This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There seems to be a lot of different mixes for this song depending on the station format on which it is played. And I'm not talking about country/non-country. I think i've heard at least three different non-country mixes. Are my ears deceiving me? Is this something the station adds to the recording they get? Do the copyright laws permit this? Does anybody have any information on this? I think the article would benefit. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Peter
Reviewer: –Chase (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Quickly scanning the article, everything looks good and it does not meet any of the quick-fail criteria. I'll be looking over this article a little more thoroughly and will then review it against the GA criteria. –Chase (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I was unable to find an archive anywhere. Wayback Machine didn't have one and the Google cache is empty. Rolling Stone's site seems to be going through a makeover, as currently, I can only see 82 album reviews on the whole site.
I'm sure the website will be back to normal soon, but for now I'd remove this since the review isn't verifiable at the moment. –Chase (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Music video section discusses Swift's outfits too heavily; the only information on such that should remain is Swift's prom outfit.
Music video image doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. Taking a quick look at the music video on YouTube, I would instead use two screenshots: one of Swift's "nerd" character with the other of her cheerleader character.
Ipod hasn't edited in a couple days now, so I'll see what I can do here. Would it be okay to clip single frames from the YouTube or CMT.com video? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 12:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Replied to you at your talk page about this before I came here. –Chase (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Moreso unencyclopedic language than actual grammatical issues, but still should be corrected.
Swift chasing after a guy who is out of her reach. → Swift desiring her out-of-reach romantic interest.
The video features Swift portraying two characters, a nerd, the protagonist, and a popular girl, the antagonist, → The video features Swift portraying two characters, a nerd (the protagonist) and a popular girl (the antagonist),
The protagonist is in love with Till but never told him; he has a girlfriend, the antagonist, which does not like Swift and betrays him. → The protagonist is in love with Till's character but does not tell him. His girlfriend, the antagonist, betrays him and does not like the protagonist. (both the protagonist and antagonist are played by Swift so this needs to be clearly differentiated)
including as the opening number of the Fearless Tour (2009-2010) → including the 2009–10 Fearless Tour, where it was the opening number (make sure to change the hyphen to an en-dash).
He acted defensive as his girlfriend yelled at him, saying, Who said this: Swift's friend or his girlfriend?
Clarified. The source says he said it.
Out of the sympathy she felt towards him in the situation, Swift aroused with a concept for a song. "Aroused" is not the proper word in this context, change this to: Out of the sympathy she felt towards him, she developed a concept for the song.
According to Kate Kiefer of Paste magazine, the song is straight-up pop, rather country. I'm not sure what to suggest here, but something needs to take the place of "straight-up" which is completely unencyclopedic.
Changed to "a straight-up pop song," a direct quote from the source.
"You Belong with Me" received average to mixed review from contemporary critics. change "review" to "reviews" and drop "contemporary", this song came out in 2008/2009 so of course reviewers will be contemporary.
"opinionated" is an adjective and does not ever serve as a verb; change this to "opined".
In the video, Swift portrays both "the nerd, who is pining away for this guy that she can't have", the protagonist, and "the popular girl", the antagonist. Who are these quotes from?
Fixed to clarify that Swift herself used these terms.
According to her, the video's plot is "charming" and about "geeky [her being] in love with him forever and [she] never had the guts to tell him [...] And he's got this girlfriend who just hates [her] [...] So, the whole video, I'm just sitting there pinning away, wishing I could be in her position. "geeky [her being] in love with him"? Can you please rephrase this? And this needs ending quotation marks.
Without access to the source, I figured it would be best just to shorten the quote.
The video commences with till arguing with his girlfriend through a phone call. Capitalize "till".
he late made an apology → he later issued an apology
The video is nominated for "Video of the Year" at the 45th Academy of Country Music Awards. Video of the Year doesn't need to be in quotation marks.
I'm working on fixing these issues. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 12:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Lead: story line, pop music, music video, nerd, protagonist, popular girl, antagonist, covered
Background: girlfriend, phone call, story line, breakup, the popular girl, short skirts, T-shirts
Composition: pop, country, storyteller, narrative, high school, high heels, sneakers, envy
Music video: music video, nerd, protagonist, antagonist, geeky, happy ending, stand-in, prom, football game, band geeks, T-shirt, sweatpants, mini skirt, convertible car, cheerleading, bleachers, school band, flirting, letters saying "I love you"
Critical reception and VMA controversy: teen movies
Live performances: acoustic guitar, tambourine, cheerleading, marching band
Comments I feel there are still some issues in the article. --Legolas(talk2me) 11:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Usage of the word controversy. It is really frowned upon here on using this word. See FAs like Michael Jackson, Madonna etc where this word has been replaced by something else, such as "media uproar". The thing is it is not Wikipedia's job to represent any incident as controversy. We just add content based on reliable sources, hence instead of reporting so and so was controversial, we should frame it in a non-neutral way.
The chord progression uses en-dash.
The music video captions are opposite. Also, Swift as the nerd character, that image fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 as it is already pesent on the single cover art, hence cannot add anything else in the reader's understanding.
Removed. It was late last night; figured I'd probably end up screwing that up.
Usage of en-dash in the Charts section and they need to be consistent with WP:USCHARTS.
What is inconsistent with USCHARTS? Also, where is the ndash used that it shouldn't be?
We shouldnot use Billboard for the other charts except the Hot 100 and 200. Also in the chart procession, the dates need en-dash in between them.
Uh, no, that says you may use Hot AC and Country even if the song's on the Hot 100. Those are the only three Billboard charts used here.
As per discussion at WP:RSN, musicnotes.com is no longer used as a web link, rather as tree link, while noting the owners of the sheet music.
Tree link? Huh?
Check out the FA "4 Minutes (Madonna song)". There you will find how to write a tree link. Basically you cannot use the url of Musicnotes since it contains a download link. --Legolas(talk2me) 14:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, holy crap. Legolas, that was a pretty zen-like answer, by which I mean it was of no help at all. There's nothing at 4 Minutes (Madonna song) explaining what a tree link is or even mentioning the word "tree". And as for "learning how to write a tree link", it's no different than any other "kind" of link, and Hammer already knows how to do that. And I congratulate him for figuring out your kōan.
I had to follow your other link, to WP:RSN, then search for musicnotes.com, before I got to a discussion that eventually yielded a clue as to the meaning of this (for me) obscure term. It means "link to the source on paper" or "link without a URL".
But at least I am now enlightened. Yet the road to becoming a master is long. Every day I take the first step on the Path. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot about this GAN. Anyway, it appears all issues have been addressed. Excellent work, TenPoundHammer. I am now ready to pass this as a good article. –Chase (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Are the number of non-free images in this article justified? And also are the size of the non-free images justified? At the very least they should be reduced in size.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot more recorded covers, we could either list a few or just state that it's a heavily covered song. I was just disappointed to find that my favorite pop-punk band was not listed in the article as covering the song. :( 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)