Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shake It Off/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 January 2021 [1].

Shake It Off edit

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC); TheSandDoctor[reply]

This article is about a song that does not need an introduction (probably). This song was so huge back in the day that it was the most annoying thing to appear on earth. Looking back, though the song may appear silly, it was a cultural reset for catapulting Ms. Taylor Swift to superstardom.

While this remains one of my least favorite songs on the album 1989, I ventured to expand the article on a song that attracted much praise and criticism alike. To ensure an encyclopedic tone, I wiped out any source considered gossip blogs/fanzines, and squeezed my resources from the Wikipedia Online Library to find peer-reviewed material. Nominating this to FAC may be the boldest thing I have done on this site, so I am honored to co-nominate with TheSandDoctor, who has helped with prose issues. Any comment would be much appreciated, HĐ (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

I liked this song when it came out, but am close to deleting it off my iPod as it hasn't aged well. I like it more than 'Bad Blood' though, which is the lowest point of what's an otherwise very good album. My musical tastes aside, I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "which Swift marketed as her first pop album that eschews the country pop sound of her previous repertoire" - bit clunky
  • "Contemporary critics received "Shake It Off" with moderate reviews" - this is unclear - changing to active voice would help
  • "They found the song's dance-pop production catchy, but lamented that the lyrics were not up to par with Swift's traditional vivid songwriting" - was there really a consensus on this as this suggests? (I also doubt that Swift was widely considered a strong songwriter as this suggests - it seems she's taken on this mantle only with her latest couple of albums). The later section of the article notes a range of views.
  • She had been considered by critics as first and foremost a songwriter thanks to her country background (she was the youngest songwriter on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time). As The Guardian reviewed, "She’s a gifted writer, but Shake It Off doesn’t show off her talent." This however may not be representative of all reviews, so I'll try to rephrase it. HĐ (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any commentary which discusses this song in the context of the various (many?) songs Swift has written responding to her critics? It seems to be a strong theme in her career, including the (IMO) wretched Reputation album.
  • There is some info on the song's theme and that of "Mean", Swift's 2010 single. Reputation seems to be more related to "Blank Space" (according to this interview), HĐ (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having sparked speculations of new music via her social media accounts" - clunky
  • "A day following its impact on US radio stations" - unclear
  • "Despite Swift's announcement of abandoning country" - clunky
  • " Media publications pointed out potential references to other cultural events" - weren't these pretty explicit references? Please also change this to active voice.
  • Could you clarify what you mean by active voice? HĐ (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Active voice - in this case, something like "The video made a number of references to other areas of popular culture" if sources support it. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swift didn't really explain the inspirations behind the video, so I think it is factually incorrect to deem the references explicit, HĐ (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Swift said or didn't say is irrelevant if reliable sources made the connection - a problem with these kinds of articles is that editors are afraid to go beyond the (often vapid/PR) utterances of pop stars. I'm fairly clueless about pop culture, but was able to spot references in the video. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded, HĐ (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earned accolades at professional awards. " - clunky
  • "At the 2016 BMI Awards, the song was one of the award-winning songs that helped Swift earn the distinction of Songwriter of the Year." - this is unclear. Is the criteria for this BMI award that the songs have to have received other awards or similar as this suggests?
  • No.. the BMI awards songs for songwriters and publishers without specific categories. Reworded, HĐ (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Retrospectively, critics have considered "Shake It Off" an effective opener for Swift's 1989 era, which transformed her image from country to mainstream pop" - this isn't supported by the source, which is the views of three NME writers who don't say it reflects broader views
  • Attributed to NME, HĐ (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the article was of comedic purpose" - overly formal/academic
  • An interesting element of the #Tay4Hottest100 issue which was discussed in the Australian media was that a cover of the song by the (all male) band Milky Chance recorded for Triple J was eligible, while Swift's original version wasn't - this might be worth noting.
  • Interesting. I am finding coverage on that, HĐ (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also likely worth noting though that the #Tay4Hottest100 campaign was basically bad faith - as Triple J had never played the song (as it sits outside its scope of highlighting 'alternative' music, especially by Australian artists), it was always clearly ineligible.
  • I find it funny that although it was ineligible in the first place, JJJ stayed silent until the last day of the poll (but in the announcement they listed a dozen of reasons, which did not say about this).. HĐ (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the #Tay4Hottest100 campaign had overwhelmed the Hottest 100 for 2014—over 7,341 Hottest 100 posts over the past 30 days related to Swift, compared to 230 related to Chet Faker" - this is unclear - what was overwhelmed? As the Hottest 100 attracts very large numbers of votes, 7341 would have been a drop in the ocean for the IT system, etc.
  • Given the report by SMH I think 7k is a fairly large number for the event... or maybe they were sensationalizing it (which I assume not), HĐ (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any updates on the lawsuit by Sean "Sep" Hall and Nate Butler since October 2019?
  • Apparently the suit has stalled. I'm curious about what's going to happen next as well, HĐ (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to which Swift expressed her approval on social media" - change to active voice
  • Do we need the 'Cover versions and usage in media' section? It seems like few of these versions were ever commercially released (the Milky Chance version noted above was released by Triple J, ironically)
  • Per WP:SONGTRIVIA some mentions may be notable if they are discussed by media publications. I would like to re-examine this section if the consensus is to remove non-commercial releases, though, HĐ (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very successful and iconic songs like this always attract tons of covers, so listing each performance seems like overkill. I think that the appropriate bar to set here is where the cover is itself a significant element of that artist's work rather than something they performed once while on the radio or TV. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the video, the students hold support sings encouraging each other to act kind" - it is not clear what this means, and the grammar seems off. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking time reviewing the article. I have replied to your concerns per above (except concerns regarding the information included in "Covers and other usage" section, which I am awaiting further discussion on whether to excessively cut it down) HĐ (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of further comments:

