Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Knew You Were Trouble/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 October 2021 [1].

I Knew You Were Trouble[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the Taylor Swift song that we did not know we wanted. Ms. Swift had never been taken seriously as a country music goody-two-shoes, until this song arrived and proved that America's Sweetheart was capable of being cooler-than-average. Though many can dismiss this song as yet another deliberate Top 40 trick from a teenybopper, this "Trouble" song has become one of Ms. Swift's biggest hits.

After a total overhaul of the article and a GAN, I am humbled to bring this to FAC, and open to any and all suggestion regarding the article's prose and coverage. Thank you very much, Ippantekina (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments
  • I will post a full review for this either tomorrow or on Wednesday. Apologies for the delay. I only have one note right now. I would remove File:Swift performs in St. Louis, Missouri in 2013.jpg. There is already an image of Swift later in the article and this one is more decorative and does not add anything further for the reader. If you want an image in this section, I would put one of either Max Martin or Shellback since they are writers and producers for the song. Even if you decide to not replace this image, I still strongly encourage you to remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is to comply with the upcoming DYK (which features this image). After the DYK is done, I will remove it right away. Ippantekina (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the DYK is currently on the main page, I see no problem in waiting until it is done to remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few comments about this sentence: It was released for digital download on October 9, 2012, as the third promotional single from Red; and on November 27, 2012, as the album's second pop radio single. I would split it into two as it is a lot of information and I do not think the semicolon is used correctly. I would also add the record label (i.e. Big Machine) to the prose as done in the "Shake It Off" article.
    • Revised.
  • For this part, Swift developed the song as a ballad on piano, the piano link is not necessary as I would imagine a majority of readers are already familiar with the instrument. I would also change the ballad link to go to the sentimental ballad article as that is more reflective of the ballad being discussed here.
    • Revised.
  • I would revise this part, dubstep—a genre that Swift had little knowledge of—to the song, which Swift said was, to avoid repeating Swift twice in the same sentence.
    • Revised.
  • I have a comment for the quote in this part, that would make the audience "freaked out over". Something about it just seems off to me, like it does not really work in this context, and I think it would be better to just paraphrase this instead.
    • It probably had something to do with Swift's country music image, but since the Billboard ref does not explicitly say this, I removed the whole part.
  • I would move the "Release" section after the "Music and lyrics" section as done in articles like "Blank Space". I have seen articles with the "Release" section put before the "Music and lyrics" section (and I have done it myself), but that is in cases when the "Release" section is combined with the section about the recording process and that is not the case here.
    • Makes sense. Rearranged.
  • For this part, In an interview with the Associated Press in October 2013, I do not think it is necessary to include the month.
    • Removed.
  • The article makes a few references to this being a pop radio single. I was initially confused by this until I read the Red (Taylor Swift album) which more clearly defined the pop radio and country radio single. I think it may be worthwhile to add a footnote to clarify that Swift released separate singles for pop radio and country radio. I am suggesting a footnote as the article already uses them and I think it would be too clunky to put right in the prose.
    • Added. Hope it clears things up.
  • The "Release" section refers to the song being removed from Spotify. I can access it on my Spotify account so it was seemingly added back so an update to this would be beneficial as it currently ends with saying the song was removed.
  • I have another comment for this part. The "Release" section just casually mentions that Swift withdrew her catalog from Spotify without providing any context. I would briefly expand on this as some readers may end up on this page without knowing anything about Swift or this particular aspect of her career.
    • Added some explanation on Spotify.
  • For this part, but chose to ignore the "red flags", I am not sure if red flags needs to be in quotes as it is a rather common phrase. You can also paraphrase it as warning signs or something similar.
    • Removed the quotation marks.
  • I am uncertain about this part, "I Knew You Were Trouble" generated much discussion because it introduced the genre to a wider audience of mainstream pop, which had been "sonically conservative for the past half-decade". Britney Spears had already released "Hold It Against Me" in 2011 and that had a dubstep breakdown and was commercially successful. This part reads like "I Knew You Were Trouble" was the one song that broke dubstep into mainstream pop, and I do not think that is true (per the example I mentioned and I am sure others).
    • While it may be factually incorrect, this is directly framed within the opinion of a LA Times critic. I think it should be fine as long as there is appropriate attribution.
      • Thank you for the explanation. You are correct. This part is not only attributed with a citation, but the prose also clarifies that this is one critic's opinion so it should be okay. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, became one of the dubstep-influenced songs from its time that managed to age well, I would be more specific than "from its time" as the current wording is rather vague.
    • Revised.
  • For the third paragraph of the "Critical reception" section, I would vary the sentence structure as it is currently rather repetitive, which makes it less engaging for the reader.
    • Revised.
  • I do not think "dismissive" in this part, felt that the dubstep sound was dismissive, really makes sense.
    • Reworded.
  • For this part, which overshadowed Swift's lyrical narrative, I would just say "lyrics". The phrasing "lyrical narrative" just seems unnecessarily wordy.
    • Revised.
  • I would remove this part, Carney had starred as Peter Parker in the Broadway musical Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, as it is not connected to the song or the music video.

