Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1989 (Taylor Swift album)/addition1

< Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

1989 (Taylor Swift album) (1st supplementary nomination) edit

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/1989 (Taylor Swift album) for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. This Love (Taylor Swift song)
edit | discuss
  1989 (Taylor Swift album)
11 articles
 
  "Welcome to New York"
  "Blank Space"
  "Style"
  "Out of the Woods"
  "Shake It Off"
  "Bad Blood"
  "Wildest Dreams"
  "This Love"
  "New Romantics"
  The 1989 World Tour

The topic was promoted in January 2021 but has since seen some changes: the newly promoted FA "Out of the Woods" and the newly created GA "This Love". Fortunately, the number of FAs still satisfy the requirements for an FT, so here's the second nomination to legalize the inclusion of two newly improved articles. Cheers, --Ippantekina (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: On "Welcome to New York", IMDB is not considered a reliable source, and can only be used as an external link. On the "Live performances and other usage", the last three usages and not sourced at all. You either wikilink everything or you don't. If you just wikilink once, taylorswift.com. → Taylor Swift website, Vulture should be wikilink on reference 10 and not 12; Time should only be linked on source 19, remove from 20 and 21. Billboard wiki linked on 26. Clash is not wikilinked on 31. Overlink on 45, 46, 59 and 50. Not sure if Gothamist is a reliable source as it is a blog. On "New Romantics" everything is overlinked and needs to be concise. Billboard (15, 16 and 19), Rolling Stone (5, 40, 41 and 42), Slate (6), The Hollywood Reporter (29), The Washington Post (47), taylorswift.com. → Taylor Swift website. Same problems on "This Love". On "Wildest Dreams" Headline Planet is an unrelibale source, radioairplay.fm source needs to be appropriately formated per Wikipedia:Singles criteria, reference 52 not properly formated, Idolator is now publisher and the article suffers from the same link problem as the others. On "Out of the Woods" MTV News is the publisher, not sure why there is no release history table, and Radio Airplay SSL needs to be properly formated as I affirmed above.Here you have Republic Playbook, on other articles is Republic Records, consistency. Overlink problem on Billboard, MTV News, Rolling Stone, Stuff, Vulture and others. For every article so far, Vulture always needs url-access=limited. This is just the first batch of comments, once fixed I will go for the other articles. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Second batch: On "Style" clash magazine not wikilink, some problem with Elle UK wiklink and medium is not a reliable source. However, you can find that information on the grammy website, medium is a mirror website. On "Bad Blood" the same problem with medium and headline planet. PopSugar is a blog and the writer seems to also have written for Newsweek, which is not a reliable source. wikilink Billboard, The Edge. Reference 76, consequence is missing wikilink and author. Wikilink on 79. The year-end sources are messy in regards to work/publishers, "Billboard/billboard.com" and others. On the tour article, what is a "TBA" publisher? The tour setlsit from genius is not reliable, PopCrush and Headline Planet are not reliable sources. Wikilink The Washington Post, Billboard and Taste of Country. If you could find an archive source for the dead link it would be nice. There will be a third batch. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A small comment--the story was published on Medium before translated onto the Recording Academy's site, so Medium in this case is a platform and is reliable. Ippantekina (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Medium is not reliable, please see WP:RSP. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. In this case it's like Facebook; the Recording Academy used it as a platform. If you look at the published dates, the Recording Academy article (Feb 17) was published after the Cuepoint article (Feb 13), same author (Paul Zollo). Ippantekina (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still an unreliable source, Zollo also published it on American Songwriter. Just replace it with the Recording Academy article. Not sure why are you "fighting" to keep a source deemed unreliable. Nvertheless, there are still more issues that need to be addressed besides that one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can replace it, but in this case it is reliable (per WP:ABOUTSELF). Other than that, the MTV News issue is similar to my comment regarding italicizing digital websites like BBC. I have removed such sources as Daily Beast and re-formatted refs on other articles. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP: Avoutself states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", how does something related to the album even applies here? I would understand if it was Taylor Swift website. The article has nothing to do with medium activities. I'm confused. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites". The Medium source is a platform where the producers talked about the album. Ippantekina (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the producers talked about to Paul Zollo, which was reporting it to the Grammys (or something in this vein). The content was also published at America Songwriter, henceforth I said Paul Zollo. Medium, just copied it and mirror it. All in all, my point still stands. I'm not sure what are you trying to do here, as is clear an unreliable source per WP:RSP. There is no argument, on top of that it is a blog. