Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/You Belong with Me/archive1

You Belong with Me

 * Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, an American musical artist. Those who have heard this song might remember it via the infamous mic grab in 2009. That incident aside, this song is a pretty good pop hit that was everywhere in 2009 but was denounced by feminists. I believe this article is well-written and comprehensive for the bronze star. I appreciate any and all comments, Ippantekina (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

 * I'll do a full review soon (I owe it to my son, who literally just the other day told me that after three months with his Swift-obsessed girlfriend he has a favourite Swift song for the first time in his life and this is it :-)) but one thing caught my eye on a quick readthrough:  What is "bossip"?  Is it a neologism/slang term of which I am not aware (in which case, is there an appropriate wikilink?) or is it just a typo? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris, I noticed there were a few typos after the GOCE request, so I did a read through and eliminated all remaining typos. Ippantekina (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, I wasn't sure if I was not just down with all the latest terminology :-) I'll do a full review shortly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Draken Bowser
It's always nice to see all the aspects that can be comprehensively covered for a famous song, where there's plenty of sources. I especially like the paragraph on music theory including chord progressions. It's a decent song as well, although I tend to agree with Alexis Petridis.


 * Lead: Prefer "..widely covered controversy."
 * Background: "was recorded by the audio engineer" and I know -ing is generally frowned upon, but isn't "She recalled him becoming defensive" better? For the final sentence, is there anything more to it? As it is written it's not evident why it would be due?
 * Music and lyrics: "The lyrical motifs evoke a typical American high-school setting; the narrator sees herself as a typical girl and an underdog, and the girlfriend is a popular, attractive cheerleader." - Change one or the other. - "as an underdog contributes to her reliability ." - Was this supposed to be about being "relatable"? I was only able to read one of the sources so I'm unsure, but as it is written it doesn't make complete sense to me.
 * Accolades and retrospective reviews: "Sheffield ranked it 128th out of Swift's 243 songs" - add year here as well
 * Live performances: "You Belong with Me" was the opening number on the set list of Swift's first headlining concert tour the Fearless Tour in 2009 and 2010." - Optional commas around "the Fearless Tour".

That's all for now. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the comments. I've addressed all of them accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Supporting. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I forgot, the somewhat vague "final sentence" refers to: I've warmed up slightly to it, but I'm still unsure why it would be important to single out this passage, after it has already been established that they co-wrote the lyrics. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Imo it's a fun fact that Rose was the one who suggested the bleachers lyric to Swift, no big deal! Ippantekina (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * "both the antagonist—an unsympathetic, popular brunette cheerleader, and the protagonist—a sympathetic" => "both the antagonist—an unsympathetic, popular brunette cheerleader— and the protagonist—a sympathetic"
 * "with prominent, high-school and fairy-tale lyrical imagery" => "with prominent high-school and fairy-tale lyrical imagery"
 * "a close male friend, whom she understood but was in a relationship" => "a close male friend, whom she understood but who was in a relationship"
 * "and said, contrary to Swift's status as an attractive and popular figure, her" => "and said that, contrary to Swift's status as an attractive and popular figure, her"
 * "Critics commented Swift's vocals are the most prominent change" => "Critics commented that Swift's vocals are the most prominent change"
 * "Emily St. James commented on this recording, Swift's voice" => "Emily St. James commented that, on this recording, Swift's voice"
 * That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, should all be done now! Ippantekina (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47
Unfortunately, I will be unable to do a full review for this FAC, which is a shame as this is my favorite Taylor Swift song. I am not sure about using the karaoke version as the audio sample. I would imagine that readers would benefit from hear the main version of the song and hearing how the elements of the instrumental discussed in the caption are represented in the actual song. I just do not think that this is the most helpful choice. Apologies again for not being able to do a review, but I still wanted to point this out. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks Aoba for the comment. I think the Karaoke file isolates the lead vocals from the instruments, making the latter clearer, hence my inclusion of that file. I however do understand your concern and let's see what the file reviewer says :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review – pass

