![]() | This article is a candidate to become part of the "Taylor Swift original studio albums" series, a current good topic. A good topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. |
![]() | The Tortured Poets Department has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 19, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Tortured Poets Department article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
![]() | A fact from The Tortured Poets Department appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 February 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Is it necessary to split the track listing simply because the artist has showcased it this way? Also, replacing Variety for BuzzFeed News also feels quite undue? Surely the "sides" are simply how they're to be split on vinyl, but is not how they're showcased for all physical / digital formats? A simple not over complete track listing showcase would better suit the article? livelikemusic ( TALK!) 18:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
So what does it all mean? There's a lot to potentially unpack here. The sides could just be the way the vinyls shook out, or maybe each grouping tells a different story, or utilizes a different sound — this is Swift after all.
Technically the album is written in all caps, should we also write it that way ? It's written THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT on all official accounts. Diamant580 ( talk) 18:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Apple Music now lists this album as pop. If you pre add the album, just below the album cover and name it says Pop-2024. We should include this somewhere in the article. Mr Imeime ( talk) 01:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is mentioned that the tortured poets only had a collector's edition for the manuscript, but it had a collector's edition for each bonus track limited edition. It should be changed. Sushiandrei ( talk) 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
PianoDan (
talk) 20:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Four physical editions of the album, each titled after and containing a bonus track, namely "The Manuscript", "The Bolter", "The Albatross", and "The Black Dog", have also been made available for purchase; Swift announced the latter three editions during the Asia-Pacific leg of the Eras Tour, her sixth headlining concert tour.What specific changes would you propose to this wording? 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Track length: 4:02 Swiftie4Eva ( talk) 00:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
this album will include tracks such as "loml" that have fans wondering if her lyric writing will change or stay the same. 2001:56A:FC76:9500:3056:16C:3E0:F559 ( talk) 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted a change on title stylizations because I felt it went against Wikipedia's neutrality (the reasoning for the change was that it was "fan-driven"), and because it was a removal of important contextual meaning. I feel that we should discuss the value of title stylizations, as they add important semantic meaning, and are also important for historical reliability. Krixano ( talk) 05:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
may be allowedis not a blanket license to use said sources. Further, they remained improperly formatted. Please do not add them again. Allow a more experienced editor to handle that. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 06:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Tom Breihan encapsulated the sound of the album in his review, that I think it would enrich this section; "Musically, Swift has fallen into a holding pattern of soft-thrumming synthpop and even softer quasi-folk. The sounds and patterns — the gentle keyboard twinkles, the tick-tock drum machines, the shivery chords, the murmuring multi-tracked backup vocals — are all played out. (...) Swift continues to sing almost everything in her sleepy, whispery, conversational lower register, going for some version of Lana Del Rey’s languor. The sound is pretty. It’s rich and pillowy and reassuring and low-energy (...)." It would work for her artistry section too. Giorgio Zeniquel ( talk) 22:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't we also discuss briefly the production and sound of The Anthology in the lead? I did so in this old revision but as of the current revision it's been removed. Ippantekina ( talk) 05:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Ronherry: what's with the double standard? You removed Toronto Star because it is "Not a prominent music publication" yet leave in four similar British newspapers that are not music publications either. In fact, you removed the Toronto Star review entirely from the article and did not even bother incorporating it in the prose. That's really egregious and goes against WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Toronto Star is one of the major newspapers in Canada and providing publications from varied locations aligns with WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:NPOV. I'm not saying it must be included in the reviews table, but I do not appreciate completely removing the source from the article as if it is useless and then leaving in four similar newspapers that are British that go against your own criteria. Heartfox ( talk) 12:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the Toronto Star review of this album: https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/taylor-swift-drops-surprise-double-album-with-the-tortured-poets-department-a-31-track-odyssey/article_2912d06c-fe34-11ee-b922-df359d747dd3.html?utm_medium=SocialMedia&utm_source=Twitter Aislingmurphy64 ( talk) 01:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The Music Genre for The Tortured Poets Department Alternative, folk pop, indie rock, soft rock, synth pop. It needs to be expanded in the Genre description. SectorKWiki19 ( talk) 07:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you link the page for Clara Bow (song into the article (especially in the tracklist section)? 63.65.131.178 ( talk) 16:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Do any of these songs actually have individual notability at this point? Why so many? 128.151.71.8 ( talk) 12:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