  • I've made some edits to simplify wording - please check that these are accurate.
  • "After having sparked speculation about new music on social media, Swift appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon on August 13, 2014, where she announced a live stream via Yahoo! on August 18, 2014." - this is hard to follow - was she on The Tonight Show, or a Yahoo stream (5 days later?). Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly reworded. Thank you for your comments, HĐ (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd still prefer to see the Cover versions section get the chop, but I think that the FA criteria are met. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and review, Nick-D! --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Taylor_Swift_-_Shake_It_Off.ogg has an incomplete FUR
  • File:Funny_Face_(1957)_trailer_featuring_Audrey_Hepburn.jpg: have you verified there was no copyright notice in the original? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe for U.S. movie trailers published between 1925 and 1977 there is no copyright notice, HĐ (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says here that Trailers for movies released before 1964 are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted. The law at the time granted the owner 28 years to file a copyright registration, though a little more digging might be needed. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil edit

As apposed to Nick-D, this music is not my cup of tea at all, in fact never heard of it until this nom and spent 30 seconds listening on YouTube before turning off, but then again its not meant for my demographic/age profile, grumble, grumble. Nonetheless, the page is mostly good enough on prose, and would like to see it suceed. Here are some suggestions:

  • which Swift marketed as her first pop album that eschews her previous albums' country pop sound - who uses the word "eschews" in 2021
  • for digital download worldwide - worldwide digital download (this is a wording preference only)
  • traditional vivid songwriting - source for "vivid"... and do you mean "earlier" rather than "traditional"
  • 2010s-decade-end one too many dashes here
    @Ceoil: Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She included "Shake It Off" on the set lists for two of her world tours, the 1989 World Tour (2015) and Reputation Stadium Tour (2018). "Shake It Off" has - vary the wording with "the song" in the second instance of "Shake It Off"
    @Ceoil: Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Favorite Song" capitalised. I know its an annual award, but a not enough of one to be a proper noun
  • I believe awards categories are normally capitalized, HĐ (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Background", the red in Red incorporates various is left unexplained
  • Could you clarify? HĐ (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Red incorporates various pop and rock styles Red what now? You just need to link or better explain Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove renowned from "with renowned Swedish pop producers Max Martin and Shellback"
    @Ceoil: Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard's Jason Lipshutz considered it a sign of a "bold foray into the unknown", with which Swift could experiment - "in which Swift..."
  • "Shake It Off" won awards at professional awards.
    @Ceoil: Reworded. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly The single and music video received accolades at award shows catering to popularity and commercial performance - would cut this altogether as the following sentances make the statement moot. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would severely trim the very long "see-also" section so it doesnt seem like a random rag-bag. First by trimming anything already linked above, then by cutting links to long and very broad lists; ie those that are not directly germane. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Credits and personnel" should be Credits only.
  • Sources look mostly good, from first look, only dont recogonise slotop50.si.
  • The sub-heading "Cited literature" comes across as pretentious; no offense as edit on pop culture also often, but from a scan its far from literature ;) Better rename as "sources", or "further reading", or some such
  • Thank you for your comments so far. As Nick-D mentioned above, the "Cover versions and usage in media" section needs to be trimmed. I would like to have your comments regarding this as well, HĐ (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care much about Nick-D, but grand. Please however let me know when you have addressed or refuted the points above, so I can resume. Ceoil (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have responded to your points above, HĐ (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the replies are far from complete. Ping when they are. Ceoil (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see all addressed. The page is beautifully written; nice work. Support Ceoil (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the review and kind words, HĐ (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Heartfox edit

