Wikipedia:Peer review/Lips Are Movin/archive3

Lips Are Movin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring this up to FA status. With a few more editors weighing in, I believe we will get it this time.

Thanks, N Ø 16:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, SandyGeorgia. I will make sure to participate as much as possible :) N Ø 03:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ

Resolved comments from HĐ (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* I c/e'd the lead a bit, if you don't mind.

Just one thing: "Some deemed the song catchy and radio-friendly, while others found it repetitive" doesn't sound accurate. Would it be better to go with "Some deemed the song catchy and upbeat, while others found it formulaic and trite"?

Probably removing "radio-friendly" is sufficient.

Between the ages of 15 and 17 I don't think this reads well. Years would be better, I think.
Link Nashville, Tennessee as I think the city is not as notable as, say, New York.
A link to self-publication (independently released) could also be useful.
written, recorded, performed, and produced.
Any background info on why Trainor stopped being a mere songwriter and embarked on a recording career?
The song reached number one in 58 countries,[4] its music video went viral, and it sold 11 million units worldwide. A little bit off-grammar. I am not seeing the 58 countries mentioned in the source. Plus I don't think the viral video is worth mentioning.

It is in The Telegraph and Tennessean.

her debut EP "Trainor's debut"
I don't think the EP songs are worth mentioning as it is confusing with the album. I know it's a pain when two music releases of the same artist have the same name..
and eight for her major-label debut studio album Is "Lips Are Movin" part of the eight songs? This sentence (Trainor's A&R suggested that the two keep writing more songs) makes it confusing. HĐ (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The eight tracks include "Lips Are Movin". I added the word "initial" in that sentence but I'm unsure whether that's enough. I'm open to suggestions on how to phrase this better.--N Ø 18:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then ... eight tracks for her debut including "Lips Are Movin" should suffice.

Explain why the doo-wop pop sound of AATB was rejected--I feel like whenever you provide something, it is best to provide a corresponding context. Was it because the doo wop sound was outdated? not fit for radio? etc.
Some terms need linking such as mixed, engineered, verse etc.
It has a retro sound, along with I am not very clear what this means.

I linked retro and tried to reword this. Let me know how it looks now.

Trainor has admitted they "follow the [same] formula" shouldn't this be at the very first sentence?
Probably link Southern.
The song has also been described as Motown bounce, with AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine commenting it is equally inspired by "vintage 45s and Amy Winehouse's snazzy new-millennial revival". passive voice
My advice overall is to remove anything that is of marginal notability. For example, the VH1 description of the song is rather trivial? Only include stuff that really add substance.
wry lyrics this reads better at "Critical reception", imo.

Will remove this altogether. James Cowan of Canadian Business, the author, doesn't really have musical credentials and is probably unfit to be included as a critic.

That is for the best, I believe. Wipe out any source that is potentially not of high quality.

Though reviewers have interpreted the track's lyrics, which include "if your lips are movin', then you're lyin', lyin', lyin, babe", as being about Trainor leaving her significant other after discovering he is cheating on her.[10] Seventeen's Megan Friedman and MTV News' Christina Garibaldi identified the subject of "Lips Are Movin" as a cheating and lying boyfriend convoluted; pretty much the same thing. Alas, I don't think Seventeen is high quality for FA. Given that source reviews for FA have been increasingly strict, I'd recommend including only reputable sources. HĐ (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all instances of Seventeen. Thanks for pointing that out. Looking forward to the rest of your comments!--N Ø 09:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is not grammatically correct to have a sentence with only "Though"; like, you have to have another clause (i.e. Though A, B; in this case I am only seeing "Though A"). HĐ (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I just went and replaced it with However.--N Ø 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe words such as "many", "also", "various" etc. are not good writing. Try to minimize them as much as possible.

I'm hesitant to change "in various countries" to "worldwide" as a worldwide release cannot be directly sourced. That's the only usage remaining.

I am okay with that.

I am not very confident with musicnotes.com as reliable.

This seems to be a commonly used source in featured music articles. It's providing rather valuable information for this section so I would prefer not to remove this unless it specifically causes trouble at the FAC. Do let me know if you feel strongly about removing it, though.

I do not have strong feelings about it, but I do think source reviewers will be very strict about it.. Either way, I am okay with keeping it for the moment.

