Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor Swift/archive1

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 not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 [1].

Taylor Swift edit

Nominator(s): Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the well-known singer-songwriter, Taylor Swift. It has a lot of references, and I think it deserves to be a featured article as the content, description and context are well-written. The article is already a good article, but i think it is more than that. The words typed into the article are well-written (like how I said earlier) and it gains a lot of viewers. For your opinions, feel free to comment. :) Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- You don't seem to be one of the main contributors to this article -- have you contacted any of them about nominating this, per FAC instructions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Sorry, this is not ready at all to become FA. In fact, this article doesn't even meet GA criteria in its current state as far as I'm concerned. For starters, I see many malformatted refs:

"Philly.com"
"Readingeagle.com"
"Words-of-whimsy.blogspot.co.uk"
"Blogs.mcall.com"
"EW.com"
"Articles.philly.com"
"Daily Telegraph"
"Dailymail.co.uk"
"BMI.com"
"Majorlyindie.com"
"TIME"
"Azstarnet.com"
"Gactv.com"
"Usatoday.Com"
"VisualHollywood.com"
"seventeen.com"
"MTV.com"
"UsMagazine.com"
"Lefsetz.com"
"NYTimes.com"
"Billboard.biz"
"Berkshireeagle.com"
"online.wsj.com"
"Post-gazette.com"
"Hotpress.com"
"music.yahoo.com"
"Nashvillescene.com"
"Abcnew.go.com"
"Standard.co.uk"
"Theboot.com"
"Blogs.tennessean.com"
"Nymag"
"Blogs.villagevoice.com"
"UPI.com"
"Marquee.blogs.cnn.com"
"entertainmentwise.com"
"Music-mix.ew.com"
"Entertainment.time.com"
"NY Daily News"
"Raretaylorswift.webs.com"
"StarTribune.com"
"Azcentral.com"
"Countrystandardtime.com"
"M.billboard.com"
"Instyle.co.uk"
"Articles.latimes.com"
"Latimesblogs.latimes.com"
"Itunes.apple.com"
"Tasteofcountry.com"
"Deltaskymag.delta.com"
"Twitter.com"
"Articles.chicagotribune.com"
"K955fm.com"
"People.com"
"Channelguidemagblog.com"
"Nymag.com"
"accessAtlanta"
"Creme.co.nz"
"SlantMagazine.com"
"Voices.washingtonpost.com"
"Savingcountrymusic.com"
"Joplinglobe.com"
"Refinery29.com"
"Nashvillescene.com"
"Social.entertainment.msn.com"
"Uncut.co.uk"
"Elviscostellofans.com"
"Vindy.com"
"Musicconnection.com"
"Huffington Post"
"Blog.music.aol.com"
"Transcript.cnn.com"
"AfterEllen.com"
"Newmusiclive.ca"
"Kcrw.com"
"Main.stylist.com"
"WWD.com"
"E! Online"
"News.sel.sony.com"
"Newsday.com"
"Bizjournals.com"
"Ukeonline.com"
"Artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com"
"Nbc.com"
"Looktothestars.org"
"Finance.yahoo.com"
"Google.com"
"Prnewswire.com"
"abclocal.go.com"
"Vh1.com"
"Boston.com"
"Huffingtonpost.com"
"Oomscholasticblog.com"
"Scholastic.com"
"Wfmz.com"
"Queerty.com"
"Looktothestars.org"
"Tampabay.com"
"Makeawishna.ca."
"Mainewishna.ca"
"3news.co.nz"
"Mass.wish.org"
"PennLive.com"
"Politico.com"
"Sparklyflower.posterous.com"
"Au.eonline.com"
"Starpulse.com"
"Allstatenewsroom.com"
"Sys-con.com"
"Rttnews.com"
"blog.cmt.com"
"Realestalker.blogspot.com.au"
"Shine.yahoo.com"
"Forbes.com"
"People (magazine)"
"US Magazine"
"Popcrush.com"
"Popsugar.com"

Additionally, there are many incorrect uses of italics (i.e. printed sources like Billboard (magazine) and Los Angeles Times should be italicized, non-print sources like MTV and VH1 should not be italicized). Furthermore, I see a number of dead links, and references are very inconsistent with using/not using publishers. Worst of all, there are bare URL's, refs missing work fields, and many unreliable sources used such as New York Post, "PopCrush", "Hollywood Life", Daily Mail, "Star Pulse", "Entertainmentwise", and Blogspot.

As for prose/coverage itself, definitely could use work. The fact that she registered to vote on her 18th birthday is trivial, same for 2008 being her "first election" the George H. W. Bush bits, her Kennedy affiliations (except for dating RFK and Ethel's grandson Connor), her "interest in American history", and properties owned. The "personal life" section could be scrapped, incorporating her dating life and Forbes earnings into "Life and career" section, especially given how there's a subsection with "tabloid interest" in its title that goes into the scrutiny she faced for her dating life. Since this article mentions that Joe Jonas and John Mayer wrote songs about her, I'd say go into detail on that- "Dear John" raised many eyebrows and so did "Paper Doll". "Acting career" can also be incorporated into "life and career", and I'd put "politics", "philanthropy", and maybe "product endorsements" in a section titled "other ventures". The "philanthropy" section seems rather bloated, and its paragraph on her LGBT-related actions belong in the "politics" subsection. "Ditzy" in "ditzy valley girlfriend" seems POV, too. Info on how many songs she wrote on her albums belongs in her album articles, not here. Do NOT include "TBA" for her upcoming album unless that is the album's title. A better title for "Awards and nominations" might be "Achievements", and here would be a good place to include some info on her commercial success. Also, "Swift has been the recipient of seven Grammy Awards, fifteen American Music Awards, eleven Country Music Association Awards, seven Academy of Country Music Awards, and twelve Billboard Music Awards"..... try Swift has received.

With all of this being said, I suggest withdrawal. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.