Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meghan Trainor/archive3

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 27 July 2020 [1].

Meghan Trainor

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 05:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor, who is often erroneously thought of as an "overnight success" or "one-hit wonder". This article dispels these myths and depicts the long journey Trainor had to fame, including three independently released albums, a family band and writing for countless other artists. Special thanks to Ian Rose who waived off the usual two-week wait time for renomination, Buidhe who provided source and image reviews, and finally to Gerda Arendt and Calidum who have indicated their willingness to potentially comment on this FAC. This will be the last FAC for this article, regardless of the outcome. Once again, thank you to everyone mentioned. I will be happy to review other FACs should their nominators do the same here and ask for it.--NØ 05:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Per my previous image review. I do have a FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Partisan Congress riots/archive1 and would always appreciate feedback. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by buidhe

[edit]
  • It's always best to attribute an opinion to who said it. For example, "were accused of anti-feminism" (by whom)?, "a critic (who?) stated", "drew criticism and was labeled as "sexist" and "anti-feminist"" (by whom?) etc.
  • Done for the first two. Though the criticism for the "Dear Future Husband" video was widespread, and as such cannot be attributed to one or two critics, so I've opted for "online critics". Both the refs used say something to that effect.
  • "Trainor has also been criticized for using a "blaccent" and African-American English." Again, attribute this to who made the criticism. Also, what is a "blaccent"? Neologisms should either not be used, or if necessary, explain briefly what they mean. In this case, it seems to be that she uses an African-American accent without being African American, which could be explained more clearly.
  • Done! Perhaps just saying African-American followed by the word "accent" will get the point across.
  • "Trainor's family encouraged her to pursue her musical interests since she was 11"—is an odd thing to say, it begs the question of whether they were discoraging her earlier. It is verifiable in the source but I would just exclude the date, just saying that her family encouraged her.
  • "Following the release of Title, media outlets[which?] referred to her"
  • "The author has described Trainor's use of social media as "upbeat to goofy, with little soul baring or soapbox lecturing"" —I'm confused, who is the author?
  • Jada Yuan, from the previous sentence.
  • "Some critics[who?] have described Trainor as anti-feminist and said she seeks self-worth based on the opinions of men"
  • "As of October 2015, "All About That Bass" was the only debut single by any artist to accumulate a billion views on YouTube." Is there any way to verify if this is still true?
  • I can't think of any other debut single to do it, but can't find a more recent source confirming this either.