Here are my comments so far and I hope they are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through the article again. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your insightful comments. Hope you are having a great week as well! Ippantekina (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help! Let me know when you have addressed all the comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done all! Thank you for your comments again :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with my review and for addressing all of my comments. I will look through the article again sometime tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part, as "just as chaotic as the feeling was when [she] wrote it". The quote does not really make sense here as it cuts off a word. In the citation, it is "sounds just as chaotic as the feeling was when I wrote it" and without the "sounds", it is not really clear what Swift is describing as chaotic.
  • Revised.
  • Would it be possible to revise this part, it "ultimately gets absorbed into [Swift's] own aesthetic", resulting in a radio-friendly song that retained Swift's authentic, "sharply crafted" songwriting, without repeating "Swift's" twice in the same sentence?
  • Revised.
  • I would revise this sentence, The music video for "I Knew You Were Trouble" was directed by Anthony Mandler., so it is in the active tense rather than the passive tense.
  • Revised.
  • After reading this part, Rolling Stone labeled Swift's look as "punk"., I went to the article to find the quote and I do not think it is used correctly. Correct me if I am wrong, but the "punk" quote is taken from the article's title and that does not clearly connect it with her look. Later on, the article describes the video as having "punk-rock decadence" so this seems to be more about the events in the music video.
  • Removed.
  • For this part, Marie Claire commented that this "edgy" look, I would paraphrase "edgy" as the one-word quote is not particularly useful in this context.
  • I think the "edgy" quote explains the author's comment on Swift's image later in the sentence; plus I don't know if "edgy" can be paraphrased so that it conveys the exact meaning, given that the word has crept into public use.
  • This part, Swift speaks in a monologue, is not correct, and I would either use "delivers a monologue" and "gives a monologue" instead.
  • Revised.
  • I admit that it has been a while since I watched this music video, but I got confused by this part, This love interest exhibits behaviors that are unreliable. There are seemingly multiple love interests, but the distinction between the one played by Carney and this other one is not clear. Could you clarify this for me?
  • There is only one love interest (Carney)!
  • Then why say "this love interest"? That wording implies to me that there are more than one as "this" seems to be specifying one from another. I would just change that part. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of the "Music video" section, you only say the publications in the prose (i.e. Spin and Vulture noted similarities), while the previous section also use the writers' names. I would add the names here for consistency if known. If they are not known, I would say something like a Rolling Stone writer. This is also true for the "punk" Rolling Stone quote earlier in this section.
  • Revised, but kept unknown authors out; I think "a writer from ..." is kinda redundant.
  • For this part, Yahoo! found the storyline, link Yahoo! and I would encourage you to archive the link (although the second part is not required for this FAC).
  • Revised.
  • For this part, Melinda Newman agreed, attribute what publication Melinda Newman is writing for as this is her first mention in the article.
  • Revised.
  • I would re-examine the prose for the last paragraph of the "Music video" section. It has a lot of great content, but it can read like a list at times. I would think about varying the sentence structure and trying to make it flow more cohesively.
  • Rewritten.
  • In the "Credits and personnel" section, I would remove the writer link as I believe a majority of readers would already understand the concept.
  • Removed.
  • This is probably a silly question so apologies in advance, but does the upcoming rerecording of the song need its own section or its own infobox? There's very little information about it other than it is going to be released. I could see this being folded into the "Release" section with the infobox removed. If further information about this rerecording is released, then a separate section can also be made again, but it just seems unnecessary to me.
  • I had a discussion with other Taylor Swift WikiProject members, and it seems they want to keep the section.
  • It is not a huge issue to me. I really do not see the value in this section, but it would be best to see how other reviews see it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations 4 and 5 are live for me so I would change the citations to reflect that.
  • Revised.
  • When I click on a few of the MTV citations, I notice a MTV News banner on the top. With that in mind, shouldn't it be MTV News instead of MTV?
  • I think they are pretty much the same...
  • Fair enough. I will leave this to whoever does the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • MTV is not linked in citation 23 even though the publications/websites are consistently linked in the other citations.
  • Linked.