I replaced it with Trainor's official publication of the sheet music.

The Kadish claim that the song was about Trainor's frustration with her record label is directly rebutted in the lead (about cheating).

I rephrased that part in the lead but would really appreciate if you c/e'd it :)

I feel like this raised more questions than solving them... what Kadish said about Trainor's frustration with her record label was vague and uninformative. Either way, I'll leave it for other editors. HĐ (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it to the old wording. Not sure what to do but maybe others at the FAC will have some suggestions?

Trainor has admitted / Kadish has stated grammar--I think simple past tense should be enough. Context of to whom these two songwriters spoke to is also needed i.e. "Trainor told The Tennessean that..."

Done.

On October 14, 2014, "Lips Are Movin" was made available on mobile application Shazam by whom?

No secondary source has reported that. I did find a tweet about it from her label that I'm not sure I'm allowed to use in an FA.

I think primary sources are discouraged at FA. But in the meantime, just include it to verify the Shazam release.

Added.

serviced I think the simpler word choice "released" would suffice

Done.

I advise you to be consistent with country names i.e. either "U.S." and "U.K." / or "United States" and "United Kingdom" (revise this in the lead as well, if necessary)

I have now changed them all to full forms except where they're part of the chart name, e.g. "US Billboard Hot 100"

That is reasonable.

In the UK, "Lips Are Movin" was made available to those who pre-ordered Title, with its digital release as a single being held back until January 18. Judging from the Apple Music ref, this comes off as OR-ish

The Apple Music ref states that it was "Album Only", with the expected single release displayed as January 18. Isn't that enough to verify what is being said? There's also this snapshot. I believe the context of this is needed to explain the #50-2 jump on the UK chart to readers.

I'm bugging that the ref says "Pre-Order" for the single and I am not seeing pre-order of the album. Regardless, it is still fine.

Any more preferable sources to Amazon? (I am seeing quite a few objections to Amazon as a source lately)

Tbh I'm not sure what would be a more reliable source for a CD release, especially in Germany of all places...

Try Universal Music Germany; I managed to find a whole discography of Taylor Swift there.

I guess Trainor isn't on that label so there was nothing. Just some listings on sites like Ebay, Vinyls-shop and 45worlds which look way more sketchy than Amazon.

I am not very sure with Stereogum being a high quality source.

You're right. The About Us page states that it is "the world's best music blog, founded in 2002. It is independently owned and operated" so this would get absolutely obliterated in an FAC. Removed.

which he found "as cheerful and crafty" but also as vexing Kind of weird to have a quote-and-unquote pair. I'd suggest something like "as cheerful but also as annoying"

Done.

called it "a better record" Specifying it would be better, given that the paragraph talks about both this song and AATB quite a lot

Sure.

Quite a few quotes! Try paraphrasing some.

Done, though I probably should work on it a little more.

I think it reads better now. I'll leave it to others to see if more work could be done.

The Complex list of the best workout songs seems trivial to me.

Removed.

I am not sure if week-by-week sales and streaming figures are that notable. I recommend adhering to WP:CHARTTRAJ.

I will refer the "Blank Space" article and take care of this ;)

Aside from countries where the song was certified, I recommend you summarizing chart information into a three-four sentence paragraph, like what I did at Blank Space#Release and commercial performance (not to be arrogant, but I am quite proud with that article lol).

The pride is definitely justified! And it was one of the songs that blocked LAM on Billboard so it's only fitting I take notes lol. Just rewrote it.

Trainor's team asked the ad agency 180LA to make the music video similar to that for "All About That Bass" and not stray too far from it. So, in the end, is this video vastly different from that of AATB? To what extent? This seems unfinished.

I just largely revamped this section. I would appreciate more comments about this one, also let me know if the older one was better and I will restore that.

Content-wise it is now much better. I can see into the video's development and conception.

Pomeranian dog Barkley the Pom. I don't know if a subject without a Wiki article deserves a mention.
Link motif (if I am correct with the target).

Done.

First day views is trivial to me.

Removed.

She has performed the song during Today's 2015 Toyota Concert Series grammar

Fixed.

Given Kelly Clarkson's cover, should the section be renamed "Live performances and covers"?

I guess it would be singular since there's just one cover but done.

If there is already a "Release" section, I don't think a "Release history" table is necessary.

