With the recording of this album, America's Sweetheart experimented and blurred the line between country and pop, producing what is widely considered one of the best albums of the 2010s; the next album in her chronology turned her into a fully-fledged pop machine. While I think it's ready for the bronze star, I'm open to any suggestions concerning possible improvements so that the article could reach its full FA potential. TheSandDoctorTalk 04:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything with File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114363291).jpg and File:Taylor Swift 2013 RED tour (8588016225).jpg looks good to me, but I do wonder if two Swift images in the "Release and promotion" section are entirely necessary, especially since one is already used in the "Recording and production" section and the album cover technically counts as one. It just feels rather repetitive to me. I personally think the tour one is rather low-quality and does not particularly add much to this article.
The GMA one is definitely important. I do like the RED tour image there personally speaking and think the quality isn't a big factor at the thumbnail size, but am not married to it and open to removal. --TheSandDoctorTalk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I will leave this up to other editors. I do not really see the need for a second picture of Swift in the same section, and I do not think the tour image in particular adds anything to the reader's understanding. However, this could just be a matter of personal preference so it would likely be best to see how other reviewers view this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at the audio samples tomorrow if that is okay with you. I participated in the peer review for this article and while my questions and comments about the audio samples were answered there, I still want to make sure that I thoroughly review them again. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: All good! Take your time, I greatly appreciate you doing the media review as the source and media reviews are definitely the trickier ones to get done haha. It is very greatly appreciated; I didn't even think you'd still be around to do any of this haha. --TheSandDoctorTalk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad that I can help. I know this is not too much, but I just wanted to try and contribute something. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The audio samples all have clear WP:FUR and roles in the article.
I have some prose concerns for File:IKnewYouWereTrouble.ogg's caption. It reads rather awkwardly to me, particularly since there's so much information put into a single sentence. This phrasing, Swift's most radical sonic innovation on the album, seems off to me. I get what you mean (i.e. this was the biggest change for her), but it seems awkwardly phrased. I do not think "innovation" really works here, but maybe it's because I find that word so over-used to the point that it has become meaningless.
@Aoba47: How would you recommend this be reworded? It matches the article prose. --TheSandDoctorTalk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend brainstorming a few idea. I'd at least change the innovation part as I find that to be awkwardly worded and the part of the caption that I kept coming back to with uncertainty. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: How about "sonic development" or "most significant change on..."? Admittedly, I think "innovation" fits rather well haha. --TheSandDoctorTalk 20:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not think "innovation" works in this context. However, in my opinion, that word has been over-used. The "most significant change on..." idea seems more direct and transparent to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Actioned with a slight twist: "Regarded by critics as Swift's most significant sonic change on the album,...". I can take out "sonic", I just felt it possibly fits a bit better to answer the inevitable "what type of change?" question that readers/editors could hit with. --TheSandDoctorTalk 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The caption for File:BeginAgain.ogg looks good. The prose is a tad wordy. You could slightly condense about finding hope after having endured emotional distress to about finding hope after enduring emotional distress, but otherwise, it is good and does a good job defending its use in the article.
This should be the end of my image/media review. Everything with the audio samples themselves looks good, and I just have some prose issues with the captions. Once these points have been addressed, I will pass this review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with this review. This FAC passes my image and media review. Best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder for now. I'm not a Swiftie (that is how you spell her fanbase, right?) and I will try not to screw this up. Ping me if I don't leave comments by Sunday! Pamzeis (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the "highlight duplicates" script would ignore the lead and citations; makes it almost impossible to use. That said, I think I've squashed most of the ones I could see. From what I understand/remember, links in the lead should be repeated once in the body. --TheSandDoctorTalk 17:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would you recommend avoiding this? Saying "He" would cause confusion between Chapman and Huff. It appears to be a case where it is unavoidable to repeat or the reader (and editors) would be left confused. --TheSandDoctorTalk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Swift's previous albums.[2][17] Swift called the album's diverse musical styles a "metaphor for how messy a real breakup is" and described it as her "only true breakup album".[2] Critics were divided about the genre that best describes the album. J. English wrote for NPR the album's influences range from Swift's well-known country sound to new genres such as dance-pop, dubstep, and Britrock.[17] Jon Dolan's album review for Rolling Stone appeared in their column for country music[18] while AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine called it a straightforward pop album that — the word "album(s)" is mentioned, by my count, seven times in those five sentences. Suggest replacing some with "it" or something like that
summed up the album's theme as — is "theme" meant to be plural?