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ippantekina and MarioSoulTruthFan: I have started an RfC to determine the reliability of Cuepoint for future instances where this might arise. Your participation (and that of anyone else reading this) is welcome. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks TheSandDoctor, I will participate in the RfC some time later. Pinging @MarioSoulTruthFan: how can Cuepoint "copy" the content of the Recording Academy when the published date on Cuepoint (12 Feb 2016) is before that on the Academy's site (17 Feb 2016)? Ippantekina (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You noticed that on medium it says on the top of the article "The Grammys", right? Do you also know that the grammys always publish those kind of stories written by Zolo, while medium does not. It happened with Adele, Bruno Mars and so on and so forth. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the Grammys publish it, using Cuepoint as a platform. That's not a "mirror site". Ippantekina (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They publish it on their own website, they don't use cuepoint as a platform. I never saw any article anywhere being published twice in different website, without credit being given to the original publisher. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you could explain why the Cuepoint article was published before the publish date on the Recording Academy's site, I stand my ground. Ippantekina (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The date could be wrong, this kind of stories are always published on the grammys website ad its always the same author. On top of that, unreliable source. I stand my ground on this one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus that this source is unreliable; you yourself voted in the RfC that it requires additional considerations. You can't fake a publish date online or if there is actually an error, the margin is not as astounding as a five-day gap. But regardless, if that cannot convice you, let's leave it at that. Ippantekina (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed I said that. Henceforth, maybe you can have both sources? The grammy's and the medium one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third batch: On "Blank Space", Medium is not a reliable source. However, you can find that information on the grammy website, medium is a mirror website. NPR.org → NPR, find an archive of the dead links. On "Shake it Off", The Daily Beast is an unreliable source, find an archive of the dead links. On the album article, "1989 digital releases worldwide" → no album can be released worldwide, so "1989 digital releases in various countries:"; source 121 has no website, author. Ref 180 and 187 are missing wikilink.
Hello, I'll be addressing your comments within a few days. Some replies--
  • At MOS:TITLE#Notes: "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=" in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources" which applies to "BBC News" (that's not a publisher)
  • I was advised somewhere that "taylorswift.com" is the correct input for work and not "Taylor Swift website"--and I don't see how "taylorswift.com" should be a problem unless you're being nitpick-y.
  • Not sure which overlink problem you are referring to? Because at WP:DUPLINK: "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=The Guardian". If there are references missing the hyperlink, I'd add the links to all instead of removing some.
  • If the release history is detailed in prose, I do not see a point in creating a table; it's not like chart positions where some positions can be trivial to be written out in prose. Ippantekina (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other issues such as Republic Records/Playbook inconsistency and Vulture accessibility have been addressed. Ippantekina (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I mean with "You either wikilink everything or you don't", consistency is key here. Kind of "nitpick-y", but I won't fight you on that. Regarding the release history, if you only have one date you don't need it. However, if you do have several dates for release dates...it's easier to understand the table, it's not like the article only have one release date, they have several. "Out of the Woods" has three release dates, including a promotional one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I have addressed your issues with sourcing. I have replied regarding your concerns with Medium. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Looks like a straightforward addition of the new GA to the existing topic. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a a straightforward addition to an existing topic. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 20:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great job at further improving this set of quality articles, which will help many music editors in the future.--NØ 17:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing with consensus to add. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/1989_(Taylor_Swift_album)/addition1&oldid=1107420098"