TTPD: The Anthology refers to the whole 31 tracks as a whole and not only the last 15 tracks that were released two hours after the first 16. You can see from Swift herself and some articles discussing the album:
Please fix this in the article. The lead says "It is a double album, with the second part, subtitled The Anthology" but it is not the second part that is subtitled this but both parts together. Thanks. 2A02:AA1:1046:FE40:5731:816A:E331:92F5 ( talk) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The standard edition is 16 tracks and was only released for digital download and streaming. Can you please fix this in the release history section? There is no CD, LP, or cassette that has only 16 tracks; all of these contain one additional song for a total of 17 tracks, with four different versions (Albatross, Bolter, Manuscript, Black Dog). It is incorrect for the first row to say the standard edition was released on any physical medium. You can check the references yourself from the table or use this one from Billboard that discusses all the different editions if you are confused. Thanks! 2A02:AA1:1046:FE40:5731:816A:E331:92F5 ( talk) 20:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The current listing of track personnel is difficult to parse because of the sheer size, and it's difficult to gauge which artists worked together on which songs. Specifically, members of the string ensemble on the latter half of the album are all listed separately, and their cohesion as a group isn't necessarily apparent. I feel that putting this entire list in a table would be helpful, but I'm not sure if there's precedent for that on Wikipedia or if it fits within style guidelines. I'm not suggesting that we remove the list, just add a table with the same information. I do admit that this table would have roughly 30 columns and 60 rows, so it might cause page navigation issues. I was thinking of doing this myself, but I don't want to do all of that work just to have it removed. Would love some feedback on this idea! SidekickDART ( talk) 04:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The review was paraphrased as such: “The Line of Best Fit's writer Paul Bridgewater, who dubbed it Swift's most cohesive body of work to-date, found the music sophisticated and the lyricism symbolic.” The word “lyricism” is wrong here; the correct word is simply “lyrics.” Lyricism means “an artist's expression of emotion in an imaginative and beautiful way” and never means “lyrics,” as it is intended to in this sentence. 96.18.95.203 ( talk) 14:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Add "(stylized in all caps)" between "The Tortured Poets Department" and note [a]. 2. Under Track listing, Make the "L" on track 12 "Loml" into a lowercase letter. 3. Make the "w" on track 14 "I Can Do It with a Broken Heart" into an uppercase letter. 4. Change the case style on track 24 from "Thank You Aimee" to "thanK you aIMee" Betterlovejohnny ( talk) 14:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose that we add "(stylized in all caps)" immediately after the first mention of the title in the lead section, as is standard, and has been standard, for us to do with albums which have titles stylized in all caps and all lowercase. Despite repeated citations of MOS:MUSICCAPS, this is never mentioned once as being against policy, implicitly or explicitly. aaronneallucas ( talk) 04:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. So unless its an abbreviation, capitalising the title is purely stylistic and therefore against the manual of style. It is explicitly against policy/guidance. WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument. If everyone else ran off a cliff edge, it doesn't mean its correct for you to do the same. Additionally MOS:MUSICCAPS does say
Exceptions are not made to mimic logo/cover stylization, even if such mimicry is common in the music press., in reference to capitalising all words except propositions. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Some description should be added under "Release and Promotion" regarding Taylor performs her songs of this album in the Eras Tour. Kst daniel ( talk) 02:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Ippantekina ( talk · contribs) 05:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AskeeaeWiki ( talk · contribs) 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Ippantekina I don't have much planned on Wikipedia, so for the meanwhile, I'm gonna review a Taylor Swift album. I have little to no experience regarding Taylor Swift, which is why I try to avoid editing these articles since I am not experienced in this matter enough. I think I'll be able to give some reviews with the background in about an hour, but I believe it will take me a few days to really finish reviewing, as I don't want to rush it.
𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This is a pre-review, where I just look at some basic stuff such an copy violations.
Earwig results: Detected a "possible" violation with this article: [today.com/popculture/music/live-blog/taylor-swift-tortured-poets-department-live-updates-rcna148230] Not sure how to feel about this, as most of the "violations" are literally just repetitions of the song and album titles.
Authorship: Nominator has major contributions to the article. Pass.
"...2017 album Reputation based..." –> "...2017 album, Reputation, based..."
