Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Style (Taylor Swift song)/archive2

Style (Taylor Swift song)

 * Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, which is hilariously titled "Style" (an ode to her ex Harry Styles?). The previous FAC gained two supports, no oppose, and detailed media and source reviews, but failed to pass the line. Hope it will attract more interest this time :), HĐ (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If possible I would love to have this article reviewed by one of the coordinators; could kindly take a look at it, given that you may have had some time examining the article in the previous FAC? Thank you so much, HĐ (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

 * I am uncertain on how Sargent's quote ("familiar tropes of Western romance") is used in the article. The sentence says that Sargent connects these tropes with the lyrics of this particular song, and I do not see that. Here is the sentence in full from the source (Dating back to her earliest records, Taylor Swift’s songs have navigated the familiar tropes of Western romance: Romeo and Juliet, cheerleader versus geek, the shy girl who falls for the rebellious boy, Prince Charming and his white horse.). Sargent seems completely focused on Swift's previous releases in this sentence, and I feel that the connection being drawn to this song is not accurate.
 * Sargent follows up that ""Style" is perhaps one last look at the version of Swift who sees herself in broadly drawn characters", which, I assume, implies that this song is the only song in which Swift appears to long for fairytale-like relationships with beautiful boys on the "shapeshifting" 1989. He does follow up "But "Style" also seems like a distilled look at a future version of Taylor Swift", in terms of musical direction.
 * Thank you for the clarification. I must have missed that connection so apologies for my confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not think "white people" needs to be in quotes.
 * I don't include quotation marks in the Composition section because readers can already understand they're just interpretations. In the reception section, however, I put them in quotes because if there are no quotation marks, that the song talks about beauty standards of white people can be misunderstood as a fact, which is not
 * Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There is some criticism of the song in the body of the article, but the lead only mentions the positive reviews. The reception of the song as a whole was definitely positive, but I think it may be helpful to add a small bit in the lead to address some of the criticisms.
 * I think publications like Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, and PopMatters should be in italics. They are presented that way in their respective Wikipedia articles. I would look through the article to double-check this as it is something easy to miss.
 * Done; although I am reluctant to italicize non-print publications. But as long as the consensus is to italicize, I'm okay with it
 * I can understand that. I would also be interested to see what other people say on this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * For this sentence (In the video English actor Dominic Sherwood plays Swift's love interest), I believe there should be a comma between "video" and "English".
 * Oof a glitch. Done


 * I would add the year that Billionaire Ransom was released. I would also add the year for Mulholland Drive.
 * Done


 * Why is the title for Reference 15 in all italics? I am assuming that it is a formatting error.
 * The title format is autogenerated by Cite AV media. I tried to look for Cite AV but it is a redirect to the former template. Will figure out some way to fix this.

Great work with the article. I also commented on the previous FAC, and I hope there is more activity with this go-around. It would be cool to have this featured on the front page on the day that her next album is released. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the input, they're very helpful as always. Will try to spear some time looking through your FAC if time permits :) HĐ (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I appreciate the clarifications on certain points and apologies for certain parts where I was confused. Do not feel obligated to look at my FAC as I understand that we all have limited time. I still greatly enjoyed reading through the article, and hopefully more people will review it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
I did a comprehensive sources review during the previous FAC, and the various issues I raised were resolved. There are no other issues I wish to raise in this current FAC. Concerning the italicization of the title in ref 15, mentioned above, this is a function of the "cite AV" template used. The title could easily be de-italicized, if it matters. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Media review
Commencing shortly.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Taylor Swift - Style sample.ogg - major bonus points for the TimedText :).

My previous review still stands, so the media review is complete.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Ojorojo
Updated as per Template:Infobox song (easier than listing here, change as needed). The biggest difference is the addition of studio. Much like "Records" in label, "Studio" should be dropped for space considerations and since the parameter already includes it. Also, the use of "small" in infoboxes is discouraged, because it may cause WP:ACCESS problems (see MOS:SMALLTEXT). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I see you have adjusted the infobox; any more concern regarding the prose or format? HĐ (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have little experience with FAs, so I usually confine my comments to the infoboxes. Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kees08
Committing to reviewing this so it does not get archived again; will review sometime this weekend probably.  Kees08  (Talk)   18:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Was it only released to radio in the US and Italy? We should say whatever secondary RS's say, I think, unless there is a standard for music articles.
 * There are Billboard sources reporting the release and confirming that it was a single; I don't see any source outside the US (except for the Italy radio source) indicate the single release. For music articles, though, when a song is sent to radio it is qualified as a single (per WikiProject Songs guideline) HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * These sentences in different sections are pretty similar, are both needed? Kornhaber and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen remarked that the "classic" beauty in the lyrics mostly applies to white people. and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen lauded the song's musical styles, but criticized its theme of conventional beauty standards of "white people" as a cliché that blemishes Swift's "girl-next-door likability" on the album.
 * The former serves as an interpretation of the lyrics, while the latter provides a more critical viewpoint of that interpretation. By that saying I think they're both needed. HĐ (talk)