More to come... (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your help with this article! All of the above is done.--NØ 07:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At a music conference in Nashville" when was this?
  • There's no date for the conference, but she signed with Big Yellow Dog in 2012 so it was probably the same year or a while before?
  • "She began her career as a songwriter-for-hire" more specifics on this would be beneficial. For instance, is it known what was the first song she sold, to whom, when?
  • Her first song released by another artist seems to be "In the Sun" by Aya, but there are no sources exactly confirming if this was the first. This bit was initially there in the article but was removed through a source review during its first FAC.
  • For comprehensiveness, I would add mention of the song, which is covered in the n-magazine source. Ideally the article should have at least one example of her songwriting for others. (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • The criticism/reception is definitely better mixed in, I applaud this change.
  • "Trainor competed against singer Shania Twain in an episode of TBS's show Drop the Mic, which aired in January 2018" It's a competition show, is there any info on the result of the contest?
  • As Billboard states: "They decided both songstresses won the battle, and handed out two microphone shaped trophies.", so I'm not sure if this is noteworthy enough to add to the article.
Source review
  • I checked several of the sources and did not find anything that was not supported.
  • Sources all look reliable for what they are cited for.
  • Note: There are some of the biographical details which in the cited sources are attributed as things that Trainor said about herself. However, this is probably allowable under WP:aboutself.
  • "Between the ages of 15 and 17, Trainor independently released three albums of material she had written, recorded, and performed." -> Source actually says "Between fifteen and seventeen, Meghan wrote, recorded, performed and self-produced three albums"—self-produced seems like an important detail here, I don't know enough industry jargon to say if it's synonymous with "independently released".
  • "and was released on January 9, 2015, garnering mixed critical reviews"— Metacritic is cited for the reception. It should be attributed (something like "At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 59 based on 13 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews"." ripped from this essay)
  • Sentence ending with "... sold 11 million units worldwide" is overcited, I would suggest moving the citations closer to content per WP:Integrity or removing one of them. (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discography and Tours section: Per WP:LISTVERIFY, should be cited inline (t · c) buidhe 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When such citations are already provided for mentions of albums/tours within article prose, they don't need to be cited again in separate "discography" or "tours" sections as those are just repeating prior text. Past experience tells me that one would only have to provide in-text citations in such sections for things not previously mentioned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — excellent use of summary style. Also, I applaud your motivation to persevere through two unsuccessful FACs. Third time's the charm! (t · c) buidhe 13:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved comments
  • Is the "Unlikely Pop Star" bit really lead-worthy?
  • Removed.
  • When first mentioning Billboard Hot 100 in the lead and article body, specify that it's for the US as not all readers are familiar with chart names or where they represent (even though I personally am and know you are as well)
  • Done.
  • The phrasing of "reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and sold 11 million units worldwide, but drew criticism" gives a false impression that chart peaks are in any with what critics think about a song
  • Swapped "but" with "and".
  • In the lead, "debut major label" reads poorly, and it looks like this is trying to downplay how it overall is her fourth album. The type of label something is released under or whether its content is mainstream-oreinted is irrelevant when it comes to count, contrary to what certain people appear to think, and it unfortunately is also a common habit within the press to unfairly exclude albums on such a basis. That comes off as giving those records a middle finger by seemingly suggesting they aren't worthy of inclusion because of their nature/type of release.
  • I'm afraid referring to it as her "debut major-label studio album" was a decision taken after several controversial discussions and isn't something in my control. And after all these years, I'm still yet to find any reputed source referring to Title as her fourth album.
  • No genres for Thank You in the lead or the three pre-fame ones when they are for Title and Treat Myself?
  • Mentioned that they are acoustic. They weren't reviewed at all so genres aren't available.
  • "several" from "has received several awards and nominations" is an understatement
  • Agreed. Changed to "various" :D
  • "has taken up voice-acting roles" → "has had voice roles", and perhaps you could include film titles in the lead
  • Done.
  • Try not to have super-short paragraphs with only a sentence or two; it gives the text a choppy flow
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Don't italicize tour names
  • Thanks for pointing that out. It must have been done during the GOCE c/e and I just missed it!
  • "early millennium-pop vibe" is also better for the page on No (Meghan Trainor song), and your use of a semi-colon to lead into a chart position incorrectly implies that genre is connected to it.
  • Done.
  • Only the earliest known release date of Thank You needs to be included, save the others for the album page
  • "The album garnered mixed critical reviews; it debuted at number three"..... again, charts are an entirely separate matter from reviews
  • Substituted with "and".
  • Lumping criticism of a subject into a separate section or subsection in their bio is frowned upon as that creates undue negative weight.
  • Having a bit of a hard time imagining how I'll work that into other sections, I'll look at some other FAs and get on it.
  • "In 2016, Trainor said she had never voted in a United States presidential election and did not intend to do so in the future; however, she said she preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in the 2016 election" is quite a mouthful! That should be divided into two sentences by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • Done.
  • No need to include "Jewelers of America" in ref#2
  • Done.
  • Digital Spy shouldn't have italics, and while this is far from the weakest publication I've ever come across, I'd opt for something stronger if possible when trying to make this article top-notch
  • Will look for alternatives.
  • "Australiancharts" → "Australian Charts"
  • Done.
  • "charts.nz" should be "New Zealand Charts"
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • For the bundles in ref#46 and ref#124, I'd try to give a collective description for it like you do with the bundle in ref#170 (the "ASCAP Pop Music Awards" bit before each of its links)
  • Done.
  • "The Official UK Charts Company" → Official Charts Company
  • Done.
  • Spell out "ET Canada" as "Entertainment Tonight Canada"
  • Done.
  • I was aware of that while writing the article so hopefully there aren't any violations of that. I'll check again.