Maybe it's just my eyes but I found it hard to differentiate between the * and the ^ in the certification template. Do you know why it can't use another symbol like # ? I may or may not read the article/leave comments if I have time. Heartfox (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template for certifications is automatically generated ({{Certification Table Entry}}). I think * and ^ may be hard to distinguish for certain people... so maybe a discussion at the Template talk page should help, HĐ (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DMT biscuit edit

  • "Shake It Off" is an uptempo dance-pop song... → It is an uptempo dance-pop song... Having two repetitions of Shake it off underneath each other is clashing and ugly. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I follow? These two quoted bits are two sections apart and it is necessary to repeat the information—which the second instance rewords slightly—as the lead is supposed to reflect the content in the page and have its citations etc in the second mention. The article alternates between "the song", "it", its proper name, and "the single" with some frequency. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lyrics are about... → The lyrics describe... DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am dubious if "describe" is a good word choice. HĐ (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know how I feel about naming NME and COS in the lead. Possible undue weight. This is per your discretion. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that this song was featured on decade-end lists by only two publications, I think it's fair to include their names here. 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • which incorporates... shouldn't this be past tense? DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence is talking about the album's music, so present tense makes sense to me. HĐ (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • repertoire → discography... Repertoire is a bit pretentious. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any commentary on the bridge's content. If no, I'm sceptical of its inclusion. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magazine Drowned in Sound described "Shake It Off" as "undoubtedly ... the most significant cultural event" since Radiohead's 2011 album The King of Limbs." Hindsight is 2020 and perhaps I'm too biased to speak but King of the Limbs wasn't a particularly significant cultural event. This bit strikes me as a bit fan-esque. It is, of course, the assertion of a writer not the article, so that can be reason for it to stay. Just something to consider.DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Radiohead was significant to the magazine (which is supposedly indie-centric) HĐ (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah Ok. As i said that was the writer's opinion; the article doesn't exist to validate it. DMT biscuit (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the United Kingdom, "Shake It Off" peaked at number two...In the United Kingdom, it peaked at number two...Per the first comment. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work; just needs a little bit of tinkering. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Support: The few issues i found have been addressed or given justified explanations for their inclusion. DMT biscuit (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review :) HĐ (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note How is the image review looking @Nikkimaria: And has there been a source review and spot checks? Ealdgyth (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not thrilled with the sample's FUR; otherwise good on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested for a source review at WT:FAC. HĐ (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon – Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • retrieval dates missing for: refs 7, 29, 64, 73, 244
  • language parameter for ref 205, 203, 67, 165, 199, 236?
  • ref 131 missing author(s)
  • ref 140 should be "pp."
  • for ref 199, Hung Medien seems to be the publisher, "austriancharts.at" could be put as the work or website I would think
  • ref 207 isn't in a template so the formatting is showing up differently
  • no other issues I could spot there
Reliabillity
  • since amazon (ref 28) is generally considered an unreliable source, and the place you use if already has another ref, do we need it here?
  • the Paul Zollo (ref 14) is a medium post, though I would assume he's well regarded enough to qualify as reliable here – perhaps link to his page to minimize any doubts of reliabillity
  • nothing else stood out as concerning to me; seems to all be from reliable news sources or statistical web information. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the source review. I believe I have addressed your concerns accordingly. HĐ (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thank you! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the source review! --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Aoba47 edit