Sources 98, 99, 105, 139 and 141 should be archived
'Pass'
2 of the dates say “july”, when it should be june. also needs to be updated 2603:7080:7201:A8F5:3CE4:722A:E0BB:7E98 ( talk) 03:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
“iHeartRadio and Sirius XM announced special programs with exclusive content from Swift to celebrate the album's release; the latter temporarily rebranded as "iHeartTaylor".
”latter” here should be replaced with “former”. 2600:1700:47D0:BEA0:C460:47F:5C3B:8036 ( talk) 16:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Ronherry: Your revert
here regarding social media speculation regarding a feud was sound on BLP and UNDUE grounds. However, you also reverted me
here, saying Blatant POV and contentious BLPVIO material; keep the stupid fan wars to twitter, this is an encyclopedia.
The content that was removed, however, had nothing to do with social media posts. Instead, it read "The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain for the number-one position on the charts, a method Swift has previously utilized." I primarily leaned on two sources and the accompanying passages for this statement:
Both sources address the obviously encyclopedically irrelevant social media scuffle (I can conceive of no circumstance where we should include mention of yet another Twitter war). However, both articles also verify independently that TTPD has remained at number 1 on the charts partially due to the introduction of limited-edition versions. Aja Romano for Vox seems qualified to make this observation, having spent more than a decade as a culture writer. Shaad D'Souza is perhaps less qualified, but his writing is journalistic and still had to go through The Guardian's editorial process.
Separately, this Forbes article, again using the purported feud as a vehicle to describe the developments, objectively observed that "[r]eleasing multiple versions of a single or album to top the charts is not a new strategy, nor is it limited to Swift or Eilish." I do not see any possible BLP or POV issues here, as this is an observation about a marketing strategy which is described in multiple reliable sources. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions(bolding original) and there are no contradicting viewpoints in reliable sources that suggest there is an alternative explanation for the myriad versions. If experts commenting on the practice all say one thing in an objective way, then Wikipedia repeats it as fact. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Three reliable sources making an objective observation—this is not a matter of opinion, but fact—with no contradiction from other reliable sources does constitute a consensus among the sources. Even if it is contended that there were BLP implications, three reliable sources over a multi-week period is almost always sufficient to source a statement like this. This has appeared in multiple sources, is encyclopedically relevant to the article, and is presented neutrally.~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is a candidate to become part of the "Taylor Swift original studio albums" series, a current good topic. A good topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. |
![]() | The Tortured Poets Department has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 19, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Tortured Poets Department article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
![]() | A fact from The Tortured Poets Department appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 February 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Is it necessary to split the track listing simply because the artist has showcased it this way? Also, replacing Variety for BuzzFeed News also feels quite undue? Surely the "sides" are simply how they're to be split on vinyl, but is not how they're showcased for all physical / digital formats? A simple not over complete track listing showcase would better suit the article? livelikemusic ( TALK!) 18:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
So what does it all mean? There's a lot to potentially unpack here. The sides could just be the way the vinyls shook out, or maybe each grouping tells a different story, or utilizes a different sound — this is Swift after all.
Technically the album is written in all caps, should we also write it that way ? It's written THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT on all official accounts. Diamant580 ( talk) 18:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Apple Music now lists this album as pop. If you pre add the album, just below the album cover and name it says Pop-2024. We should include this somewhere in the article. Mr Imeime ( talk) 01:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is mentioned that the tortured poets only had a collector's edition for the manuscript, but it had a collector's edition for each bonus track limited edition. It should be changed. Sushiandrei ( talk) 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
PianoDan (
talk) 20:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Four physical editions of the album, each titled after and containing a bonus track, namely "The Manuscript", "The Bolter", "The Albatross", and "The Black Dog", have also been made available for purchase; Swift announced the latter three editions during the Asia-Pacific leg of the Eras Tour, her sixth headlining concert tour.What specific changes would you propose to this wording? 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Track length: 4:02 Swiftie4Eva ( talk) 00:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