I decided to post my further comments much earlier than expected. I believe this should be all of my comments. I have primarily focused on the prose, but I have a few comments about the citations at the end. Let me know if you have any questions. Once my above comments are addressed, I will re-read the article and will very likely support it at that point. Reading this article made me feel super old because I was in college when this song was released >< lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them all. I still remember when this song dropped everyone around me was talking about how Swift has gone so un-country for weeks! But they all turned out to be loyal Swift fans after all lol. Ippantekina (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. Once my rather minor note about the music video synopsis is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks to me. Thank you for your patience with my review. I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

Support, now that the screaming goat is in :D ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time reviewing the article :D Ippantekina (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So first I gotta ask, is it worth mentioning the version of the song with the screaming goat? I don't mean that as a joke; when I saw the article was on FAC, I wanted to see if it was included. If you need a good source, how's People.com? It could just be a sentence in the "music video" section.
  • I am uncertain if the goat remix is that relevant, given that it was a temporary reaction to the song and has apparently died down.. 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Even if the reaction died down, it was still part of the cultural legacy of the song. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added something to the "Music video" section. Ippantekina (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was the song recorded?
  • I looked through the album booklet and couldn't find such information. It's safe to guess it was recorded some time in 2012, though. Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Swift promoted Red as a country music album and released singles to country radio, "I Knew You Were Trouble" was the first single from Red not promoted to country radio." - this seems pretty important, more than just sticking in some note.
  • "I Knew You Were Trouble" was released as a single in the U.K. on December 10, 2012[30] and in Italy on January 11, 2013. - so what does it mean to be released as a single in those countries? The article says how it charted in multiple countries, not just these two.
  • I am pretty sure the song was released worldwide; I added these two countries because there are clear-cut sources for the release dates, unlike others. Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Roberts acknowledged that critics could dismiss the dubstep as conceit, it was justifiable for Swift—"the pop moment"—to experiment with mainstream trends. - I don't get the grammar or meaning of "the pop moment" here. The quote seems out of place.
  • There is nothing about the song's key, tempo, chord progression. It's in F#/Gb major or D#/Eb minor for what it's worth.
  • I considered using musicnotes.com but there has been concern regarding the reliability of this website. Any thoughts? Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I can't find a good source discussing key. What about the tempo though? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find a good source, either, unfortunately.. Ippantekina (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is in really good shape. The biggest thing missing is the key/tempo/chords. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I have responded to them as above. Have a great day! Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image/media review (pass)[edit]

Everything looks good for the most part. If possible though, I would fix the issue with the source link for the Red Tour image and then I will mark this image/media review as passed. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your image review. I have added the archive-url in the description box of the Red Tour file. Hope everything is okay now :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me now. This passes my image/media review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

I said I would leave some comments here but unfortunately I don't have much time anymore. This is not a full "source review" but here are some comments:

  • ref 21 "American Broadcasting Company" shouldn't be italicized. It's also under ABC News website so I would write that instead of American Broadcasting Company.
  • Done.
  • ref 81 url-status=dead
  • per MOS:CONFORMTITLE bullet 4, stuff like 'Red' or Billboard should be italicized in citation titles whether the source does or not.
  • Done.
  • ref 27 I don't know if a podcast transcript that has "not been reviewed prior to publication" meets the high-quality sources requirement.
  • ref 30 is there a better source than Popjustice/one closer to December 10 than October 29 article date? Release dates could change in a month's time.
  • ref 81 I might cite Capital FM or Irish Independent instead
  • Replaced with Irish Independent.
  • no issues about other sources


  • ref 2 "and co-produced it with Nathan Chapman, her longtime collaborator" not in source
  • Done.
  • ref 3 this sentence is presented as a fact, but is citing a review, which is one person's opinion.
  • ref 21 date is 2012, not 2013
  • Done.
  • ref 27 it might be helpful to specify a location where the statement can be verified. Either cite a timestamp from the audio version instead or use the quote= parameter. I don't know what to look for here.
  • ref 42 date is October 17 not October 14
  • Done.