 * "as the third single from Fearless" → not supported by add date ref alone. Also, I would do p=4 and department=Chart. It's not really labelled "page 14" but "chart page 4".
 * Added and adjusted. Ippantekina (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "It also holds the record for the highest audience impression for a country song" → the source text says "holds the record for the largest overall radio authence for a song by a country-based act". Most for country act is different (more impressive?) than most for country song. Also, maybe add "as of" unless there is a more recent ref verifying it still holds the record?
 * Adjusted. Ippantekina (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "In Canada, the song reached number one on the airplay charts Canada Country, Canada CHR/Top 40, and Canada Hot AC" → missing the Country and Hot AC refs
 * Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "By 2019, the single had sold an estimated seven million copies worldwide" → I don't necessarily doubt this, but it would be nice to source this from something other than an opinion article if possible
 * Folha De S. Paulo ref should have language=Spanish
 * Actually it's Brazilian Portuguese but done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops


 * Belfast Telegraph said "You Belong With Me is another slice of effervescent pop" – should pop be given as a genre as well?
 * I see pop rock/power pop are already pop subgenres so they should suffice. Ippantekina (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Jon P McLaughlin → Jon P. McLaughlin
 * Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * BMI accolade should be from an independent ref to demonstrate notability
 * Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "the video premiered on May 4, 2009" → not seeing May 4, 2009, in the source - In fact the website was first archived on May 2.
 * Andreson, Kyle → Anderson, Kyle
 * Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * why isn't "pop" in the infobox?
 * Explained above. Ippantekina (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

More to come. I commend you for taking on such intimidating articles effectively! Heartfox (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for reviewing. Let me know when you've brought forth all comments so I shall resolve them all at once :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Curious why New Yorker has an ISSN given but no others
 * Removed. Ippantekina (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Billboard should have via=Google Books for those ones
 * Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sermon, Craig S. → Semon, Craig S.
 * Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Philadelphia Inquirer web source has page num?
 * Yes, not sure about the print version but the web version is split into 3 pages. Ippantekina (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Consider removing Us Weekly per WP:RSP
 * Since there's no consensus and this source is used for entertainment content, I think it should be fine. Ippantekina (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This concludes the source review comments. Heartfox (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I believe all points are addressed now. Let me know if it's a pass or not, Ippantekina (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The video premiere date remains unaddressed. Heartfox (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. It's supported by the Music Row ref which also covers GAC. Removed the CMT link. Ippantekina (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