this album will include tracks such as "loml" that have fans wondering if her lyric writing will change or stay the same. 2001:56A:FC76:9500:3056:16C:3E0:F559 ( talk) 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted a change on title stylizations because I felt it went against Wikipedia's neutrality (the reasoning for the change was that it was "fan-driven"), and because it was a removal of important contextual meaning. I feel that we should discuss the value of title stylizations, as they add important semantic meaning, and are also important for historical reliability. Krixano ( talk) 05:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
may be allowedis not a blanket license to use said sources. Further, they remained improperly formatted. Please do not add them again. Allow a more experienced editor to handle that. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 06:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Tom Breihan encapsulated the sound of the album in his review, that I think it would enrich this section; "Musically, Swift has fallen into a holding pattern of soft-thrumming synthpop and even softer quasi-folk. The sounds and patterns — the gentle keyboard twinkles, the tick-tock drum machines, the shivery chords, the murmuring multi-tracked backup vocals — are all played out. (...) Swift continues to sing almost everything in her sleepy, whispery, conversational lower register, going for some version of Lana Del Rey’s languor. The sound is pretty. It’s rich and pillowy and reassuring and low-energy (...)." It would work for her artistry section too. Giorgio Zeniquel ( talk) 22:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't we also discuss briefly the production and sound of The Anthology in the lead? I did so in this old revision but as of the current revision it's been removed. Ippantekina ( talk) 05:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Ronherry: what's with the double standard? You removed Toronto Star because it is "Not a prominent music publication" yet leave in four similar British newspapers that are not music publications either. In fact, you removed the Toronto Star review entirely from the article and did not even bother incorporating it in the prose. That's really egregious and goes against WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Toronto Star is one of the major newspapers in Canada and providing publications from varied locations aligns with WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:NPOV. I'm not saying it must be included in the reviews table, but I do not appreciate completely removing the source from the article as if it is useless and then leaving in four similar newspapers that are British that go against your own criteria. Heartfox ( talk) 12:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the Toronto Star review of this album: https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/taylor-swift-drops-surprise-double-album-with-the-tortured-poets-department-a-31-track-odyssey/article_2912d06c-fe34-11ee-b922-df359d747dd3.html?utm_medium=SocialMedia&utm_source=Twitter Aislingmurphy64 ( talk) 01:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The Music Genre for The Tortured Poets Department Alternative, folk pop, indie rock, soft rock, synth pop. It needs to be expanded in the Genre description. SectorKWiki19 ( talk) 07:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you link the page for Clara Bow (song into the article (especially in the tracklist section)? 63.65.131.178 ( talk) 16:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Do any of these songs actually have individual notability at this point? Why so many? 128.151.71.8 ( talk) 12:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
TTPD: The Anthology refers to the whole 31 tracks as a whole and not only the last 15 tracks that were released two hours after the first 16. You can see from Swift herself and some articles discussing the album:
Please fix this in the article. The lead says "It is a double album, with the second part, subtitled The Anthology" but it is not the second part that is subtitled this but both parts together. Thanks. 2A02:AA1:1046:FE40:5731:816A:E331:92F5 ( talk) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The standard edition is 16 tracks and was only released for digital download and streaming. Can you please fix this in the release history section? There is no CD, LP, or cassette that has only 16 tracks; all of these contain one additional song for a total of 17 tracks, with four different versions (Albatross, Bolter, Manuscript, Black Dog). It is incorrect for the first row to say the standard edition was released on any physical medium. You can check the references yourself from the table or use this one from Billboard that discusses all the different editions if you are confused. Thanks! 2A02:AA1:1046:FE40:5731:816A:E331:92F5 ( talk) 20:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The current listing of track personnel is difficult to parse because of the sheer size, and it's difficult to gauge which artists worked together on which songs. Specifically, members of the string ensemble on the latter half of the album are all listed separately, and their cohesion as a group isn't necessarily apparent. I feel that putting this entire list in a table would be helpful, but I'm not sure if there's precedent for that on Wikipedia or if it fits within style guidelines. I'm not suggesting that we remove the list, just add a table with the same information. I do admit that this table would have roughly 30 columns and 60 rows, so it might cause page navigation issues. I was thinking of doing this myself, but I don't want to do all of that work just to have it removed. Would love some feedback on this idea! SidekickDART ( talk) 04:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The review was paraphrased as such: “The Line of Best Fit's writer Paul Bridgewater, who dubbed it Swift's most cohesive body of work to-date, found the music sophisticated and the lyricism symbolic.” The word “lyricism” is wrong here; the correct word is simply “lyrics.” Lyricism means “an artist's expression of emotion in an imaginative and beautiful way” and never means “lyrics,” as it is intended to in this sentence. 