Wikipedia:Peer review/1989 (Taylor Swift album)/archive1
1989 (Taylor Swift album)[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this directly to FAC instead of GAN beforehand. I'm aware that for FA the article's prose needs to be brilliant, so I hope fellow reviewers can be really critical and constructive :). Thanks in advance, HĐ (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comments from Aoba47
- For this part (during which time contemporary critics had), I believe you could drop "time" as it is not necessary.
- This sentence (Songwriting for the album commenced in mid-2013, during which time contemporary critics had noted her fourth studio album Red for its mild departure from Swift's signature country sound and incorporation of straightforward pop production, a result of her collaborations with Swedish producers Max Martin and Shellback.) is rather long and takes up a sizable portion of the paragraph. I would consider separating this into two smaller sentences.
- Something about this sentence (Martin served as executive producer alongside Swift in overseeing the coalition of the album.) seems overly word to me. I think that by definition any executive producer is responsible for "overseeing the coalition of the album". I would just cut down the sentence to something like (Martin and Swift were the executive producers). I have a similar issue with this sentence (the former also served as executive producer alongside Swift in overseeing the coalition of the record).
- For this part (while the musical direction garnered polarized response), would it be fair to say "the more pop musical direction)? I think it would be helpful to clarify this somewhat as it is somewhat vague in its current form.
- I rewrote the first two paragraphs of the lead
- For this part (American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift released her fourth studio album Red in October 2012), I do not believe you need the descriptive phrase "American singer-songwriter).
- Removed
- For this part (to courage to indulge in the big city), I would just say "city". Something about describing New York City as "the big city" seems slightly too informal to me.
- Removed
- I have a question for this sentence (To bolster album sales, Swift had tie-ins with Subway, Keds and Diet Coke.). Almost all of the tie-ins are linked except for Diet Coke. Is there a reason for this?
- Whoops it was just my incompetence; added the link
- There is a deprecated parameter in References 55, 147, and 229. It is something about the subscription part, but I am not entirely certain what it means.
- Apparently there was something wrong with {{Cite web}}; I'll try to find some alternations to this
- I would try to contact the opposition voter from the first FAC as they will probably be more helpful than me in pointing out areas where the article can be improved.
Great work with the article. This is what jumps out for me when reading it. I hope this helps somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)