Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 June 2023 [1].

Takin' It Back

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's album Takin' It Back. After the disastrous rollout of her third album, which was delayed for several years and rewritten four times, Trainor successfully incorporated TikTok into her promotional strategies and achieved a comeback. She trusted her instincts in the studio and took a more spontaneous approach with Takin' It Back. While critically the album went under the radar, it produced the bonafide hit "Made You Look". Happy Mother's Day, and thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Comments from Heartfox

[edit]
Addressed commentary moved to talk--NØ 20:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Heartfox (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed comments
  • This is so nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part (Trainor worked with producers including Federico Vindver, Gian Stone, Kid Harpoon, and Tyler Johnson, to create it.), I am not sure the "to create it" part is necessary.
  • It has been a while since I looked at an album article that had a deluxe rerelease so apologies in advance if this question is obvious. Should the "Mother" single release be represented in some way in the infobox?
  • Deluxe singles have been represented in infoboxes when the deluxe edition was released the same day as the standard, e.g. 1989, but the template seems clear that this shouldn't be done on re-releases.
  • I am not sure about this sentence: (Her collaborators would previously dismiss ideas she had conceived prior to sessions, but the material worked on for Takin' It Back was started by Trainor alone.) I understand the meaning, and it is solid information that is worth including in the article, but for whatever reason, I just found the wording off. I had to read a few times. It might just be me, but I would look at this sentence more to see if revisions would improve. Apologies for being vague about it as I cannot quite put my finger on it.
  • It's definitely not just you! Hopefully I was able to improve this a little bit.
  • For this part (minimally employs electronic elements), would it be beneficial to include a link to electronic music?
  • Motown was recently deleted so now it is a red link. There is nothing wrong with red links, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.
  • Apologies again as this is nitpick-y, but "elements" is used twice in a similar context for two sentences in a row: (Its production incorporates digital elements and modern R&B beats.) and (The fourth track, "Don't I Make It Look Easy", has percussion instrumentation and R&B elements). I would avoid that sort of repetition if possible.
  • It might be helpful to link girlboss here, (typical narratives about women being "girlboss[es]"), as while it may be a common phrase now, I could see some readers wanting more context for it.
  • Would it be possible to link debonair horns? I have never heard of these kinds of horns before so I think a link may be helpful for an unfamiliar reader like myself. I might just be dumb though lol.
  • Debonair is just an adjective here, it's referring to regular horns :)
  • At the end of the "Composition" section, I'd clarify in the first sentence about "Mother" (i.e. "Mother" is a doo-wop-influenced song) rather than implying it as part of a sentence at the end of the paragraph. I just found the shift from discussing the standard edition's final track to this part a little jarring.
  • Was there any coverage on "Special Delivery" and "Grow Up", like on the lyrics or composition?
  • None, unfortunately. The Rolling Stone article came the closest but even that barely mentioned the names.
  • In the "Release and promotion" section, the "Mother" music video is mentioned, while the ones for "Bad for You" and "Made You Look" are not so I would be consistent with whether music videos are discussed in this section or not. On a similar topic, I am unsure about the sentence in general (Kris Jenner appears in the music video.). I get its inclusion as that seems to be one of the more notable aspects of the video, but the current wording makes it seem a tad trivial if that makes any sense.
  • The "Bad for Me" and "Made You Look" music videos were very critically low-profile releases. Jenner's appearance in the "Mother" video is the primary reason for the song's notability and garnered enough coverage to warrant a mention in my opinion, weightage-wise. I've reworked the sentence keeping your comments in mind.
  • Understandable. Unfortunately, "Bad for Me" faded completely, while the focus for "Made for You" was its popularity on TikTok. Thank you for the clarification here. I have looked at the other album FAs, such as 1989, and it is best to keep the more specific information on the songs to the respective song articles. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid using "thought" twice in close proximity for (Piatkowski thought the album) and (Renowned for Sound's Max Akass thought it).
  • It might just be a personal preference so take this with a grain of salt, but I would end the paragraph with the Piatkowski review as it is more mixed than the others. That way, the paragraph goes from positive reviews and ends with a more mixed one, which serves as a bridge to the following paragraph about negative reviews.
  • I am not sure what to think of the "Commercial performance" section as it is a single and rather short paragraph. I could see this information being collapsed into the "Release and promotion" section rather easily.
  • I am not sure about "Release, promotion and commercial performance" as a section title, and the current section order of release→reception→commercial performance makes chronological sense in my opinion. The current arrangement is my preference.
  • The section title would not need to be changed. Pod (The Breeders album) puts the chart information in the "Release" section. Chart performance and critical reviews are not really connected in my opinion, but I think it is a matter of personal preference. I can understand your rationale, and I think it boils down to personal preference. Matangi (album) has a similar structure with a single-paragraph "Commercial performance" section so I believe it is permissible for a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of the comments above are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I catch everything. I think you have done a wonderful job and a majority of my comments are either nitpicks or clarification questions. To be clear, I am focused primarily on the prose. On a side-note, I am surprised Trainor did not try promoting more singles from the standard edition after "Made You Look" blew up as I could see "Mama Wanna Mambo" getting a similar treatment. That being said, I understand the rationale behind "Mother". Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the very helpful review, Aoba47! If I am being completely honest I look forward to a review from you on any nomination I make, so I seriously appreciate it. Given Trainor's pregnancy and her current book tour, I guess I understand her decision to halt promotion despite the album potential.--NØ 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the very kind words. At the risk of sounding corny, I am just glad to help where I can. Thank you for the responses above (and I agree with your clarifications and explanations). When I am done with my review, would you like me to collapse my comments to prevent the FAC page from becoming too wordy? I do not imagine I will find anything major, but I still wanted to offer. I will do a few more read-throughs of the article tomorrow. I hope you are having a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two related questions about this part: (revolves around her pregnancy's impact, its complicated nature). Could you clarify what her pregnancy is impacting (such as Trainor as a whole, her health, her relationship, etc.) and what is meant by complicated nature (such as this a broader description of pregnancy as a whole or is it more specific to Trainor)?
  • I am not sure about this part, ("Shook" is about her impressive looks), specifically saying "impressive looks" in Wikipedia's voice. To be clear, this is not meant as a critique as Trainor as I would not think it is entirely appropriate to say someone has "impressive looks" in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. presenting it like a fact).

