Talk:A Place in This World

A Place in This World 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.

A Place in This World is part of the Taylor Swift (album) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 8, 2025	Good article nominee	Listed
January 29, 2025	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Place in This World article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 31 December 2024 by reviewer SafariScribe (talk · contribs).

Songs

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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Taylor Swift Low‑importance

	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.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

In this edit, I added a notability cleanup banner to the article. And in my edit summary, I stated: I'm sorry to do this, but I do not think this song is notable. The only mentions of this song in reliable sources appear to be a couple of loosely tied sentences in rankings of Taylor Swift's entire discography, and per WP:SIGCOV, that just doesn't work. And due to the lack of certifications or charting (which can normally save articles like this), it also arguably fails WP:NSONG. I will be providing a more detailed rationale on my opinion on the articles talk page shortly. Here, I will be elaborating further on my rationale, as well as analyzing all of the sources. But first, I want to highlight my issues with the articles writing that makes me think it should not be a good article, since it is currently nominated.

The infobox genre is unsourced.
"Critics commended its songwriting" could easily be seen as false when every single critic opinion, all of which discuss is as part of Swift's discography as a whole, places it as one of her worst songs.
The entire first paragraph of the main article is not about the song at all, but rather giving context behind the album. I normally think that paragraphs like this are necessary and quite helpful to assist regular readers in understanding the articles subject, but there is a problem when it seems to be about a 5th of the entire article. I'm pretty sure its the largest complete paragraph in the article as well.
There are two sentences total that describe what the song actually is.

With the above concerns, I do not think that this article can possibly meet good article criteria 3, and to some extent, 2c. Now, I will go into depth about the article sources, which there's only 19.

Source review table

1: About Taylor Swift herself, does not mention the song.
2: About the album and Swift herself, does not mention the song.
3: I can't even tell what it is supposed to be about, but it does not mention the song.
4: An interview, which constitutes as a primary source and cannot constitute notability. Either way, it does not mention the song.
5: I can't check this one, but since its only cited to a sentence about when Swift graduated high school, I don't think it looks very good.
6: The first article that is technically about the song. However, it only really gives about a paragraph worth of information about what the song is, says that she performed live, and then just links a bunch of Twitter posts of fan reception. I would consider this to fall under trivial coverage.
7: Same case as six, but this time all of the coverage about the song itself is a quotation that would be considered a primary source, since they are the words of Swift herself and the songs co-writer, Robert Ellis Orrall.
8: Doesn't mention the song.
9: A citation to the album itself, which is definitely a primary source.
10: A similar case to 6 and 7. Half of the source doesn't even talk about the song, critical commentary or the words of Swift herself, but instead goes into detail about what Swift was doing on her Reputation Stadium Tour.
11: Actually offers some critical commentary about the song in the form of a whole paragraph about it. However, it still only really discusses it within the context of the album itself. It's arguably the most critical commentary that this article sources.
12: Only discusses the song within the context of Swift's discography, and offers very little substantial commentary. I'd be willing to maybe give more weight towards song rankings if it was higher ranked, but #272 out of 274 and this little discussion about the song makes me view this source as disposable. Trivial coverage.
13: Literally one sentence that, similarly to 12, places the song as one of the worst in her discography. Definitely trivial coverage.
14: Quotes the lyrics for one sentence, talks about the song for one more sentence, and then talks about the last time she performed it live prior to the Era's Tour. Trivial coverage.
15: Does not offer much critical commentary about the song, and it mostly just quotes a lyric. Trivial coverage.
16: A concert synopsis that mentions what Swift herself had to say about the song for a couple of lines and then moves on. Trivial coverage.
17: Can't check this one, but I'm going to be safe and assume it probably primarily talks about her peformance at the radio itself and not the song.
18: Mentions that the song was performed at the Eras Tour, and nothing else beyond that.
19: Same as 18, but with somehow even less coverage.

