, any sample could work to represent the album's sound, but if two samples are too much, I shall cut it down to one. Ippantekina (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My issue is not the amount of audio samples, but the rationale for them. Neither of them are used to represent something about the album as a whole. I appreciate (and frankly prefer) audio sample(s) in articles for albums and songs. I have used two audio samples in album articles before. It's just the rationale here that needs further work. 02:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. As I said because this album is consistent throughout, any song could work, so no specific song really stands out. Ippantekina (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd look for instances when critics point out a specific song when discussing larger trends on the album. I'd imagine given the coverage on the album, that critics have done something similar to this, such as discussing a genre that recurs through the album, certain instruments, or even the way Swift sings. However, if you cannot find instances of this, I'd remove both audio samples (which I agree would be less than ideal). Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Then both would qualify per your descriptions because the samples features electric guitars in the bridge - which critics highlighted as a major point of the Fearless songs (intertwined with dynamic electric guitar and strings in the build-up; a dramatic bridge that recurs on each track. The captions only mention what is said about the tracks, but they do give an insight into the album's sound as discussed. Ippantekina (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. To be clear, I was never against having audio samples in this article. The point about the electric guitars in the bridge is good and would justify an audio sample in my opinion. It would not be necessary to have two audio samples to illustrate this point though, but you could look for a different rationale for the second one. Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Revised. Thank you for your comments. Ippantekina (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's still not quite there yet. The caption does not clearly define that "The Way I Loved You" has these country music instruments and electric guitars. The first sentence seems more like a general one just added to the caption, and it is not clearly related to the song. I would go for the following or something similar: James E. Perone commented that the distorted electric guitars in "The Way I Loved You" were influenced by grunge. According to critics, songs throughout Fearless also feature electrical guitars and have influences from genres other than country music. I think that would more clearly define how "The Way I Loved You" is being used to say something about the album as the whole (i.e. it represents how the album uses these electrical guitars and genres outside of country music). Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I revised the caption per your suggestion. Ippantekina (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thank you for your patience. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink
Just some minor notes: These comments are all fairly small. Having read the article with a critical lens, I wanted to find something to oppose the article’s candidacy over, but my comments are quibbles, and I’m sure quite easy to fix/address. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ”and has sold twelve million copies sold worldwide.” - as of?
 * ”The album won Album of the Year” - I suggest “Fearless won Album of the Year” to avoid saying album twice in such close succession.
 * ”Released on October 24, 2006, it was the longest-charting album on the US Billboard 200 of the 2000s.” - I suggest linking 2000s to the decade, so it’s a bit clearer you’re referring to the decade, and presumably not the ongoing millennium.
 * ”"The Best Day" is Fearless's most understated track, featuring a stripped-down production accompanied by guitar strums.” - most understated feels a bit POV to me. Maybe just “The Best Day features stripped down production…”?
 * Ah Kanyegate. Good way of mentioning it without going into too much detail.
 * ”This made Fearless the first album since Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. (1984) to have five top-ten hits with none reaching number one.” - that seems important enough to be in plain text and not a note, IMO, but no biggie.
 * Thank you for your support and comments. I have addressed them all except the final one; I believe the section should prioritise Fearless alone, that's why I left the Bruce Springsteen comparison in the note. Ippantekina (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair! Thanks for the quick reply. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7
Article meets my standards for a featured article. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support! Ippantekina (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

 * Out of curiosity, is it known when in 2007 Taylor started recording this album? If not, then I'd just go with "2007–2008" for the infobox as it looks awkward and incomplete to only use a month for one of these years in the range and not the other.
 * Removed. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In the lead, starting three consecutive sentences with "the" feels repetitive
 * Revised. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No need to link commonly recognized terms like "CD", "imagery", "music critics", "re-recording", "record producer", "promotional single", "singles", "lead single", "download", and "streaming" per WP:OVERLINK
 * Some links are helpful IMO; linking music critics to music journalism, for example, differentiates the modern critic from the classical "critic" (in a more academic sense). "Streaming" is a relatively new phenomenon and some older (whoops) readers may not be well informed. Ditto "re-recording" (thanks to Swift this is gaining traction) and "imagery" (I have seen this word being incorrectly used). Otherwise I will remove the other links. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced linking critics is so beneficial. People probably know what types of reviewers are meant. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The modern critics are not exactly the realm of music criticism (which those unfamiliar with popular music may confuse with). Other than that I retained the link to promotional single for readers to differentiate from normal singles. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The use of "formulaic" from "the formulaic production" carries a negative connotation, so I'd rework that bit
 * Changed to "recurring" Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't recommend altering quotes as you've done with "best first date that [she hadn't] been on yet"; it feels like a deceptive presentation. Just go with what the source actually says, which is "best first date that I haven't been on yet".
 * Revised. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Even though it's clear what you're trying to do with "the romantic themes of Taylor Swift, Swift chose to write songs", using her surname twice in such quick succession doesn't read very well.
 * Revised. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "She started recording the album as soon as she finished touring with George Strait."..... When exactly was that? Some digging might be needed when the given link doesn't specify.