Overall, this article has improved quite a lot over time, and I do give props for that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, SNUGGUMS! How do you think it looks now?--NØ 07:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting closer to FA material. As for the above, this makes it pretty clear that Meghan released three albums prior to Title, so one could reasonably infer fourth from that as the routine math calculation of 3 + 1 = 4 per WP:CALC. Don't listen to how Epic Records pretty much said "fuck you" to the material made prior to her joining the label by removing those from circulation and trying to mislead people into thinking that Title is her first album. She isn't the first person to have albums wrongfully downplayed, with previous examples including Michael Jackson (his four albums with Motown before signing with Epic and releasing Off the Wall are often overlooked), Christina Aguilera (many unfairly exclude her Spanish-language album Mi Reflejo and Christmas album My Kind of Christmas, even when under RCA Records like all her other records), and Hilary Duff (many don't seem to factor in her Santa Claus Lane Christmas record, perhaps in part because of it being with Walt Disney Records instead of Hollywood Records like her next three albums or RCA like Breathe In. Breathe Out.) All of them coincidentally also signed with a Sony Music label at some point. For this article's lead, while I would prefer simply using "fourth" for Title, the least you could do is rearrange the phrasing so it reads as "major-label debut" instead of "debut major-label". The acoustic albums either way should be mentioned by name. On another note, it might be worth including how she initially met Daryl Sabara before they first started dating. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that sentiment. I personally really enjoy her independently released albums, especially Only 17. However, the first three albums were pulled from circulation, and then basically every source has referred to Title as her first (major-label?) album, Thank You her second and Treat Myself her third. There's also this Billboard article crediting Trainor as the "13th female artist with a debut No.1 song and album". So to call Title her "fourth studio album" would have to constitute original research on our part. Previous (very tedious) discussions also concluded against doing that, and it's a can of worms probably best left unopened. I have mentioned them in the lead and added information about Sabara as you asked, though.--NØ 13:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though WP:CALC says that basic calculations don't count as original research, I do see what you mean with not wanting to open a can of worms given past debates. For now I guess we can settle by turning "debut major-label" into "major-label debut" (which reads somewhat better and conveys the same meaning). Epic Records is at least partially to blame for the discrepancy in album counts. In the meantime, I'll look through the article later for anything else that could be changed, and then either support or point out what else I would adjust. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE here are more comments:
  • I think it's fair to add "television judge" to infobox and opening sentence given her work on The Four: Battle for Stardom along with The Voice UK
  • This only says "Marvin Gaye" premiered on radio "not too along ago" and doesn't give a specific release date (which actually was February 10, 2015)
  • Album pre-order details (as well as any exclusivity to music services) are better for their own articles
  • "released as the album's third single in August 2016; its music video" misuses the semi-colon when song and music video release dates are separate points
  • For "other artists' songs in 2016"..... "several" is an ambiguous term that's best avoided when specifics are known
  • There's a stray period after ref#17 in for the bit under "Public image and personal life" where one writer says Meghan "become a model of self-acceptance for kids across the globe". Under that section, it also feels repetitive to start two consecutive senteces with "In a _____ interview", and I'd add "initially" or "previously" right before "identify" within "did not identify as a feminist due to her mother's advice".
  • For the "discography" section, just spell out List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor in full without trying to conceal parts of is title.
  • Unlink Entertainment Tonight Canada from ref#122 and Rolling Stone within ref#123. Billboard should be linked in ref#10 instead of ref#17. You've mistitled ref#141, which is actually "Why Is Meghan Trainor's 'All About That Bass' No. 1?"