Thank you for your patience with my review. Once my final two comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up comments, Aoba47. I've reworded to address both points. With regard to the first point, I have now gone for simpler wording since the interview did not have more details to clarify it.--NØ 21:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review—pass

[edit]

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the media review!--NØ 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent to me. "Caufield" is a typo. Are popculture.com and Max Akass high-quality reliable sources? Usual caveat about my unfamiliarity with entertainment sources applies here. Spot-check upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the SR and catching the typo. The first source's usage is for an interview conducted with Trainor, a high-quality source WP:ABOUTSELF in the context of Background details. The Akass review is from a reputed publication whose editor has 20 years of industry experience..--NØ 12:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • I think self-acceptance is easily understood so it doesn't need to be linked in the lead and body.
  • She struggled while creating her third album on a label -- perhaps it should be with the label? Since she released her previous (all) major albums with the same label (Epic) I assume.
  • song "Title" attained viral popularity on video-sharing service -- went viral on the video-sharing service
  • Trainor believed her songwriting improved since having a caesarean section during the birth of her son. -- for this part, is there a rationale as to how her giving birth CS improved her songwriting vs a normal delivery? Suggestion: perhaps we can simplify and mention she believed her songwriting improved since giving birth to her son?
  • and a challenge where her therapist asked her to look at herself naked for five minutes. -- maybe simplify and say and a challenge from her therapist to look at herself...
  • Trainor's duties as a new mother and posting to social media. -- perhaps you can expand/specify the context of "posting to social media" in its lyrics

Great work, I have not read the other editors' comments so apologies if there are repetitions/overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the incredible review as usual, Pseud 14! Should be all addressed ;)--NØ 15:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good to me and satisfied with the responses. Happy to support on prose. Thanks for the media review on my FAC and I'd appreciate anything re: prose, when you have time and interest. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Watch

[edit]

Claiming a spot, should have some comments up by this weekend. The Night Watch (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have much to say. The other reviewers have already looked at the important points, and anything further from me would be excessively nitpick-y. I will support based on prose. The Night Watch (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for stopping by!--NØ 09:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

Prose-wise the article is in great shape. Some minor comments that catch my attention from the first read:

  • Ref titles are inconsistent between sentence case and title case. Could we make it consistent?
  • Should be consistent now.
  • I know that "Mother" is a deluxe-edition bonus track, but could we reasonably include it into the "Singles" section of the Infobox?
  • I've considered including it, but Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles states that songs that were added on as bonus tracks on re-releases should be excluded. The emphasis seems to be on release dates, and the album's release predates the release of "Mother" and the deluxe edition by around half a year.
  • I would consider grouping more than three citations into a bundle (i.e. "It predominantly has a doo-wop and bubblegum pop sound.[16][17][18]")
  • Took care of these. In cases where I thought bundling would not be appropriate, I used some other methods to eliminate three refs in a row.
  • I personally think the "[clause], V-ing" structure is not the most professional writing when "[clause], and [clause]" can do the work:
    • "She struggled while creating her third album with Epic Records, Treat Myself (2020), rewriting it four times" → "She struggled while creating ... and rewrote it four times"
    • "Takin' It Back minimally employs electronic elements, mainly comprising old-timey but contemporarily presented tracks." → "Takin' It Back minimally employs electronic elements and comprises mainly old-timey..."
  • Thanks for pointing this out. I fixed these.
  • Also some verbs here are not the best substitute for "said" (see MOS:SAID) i.e. "believed" which is used repeatedly here and there. Consider "wrote", "described" or "commented" which are neutral and more appropriate
  • Addressed as suggested.