Prose looks very good so far. Good luck with the nomination. Heartfox (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. Will complete everything real soon :) Ippantekina (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done all! Thank you very much again for taking time reviewing the article :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • "and Shellback. The song was released on" for flow, i'd go "and Shellback, and was released on"
  • Wouldn't that make the sentence sprawling?
  • "album entirely by herself" maybe "she wrote all the tracks on the album herself"
  • Done
  • "Although Swift wanted to experiment with various musical styles, she—as a songwriter—prioritized the lyrics over the production, striving" this is a little tabloid feeling, is this something we can quote or attribute?
  • Done
  • "his protégé" basic English adopted word, no need for a link.
  • Done
  • "A day following the" weird, "The day after"?
  • Done
  • "single in the U.K. on" United Kingdom.
  • Done
  • "On a less positive side" -> "Less positively"
  • Removed

That takes me to "Commercial performance", sorry I have to come back to this but I will. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the U.K., "I Knew You Were Trouble" peaked at number two on the UK Singles Chart" U.K. and UK, is odd looking, especially in a single sentence, consistency within the article.
  • Done
  • "Swift sports a " wears
  • Done
  • "Martins and Vulture's Amanda" Vulture is overlinked.
  • Done
  • "from Uproxx,[72] and" and Uproxx.
  • I don't quite get this..
  • Why isn't "Chart (2012)" sortable?
  • Done
  • Several refs appear to have the publisher/source in the title as well as in the publisher parameter, it only needs to be there once.
  • If you are referring to chart sources (australian-charts.com etc.) they are automatically generated by {{Single chart}}. Ippantekina (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, the publishers/websites shouldn't appear in the title in the reference. If that means you use a normal citation template, so be it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite a specific guide saying so? I'm curious. Ippantekina (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't replace a widely used template ({{Single chart}}) for manual referencing. I do not see any purpose in it, unless the problem you said is detrimental to the article's quality—which I think not (cue recently promoted FAs) Ippantekina (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, well that's your call. I think having the reference source in the title is unprofessional and unbecoming of the best work on Wikipedia, so that's fine, but I won't support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina, how are you doing on that? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the template {{Single chart}} is template-protected so I cannot edit it. There is work underway but I do not know how it's going.. Ippantekina (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild The Rambling Man The template has been addressed. I believe the issue with website names in reference titles is resolved now. Ippantekina (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, is this now good to go? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, still issues per above remain, along with associated MOS issues, such as spaced hyphens in ref titles because of it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can you mark where issues have not been resolved so that I could follow? I currently don't see spaced hyphens in ref titles as they are now en-dashes. Ippantekina (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 169 has the spaced hyphens, but a lot of the refs around that one still have the website title in the ref title as well as in the publisher field. Unnecessary and inelegant duplication. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are talking about the Sweden ref, which I have resolved. The rest seems fine to me as the publisher field does not reiterate anything in the title (XX single certification should be fine). Ippantekina (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Current) ref 164 repeats Ultratop. Come on, this isn't that hard. I'm not going over this again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, including the spaced hyphen issue. Ippantekina (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again TRM, has this finally nailed it? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I believe we've reached consensus for promotion now. Ippantekina (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, is that a support from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's an acknowledgement that most of the citations aren't badly formatted any longer. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything left that keeps you from supporting? Ippantekina (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • FN4: it appears that Erlewine is the surname, not Thomas
  • Done.
  • What makes All Access a high-quality reliable source? Uproxx? fan2.fr?
  • fan2.fr is an entertainment website owned by French group Melty. Though not reliable for professional reviews, it is used in this article in a context of a TV recap, which I think should be fine. I'm investigating Uproxx. Ippantekina (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uproxx is an entertainment website that appears to be appropriate for news/reports. For music criticism, it appears not all writers are credible critics (the Wall Street Journal acknowledged the website had hired a reputable critic), so I removed the Uproxx source used for critical reviews. Ippantekina (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • webcitation.org appears to be broken
  • Replaced.
  • Domain names like taylorswift.org should generally use |website=
  • FN42: author name is misspelled. Ditto FN90, check for others
  • Fixed.
  • FN54: don't include website name within the title. Ditto FN56, check for others
  • How so? You have the option to amend the template, or not use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a guide specifically saying not to include website names in citation titles? The template is convenient for a large number of charts so I wouldn't opt for manual referencing as an alternative. If this is detrimental to the article's quality, I'll raise a discussion at the template talk (the template is permanently template-protected so I cannot edit it). But if not, I don't see any reason as a large number of Music FAs (specifically Pop music) use the template. Ippantekina (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of the article uses {{cite}}-family templates appropriately, so this does not result in a consistent citation format as required by WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Thank you very much for the source review. Ippantekina (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion ongoing elsewhere about the {{single chart}} refs; the other issues have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of sourcing[edit]