All in all, only about 6/19 sources talk about the song for more than one sentences, and only 1 gives it anything that I would reasonably consider SIGCOV, that being #11. So reasonably, I think this article fails WP:GNG. Although, WP:NSONG exists, which is where a song article that may have some flimsy coverage could possibly be saved or given a slight edge. However, there are some parts of NSONG that I want to highlight that go against this article rather than in favor of it.

Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This article definitely does not have enough detailed sourcing to warrant being stand alone.
Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.. And while this articles sourcing isn't primarily towards the album (and instead her whole discography), I want to say that I think this works against the strongest claim to notability I think this article has, which is source #11.
This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. A lot of the information about this song in the sourcing is direct quotations or paraphrasing from Swift's own words.

Combine this with two more nails in the coffin: the lack of the song charting anywhere or receiving any certifications, and I think this article being helped out by NSONG in any regard is not possible. All in all, I find this articles sourcing to be extremely flimsy and fairly low quality, and I do not think it warrants its own standalone article. I suggest redirecting or merging it back into Taylor Swift (album). I also do not think it meets the good article criteria. I will also be courtesy pinging the articles main contributor, @Brachy0008:, as well as its Articles for Creation reviewer @SafariScribe: for their inputs on my concerns and if they think a redirect/merge is necessary. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

idk i just wrote a draft and it got accepted. i searched up lots of sources (my main article writing strat] brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 07:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i would consider a redirect (i wiuld leave a copy of the article on my sandbox for debut tv) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NegativeMP1, I'll try to expand the article in the next couple of days and I'll let you know when I'm done so you can take another look. In the meantime, I think the GAN should be removed so it won't be confusing to a reviewer that might want to pick it up, especially with the January backlog drive going on. Pinging Brachy0008 to share their thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice to see, and I think that if sourcing for this song really does exist out there, you can probably fix it given your amazing work on other Taylor Swift song articles. I'm still hesitant on the notability part, but I'm open to having my mind changed. I also second your opinion that this nomination should be withdrawn in the meantime. λ NegativeMP1 09:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the kind words. I'll try to see what I can do, I think that this can be a reasonably detailed article with some work but let's see... Medxvo (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NegativeMP1. Would you like to take another look? I believe it's a reasonably detailed article at the moment. I've seen some similar articles, such as the FA–nominated article Vanishing (song), so I've took some inspiration from there. This can be expanded in the future with the release of Taylor Swift (Taylor's Version) as well, even though it looks good to me now. Medxvo (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: My apologies for the double ping. Any update on this? Medxvo (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, I did not see this message and I haven't been logged into Wikipedia on desktop all day. I'm going to be honest, I still don't really think this is notable. Your work on it to bring it back up to speed and actually let it have a decent article is commendable, but my concerns about it meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSONG still kinda apply. I will say that I don't personally have an issue with it anymore because I think it fights against point #1 pretty well now. λ NegativeMP1 07:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, I just thought my first ping didn't go through or you didn't notice it so it's fine. I personally think that it is notable enough to warrant a standalone article based on some sources and the current state of the article, but I'm glad that you think it looks better now anyways. I'll remove the maintenance template for now and give it another try at GAN. I personally want to thank you for raising this issue, because without it I don't think I would've expanded the article at all. Hope you had a good day today! Medxvo (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 12:22, 8 January 2025 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Place in This World/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 08:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CatchMe (talk · contribs) 06:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-written