I think that is all I have; the article is well-written.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article, I really appreciate that, HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Ian
Recusing from coord duties to review following requests from the nominator... Having read and copyedited up to and including Music and lyrics, I don't see major issues at this stage. The prose seems reasonable, the quotes are attributed, the tone is neutral -- just one query:
 * serviced the song to US radio stations -- have to admit I'm not familiar with "serviced" in this context, can we just say "released the song", or even "made the song available"?
 * Altered to "released", which is easier to understand HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it there for now, I mainly just wanted to get a feel for the article's quality and so far it's positive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for taking time reviewing this! HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you had a second chance to go through this yet?  Kees08  (Talk)   06:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but I don't want promotion held up on my account if it's deemed otherwise ready. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There has been further input into this review and thus far all have been positive. Any progress to promote/archive this FAC soon? HĐ (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I recused from coord duties to review so one of the other will judge that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look today. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support by Tomica

 * Support. After comprehensively reading the article I can most certainly give my green light for the bronze star. It's obvious that a lot of work has been put into it; the prose flows great, the references look tidy, and the infobox as well. My only comment/question (that doesn't affect my support of course) is about this particular sentence in the 'Music video' section, " By the time they worked on the video, Sherwood had finished the film Take Down, which was later renamed Billionaire Ransom (released in 2016)." Honestly, it's very random and not really connect to the rest of the information. Also, in my honest opinion, that movie is not really known, so I don't see a reason why it should be there. I would personally remove it. But, maybe there is another explanation of it that I am not aware of right no. Anyways, amazing job! — Tom (T2ME) 15:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it adds up a bit of info on Sherwood's acting career, given that he's not really well known. I don't think it hurts the flow, but I'll see what others say about that. Thanks so much for the support and comment! HĐ (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
On skimming this to determine readiness for promotion, I'm concerned that the first passage I checked, "Swift, Payami, Martin, and Shellback wrote the song's lyrics", is contradicted by the Medium article in which Ljungfelt indicates that Swift and Martin wrote the lyrics for the song. Can you explain the disparity? Additional source spot-checks will probably be needed before I can consider promotion. I'm also concerned that this article continues a theme I've seen across many song articles here that published sheet music is cited for a generic set of musical "factoids" like key, tempo, and song structure. This has always struck me as WP:OR. The tempo of the song is listed on the sheet music, but who determined the key and song structure? I realize those things are evident to a musician interpreting the sheet music, interpreting a primary source is something we can't do here as editors. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the review. The liner notes of the CD (which I'm having with me at hand) indicate that the songwriters are the four mentioned people. Lyrics may not be the only part the songwriters took care of, so I reworded it to "... are credited as the song's writers". Regarding the information taken from the music sheet, it never struck me that it was OR, so I'm considering removing the bit. Thanks for reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Update I removed the whole bit taken from the music sheet. The analysis of the refrain is taken from the Vox video, which is not OR unlike the Musicnotes.com source. HĐ (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that the tempo, key and "structure" (i.e., "intro", "verse 1", "bridge", "chorus", "verse 2", etc.) of a particular song are all clearly identified on its sheet music. The tempo can be seen at the top left corner of the first page, while the key and structure can also be found at the top left corner of the first staff/stave of each particular section. These are all clearly defined by professional musicologists prior to publication, and WP:TRANSCRIPTION of such material to a Wikipedia article is not OR in the slightest. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that this has come to mind, the Musicnotes.com source did exactly what is described at WP:TRANSCRIPTION. While the absense of such information does not profoundly affect the content, I regret not having carefully investigated WP's policy on NOR. Either way, I want to hear from the coord if reverting back to the Musicnotes.com version plausible and not detrimental to the article's readiness for FA. HĐ (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I didn't notice the meta section tabbed below the sheet music image until it was pointed out. I'm not necessarily convinced of the accuracy of that section and whether it's completed by an expert or pulled from the sheet music by some automated process, but it seems to be a non-issue here. If an argument ever erupted about the key/tempo/style of a song, it might require further investigation, but that conversation is more appropriate for other venues. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the article need any further work for promotion? HĐ (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't checked back in lately. Did you end up re-adding the material? -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I did; the rest of the article stays the same, HĐ (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  14:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)