Since I helped HĐ with their past FACs, I will contribute a review here even though I'm retired and will step back from Wikipedia editing (I'm slowly getting there lol). Here's one quick comment as a placeholder, and I will have a full review up by the end of the day.

  • Replaced with Universal Music, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few times in the article that Swift is references as a "star", such as which transformed Swift's sound and image from a country singer-songwriter to a pop star and had experienced during her rise to stardom. While Swift enjoyed great success in music, I'm a little uncertain about these descriptions as they are told in Wikipedia's voice and could be perceived as going against WP:NPOV. What are your thoughts, and do you think the "star" parts could be avoided? For instance, I could see the first example I cited going to which transformed Swift's sound image from country to pop or something similar.
  • You are right. I reduced it to simply from country to pop, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part in the "Music and lyrics" section on the "Mean" comparisons are fascinating as I never would have put these two songs together. With that being said, I would think the second sentence needs some sort attribution to indicate who is saying this as it is currently being presented in Wikipedia's voice.
  • It's actually what Swift said herself, so I think it's fair to keep the factual voice that way, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is immediately clear in the prose that Swift is the one making this statement so I still think direct attribution is needed. Just so we are on the same page, I am talking about this sentence: If "Mean" was where Swift assumed victimhood, "Shake It Off" found Swift in a proactive stance to "take back the narrative, and have ... a sense of humor about people who kind of get under [her] skin – and not let them get under [her] skin". Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your clarification. Added attribution, HĐ (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little uncertain about this part, to produce a catchy, radio-friendly. I do not have an issue with catchy as that is something that can be studied more objectively, but I am uncertain if "radio-friendly" is more an opinion or praise toward the song rather than a more objective observation.
  • Removed "radio-friendly" as it is rather dubious, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to briefly expand on the bridge part in the final paragraph of the "Music and lyrics" section. In the past, I have been discouraged from putting lyrics in the prose unless there is more critical commentary attached to them. The Paste review later in the article describes this as spoken word so that could be useful, and I would not be surprised if critics had more to say about this part to add at least a little something to justify the lyrics' inclusion.
  • Added the spoken word bridge, and a bit on Swift's trademark of the lyrics, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to clarify this point, After having sparked speculation about new music on social media, as I am not entirely sure what it means? It just seems rather vague to the point that I could understand a number of different ways.
  • Removed as it is rather trivial, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the Nate Jones from New York review after the Alexis Petridis review. I suggest this since Jones has a more mixed opinion of the song and I think it would serve as a better transitions from the positive reviews to the negative Paste review. Also, I am assuming the Paste source is the only negative retrospective review (at least by a reliable, high-quality publication)?
  • I'd keep the Nate Jones review where it is now, as it corroborates with Mylrae's opinions on the song's impact on Swift's pop image. So far, it seems Paste is the only source that is downright critical of the song. Rolling Stone is more mixed, and the three other are kind of positive, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link social media in the section on the music video when the concept is mentioned earlier in the article.
  • Removed the previous bit, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned about the Audrey Hepburn image as the scene is quite dark and it is rather hard (at least for me) to really see what is being pictured. I showed it to my brother and he had a similar concern even when viewing the image in full rather than in a thumbnail. However, since this was not brought up by @Nikkimaria:, I may be over-thinking. I still wanted to raise this to your attention though. I would recommend finding a different image, but again that is just me. Either way, I believe the caption needs to be revised as Swift's black turtleneck and jeans drew comparisons to Hepburn's outfit in Funny Face not Hepburn herself.
