Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lips Are Movin/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2016 [1].

Lips Are Movin

Nominator(s): MaranoFan (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's second single. I believe it is a comprehensive article with professional prose and defines the topic effectively without going into unnecessary detail and engages the reader. All comments are appreciated.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The following is by no means an exhaustive list of issues; all were caught from a fairly brief skim. The prose is far from FA quality; passive voice and semicolon overuse are among the major issues. The article is too technical and doesn't explain many concepts (particularly radio- and chart-related ones) to a general audience. There are glaring issues with SYNTH and inferring ideas that aren't explicitly stated in the sources. This is a long way from FA and needs substantial peer review / copyediting. Given that this would require a substantial, if not near-complete, overhaul to become FA quality, I cannot support this FAC. Here are some tips for improvement in the meantime:

1a (well-written, professional prose):

"Lips Are Movin" is a song recorded by American singer and songwriter Meghan Trainor. – Trainor is notable for being a singer, not a songwriter, and the song is notable for being sung by her, not written.
It was co-written and produced by Kevin Kadish – the reader is supposed to automatically assume who Kadish co-wrote it with? And this is passive voice, which should be avoided.
and was released by Epic Records on October 21, 2014 – more passive voice
It was co-written and produced by Kevin Kadish, and was released by Epic Records on October 21, 2014, as the second single from Trainor's fourth studio album Title (2015). – excessively long sentence
"Lips Are Movin" was announced in October 2014, along with the unveiling of the official single artwork for the song, and was serviced to radio stations in the same month. – overly wordy. and specify what "serviced" is for those who don't know music industry slang.
"Lips Are Movin" is a bubblegum pop, doo-wop and R&B song; it has wry lyrics about a philandering, untruthful man. – no need for a semicolon here; ...song with lyrics...
The music video for "Lips Are Movin" was directed by Philip Andelman and commissioned by Hewlett-Packard. – passive
Being a portrayal of behind-the-scenes events during a music video shoot, the video features dancers including Les Twins and Chachi Gonzales. – awkward and confusing
Following its release on November 19, 2014, the video received 2.5 million views on YouTube in two days and received positive reviews praising its imagery. – also wordy and confusingly written
It uses a half-sung, half-rapped format and a retro-soul melody with a beat and a percussion-heavy arrangement. – wordy
It is composed in the key G major; Trainor's vocals span the tonal nodes F3 to B5. – separate sentences
the song's artwork and a full-length low-quality audio were leaked online – what is "an audio"? you mean the song?
The same day, it was announced (by whom?) that "Lips Are Movin" would be officially (is this necessary?) released to contemporary hit radio in the U.S. on October 21, 2014, as Trainor's second single.
and the official audio premiered on MTV News the following day. – again, what's with the use of "audio" as a synonym for "the song"? This makes a very simple concept potentially confusing for readers. And "official" is still being overused.
In more mixed opinions, Ben Rayner of the Toronto Star said "Lips Are Movin" is "whitewashed into a fairly anodyne mush ... the hip-hop bump and plush basslines that intrude ... are pure cosmetic window dressing". Nolan Feeney of Time said the track sounded too similar to its predecessor; she wrote,"From its retro sound to its handclaps and post-chorus chant, 'Lips Are Movin' seems designed to milk the success of [Trainor's] breakout hit". – These appear to be negative opinions, not "mixed" ones.
It reached number 50 in its third week on the chart. – Of which chart? The Hot 100 and Mainstream Top 40 charts are mentioned before this. If the Mainstream Top 40, why were the first two weeks skipped over? If the Hot 100, why was the second week skipped over? Is the fact that it reached number 50 significant for some reason? Does this necessitate inclusion?
On December 10, 2014, "Lips Are Movin" rose from 13 to eight. – again, why are we skipping over so many weeks? This is incredibly confusing.
(two%) – it's either "two percent", "2 percent", or "2%".
13–seven – 13-7
In the U.K. – UK
The accompanying music video for "Lips Are Movin" was filmed in Los Angeles and was directed by Philip Andelman. – Passive voice can easily be avoided (at least partially here) by rephrasing: Philip Andelman directed the music video for "Lips Are Movin", ("accompanying" is filler) which was filmed in Los Angeles.
music-video shoot – "music video shoot"
Trainor's team asked 180LA to develop the look of the "All About That Bass" music video without straying too far from it – Confusing. I believe this intends to say that the "Lips Are Movin" video was inspired by the "All About That Bass" video, while this reads as if 180LA (also, who is this?) designed the look of the previous video, and not this one.
In the song's music video, Trainor sings into a red microphone in front of a pastel blue wall; she is sometimes flanked by backup dancers and television screens. – Unnecessary semicolon use. These are two separate sentences.