That's all from me! I'm open to discussion if my points do not resonate :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reviewing this article, Ippantekina. I highly appreciate it after the lethargic process with this nomination. All done with one comeback. Cheers!--NØ 09:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments so far. I'm glad my comments turned out helpful, and regarding the song "Mother" I think your explanation is appropriate. Alas, after a closer look at the prose I have further comments. Of course I'm always open to discussion if you find any of the following points questionable, but I myself do believe these are worth raising to finesse the prose:

  • "She struggled while creating her third album with Epic Records, Treat Myself (2020)" how did she struggle? Personally? Artistically? Professionally?
  • Creatively, to adapt to trends, and commercially due to the underperformance of its singles. I believe "She creatively struggled while creating her third album" would be odd wording so I used the latter half of the sentence to imply this.
  • "Trainor announced her intention to pivot to its doo-wop sound" not sure if pivot is the right word choice. Also the lead and the sample's caption says that this album returns to the doo-wop sound of Title the album, which is not explicit in the prose (I do see reference to "Title" the song though)
  • The quote is "I'm doing more the doo-wop style, like my first album" so I've changed this to the album throughout.
  • "The people have spoken and I hear you." this quote is insubstantial imo because the bit explaining how "Title" went viral influenced Trainor's decision is sufficient already
  • Removed.
  • "The platform was highly influential on her creative process" can simply reuse TikTok (WP:ELEVAR)
  • Done.
  • "Is this trash or amazing? Is this garbage or is this dope?" ditto
  • Removed.
  • "her signature doo-wop sound" what makes doo-wop Trainor's signature sound?
  • This is attributed to Mozella. You can read the interview in the reference, where she describes doo-wop as "the Meghan Trainor sound". For clarification purposes, "All About That Bass" and "Dear Future Husband" are doo-wop songs, so even in a general sense I wouldn't view this as a controversial statement... (Secondary sources using the terminology: [2][3][4])
  • "along with the 1950s, the album was influenced by Motown, Carole King's Brill Building music, and the 1970s" does this mean doo-wop is a genre associated with the 1950s? If so an explanation somewhere prior would be helpful
  • Doo-wop is wikilinked earlier in the article, and that article gets more into depth on how it gained popularity in the 1950s. 1950s is also linked and mentions doo-wop. An explanation beyond that would probably fall out of the scope of this article and isn't found in sources discussing this album directly.
  • Done.
  • "bringing back old-school music which featured more real instruments" I don't get what "real instruments" mean?
  • Musical instruments, as opposed to digital production
  • "an acoustic six-string guitar" I'm pretty sure a standard acoustic guitar has 6 strings so "six-string" is redundant here
  • Sorry, it was the source wording. Thanks for raising this point.
  • "the various identities and arenas women steer through" what do we mean by arenas here?
  • Changed to source wording "spaces"
  • "incorporating debonair horns and clinking piano riffs in its instrumentation"
  • Done.
  • "with a "glitter-ball disco pulse" " we need attribution for direct quotes (MOS:QUOTE)
  • Done.
  • "was serviced to hot adult contemporary radio stations" serviced?
  • "Impacted" now
  • "The former's lyrical themes revolve around motherhood and self-acceptance." circling back to the lead this is an interesting statement, but I'm not seeing it explicitly reprised in the prose. Also consider using the title Takin' It Back instead of "the former"
  • Pertains to "the subject matter revolves around her experiences with motherhood and embracing 'not [being] perfect all the time'" in the Background and development section, and done.

Hope these help! Ippantekina (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ippantekina. Once again, your review is really appreciated. Happy to help clarify anything else. Good luck with the "You Belong with Me" article - would really love to see a childhood classic get a FA --NØ 16:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the responses satisfactory Ippantekina?--NØ 07:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Fifteen minutes after I made the above request, user has gone on wikibreak for a whole week. From observation, their comments have covered all sections of the article that contain prose, and they stated "That's all from me" above.--NØ 08:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Since a number of subject matter experts have now been through the article and approved, I'd like to proceed to a new nomination in a while if that's okay.--NØ 05:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 6 June 2023 (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/Takin%27_It_Back/archive1&oldid=1159695980"