Jump to content

Talk:Takin' It Back/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

GA Review

Passed.

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Takin' It Back/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 19:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Taking this on proudly per your request! --K. Peake 19:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

  • Pipe bubblegum pop to Bubblegum music
  • You need to write out the production credits in prose for them to be included
  • "Artists featured on the album include" → "Featured artists include"
  • "The album's lyrical themes revolve" → "The former's lyrical themes revolve"
  • Mention some of the shows that the live performances included
  • "The album was supported by" → "It was supported by"
  • "becoming her first song" → "becoming Trainor's first song"
  • "to label it a sequel to" → "to be labeled as a sequel to"
  • "It debuted at number 16" → "The former debuted at number 16"

Background

  • "she was writing" → "she was recording" per the source
  • "as Trainor rewrote it four times in an attempt to "adapt" → "as Trainor rewrote the album four times in an attempt of "adapting" per the source
  • Remove commas around Title
  • "have the chorus written" → "have the c[horus] written" per the source
  • "will be released on October 31," → "would be released on October 21," per the source
  • "Its deluxe edition was" → "The deluxe edition was"

Composition

  • "Its subject matter revolves around her" → "The subject matter revolves around Trainor's"
  • "and it's still a party."" → "and it's still a party."" per the source
  • "a cappella song built on harmonies and features" → "a cappella song, built on harmonies and featuring"
  • "after her pregnancy, and an exercise" → "after her pregnancy and a challenge"
  • I would suggest using something more encyclopaedic than rear end
  • [8][15] only [8] should be used for the "Shook" sentence; the previous one shall invoke both
  • I think how it's done currently is fine as well due to the absence of any direct quotes here.
  • Pipe acoustic to Acoustic guitar
  • The first sentence about "Superwoman" needs the ref invoked again, as it uses direct quotes
  • "that dismissed common narratives" → "that dismisses typical narratives"
  • "and acknowledged difficulties faced" → "and acknowledges difficulties faced"
  • "she thought would resonate with moms on" → "she thought would resonate with those on" to be more encyclopaedic
  • "give your heart a break"." → "give your heart a break."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences and invoke the ref here too
  • None of the "Remind Me" info is sourced
  • ? All of the "Remind Me" info occurs in the Yahoo! source directly following the quote.
  • "The album closes with" → "Takin' It Back closes with"
  • [9][27][28] should be invoked after all the "Mother" info, with only [9] at the end of the last sentence

Promotion

  • Mention that the performances were in the summer of 2022
  • "in the United States on" → "in the US on" per MOS:US, but the archive does not source this
  • "and the United Kingdom." → "and the UK." per consistency with above
  • Start a new para at the Today performance

Critical reception

  • Merge with the below section and retitle to Reception
  • The article only has five sections of prose so I would rather not. This section is too huge and it would swallow up the the part about the Commercial performance, whereas I think both of these parts deserve to be highlighted separately and a merged section doesn't transition well.
  • "He added, "this doesn't mean" → "He added, "This doesn't mean"
  • "Piatkowski thought it reflected" → "Piatkowski thought the album reflected"
  • "but believed its ballads," → "but believed the ballads,"
  • "after being controlled by her record label on previous releases;" → "after being controlled on previous releases;" per the source
  • "ventured into new musical territory and took" → "ventures into new musical territory and takes" for correct tense

Commercial performance

  • Make this the second para of the above section since one para is too short to stand alone
  • See above.
  • "Trainor's highest entry since her second major-label studio album," → "becoming Trainor's highest entry since her second major-label studio album"
  • I'd suggest only mentioning top 50 positions here, as below is not notable for prose
  • Given the dearth of international chart entries for this album, I think the very few ones can all be comfortably mentioned.

Track listing

Personnel

Charts

  • Good

Release history

  • Good

References

  • Copyvio score looks decent at 39.8%
  • Pipe Billboard to Billboard (magazine) on ref 5
  • Pipe People to People (magazine) on ref 6
  • Shouldn't you pipe Meghan Trainor Store to Meghan Trainor on ref 12?
  • For refs 14, 18, 34, 44, 53 and 54, the formatting of Official Charts should be consistent
  • Remove or replace ref 24 per WP:FORBES
  • Remove Associated Press from ref 26
  • Cite YouTube as via instead on ref 29
  • Cite Today as work/website instead on refs 45, 46 and 47

Final comments and verdict

Thanks a lot for the in-depth review, K. Peake! All addressed I hope.--NØ 15:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by MaranoFan (talk). Self-nominated at 20:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Takin' It Back; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @MaranoFan: Good article. But, i'm not really not finding the hooks to be that interesting. Hooks alt0 and alt2 are not interesting to me at all while alt1 can work. Though, Is there any more hooks you can propose? Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onegreatjoke, I too felt that while posting the nomination. Here's two more. I think ALT4 is the strongest in terms of interest and would be the one I prefer if that's okay with you!--NØ 18:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
ALT4 needs a new review. Apologies for the random ping, theleekycauldron, but can you assess ALT4 regarding interestingness and consider approving?--NØ 14:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I guess the new hooks are fine. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Takin%27_It_Back/Archive_1&oldid=1175828683"