Talk:Taylor Swift Productions/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Ippantekina (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 22:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ippantekina (talk · contribs) 14:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review. Comments to come soon. Ippantekina (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate comment: could we find alternative, third-party sources instead of YouTube for the music video credits? If not, I'd suggest removing them. Ippantekina (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them (nearly all of them) don't have a third-party source mentioning the production company. From my understanding of WP:VIDEOLINK (which is an essay but also referred to by WP:RSP and WP:YT as a guide for further information regarding linking videos), YouTube may be used as a source for music videos since the publisher is Vevo. I know that the article's citations mention Taylor Swift as the publisher, but we can change that to Vevo, or we can remove them (?). What do you think? Medxvo (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no third-party sources available, I would suggest leaving them to the Tables below instead. Please also make sure all the entries for the "Credits" tables are sourced, regardless of whether or not they have been cited in prose. Ippantekina (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the YouTube sources for the music videos be moved to the Music Videos table after removing them from the History section? (since we're going to add sources to the tables). Also, what will happen to the music videos' accolades? Will they be mentioned in prose despite not mentioning that the company produced them? It's getting a bit complicated. Medxvo (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

"The latter became the highest-grossing concert film of all-time" "latter" is used when we're discussing 2 objects. Use "lattermost" in this case instead.
Done. Medxvo (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Swift quietly launched her in-house production company" I don't have access to the Economist but can you explain the significance of the word "quietly"? Ippantekina (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, this was added before I started contributing to the article and forgot to remove it, this is actually more of a WP:OR. Even though this is not wrong information; the launch was not known or published anywhere, in fact there is no other publication talking about the company's launch details other than The Economist and sources related to the legal authorities and companies, eg. this one, but there is no source explicitly confirming these assumptions. Removed it now. Medxvo (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my delayed review... Below is my complete review of the prose.

"The film's producer, Simon Fisher, ~~along with~~ and Dugdale were nominated"
"It ~~was~~ aired on ABC"
" the music videos for Swift's songs "The Best Day"[b]" pipe to The Best Day (Taylor's Version) without the hatnote
"Produced by Taylor Swift Productions and ~~stars~~ starring the American actors Sadie Sink and Dylan O'Brien"
"The cinematography of the former was handled by Rodrigo Prieto and stars the American actors Ethan Hawke and Josh Charles." can we separate this into two sentences as it currently reads kinda clunky?
Rest is good. I'm fine with YouTube sources too, but can you make sure to include them again in the table?
Also re. table formatting, please apply rowheader to the Music video/Film titles per MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. Ippantekina (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: Thank you so much for the review! All should be done now, let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Have a good day/night :) Medxvo (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Passing, well done :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.