Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Style (Taylor Swift song)/archive1

Style (Taylor Swift song)

 * Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the song that made me genuinely fall in love with Taylor Swift's works. Sure, she only writes about boys and her obsession with the perfect Prince Charming, but this song showcases her maturity as an artist, both musically (I love the instrumental so bad) and lyrically (she has realised love is not a dream); plus the sensual video.

While Swift is reticent to share the song's development and inspiration, I have tried my best to include interpretations of the song to shed light on what it is exactly about. It has undergone a Copy-Edit and passed GAN, and I believe it is now comprehensive and well-written to pass FAC. Looking forward to comments, HĐ (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources Review

 * Spotchecks: I have carried out a sample of spotchecks, which has thrown up a couple of issues:
 * Ref 1: ARTICLE: "Inspired by pop music of the 1980s and its experimentation with synthesizers, drum pads, and overlapped vocals, for her fifth studio album, 1989, American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift decided to move away from the signature country styles of her earlier releases". SOURCE: I'm not sure that the source supports this summary of Swift's views. For example I can't see any mention of "Inspired by pop music of the 1980s and its experimentation with synthesizers, drum pads, and overlapped vocals, for her fifth studio album, 1989, American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift decided to move away from the signature country styles of her earlier releases".
 * The source indicates that: "Maybe the biggest influence that 1989 had on 1989 was what Swift, who was born that year, describes as a feeling of freedom. 'It was a very experimental time in pop music,' she says. 'People realized songs didn’t have to be this standard drums-guitar-bass-whatever. We can make a song with synths and a drum pad. We can do group vocals the entire song. We can do so many different things." This is where I interpreted as "inspired by music of the 1980s and its experimentation..." For the "moving away from country music" bit, I added sources to strengthen the claim
 * Ref 35: ARTICLE: " The Independent's Andy Gill was unimpressed with "Style" calling out its "desperately inclusive electropop grooves and corporate rebel clichés". SOURCE: I'm not sure the assertion "Andy Gill was unimpressed with 'Style'" is a fair reflection of the source, which is as complimentary as much as it is critical. The source article is headlined "Taylor Swift, 1989 - album review: Pop star shows 'promising signs of maturity' ".
 * Changed


 * Links: all links are working properly, per the external links checker tool
 * Quality and reliability: Ref 28: "PluggedIn" is published by Focus on the Family, a conservative religious website which, according to our article on it, "is active in promoting socially conservative views on public policy". As such, its lack of objectivity means that it fails to meet Wikipedia's required standards of quality and reliability.
 * Removed


 * Format issues:
 * You need to be consistent in showing retrieval dates for archived links. Generally you don't do this, but occasionally you do. There are arguments that all such links also require access dates – I personally wouldn't insist on this, but it is necessary to be consistent, i.e. all or none.
 * Added retrieval dates for all sources
 * Ref 84: give language as Polish
 * Ref 98: give language as German
 * The sources are automatically generated by Single chart, so I don't think it's a major problem — HĐ (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise sources are comprehensive and well presented. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the detailed source review, I owe you lots! I have addressed your concerns as above, HĐ (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

 * I am uncertain about the structure for the first sentence in the “Production and release” section. It leads with a rather long dependent clause before getting to the primary subject. Maybe simplify it to something like (For her fifth studio album,1989, Taylor Swift moved away from the signature country styles of her earlier releases after being inspired by pop music of the 1980s and its experimentation with synthesizers, drum pads, and overlapped vocals.).
 * Changed the the current sentence


 * I do not believe you need the “American singer-songwriter” descriptive phrase in the body of the article.
 * Removed


 * Make sure to wikilink “Blank Space” the first time you use it in the body of the article.
 * Done


 * I am uncertain about this part (The lyrics are ambiguous). Are the lyrics really “ambiguous”? It seems like a pretty straight forward love song to me. Which sources support this claim?
 * "Ambiguous" in this case means "open to more than one interpretation", I believe; I don't think it needs a backing source since the interpretations in the article already indicate that the lyrics have double meaning or some deeper layers


 * What source is used to support that this is a funk song? I do not think that referring to a song as “funk-pop” is the same as calling it “funk”. I could be overthinking it though.
 * Funk-pop redirects to funk, so I believe "funk-pop" is how a mainstream pop songs incorporate funk, akin to the music of Daft Punk