I believe the table could help with accessibility, for people who may not want to (or be able to) read a huge block of text. These tables are included in articles like "Diamonds" and "Single Ladies" so there must be some point to them.

Works for me.

(Unrelated note) I wonder what went wrong for Trainor. I do not follow her closely, but she blew up even after a few years following her debut. The songs "No" and "Me Too" were everywhere, which kind of drove me insane lol. Either way, I hope she is content with the music she is making now.

She was one of the hardest working people in the industry during her debut. Unfortunately, the vocal cord hemorrhage is where it all began going downhill for her. But the silver lining is her new songs flopping and not being notable enough to create new articles for has forced me to work on improving her old ones to FA status lol.

Very nice work, just tweaking here and there since my comments are rather nitpick-y. The section that I am looking forward to after c/e is the "Critical reception" section. I hope my comments are helpful, and feel free to respond to wherever you do not agree with. HĐ (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review so far, HĐ! Sorry for having so many queries but I guess it makes sense since this was the largest batch of your comments.--N Ø 14:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. I hope my large amount of comments does not bother you lol. On a minor note, is there a location for the mastering process by Dave Kutch? HĐ (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All your comments and insight are valuable to me :) And yes, I have added the location for the mastering process now.--N Ø 08:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Leaving this up as a placeholder. I will wait until HĐ has completed their review first. My only comment right now is that I would recommend you remove (and replace if possible) the Idolator sources as I have seen several instances lately in the FAC space where that source is not considered high-quality enough for a FA. I do not have a strong opinion about it myself, but I think it would be best to handle that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only other alternatives to source the song's leak are Bustle and DirectLyrics. I guess it's WP:UNDUE to cover it if only unreliable sources reported on it, lol. Removed!

Thank you for doing this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that N Magazine was used in a music article. I am not familiar with that publication at all, but I was not expecting to see a naturist magazine used to support information in a music article. Would it be possible to cite this information with a more music-focused source?

Oop, I apologize. Naturist Society and Nantucket Magazine are definitely different sources. I removed the incorrect link now.

That makes more sense to me lol. Thank you for the correction. Aoba47 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that at one point in time, Musicnotes.com was considered a high-quality source for a FA, but lately, I have seen that this site (and sheet music in general) is not considered appropriate for a FA so for that reason, I would encourage you to remove this source (and replace it if possible).

I'm afraid there may not be replacements for this. It does seem, though, that it wasn't brought up as a concern on the recently conducted "Don't Start Now" FAC; it is also still in use at "4 Minutes", "Diamonds" (Rihanna song) and "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)". Apologies if it feels like I'm doubting your good judgement, but just for reference purposes can you link me to an FAC where its reliability was questioned?

The source was brought into question in my FAC for Style (Taylor Swift song). They decided that it caused no harm, but I believe quite a few editors are still bugging about it. HĐ (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be cautious about "4 Minutes", "Diamonds", and "Single Ladies" as those are all older FAs. I have used Musicnotes.com for a FA in the past myself, but I just wanted to caution you about this as it is something that I have noticed during the FAC process. HĐ, I know you meant this as a joke, but I would be careful about saying stuff like "a few editors are still bugging about it" as tensions can run quite high in the FAC space at times (as I am sure you already know) so I would just be careful about stuff like that. I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with questioning and discussing how we use sources. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially confused by Citation 102 as it has Mexican Airplay for Meghan Trainor, so I clicked on it. The citation currently leads to a "Looking for something on Billboard?" error screen so I would find a way to correct this.

Corrected.

I am uncertain about this part, the song is included as the 11th track on the album Title, as I do not see how the song's placement on the album's track listing is particularly relevant. I can see it being notable if it was mentioned in critical commentary (see "Delicate" (Taylor Swift song) for an example of that), but I do not think this is the case here.

Good catch! I actually used "Delicate" as a reference while restructuring this article and that's probably when that happened.

This quote, "pseudo-feminist empowerment", reads more like a negative review to me so it does not make sense in the "Composition and lyrics" section. You repeat this quote in the "Critical reception" anyway so I would remove it from the other section.

Done.

I would be prepared to defend Mashable as a high-quality source. I am honestly not familiar enough with it to say either way, but I would keep this in mind for a FAC.

Brian Anthony Harnandez, the author, seems to have an impressive background, complete with a history at Billboard and everything.