Based on the source, that appears to be correct as is. The source says that it is an album of disappearances. It then elaborates on what that means, as does this article. --TheSandDoctorTalk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
disappearances, from lost romance to — I might just be misunderstanding things here but did Nelson think disappearances were part of the themes as it seems unclear to me
Reading through the source, it states the following: Red is an album of disappearances, of things that have gone or are just about to go missing—lost relationships, old sounds, previous Taylor Swifts, each photographed just as they’re receding out of frame. Even on the album cover, Swift is partially disappeared, her downcast eyes swallowed by a lip of shadow falling from a wide-brimmed hat. It’s her somewhat obvious way of referencing the front cover of Joni Mitchell’s 1971 album Blue, where a photograph of Mitchell’s face is submerged in a blue-black lake of shadow.
Disappearances is the theme of the album, in his view. The talk of lost relationships etc. are the types of disappearance he identifies. --TheSandDoctorTalk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
recognizing her coming-of-age in — I don't think the hyphens are needed
Hyphens removed and wikilink updated to not use the redirect.
#Songs seems a tad long. Can we split it up into sub-headings?
What would you suggest for subheads? I don't see anything particularly obvious as multiple songs are discussed per paragraph, so we can't split by song. --
third track "Treacherous" begins with — commas around "'Treacherous'"?
@Pamzeis: I don't understand what you want changed here? This is the identical line repeated in both before & after? --TheSandDoctorTalk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have been so subtle; I wanted the curly apostrophe changed to a straight one.
of her next album 1989 (2014) — comma after "album"?
Apologies for the delay. I have been busy due to poor time management. Ping me when these are resolved. Pamzeis (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination for promotion—best of luck! On an unrelated note, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a topic where I normally review, so I can only assume that the content is typical for popular music FAs, it certainly looks comprehensive, and I couldn't really see any significant grammatical issues. Some comments
"red" emotions that resulted from the unhealthy romance she experienced during the album's conception. Its songs discuss the complex and conflicting emotions ensued from lost romance.—repeats of Emotions and romance could perhaps be avoided
@Jimfbleak: I missed the first bullet, my apologies. Given the topic matter, I am not sure that it can really be changed up too much. How about the second sentence end with "ensued from a lost romantic relationship."? That just seems unnecessarily wordy though...I'm open to any suggestions. --TheSandDoctorTalk 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: I’d simply word it: “The album's title refers to Swift's tumultuous, “red”, emotions she felt in her relationship during the album's conception; in its songs she discusses complex and conflicting feelings from fading romance.” - which handles multiple issues with those lines. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It additionally includes several songs Swift wrote and expected to include on the 2012 album.—Not sure additionally is necessary, and had expected might be better
American singer and actor Lauren Alaina cited Red as an album that changed her life—not sure why this particular piece of hyperbole merits a mention, unless it really did change her life, in which case we need to be told how
Read the source and she seemed to say that about a lot of artists without citing how. Removed. --TheSandDoctorTalk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally accept Amazon as a ref, and in fact a script I use has shaded it as a generally unreliable source, why do you consider it acceptable here?
@Jimfbleak: I have that script as well, but 1989 (Taylor Swift album) was promoted with them and uses them in the same context (citing that they were released in that country with that version, not for other fact checks or anything controversial). The entire release history sections would most likely have to go without Amazon in both of them. --TheSandDoctorTalk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the last two refs have Chinese titles, don't we normally use trans-title to provide the English equivalent?