Comments by Calidum

[edit]
  • In the early life section, I would suggest rephrasing Meghan Elizabeth Trainor was born...to Kelli and Gary Trainor, both of whom were jewelers. I find the phrase "were jewelers" to be ambiguous because it is unclear if her parents are deceased or if they no longer are jewelers, which is the case here.
  • I would suggest leaving "talent show" judge out of the first sentence all together, because it is not what she is mostly known for. I don't believe any of the musicians who judge The Voice, for example, reference it in their first sentence. Calidum 19:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question she was asked during the Zach Sang show just sprang to my mind; where Sang asks her about her role on The Voice UK and she exclaims "I got a sick job!". Other than that, I also see the opening sentence of Katy Perry using "television judge" and Christina Aguilera using "television personality". I will remove it if you feel strongly about it, though.
  • Added the year right after it. Could also mention that it was written by Frank Loesser but that may be too much detail?
  • "Her father stimulated her to explore every musical genre." Stimulate seems like a strange choice to use in this context. Encouraged would seem better. Calidum 19:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "wanted her to", Gerda pointed out "encouraged" was overused in this section.

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

WikiCup participation notice Comments incoming. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, still up for this? ;) NØ 11:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies:
  • I understand the confusion and changed it to talent show judge.
  • The Lady Gaga article uses "prominence", is that better in your opinion?
  • one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart and sold 11 million units worldwide, and drew criticism for its lyrical content - Could we say "million copies" rather than units. This is quite a rolling sentence, could we reorder this to have a bit more of a pause before commenting on criticism. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • three studio albums with the label: Title (2015), Thank You (2016), and Treat Myself (2020), - considering you mention them by name later, could you maybe not mention them here, and instead link where is more suitable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • I don't see how that's necessary so I changed it.
  • This is common practice in music articles, technically most artists break through with their debut single, but when the debut album yields several top 10 hits (4 in Trainor's case), the album title is better reflective of the section.
  • I fixed this.
  • Done.

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for the invitation. I have a bit of time, and will be back for more.

Lead

  • I'd structure the lead to have one paragraph mentioning her most notable works and then the awards. In a second paragraph, I'd begin with early age.
  • Also: I'd not end on jury work, but with the most notable awards.
    • Not sure if I did this right. Please have a look.
      • Well, the end is fine with me, the beginning now too detailed, and the details missing in the chronological order. Perhaps try just the albums, without songs (unless the song titles are better known than the albums), and without billboard, and put these details back in order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just want to make sure I've understood clearly, you mean I should remove all the songs from the lead except "All About That Bass", remove "and was ranked among the top 40 most successful artists of the 2010s by Billboard" and move the part about her independent albums back up again? I definitely disagree about removing the songs, as "No", "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" and "Lips Are Movin" are some of Trainor's biggest hits (top 10) and removing them will give a very incorrect impression of Trainor as a one-hit wonder. Honestly, I still kind of prefer how the lead looked here.
Nevermind, I think I got it. Were you asking for the lead to be structured like this?--NØ 09:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, - actually the first section might mention also the two albums (just titles and years), to avoid one-hit-wonder-impressions, and a summary of awards, or one key award. Imagine a reader who has only 30 seconds, - what should they know about her? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1993

  • "both of whom are jewelers", - are her parents still jewelers? ... does it matter?
    • Probably not. Rephrased
  • Perhaps split the run-on from family encouragement to recording.
    • Done.
  • "and picked up music without formal training" - what does it mean, "picked up" in this context? ... or is it just me?
    • "Played" probably works better?
  • In three short paras, she's encouraged three times ;)
    • Substituted second and third usage of the word, will welcome any alternatives if these aren't good enough.

2009

  • First she enrolled, then released the album in 2009, no?
  • Changed order. But I think the sentence beginning with "Between the ages of 15 and 17" serves as a summary statement for the section and looks better as the first sentence. That phrase doesn't work as well after mentioning her Berklee enrollment.
  • Can we have some date for the Nashville conference?
    • Fan videos reveal it was sometime in March 2012, but they're obviously inadmissible as sources. No reporting on this from reputed sources.

I'll be back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replies so far, looking good. I hope to have some more time tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC) ... or now:[reply]

2014

  • "her 12th on their own 21 Under 21 2014 list" - means nothing to something not familiar with these things.
  • Rephrased.
  • I'm used to subjects referred to by surname alone, so am surprised about Charlie Puth twice.
    • Done.
  • What happened to the announced surgery? ... and why August before July?
    • Added.