1b (comprehensive):

The song was offered as a "first listen" on Shazam – explain what this means
The song garnered radio play from three monitored stations the same day, six days before the track's impact date. – how do you expect the average reader to understand the concepts of "monitored stations" or "impact dates" without explanation or even wikilinks?
It was later released worldwide—except in the United Kingdom—as an "instant grat" promotion from the pre-order of Title – still a lot of things not being explained for the average reader. you're writing to the masses, not the readers of Billboard magazine.
The song became the "Most Added" in the Mainstream Top 40 format that week. – which means...? Why is this significant? Explain.
Elsewhere in Europe, "Lips Are Movin" peaked within the top-ten in Austria, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Spain – specific peak positions are mentioned for every other country in this section. Why not these? <><
Cowan of Canadian Business said, "Cynics will view this as a decidedly stodgy brand trying to make itself hip by hanging out with cool kids. – Who is being referred to here, Hewlett-Packard? This isn't specified. <><

1c (well-researched):

Express and Billboard are used to support the song being of the bubblegum pop, doo-wop and R&B genres. Neither source supports R&B; bubblegum pop is mentioned in Express but doesn't support the claim ([Trainor] makes bouncy and beautiful bubblegum pop in reference to her general artistry, not this particular song; a SYNTH violation). "Pop" is mentioned in the Billboard source but not included here; why? <><
Express is used to support the claim that Some reviewers noted that the song made Trainor from a one-hit wonder to a successful pop artist. The source's exact wording: All About The Bass topped the charts in 58 countries and it looks like she's on the way to another monster hit with the insanely catchy Lips Are Moving. A bit of a reach. Likewise, USA Today (also used to support this claim) reads: You thought All About That Bass would be Trainor's one hit? Wrong. Lips lacks the novelty, but it's a better record. This doesn't indicate that the author thought Trainor was a one-hit wonder prior to this song. Neither source refers to Trainor as a successful artist. <><
It was reportedly written in eight minutes by Kevin Kadish and Meghan Trainor and produced by the former. – Implies that it was also produced in 8 minutes, which isn't stated in the source cited (nor is the claim that Kadish produced the song, unless I overlooked something).
"Lips Are Movin" debuted at number seven on the Australian Singles Chart on November 9, 2014, peaked at number three the following week, and spent 11 weeks in the chart's top ten. It was Trainor's second consecutive top-three single in Australia, – all of this is attributed to one source (Hung Medien), which only supports its debut and peak positions. It doesn't specify that it peaked its second week, that it spent 11 weeks in the top ten, or that it was her second consecutive "top three" single. <><
"Lips Are Movin" entered the New Zealand Singles Chart at number 30 on November 10, 2014. It reached number eight in its sixth week and peaked at number five, becoming Trainor's third consecutive top-ten hit in that country. – same as above.
Writing for music website Idolator, Bradley Stern called the video a "squeaky-clean visual," and praised its bright and colorful imagery, – the source claims The sassy, swinging cut’s just been given a squeaky-clean visual, full of bright, colorful sets and even brighter red lips all over the place. Where is the praise for these things, exactly? It seems to only note the existence of these things.
Yahoo! writer Lyndsey Parker praised Trainor's fashion in the video – again, failing to see "praise" for this in the source

2a (concise lead):

"Lips Are Movin" was a commercial success, becoming Trainor's second consecutive single to reach the top five in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. Billboard Hot 100, where it peaked at numbers three, two, and four, respectively. It also reached the top ten in several European countries, including Austria, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Excessive detail for the opening, on top of this being extremely wordy and poorly written.
Trainor has performed "Lips Are Movin" live on several shows, including Today, The Voice, and Dancing with the Stars. It was also performed during Trainor's That Bass Tour (2015) and MTrain Tour (2015). Are these details so paramount to a reader's understanding of the song that they warrant mention in the lead?

2b (appropriate structure):

The TOC could be reduced if information about the single's release (from section "Production and release") were merged with the "Music video" and "Live performances" sections (into something along the lines of "Release and promotion"), as the lattermost two pertain to the single's promotion. <><
The "production" part of the "Production and release" section doesn't appear to exist. This appears to deal more with the composition/songwriting.
Slant Magazine's Alexa Camp compared "Lips Are Movin" to its predecessor, writing that it "strictly adheres to the same beat sheet as its predecessor (doo-wop throwback, girl-group harmonies, bubblegum-pop hooks)" – This is in the "Critical reception" section, but appears to focus more on the song's compositional elements <><

Chase (talk | contributions) 20:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ive addressed the concerns above that I deemed valid. Some haven't been done, but I request a third (non-biased) opinion on them.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you indicate which ones you did and which ones you deemed invalid? Otherwise it is very hard for a third opinion to be given. Mattximus (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Done. Marked all not deemed valid with a "<><".--MaranoFan (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain how these are not valid? Chase (talk | contributions) 17:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I say invalid, I mean they do not violate any policy or would be preferred in their current state. For the chart gains, there is no real source for them. I observed the song's chart run and can confirm that this was its chart trajectory. Major gains have been added to the article.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing those out. Does that mean you have made all of the other changes to the satisfaction of the reviewer? Can you indicate these as well? Mattximus (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they were made to the satisfaction of the reviewer? Its best if he judges that himself. Did I make all other changes? Yes. And to my satisfaction.--MaranoFan (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be up to the reviewer to see if you have met their changes. If there is disagreement it should be discussed. You seem to be missing the point of featured articles, to gain from peer review. Mattximus (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- if the block happens to be successfully appealed, the nominator can bring it back to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.