96.18.95.203 ( talk) 14:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Add "(stylized in all caps)" between "The Tortured Poets Department" and note [a]. 2. Under Track listing, Make the "L" on track 12 "Loml" into a lowercase letter. 3. Make the "w" on track 14 "I Can Do It with a Broken Heart" into an uppercase letter. 4. Change the case style on track 24 from "Thank You Aimee" to "thanK you aIMee" Betterlovejohnny ( talk) 14:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose that we add "(stylized in all caps)" immediately after the first mention of the title in the lead section, as is standard, and has been standard, for us to do with albums which have titles stylized in all caps and all lowercase. Despite repeated citations of MOS:MUSICCAPS, this is never mentioned once as being against policy, implicitly or explicitly. aaronneallucas ( talk) 04:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. So unless its an abbreviation, capitalising the title is purely stylistic and therefore against the manual of style. It is explicitly against policy/guidance. WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument. If everyone else ran off a cliff edge, it doesn't mean its correct for you to do the same. Additionally MOS:MUSICCAPS does say
Exceptions are not made to mimic logo/cover stylization, even if such mimicry is common in the music press., in reference to capitalising all words except propositions. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Some description should be added under "Release and Promotion" regarding Taylor performs her songs of this album in the Eras Tour. Kst daniel ( talk) 02:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Ippantekina ( talk · contribs) 05:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AskeeaeWiki ( talk · contribs) 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Ippantekina I don't have much planned on Wikipedia, so for the meanwhile, I'm gonna review a Taylor Swift album. I have little to no experience regarding Taylor Swift, which is why I try to avoid editing these articles since I am not experienced in this matter enough. I think I'll be able to give some reviews with the background in about an hour, but I believe it will take me a few days to really finish reviewing, as I don't want to rush it.
𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This is a pre-review, where I just look at some basic stuff such an copy violations.
Earwig results: Detected a "possible" violation with this article: [today.com/popculture/music/live-blog/taylor-swift-tortured-poets-department-live-updates-rcna148230] Not sure how to feel about this, as most of the "violations" are literally just repetitions of the song and album titles.
Authorship: Nominator has major contributions to the article. Pass.
"...2017 album Reputation based..." –> "...2017 album, Reputation, based..."
Sources 98, 99, 105, 139 and 141 should be archived
'Pass'
2 of the dates say “july”, when it should be june. also needs to be updated 2603:7080:7201:A8F5:3CE4:722A:E0BB:7E98 ( talk) 03:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
“iHeartRadio and Sirius XM announced special programs with exclusive content from Swift to celebrate the album's release; the latter temporarily rebranded as "iHeartTaylor".
”latter” here should be replaced with “former”. 2600:1700:47D0:BEA0:C460:47F:5C3B:8036 ( talk) 16:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Ronherry: Your revert
here regarding social media speculation regarding a feud was sound on BLP and UNDUE grounds. However, you also reverted me
here, saying Blatant POV and contentious BLPVIO material; keep the stupid fan wars to twitter, this is an encyclopedia.
The content that was removed, however, had nothing to do with social media posts. Instead, it read "The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain for the number-one position on the charts, a method Swift has previously utilized." I primarily leaned on two sources and the accompanying passages for this statement:
Both sources address the obviously encyclopedically irrelevant social media scuffle (I can conceive of no circumstance where we should include mention of yet another Twitter war). However, both articles also verify independently that TTPD has remained at number 1 on the charts partially due to the introduction of limited-edition versions. Aja Romano for Vox seems qualified to make this observation, having spent more than a decade as a culture writer. Shaad D'Souza is perhaps less qualified, but his writing is journalistic and still had to go through The Guardian's editorial process.
Separately, this Forbes article, again using the purported feud as a vehicle to describe the developments, objectively observed that "[r]eleasing multiple versions of a single or album to top the charts is not a new strategy, nor is it limited to Swift or Eilish." I do not see any possible BLP or POV issues here, as this is an observation about a marketing strategy which is described in multiple reliable sources. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions(bolding original) and there are no contradicting viewpoints in reliable sources that suggest there is an alternative explanation for the myriad versions. If experts commenting on the practice all say one thing in an objective way, then Wikipedia repeats it as fact. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Three reliable sources making an objective observation—this is not a matter of opinion, but fact—with no contradiction from other reliable sources does constitute a consensus among the sources. Even if it is contended that there were BLP implications, three reliable sources over a multi-week period is almost always sufficient to source a statement like this. This has appeared in multiple sources, is encyclopedically relevant to the article, and is presented neutrally.~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)