 * the song into 1980s styles of pop rock -- link first instance of pop rock in the body, since this is also linked in the lead.
 * Airplay on non-country radio gained the song the largest crossover radio audience -- If we drop the second instance of radio, I think this will still work.
 * Craig S. Semon of the Telegram & Gazette described the song as an "irresistible keeper"[78] and Chris Richards of The Washington Post described the use of country banjos and new-wave guitars as "perfectly natural" -- maybe just some variation since "described" is used consecutively.
 * For accolades received by the song, I don't think it is necessary to mention that she lost. Something like "at the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards, it was nominated in three categories" and then list them. Same goes with the ACM award nomination.
 * Some feminist authors deemed "You Belong with Me" antifeminist or slut-shaming - as antifeminist or slut-shaming
 * In a defense of the song, Emily St. James -- In defense of the song, Emily St. James
 * Filming took place in two days in Gallatin and Hendersonville -- Filming took place for two days in Gallatin and Hendersonville
 * Similar comments as above re the accolades received by the music video.
 * Billboard in 2022 ranked it as the 14th-greatest VMAs performance of all time. - Billboard, in 2022, ranked it as the 14th-greatest VMAs performance of all time
 * as a homage to all of her album -- an homage (since "h" here begins with a vowel sound)
 * That's all from me. Great work overall. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I've addressed them all accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Couple missed points, but made the edits here as it is easier. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review
File:Taylor Swift - You Belong with Me.png, I kind of wonder what "The cover art can or could be obtained from Big Machine Records" means. File:Taylor Swift - You Belong with Me music video 02.JPG's WP:NFCC rationale is kinda lacking - how does this photo significantly increase the understanding of the article topic? Otherwise, images seem well-placed but not all have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the file review. I've added the source URL for the cover art, updated the rationale for the screenshot, and added alt texts to all photos. Ippantekina (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I must say, I am a bit unsure if the article topic is significantly enhanced by that screenshot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The screenshot sheds more light on how the music video contributes to its reception. I added something to the FUR. Ippantekina (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo, your thoughts on that? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Kind of weak, to be honest. Still seems to be expanding the understanding of a subtopic rather than the whole article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the file contributes to an understanding of a subtopic (as you said), and in this case this subtopic (the music video) is part of the article topic (the song), then it should be strong enough to warrant inclusion, no? Ippantekina (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nay, sometimes the subtopic is just the subtopic and not important enough that an image illustrating it would significantly enhance the understanding of the article topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My stance remains that the image sheds light on understanding of the music video and its reception, which is discussed in a substantial portion of the article. "sometimes the subtopic is just the subtopic and not important enough" is not convincing for me to remove the file. I would like to hear more opinions regarding this, maybe from the coordinators  ? Ippantekina (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I usually try to find an interesting fact or a commentary on the specific scene I'm including in the music video section to justify its use (see Telephone (song) for example). I think it would really strengthen your case if you added a bit more (if there is something in the sources) than "a and b portrays c and d". FrB.TG (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My view is that a vastly experienced reviewer of images considers that the article should not be promoted to FA with the image in question in it. Ie, there is not currently a consensus to promote. I do not personally see any reason for the coordinators to override this. Other coordinators' mileage may differ. A second reason for the coordinators to archive this nomination - actionable objections have not been resolved - also seems to apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ippantekina that there needs to be more clarification on how this criteria can be met as this has now come up in multiple reviews. The music video section is the longest subtopic in the article and even has two sections of its own. I don't understand why the extensive secondary source coverage is not proof that an excerpt from the music video is relevant to understanding the article topic. Secondary sources already determined it is. Should non-free content only be included if the subtopic is 50%, 75% of the article? I'm sorry but this is feeling like an impossible standard to meet due to a fundamental disagreement about the importance of music videos to singles. Heartfox (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This question has come up in non-FAC venues, too, including FFD. My issue is that the guidance at NFCC#8 does not clearly endorse this kind of file use; it's a maybe-maybe-not situation so I think there needs to be a consensus at a FAC that the guideline is satisfied for a given file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi all just a note that I'll be on break till 22 June and I'll get back to this then :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the said screenshot for now. Despite the debate surrounding NFCC#8 dating back to 2008, I don't think we've got to a point where a consensus has been made. My viewpoint remains that the file adds significant value to the reader's understanding, but I don't want this FAC to suffer from (mis)interpretations of the clause, and obviously I don't want to see this FAC archived because a non-free music video screenshot became scrutinised as part of a wider Wikipedia-level question. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments
Thanks ! I've provided the page range for Gasser :) Ippantekina (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a page range for Gasser.
 * Could the lead mention when the video premiered. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added the video premiere date to the lead. Regarding Gasser, I don't know how to extract the page range (I was able to access the pages via Google Books preview but now it's unable to do so), could you help? Ippantekina (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , in the PDF version, it's pp 306-328 but given that you used Google Books preview, which often adjusts text and images to fit screen sizes, the range would differ between GB and print/PDF versions. FrB.TG (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if so I could do with the PDF page range, supposing that we have a corresponding ISBN as well. Could you help with this for me? Ippantekina (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Send me an email please so I can send you the file (one cannot attach a file when sending email from Wikipedia). FrB.TG (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I received your email but I couldn't download the attachment. Could I trouble you to help me out with this one directly? Ippantekina (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It should work this time. :-) FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

A couple of trivial bits for you to consider: But promoting anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Swift described as an homage to". Should that not be 'a homage'?
 * "on televised shows and events". Maybe 'on television shows and events'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)