Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meghan Trainor/archive2

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) 11 July 2020 [1].

Meghan Trainor

Nominator(s): N Ø 05:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor, known for her breakthrough single "All About That Bass" and commonly hated by many. Being in the workings since 2014, the article underwent a GA review by Ritchie333 in November 2018, then endured a disastrous FAC a month later. I have been slowly nursing it up to standard ever since, consulting WP:RSP and Nikkimaria for its sourcing, Nick-D for neutrality purposes and Gerda Arendt for prose evaluation. I would like to commence this nomination by thanking them. And I firmly believe, that with its prose quality, accessibility, quality sourcing, comprehensiveness and flow, it is one of the best articles produced by Wikipedia and worthy of the golden star. So let's give it that title.--N Ø 05:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

"Musically influenced by the 1950s and 1960s" - not sure the 1960s portion is supported explicitly by the article text

Removed the 1960s bit.

FN11: as per WP:RSP the reliability of Allmusic for biographical information is questionable

Removed.

FN23 is missing agency credit

Added.

You added it as a publisher, but in this case it should be credited as an agency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FN45: staff authors like this shouldn't be formatted as first-last

Done.

FN56 is missing author. Same with FN90, check for others

Done 1. Confused about FN90, which does have an author. FN91, on the other hand, just gives the author as 'Rolling Stone'; which I'm not sure should be added since it isn't a person.

The link for FN90 lists two authors, while the citation includes only one. With regards to staff authors, you should consistently either include or exclude them. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fn62: as this is a community contributor, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?

Swapped with Billboard.

Footnotes should go before References

Done.

FN83 is miscapitalized

Fixed.

FN87: Tidal isn't part of the title

Removed.

What makes Bang Showbiz a high-quality reliable source? Idolator?

Replaced.

UPI is an agency not a work.

Amended.

--Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help, Nikkimaria! I have responded to each of your comments above.--N Ø 05:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Images appear to be free and correctly licensed. b uidhe 07:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Hi, with no comprehensive reviews after more than three weeks, this nom has stalled almost before it starts, so I'm going to archive. Given the situation though, I'm happy to waive the usual two-week wait for a re-nom -- perhaps getting it back to the top of the list will help it get more traction next time. It's also a big help that Buidhe and Nikki have taken care of the image and source reviews already. When you re-nom, mention that fact, and ping Nick-D and Gerda Arendt, your Peer Reviewers, rather than just mentioning them -- this might help it off to a better start next time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2020 (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) 11:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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