  • Revised the caption. It is hard to find an alternate version to the screenshot, as the trailer itself is also of poor lighting quality... I wonder if some image rendering/manipulation could work on Public Domain files. If that is possible, then probably a brighter edit of the image should suffix, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been a while since I watched Funny Face, but what I remember, that scene is set in a rather dark room. I doubt a better lit substitute could be found without editing. I am against image rendering/manipulation to change the lighting as it would no longer be accurate to the film. I would instead replace both images and use of the other comparisons discussed in this section (as there are a few other possibilities). I know it may sound extreme, but I think the Funny Face image quality is an issue. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed! However, given this specific Funny Face example was discussed in a scholarly article, I think other alternatives would be less then desirable compared to this one.. HĐ (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point. Since an image review was already done for this FAC and this issue was not brought up there, I will press this further. I agree that it is better to go with the comparison that has the higher quality sources. I was honestly expecting a screenshot from one of the twerking/break-dancing parts given the attention there, but I think it's best to not have a visual focusing on something negative. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the "Analysis and reception" section. With that being said, I am uncertain about the Maryn Wilkinson sentences, specifically the ones later in that paragraph where the information is more so worded in Wikipedia's voice rather directly attributed them back to the writer. I also have a similar concern with a Dubrofsky sentence in the second paragraph (i.e. the one about what roles Swift "naturally" embodies and does not embody).
  • For the last two sentences of the "Cover versions and usage in media" section, I would having two sentences in a row with "covered".
  • This is more of a silly question, but I am guessing that none of the high-quality publications that covered this song compared it to the Mariah Carey song of the same name lol?
  • Sadly no. Probably the only helpful source I came across is from Bustle, which I'm rather concerned of regarding its quality.. HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought so, but just wanted to check. I did my own search and got similar results. I do not think Bustle is terrible, but I agree that it is best to keep it out of the article (particularly for a rather silly comparison lol). Aoba47 (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is helpful. Let me know if anything needs clarification, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to your concerns as above. I hope you are doing well, and since I know how tempting it is to fall back to Wikipedia after a brief period of "retirement", just take it easy :) Hope you are having a great weekend, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. You are right that coming back to Wikipedia is very much tempting, but I still have a lot of off-Wiki things I'd like to get accomplished. I'll make this the last thing I do on here. There are a few remaining points above. Have a great weekend too! Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully you could balance things out! I am a bit worried that I'd also get compulsive with Wikipedia again after I'll have announced my retirement, but given my many off-Wiki projects, I believe we could sort things out and practice self-discipline. Thank you again for your comments :) HĐ (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad I am not the only one that struggles with it lol. Thank you for your comments. I agree with your response on Funny Face, and I will not press that point further as I do like the way the images are compared and it is most likely the best comparison to pair with a visual. I will read through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you and then I will likely support it (which should hopefully clear it for promotion). Thank you again for your prompt responses and your positive and patient attitude with this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this nomination for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review and support, Aoba47, it is greatly appreciated! --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Aoba. I wish you all the best with your off-Wiki projects, HĐ (talk) 02:46, 23 January 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/Shake_It_Off/archive1&oldid=1002343348"