Will tackle Artistry tomorrow, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

  • Impressive list of named people who influenced her, but imagine a reader who never heard of half of them. I also can't detect an order in the list. Actually I'd recommend to link here again, because we can't expect readers to read it all consecutively, and some may just want this section. I can imagine two ways of order, - simply alphabetical, - or grouped by kind of music, mentioning that kind. Ideal what be to say what exactly of Aretha Franklin influenced what in Traitor, at least for a few. Well, I haven't read further, and that may come. Also consider to trim the list a bit, - why have names without a link at all, which would mean nothing to me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trainor has a habit of saying random things like "The album is influenced by everything from my love for hip-hop to my love for Christina Aguilera", given that, we can't deduce what specifically about these artists influences her. I have, however, linked them all and arranged them alphabetically.

Style

  • "Trainor is a singer-songwriter." with four refs, - no surprise at this point, - let's assume that every reader read the first para of the lead. Looking forward to both aspects, singer, and songwriter.
    • Funnily this has been a huge controversy regarding this article, and has been discussed in depth over the years, resulting in two RfCs ([2], [3]). Given the circumstances, it's probably best to retain sources for this; and it won't look good to have three references after the first sentence of the article. What's your take?
      • My take is to stay away from controversies ;) ---GA
  • "hook-laden songwriting style" - what is that?
    • Would it suffice to link Hook (music)? No other way for me to elaborate this in the article without using original research.
      • yes, that helps ---GA
  • more names, and names only, which would make sense to people already knowing these people and their music, but too many to look up and and perhaps listen if you don't
    • Looking at some of the sources, the comparisons were based on their genres so I added them. Again it seems a bit impossible to elaborate beyond what the sources have said.
      • accepted ---GA
  • am I expected to know EDM?
    • No ;)
  • "She composes in a variety of genres", - even I remember that we heard that already, beginning of the same para ;)
    • Changed.
  • Half a sentence about her lyrics seems too little for the scope of this article. Sure, that's all copyrighted, but how about one line of example for each of the three topics, same for (later) dialect. Actually I could imagine voice and singing style first, then lyrics, then composition. Be inventive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No ready-made think-pieces were available about Trainor's lyrics, so I combined stuff from album reviews to create the section. Feel free to copy-edit it or change the order of sub-sections. Trainor's dialect has only really been covered by websites that have a liberal political bend, and are probably not FA-quality sources.--NØ 13:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • accepted, I guess I'll have to listen to find out more. - When I write about a song under copyright, I usually take some pieces and say something, translating, - that's not original research but similar to saying a flower is red on a painting. It would only become research if I assumed and showed as if fact that the red flower is a symbol of love. - but again, accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public image

  • "identify herself as a feminist" - wouldn't "identify as a feminist" suffice?
  • I'm a bit uneasy about the quotes in "did not identify as a feminist due to her mother's advice that she should not claim to be something if she "[does not] know what the word is". To my (limited) understanding of English, what is added in [] should rather be [did not], - or - perhaps even better - you could rephrase by saying "if she did not understand a phrase/term/word".

At this point, I am ready to support the article for FA, - take on board what you like. The sources look decent. I prefer them away from the prose, but that's a matter of style. Would you find a way to include her list of recordings in the infobox, like the awards? I'm not familiar with this infobox, only infobox person, where it would be |works=. A link high up in the lead might also be a good idea. - Thankyou for all you put into this, - would be the perfect TFA for 22 December 2023! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! This was truly a comprehensive review. I may have acted desperately to get you here, but you patently proved that it was worth it ;) —NØ 14:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments from Aoba47

[edit]