"country-music singer" - I don't think the hyphen is necessary.
- Done. Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"She wrote two tracks for her self-titled debut album with Robert Ellis Orrall and Angelo Petraglia" - I first thought that she wrote only two album tracks (that would be impossible for her, lol). Maybe change it to "She collaborated with Robert Ellis Orrall and Angelo Petraglia on two tracks for her self-titled debut album"?
- Done. Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think recording engineer could be linked.
- Done Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Music journalists identified it as a banjo–driven pop song and a sentimental ballad with country and alternative rock influences and a midtempo rhythm" - This is a lot of descriptions at once imo. Prove splitting the midtempo rhythm and banjo-driven things.
- How does it look now? I don't want to separate them completely because they are closely connected. Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks better now!
"and wrote it after contemplating whether she will achieve success one day" - "and wrote it after contemplating whether she would achieve success in her career"?
- Done. Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All Live performances sentences start with "Swift performed" or "she played". Is there any way to change that?
- Replaced one of them with "sang", please tell me if I should replace some others. Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could replace one with "It was performed..." instead to not have always the same structure.
    - I was advised to avoid passive voice. Regardless, I tried to switch it up a little and combined two sentences. Medxvo (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh okay, thanks for the clarification.

Verifiable

"They have retrospectively considered it a weaker track in Swift's discography." - Well, this isn't mentioned in Critical reception nor sourced. The listicles places are low, but "weaker" seems WP:OR.
- Do you have any suggestion to paraphrase it or what should I do? That was the only negative thing that I noticed because they're not criticizing the song specifically, they just placed it in lower rankings. I don't want to remove the sentence completely because that may not be neutral... Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe something like "They have retrospectively placed it in low positions in rankings of Swift's discography"?
    - Done. Medxvo (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig's Copyvio shows Violation unlikely with 17.4% being the highest similarity. Great!
All sources are reliable and relevant.
Spot-check (with numbers as of this revision)
- Ref 2 verifies that the signed to Sony, and ref 3 does the same with Big Machine. Y
- Ref 7 verifies when it was written and the lyrics about "her pursuit of stardom". Y
- Ref 14 verifies that it is a mid-tempo banjo-led ballad. I don't think the writer is saying it inspired Lorde, just that they have the "same searching naivety".
  - Lorde debuted after Swift.... Bradley said that it has the "same searching naivety that made Lorde so striking on first listen ....", I think that's an inspiration but let me know if you have any suggestions to paraphrase it because I can't think of any... Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Someone can debut after other and have the same *something* and not be inspired by that; it can be a coincidence too. I believe he just drew a similarity here. "Believed that Lorde explored it similarily in the 2013 single "Tennis Court" comes to mind, perhaps it would be out of the scope...
      - Replaced with "drew similarities between it and that of the music of Lorde". Hope it's a good alternative... Medxvo (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I did a small change since "it and that of the" looks... awkward imo. But feel free to revert.
- Ref 15 verifies that it is a pop track. Y
- Ref 16 verifies it was written after watching a Faith Hill special and the performance. Y
- Ref 20 verifies Jones' opinion and placement of the track in their ranking. Y
- Refs 28 and 29 verifies the Reputation tour performance. The latter also does this with the ranking. Y
- Ref 31 verifies the performance at the Eras Tour. Y

Broad

Broad and without unnecessary details.

Neutral

It is, although you could the "A in a middle school English class personal essay assignment" opinion from ref 26 (lol).
- I couldn't think of any way to include it because it seemed like a trivial joke lol. Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Got it. With the rankings' positions it would be sufficient.

Stable

Yes. No edit wars recently or at any time since it was created like a week ago.

Illustrated

Image properly licensed and with alt-text, and is relevant.
To have a picture of another artist rather than Swift doesn't seem that appropiate to me. How about this not used in any enwiki article? It could also make sense considering the song's theme. Let me know what you think.
- I added it but I don't like how there are two images on such a small article... I'm planning on replacing both of them with just a sample from the song since we have good amount of composition details, what do you think? Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could work! And if instead one image is used, I would prefer one of Swift.
    - Done! CatchMe, how does everything look now? Medxvo (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great work as always, @Medxvo: The new sample is properly licensed too and has a suitable caption. I will take a final look to the article and ✓ Pass it! CatchMe (talk · contribs) 12:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

I see that some notability issues were raised, but they seem resolved now. Great article, @Medxvo: I will put this On hold until some minor issues (and file recommendation) are fixed or discussed. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 06:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, CatchMe! I left some comments above. Medxvo (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (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.