Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dear Future Husband/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2022 [1].

Dear Future Husband

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 09:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Dear Future Husband", which is Trainor's list of things a potential suitor needs to do if he wants to "get some... kisses". Its accompanying music video attracted the wrath of cancel culture for depicting her as a domestic housewife, and the song itself received mixed reviews with criticism directed towards its backward portrayal of gender roles. This nomination marks a full circle moment for me as this was one of the first proper articles I created, way back in 2014, and I have seen it through DYK, GAN, and now an FAC! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 09:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • extended play Title (2014)- could we reword to avoid back-to-back links? Perhaps from Title, her debut extended play, released in 2014. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song went top 20 in 15 countries, so I figured naming all of them in the lead would be excessive. Let me know what you think.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose


Additional comments


Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee Vilenski.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]
  • The Facebook page should work. It is a primary source, but I believe that would be appropriate in this context and it is a better alternative than either Amazon or Popdust. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a suggestion about this part, it lists things a potential romantic suitor needs to do to win Trainor's affection. I think it would be better to say something like: in it, Trainor lists things a potential romantic suitor needs to do to win her affection. I think attributing listing to the song itself reads a little weirdly, but that may just be me.
  • I do not think piano needs a link since a majority of readers are likely familiar with the instrument already and it would cut down on the amount of links in that particular section. I have a similar comment for the sailor link.
  • This may just be a personal preference, but I do not think it is necessary to include this part, awarded the song an "A−" grade, I would only this kind of grading in the prose if it is notable in itself, but that does not appear to be the case here. I think it would be better to use this space to focus more on what the reviewer says in the article. However, I know other editors appreciate so it is up to you. I just wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • I have a question about this part: when he brings her a carryout pizza. Maybe it's because I'm an American, but I've not really heard "carryout pizza" before. I think it would be simpler to say, when he delivers her a pizza.
  • Removed "carryout". I think the word "deliver" may lead readers to believe that Puth portrayed a pizza delivery guy, though, which wasn't the case, so probably we shouldn't use that.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be worthwhile to mention that was not the first time Trainor was accused of antifeminism and sexism as it would give more context to the way that the music video was reviewed. I would make it clear that this did not come from nowhere and was not the first time that this conversation was being had about Trainor's music and image (and not the first time she denied it either).
  • That does look better. I will re-read that part in the future. I do appreciate that it is brief as it should not be too long, but I will put more though into it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would re-examine the first paragraph of the "Reception" subsection in the "Music video" section. It has solid content, but I think it could be structured better. There seem to be two common ideas: 1) the retro and domestic image present in the video and 2) how it is more frightening or more concerning than other music videos. I think this section would benefit from a more solid transition from one idea to the other because it is rather abrupt right now.
  • Thanks for the ideas. I added some summary sentences but couldn't think of any statements that would be better if moved around.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments from my first read-through of the article, and once everything has been addressed above, I would be more than happy to look through it again so I can do my due diligence as a reviewer. If I am being honest, I am not a fan of this song, and I actually prefer "Title". I enjoy Trainor's music, but whenever I think back to this time period, I am more so surprised that no one from her team or label did a better job at getting in front of or responding to the antifeminism and sexism criticisms. But that is another story. I hope this review is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Aoba47. Looking forward to your read and subsequent comments! I do think a lot of Trainor's early decline can be attributed to a bad PR team and managerial decisions. I'm currently working on the Title album article so I guess the song of the same name might eventually be on my radar too, lol.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you. Best of luck with the peer review. I always have respect for editors who work on very successful and/or widely-publicized albums/songs as it does required wading through a lot of resources. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina

[edit]

I heard this song back in the day and I thought, wow, what a cheesy song. I did not expect a doo-wop song to gain such attention in the 2010s, but I guess some trends do receive revived interest... Either way, here are my first comments after glancing at the article, will go through the prose in-depth in the upcoming days.