 * I am uncertain about this part (in the words of Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen, commend conventional beauty standards of young white people). Geffen clearly means for her connection between the song’s lyrics and white beauty as a criticism. This makes it read much more opinion-based to me and more suitable for the “Critical reception” section where this information is already covered. I am not sure if this part really fits in the current section. It just seems weird to me, but again I could be overthinking it.
 * As it's an interpretation I opt to keep it in the section; I also added another interpretation to strengthen the claim


 * Is a wikilink for “white people” really necessary? The same goes for “sex” in “as an allusion to having sex". I think the average reader would understand these terms.
 * Agreed. Removed


 * Is there a structure to the “Critical reception” section? Right now, it seems rather random. For instance, you jump from two rather mixed to negative reviews (i.e. Geffen and Volpe) directly into a positive review (i.e. Guerra). I would try to give more a structure or a cohesive narrative to this section. A resource like this one could be useful to understand what I mean.
 * The first paragraph focuses on reviews that lauded the music, while the second highlights reviewers who complimented the lyrics. I don't think it's that random, but I'll try to reorganize the section


 * I am uncertain about the Geffen sentence in the section. Reading the part by itself, it seems that Geffen has a more mixed review for the song, but after reading the review myself, she seems to primarily dislike it. For instance, this part of the review (triumph is an easy place to get to when you’re young, hot, and loaded in the country’s sparkliest city. Here, Swift’s girl-next-door likability slips, making it harder to forget that “Style” literally debuted as an advertisement.) and (Swift’s heartsick anthems are as sympathetic here as they were on Red. It’s when she starts chasing down the gleam of the Big Apple that I start to lose her). I am wondering if there is a way to better reflect this in the prose. For instance, if you compare Geffen with Volpe, Geffen is much more negative about the song. Let me know if that makes sense. Also, you misspell “Geffen” as “Greffen” here.
 * Whoops, my bad. I rewrote the whole part for Geffen's remarks and also reorganized the section.


 * For this part (Contemporary music critics received "Style" with generally positive reviews.), I do not believe “contemporary” is necessary. It is clear from the references when the reviews were written and you are not bringing up a different group of critics (such as retrospective reviews) so the qualifier is unnecessary here.
 * Removed "contemporary"


 * For this part (Contemporary publications noted), I am not sure “contemporary” is need as again you are not referring to any other types of reviewers so a qualifier is not needed.
 * Changed to "Media publications"


 * Do you think that the Ryan Adams cover should be mentioned in the lead? I am not certain either way.
 * I think not because he covered the whole album, not only the song (correct me if I'm wrong)

I hope these comments help. I am a terrible reviewer so apologies in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comments are very much appreciated. I'll try to address them all by this weekend :) HĐ (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whew, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns before weekend lol. I'm happy that you have some very constructive input! Thanks so much, HĐ (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Lirim.Z

 * Support Great article.— Lirim  |  Talk  21:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Media review

 * File:Taylor Swift - Style (Official Single Cover).png - rationale is ok
 * File:Dominic Sherwood (22429006997).jpg - file page could use a tad better description
 * File:Taylor Swift - Style sample.ogg - you should add the parameter to the license template. Length is appropriate (~10% of the song length). Manual_of_Style/Music_samples recommends 64 kbits/second for quality; we are at 189 kbits/second right now. So probably should reduce that down.

That's all from me.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All done except for the quality of the music sample; the file info reads "Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 23 s, 63 kbps", so I don't know where did you get the 189 kbps figure, which is quite puzzling. HĐ (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's just my incompetence showing. I was looking at something further down the page for some reason. All good to go on media.  Kees08  (Talk)   04:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
This has been open a month with only one detailed content review; I've added it to the FAC urgents list but if we don't see some more commentary soon I'll have little choice but to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian. Thanks for notifying this. As the article is rather well-written (it definitely needs a few more detailed reviews though), and has no problem with sources and media, would you mind giving some input regarding the prose? It's a rather short article, and I don't want it to go to waste. HĐ (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd say yes but I'll have to check if I'm able to recuse as coord at this time -- Andy, if you're back on deck, then one of us could review and the other stay with coord duties, let me know... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can review in the coming few days. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've just moved and they haven't hooked up my internet yet. I've been slow to get back up and running. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah this is nobody's fault but obviously no-one else has been able to get to this either and we can't keep open indefinitely. I'll archive this and perhaps Andy or others can look when they have a chance, away from the pressure of the FAC process, and it can afterwards be re-nominated here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)