I will unfortunately not have the time to do a full review on this article, but wonderful job as it has improved immensely since the last FAC. I would add a sentence about the recent Treat Myself deluxe edition and the "Make You Dance" single. I am also uncertain of splitting up the "Other ventures" section into two one-paragraph subsections. I have generally seen one-paragraph section discouraged so that is my reason for bringing it up. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to comment, and thanks for the compliments. I added the sentence about the deluxe version. When it comes to merging the sub-sections in "Other ventures", I just can't picture that being helpful from a reader's perspective. Those are are quite different in meaning and nature, so hopefully that's understandable.--NØ 03:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I still disagree about the "Other ventures" part, but that more or less boils down to a personal preference and is not a major issue. For clarification though, I was not proposing that the sub-sections be merged or the prose itself changed. I just did not find the sub-section headings necessary, but again, that is not really an issue and should not hold this nomination up from promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aza24

[edit]

I had seen your past FAC nominations but failed to leave any comments. I must say I admire your persistence and am happy to give comments shortly! (Note I am not the best prose editor so my contents will mostly be on clarity, consistency, linking and things like that) Aza24 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The line "She rose to fame after signing with Epic Records in 2014 and releasing her debut single "All About That Bass", which reached number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart and sold 11 million units worldwide, and drew criticism for its lyrical content." Doesn't really make sense to me, would perhaps "but drew criticism..." work better?
  • No; such phrasing would incorrectly imply the song defied some non-existent connection between chart performance and what critics thought about something. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly fine with either wording, going to let you two decide.
  • @SNUGGUMS: I was under the impression that it would be like saying "the song did really well evidence by this and this but was criticized because of this", but I see what you're saying. To my ears when I say that line out loud, having "and" twice doesn't flow well. Maybe it's just best to take out the criticism part, which is well addressed later in the article and makes more in sense in the lead of the article for the song itself (which it is of course already mentioned in). But of course this isn't a pressing enough issue to make me oppose or anything. 02:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lyrical content" imo is also an odd choice of words; if I understand it correctly (which I may not) you mean to say that the meaning of the words drew criticism, but I feel like that' too general of a statement. Perhaps saying something such as "criticism for its portrayal of body image" (or something like that – I'm sure you would be better able to explain/word it than I) is more informative since otherwise the reader is left thinking "well what about the words?"
  • It was criticized for its lyric "go ahead and tell them skinny bitches that" as well as for themes of anti-feminism and skinny shaming. Mentioning any of those things in the lead would probably be too much detail.
  • Looking at other FA singers and performers infoboxes it looks like that for consistency:
    • "complete list" should be changed to "Full list" (make sure it's capitalized)
    • "vocals" (in the instruments section) should be capitalized as the first of the list of instruments
      • Both done.
  • The link to List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor might make more sense under the "Trainor has released three studio albums with" rather than "she wrote, recorded, and produced"
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done. Although I've retained the commas since they make sense, imo.
  • Good catch, not sure why I took them out (the commas) in the above but they should definitely stay in
  • Fully agreed.
  • the line " "my future husband out there, wherever he is." " ends with the quote outside the period (every other time the quote is inside – as you can see, I am struggling to find things to comment on, good work!)
  • Fixed ;)
  • Take out "which is titled"
  • Done.
  • Likewise the other "entitled"/"titled" uses are kind of awkwardly phrased:
    • which replaced her identically titled EP --> which replaced her EP of the same name
    • writing a song entitled "Better When I'm Dancin'" --> writing the song "Better When I'm Dancin'"
    • released an EP titled The Love Train, which was promoted --> released an EP, The Love Train, which was promoted
      • All done.
  • James Brown is linked twice
  • Fixed.

Everything else looks good to me. Obviously these are super nitpicky comments so when they're resolved/addressed I'll be happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comprehensive comments, Aza24. All addressed.--NØ 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work here and best of luck with the nomination. Happy to support this article. Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite pleased with how this nomination went. Since this is quite far down the FAC queue now; @Ian Rose:, is there consensus for promotion?--NØ 14:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC) @FAC coordinators: , may I know if there's anything else needed? This discussion seems to have accumulated unanimous support, more than most recently promoted articles got. Regards.--NØ 11:40, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Meghan_Trainor/archive3&oldid=969890912"