  • Per WP:PERSONNEL we don't generally include studios; mention them in the prose instead.
  • I can't find any quote specifically asking not to mention the studios, so I've always considered it a matter of personal choice. Personally I find this information useful.--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no secondary reportage of those developments, no. I think the director is essential to include though so I deferred to primary sources.--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have a review from you, Ippantekina. I regularly refer to the 1989 articles for inspiration. Looking forward to your comments :)--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really admire the work some Swifties put into the 1989 articles as well! I am currently nominating "Out of the Woods" at FAC to save the status of 1989 as a featured topic (with the recent addition of "This Love" as a non-FA...), and I hope you could give some feedback there.
  • Lead—"her debut extended play, which was later included on her 2015 debut major-label studio album of the same name"; dangling modifier
  • I suppose you meant I should remove it. Removed.
  • Added.
  • "fellow Trainor songs" sounds off; "other" is more straightforward
  • Since "other" was causing repetition I went with "various". I'm open to ideas here, really.
  • "and attained multi-platinum certifications" can a song "attain" a certification?
  • Changed to "received".
  • Done.
  • Background—"and reached number one in 58 countries, selling 11 million units worldwide" these two clauses are unrelated
  • Hopefully my revision fixed this.
  • "was included as a B-side on the digital release of "All About That Bass" in Austria,[13] Germany,[14] and Switzerland," I think these three sources are not exhaustive, so a general statement (in some European countries) could do
  • Done.
  • "and serviced it to contemporary hit radio stations" can a label "service" a song to radio? "send" would be a better and simpler word choice
  • Agreed.
  • Music and lyrics—I am unsure if Stereogum qualifies as a FA-worthy source, but I will leave this up to the source reviewer.
  • I have qualms about Stereogum as a site too but DeVille is considered an expert in the field and is admissible for critical commentary.
  • I think the Rolling Stone sources do not require paid subscription for some first reads, so set the url-access parameter to "limited" instead of "subscription"
  • Thanks for pointing this out!
  • I don't think "bounce" in "girl-group bounce" refers to bounce music, which is an 80s hip hop subgenre
  • I could see it either way but removed the link just to be safe.
  • Critical reception—"betrayal of conventional gender roles" I am unsure what this means
  • Hopefully "alternative take" gets the point across? What I'm trying to convey is it differed from them.
  • "poetically and sonically similar" "poetically" is a little POV (?) would "lyrically" do?
  • Causing slight repetition but I changed it.
  • Revised.
  • Commercial performance—"initially peaked" I thought the song initially peaked back in 2014?
  • It entered the chart in 2014 and its peak as a non-single was on the chart dated January 10, 2015 (which was still 2014 in real time).
  • "On the Canadian Hot 100, the song charted at number 22 and Music Canada certified it 3× Platinum" I would say "In Canada, the song peaked at number 22 on the Canadian Hot 100 and was certified 3× Platinum by Music Canada"
  • Done.
  • Music video—"She premiered the video at Today" on Today?
  • Works better imo. Changed.
  • (unrelated) "she approves of Puth when he brings her a pizza" why is this so funny
  • The whole video is kind of parodic and humorous in my opinion, lol.
  • "Some critics directed positive commentary" simply "Some critics praised" to me personally, simplicity is king.
  • Changed.
  • Live performances—I find information about what the singer wears and what accessories were used for some live performances trivial for a Wikipedia article, unless the performance receives extensive media coverage and a certain degree of "iconicity" to it (like Britney Spears' python use during the 2001 VMAS; but again, who defines what is iconic..?). I am up to discussion with you on this matter though, and the rest of the section is well written.
  • I decided to include this commentary because the song only received two real performances outside of the tours, so the section would really be kind of short without it. I could see an argument for omitting it but I don't think keeping it is too harmful, since it is available from reputed sources.
  • Those are my comments on prose, and I will leave other reviewers to take care of media/source/spotcheck/MOS reviews if necessary. Please ping me if you have any queries. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. One remaining issue I have is with the opening sentence--can we reword it to something like in the "All About That Bass" article? Including both the EP and the album in one sentence is confusing to me at least.. Other than that I am happy to support this article for promotion on prose, great job. Ippantekina (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this article on prose. A personal note... when Meghan Trainor released such songs as "Me Too" or "No", I was surprised she could stay relevant reinventing her styles. I wonder what went wrong with her following releases... Brilliant work with the article! Ippantekina (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS (Pass)