  • 10: Sorry, which part of this (or #9) supports the "boldest" part? The other cite is OK.
  • She said, "It’s one of the most adventurous songs on the record, soundwise."
  • 13: OK.
  • 26: Archive is broken.
  • Replaced.
  • 106: Is the embedded Tweet a reliable source?
  • The embedded Tweets are for decorative purposes; otherwise the report by Billboard is reliable.
  • 59: OK.
  • 133: OK.
  • 97: OK.
  • 7: I am not sure that any of the sources discusses the use of a synthesizer.
  • Added another source.
  • 6: OK.
  • 44: None of the sources mentions "Hot Digital".
  • Done.
  • 131: OK.
  • 75: OK.
  • 43: OK.
  • 61: OK.
  • 48: OK.
  • 171: Does the article say that the re-recording began in November?
  • Reworded.
  • 94: OK.
  • 20: Can I get a screenshot?
  • 28: Can I get a screenshot?
  • Which part are you referring to?
    Sorry, I meant 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw it, but it's a little ambiguous on which song came first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 121: OK.

Note that I know nothing about the sources used here so I am assuming reliability throughout. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. I have responded above :) Ippantekina (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it the New York Times piece? I added an archive-url. Ippantekina (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message to coordinator[edit]

Gog the Mild Even though this FAC has not received at least 3 (I am assuming 3 as a threshold) supports, it has resolved all issues and the article meets the criteria. And as written in the guide, resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Can this FAC be promoted in the current state, or shall I wait for more comments (which is rather impossible because this FAC has ripen)? Ippantekina (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Message noted and I shall try to go through it and come to a conclusion as to whether further reviews are needed over the next few days. It is possible that I will decide that a consensus to promote has been reached.
  • One thing I shall be picking up is the inconsistent rendering of titles in citations into title case. There are various ways of doing this, but falling back on the "standard approach" in (cite 82) "Gomez, Bieber win top Disney gongs", why the lower case initial letters? Compare with eg cites 80 and 81. There are a number of others. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually copy the title directly from the article. Is there a guide saying titles must be rendered consistently (i.e. upper case initial letters for all etc.)? Ippantekina (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:5LETTER. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the capitalized articles in citations' titles. If I understand correctly, MOS:TITLE allows for sentence case in citations' titles--there is an example from BBC News in the notes. Ippantekina (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said above "There are various ways of doing this". Whichever you prefer, so long as you are consistent. Are you? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild With an oppose coming late into the FAC, I would like this to be archived. I need time to work on the prose, which at this stage would be cumbersome. I have taken your suggestion on ref rendering as well. Thank you, Ippantekina (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here at the moment so can action this, tks Ippantekina. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Laser brain[edit]

Conducting a review now. --Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for leaving these types of remarks so late in your review, but I just returned from a wikibreak and this one caught my interest. I find the writing to be middling at best, and not up to the high standards we expect of a Featured article. A few examples:

  • There are plain grammatical errors that indicate the need for an outside copyedit. For example:
  • "The two producers infused elements of dubstep ... to the song" isn't really correct usage of the word "infuse"
  • "she prioritized the lyrics over the production, which she deemed important as a songwriter" The way you've written this conveys the opposite meaning of what I think you wanted.
  • The writing suffers from a problem that I've seen in many articles about songs and albums, which is that it's evident that you read and paraphrased a source without really understanding the meaning of the source. As someone who's been in the industry since I was a teen, I've never heard someone say things like:
  • "instrumented by heavy synthesizers"
  • "musically expands on the ... sound"
  • "The song begins with a ... production"
Those are just awkward phrases that don't mean anything to me as a subject matter expert. I think a review is needed of the cited sources to ensure we're understanding and accurately conveying the meaning.
  • I question some of the wording choices as possible OR. For example, you write "her previous albums' formulaic country pop sound" but "formulaic" is a very loaded term in the entertainment industry that means the artist is producing cookie-cutter work based on a proven formula. That may very well be true of Swift up to that point, but the cited source doesn't say as much.

These are just some examples of why I think the article needs much more work to reach FA standard. I would be happy to help informally or at a Peer Review process. --Laser brain (talk) 00:44, 30 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/I_Knew_You_Were_Trouble/archive1&oldid=1052658045"