 * "After your tour with George Strait is over, what are your plans? -- We've already grouped the songs for the next album, and I begin to record in the next couple months." Tweaked a bit so it does not sound like OR. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "the original's tragic conclusion with a happy ending" is blatant POV. Yes, I know what the intent was, but that's not a valid excuse to defy Wikipedia's neutrality policy.
 * What part exactly? The drama is (rightfully) a tragedy, so I am assuming you are talking about the "happy ending" part. If Swift herself said it was a happy ending, I do not think this is POV. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole quoted bit. Whether something has a "happy" ending is subjective as different people have different tastes. Same goes for "tragic" when that implies something is sad/unfortunate. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Likewise, "has a crossover appeal" is biased phrasing.
 * If virtually all critics agreed that it has a crossover appeal, I do not think this is a problem. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, you'd be better off making clearer that they felt it had appeal instead of presenting their personal opinions as an undeniable truth. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "Commercial performance" feels rather US-centric and problematically neglects to mention anything for non-English speaking nations aside from Japan and Singapore. You'll need to expand it, preferably with some non-American sales figures too that aren't just worldwide. Also, simply saying "see Taylor Swift singles discography" within a note for chart peaks feels lazy.
 * It is unfortunate but looking at the sales/charts stats overall, Fearless was significantly more successful in the Anglophone compared to the mainland Europe. Going into further details about chart positions would be trivial as it did not crack the top 10 in any other European/Asian charts. I added certifications it received in other European countries though. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not trivial at all; lower peaks isn't a valid reason to leave something out from there. That just feels like a cheap cop-out. I'm not saying you have to go into as much detail on them as other nations, just that everywhere it did chart should have at least some mention. Even ranges (e.g. "Fearless reached the top 20 in X, Y, and Z") and certifications are better than nothing. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "acknowledged" from "acknowledged the songs were well-written" should be changed to avoid treating an opinion like a fact. Same goes for "praised Fearless crossover appeal" as well as "noted that Swift's weak vocals" and "acknowledged her songwriting skills".
 * Tweaked. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "proved her capability of becoming a pop star" feels like puffery
 * Tweaked. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Is anything better than "The Music Network" available for sales in Australia (which would be a good thing to add into commercial performance)? While definitely not the worst publication I can think of, it's not the strongest either and isn't affiliated with ARIA (the most authoritative source for Australian music statistics).
 * If I cannot find an alternative, I will remove it. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That last paragraph talking about re-recordings doesn't feel like it fits under "Legacy". I'd recommend moving most of it to "Writing and production", and new peaks can go into "Commercial performance".
 * Because the two are separate albums, I believe putting it into the main prose is confusing. I am thinking of renaming "Legacy" to "Aftermath and legacy". Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In the references, don't italicize MTV News, AllMusic, Yahoo! Music, CMT News, Metacritic, CBS News, CNN, or indies.ca.
 * Per WP:MOSTITLE (in the notes): "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources." Sources like MTV News, CBS News or CNN are news sources so I italicise them. I am not sure about italicising AllMusic or Metacritic though. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can use the "agency" parameter to avoid misusing italics for the publications I listed. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 18:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That's all from me. I just made one minor change here and don't think this is too far off from being FA material. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments. I have responded to some above, and will proceed to work on the article within a few days. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have responded to all of your comments. Thank you very much once again for taking your time. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. This definitely looks better now than when I previously viewed it. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All are addressed now, I believe. Ippantekina (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly; your use of "noted" when discussing a "crossover appeal" comes off as treating personal thoughts like facts ("felt" or "believed" would be preferable), and the prose still doesn't have anything on charts/certifications in Belgium, Brazil, Greece, or Spain. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Music critics noted" does not state it as a concrete fact but frames the information within the knowledge of trustworthy professionals; if we get nitpick-y about what construes as facts vs. opinions then any genres could be POV because they are the approximate categorisation and not the sound per-se—Especially when a lot of artists leave the genre labelling to the critics. As much as I hate "other stuff", an example from the recently promoted FA Hunky Dory is, Bowie opted for a warmer, more melodic piano-based pop rock and art pop style ("warmer, more melodic" are the opinions of two cited critics/biographers). Otherwise done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It turns out I somehow missed Mexico and the Netherlands . Those along with Spain and Brazil (which continue to be left out) should have some mention in the prose, whether with ranges or specific numbers. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Ippantekina, have these been addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for the ping. I forgot to put the wikibreak template on my user page, but I have returned from my Christmas/New Year's break. I will proceed to resolve all by 5 January. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I added Brazil in the top 20 range. Adding positions beyond this range (I am assuming you mentioned Mexico and Spain because they are in the top 40? The album hit #43 in the Netherlands so I am unsure) is unhelpful because the section would read like a listicle, and there are lists in later sections. Ippantekina (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well. Just get rid of the improper italics (not sure why those were kept for things that are clearly not print works or TV shows), and you'll be set. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a little hesitant of what WP:MOSTITLE says ("Do not abuse incorrect template parameters in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources") but I de-italicized Metacritic, AllMusic, and Yahoo! Music. I left the rest (news sources i.e. CBS News, CMT News) in the website field. Ippantekina (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Following sufficient improvements, I now support this nomination. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your review. Ippantekina (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)