[edit]

My only qualm right now among files used is the audio length. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the sample duration thing seems to be happening on a lot of articles. I can vouch for the (original upload's) length being compliant with the limits as the uploader, though.—NØ 21:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that consistency issue gets resolved ASAP. In the meantime, the media review passes for this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • I think SongwriterUniverse should be italicized? Isn't it a work/magazine?
  • You could consider Scott Simon and Trainor as co-authors for ref 10, but I wouldn't think this is required
  • Title case for ref 18? Are you meaning to do title case every time or something else?
  • All Title case now.
  • Something weird is going on with ref 20's link, it's saying that the link is unsecure
  • Ref 21 doesn't have a date
  • ref 63 needs an 'in Polish'
  • Refs 73 and 74 shouldn't be italicized (should be publishers)
  • I'm gonna guess you meant 72 and 73?
Reliability
  • I'm fine with the use of primary sources as the YT and Insta refs, as long as there's no secondary alternatives available?
  • There are none.
  • I would say the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is from a big enough city to warrant inclusion, but perhaps the Knoxville News Sentinel is a bit niche? What do you think about this?—getting at the 'high quality' requirement here
  • I had included it because it is owned by Gannett, which publishes several reputed newspapers including USA Today, The Tennessean, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (full list in the article), and their extensive staff team didn't give me any pause either. Removed since its inclusion isn't very important here, though.
Verifiability
Does the source review pass now, then, Aza24?--NØ
Yes! Pass for source review. 19:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Support from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
  • I'd trim "It was included on Title (2014), her debut extended play, and later on her 2015 debut major-label studio album of the same name." down to something like "It was included on Title, her 2014 extended play, and later on her 2015 studio album of the same name."
  • "A doo-wop and pop song, 'Dear Future Husband' has lyrics about chivalry and dating; in it, Trainor lists things a potential romantic suitor needs to do to win her affection." is quite a mouthful! Try splitting the sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • Commonly recognized terms like "music critics", "critics", "single", and "digital" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
  • Something about the use of semi-colons from "He handled drum programming, sound design, and plays the acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, and synthesizer; David Baron plays the piano and Hammond organ; and Jim Hoke plays the baritone and tenor saxophone." doesn't feel right. Commas might work better here.
  • "rewrote its lyrics to make them less problematic" could use some elaboration on what the changes involved
  • When citing Instagram posts, they need to be quoted verbatim in the titles.
  • I'm sure you can find something better than Us Weekly to use
  • Generally what they are cited for is individually corroborated by other sources (WaPo saying it "[aroused] lots of strongly worded opinions", MTV News saying "Those images sparked quite the backlash, with many calling the clip anti-feminist."), but they just provided the best summary which is the best source to use for that purpose. With the source review passed it's probably not too concerning.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully this isn't too far off from being FA-worthy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]
  • Lead section: "3x Platinum" may look better with nbsp.
  • Composition section: "It incorporates brisk piano", might look better as "After the 'stylus' intro, the song then incorporates brisk piano...".
  • Credits, Charts, and Certifications sections all look fine.

Article otherwise looks well-researched and well-written. Look forward to seeing your edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

Hey! Five Supports, completed image and source reviews, and it is down to "Older Nominations" with 21 days elapsed now. More traction than the recently promoted nominations so I am excited to call your attention to this one, @FAC coordinators: If you would be so kind.--NØ 03:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

[edit]
  • Commercial performance section. Consistency please re the positions reached being in words or figures. Eg "number four in Venezuela, number five in the Netherlands, Poland, number 11 in Belgium, the Czech Republic, number 12 in Scotland".
  • All figures now.
  • " Trainor stamps the word "fail" and rejects them all one-by-one as they fail to follow her rules. In the end, she approves of Puth". 1. Is it possible to avoid using "fail" twice in the sentence. 2. How come she "rejects them all" if she accepts Puth?
  • Replaced "fail" with "are unsuccessful in" and removed "all".
  • What are "galluses".

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dear_Future_Husband/archive1&oldid=1095027173"