SandDoctor, thanks. You don't seem to have addressed the first of my bullet points above, but that seems easy to fix, so I'll now SupportJimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, Jimfbleak! I've replied above to that point, which I missed beforehand. --TheSandDoctorTalk 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SatDis, are there any other comments you'd like to make? (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really happy to support the nomination based on my comments during the peer review. Apologies for the delay, and good luck! SatDis (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a full review, but can anything be done to render the reception section into a more narrative form? The division into paragraphs by topic seems fine, but within the paragraphs there is a lot of "A said B". In the third paragraph, for example, we get "Jonathan Keefe wrote ... Michael Gallucci found ... Robert Christgau viewed ... James Lachno found ... Mesfin Fekadu felt ..." Once the topic statement for the paragraph is given, we just get a sequence of examples. In other words, rather than a statement in the article's voice which is illuminated by quotes, we get the quotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: That is never my strong suit apparently, which is why I always go through GOCE first. I've changed the wording up a bit. Does that look any better? I am open to suggestions. --TheSandDoctorTalk 02:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That helps a bit; I know it's hard to get these sections to flow. Looking through some of the sources, how do you get "appreciated Swift's efforts to expand her sonic territory" out of Christgau's review? And I see a few more things in the review sources that look like they might be usefully mentioned. From Gallucci, for example, the "blah duets" (could be contrasted with Fekadu's positive comments), use of Auto-Tune, and comments about her divergence away from a country sound. From Keefe, again the departure from country, the specifics about what is wrong with the production, a "real sense of risk" which goes with Gallucci's comments about it being bold (you phrase this as "ambitious" which is fine), the positive comments about the production of some songs. From Fekadu, a comment that "stepping out of her comfort zone doesn't always work" which ties to the risk comments. From Lachno, positive comments about the duets, and it's clear that unlike most of the other reviewers Lachno is not a fan of her earlier albums; and he also disagrees with the "risk" line of comment, saying "too often, Swift's nerve fails her as she returns to her tried and tested formula". And that's just looking at the sources in that paragraph; I didn't check the sources from the first two paragraphs. I just had a quick look at the NYT review; you have a single point cited to that review, but it's a long review -- are you sure you've extracted all the useful information from it?
I think more work is needed on disassembling what the reviewers are saying, and putting it back together in prose that tells more than it quotes. An example is here, where I and another editor tried to do this. I usually find it's necessary to pull the reviews apart into points they make, so I can see what can be usefully combined into paragraphs. I think you've done some of that here, but there is more source material that could be used, and the more commonality you can find across the points made in the reviews the easier it is to structure the prose to reflect the themes of the reviews rather than just taking quotes from them.
I'm also a bit doubtful about which reviews you've used -- this is a small list of cited reviewers for one of the most prominent albums of that year. The London Times? Chicago Herald Tribune? And I'm not expert on the specialist music sources, but are you sure you have seen all the important ones? There must have been hundreds of reviews; how did you pick these? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: re the "appreciated" bit, I have no idea as I didn't add it but agree. Reworked to be better based on the source.
Those are some good tips & I will endeavor to include them over the next few days. I will keep you updated and let you know if I have any questions. I take it that you see this section expanding considerably as well? Its current length appears in line with other FAs.
I didn't write this section, so had really no part in what reviews were included. I think that there is a representative amount here selected, but could happily find more. Are there any in particular you either object to or would suggest adding? That ("all the important ones") isn't really a question that can be answered as it is entirely subjective to that individual editor/reader. --TheSandDoctorTalk 05:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could well end up being longer, but I'm not insisting on that -- for example, if you end up summarizing opinions across multiple reviews and not using as many quotes, it might be about the same length. A reception section ought to reflect the sum of the critical commentary about the album, so I don't think one can say how long it needs to be without reading the reviews. I'll keep an eye on the article and this FAC; let me know when you want me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie It looks like this FAC is mostly wrapped up except your comments. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not convinced this is as good as it could be, but I can’t in good conscience oppose without spending more time looking through the reviews and figuring out what more could be done. The changes made since my comment are an improvement, but I can’t support either as I haven’t read through the whole article. I don’t expect to have time to revisit, either, so I think it’s OK to promote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig is clean (t · c) buidhe 14:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}