Good job with this. This is the best kind of justification I would focus on for a FAC as it shows you have done research on the author and did the background work for it. You have convinced me at least that this would be appropriate for a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just some quick comments as I could not help myself lol. I will look through the article next week to give HD the proper time and space for their review. I actually really enjoyed (and still enjoy) this song, and I cannot believe that it has been almost seven years since it was release. That makes me feel crazy old lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Aoba47. I have been on a nostalgic Meghan Trainor binge ever since Title's sixth anniversary recently, and I actually cried a few times, lol. The good ol' pre-Corona times...--N Ø 03:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review actually inspired me to listen to her music on Spotify, and I noticed the new re-release of The Love Train. I'd be curious to see what direction she takes with her future music. I know this is likely an unpopular opinion, but I miss when she did more doo-wop style music. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. And given the commercial decline she experienced after switching from doo-wop to R&B, I would guess its a popular opinion among the general public. There's a reason "Mom" (a doo-wop track) is her most remembered song I guess :)--N Ø 14:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have two comments about this sentence: Billboard gave "Lips Are Movin" three-and-a-half stars, adding that it was helping to solidify Trainor "as the self-proclaimed queen of her own genre, 'she-wop'". Since this comes right after a separate Billboard review, I would include the reviewer's name to clarify in the prose that they are separate article. Also, I just never see the value of adding the star rating to the prose as I think it would be better to use that space for something else. I just do not think the star rating is particularly notable or beneficial enough to the reader to put in the prose.

Agreed. The first Billboard review doesn't identify a critic but I added it to the second one and removed the stars.

In the final paragraph of the "Critical reception" section, the word "while" is used to connect the Erlewine and Chicago Tribune's Matt Pais parts, and I do not think it makes sense in this context. I believe "while" is used to represent some type of contrast, and there is not a contrast between these two reviews.

I substituted "and" in its place.

While I like this sentence Riley Jones of Complex included the song at number three on his list of "The Most Motivating Songs to Get You to the Gym", deeming it best for indoor cardio. and I think the source is interesting, it seems rather trivial to me and I am not sure why this is notable enough for inclusion.

Removed.

I have two comments for this part, she entered center stage, accompanied by two backup vocalists who formed a Greek chorus. The citation does not say that vocalists were literally a Greek chorus so this is not entirely accurate. Instead, the writer was comparing the vocalists to a Greek chorus as seen here (practically made up a Greek chorus, emphasis mine). On a second note, this wording is very uncomfortably close to a sentence in the source (i.e. Clarkson entered center stage with two backup vocalists that practically made up a Greek chorus) so please revise further to avoid this.
- Actually, upon further reflection, I would remove the Clarkson cover altogether. I did a quick Google search to see if more information could be added and it does not seem like this cover received a lot of attention. The current citation in the article is for multiple covers from the show and not just this one (and the entry on this performance is not substantial). Since the coverage on this seems very minor, I'd remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the cover is essential to this article so I have done this. Thank you for the comments so far.--N Ø 14:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused by intended structure for the "Critical reception" section. I thought the first paragraph would focus on the "All About That Bass" comparisons, but I see these being mentioned in the second paragraph as well. The third paragraph seems very well-focused on the positive reviews of the song, so my concern is with the first two paragraphs. I looked back at the lead and I do not really see this sentence, Some deemed the song catchy, while others found it repetitive, being represented here as I do not see a focus on either the catchy praise or the repetitive criticism (although I guess the second half is about the "All About That Bass" comparisons, but that was immediately obvious to me as repetitive could refer to other things as well). Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that might be confusing. I have now merged the first two paragraphs together, though it's a bit long it fixes this issue. Now the combined paragraph is comprised of the comparisons as well as the two negative reviews. I do welcome specific suggestions on how to clarify this further. Also, I changed the bit in the lead.--N Ø 08:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, is there anything else you would recommend I do before posting this nomination at FAC? Do you think it is far from meeting the criteria and I should consult more reviewers, or should I proceed with the nomination now? Sorry but since it will be the article's third nomination I am a bit paranoid :P--N Ø 08:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you wait for Aoba's full review, but in my opinion it is ready at FAC now. I am uncertain if other editors find the prose ready, but I believe there would be minor issues left should there be any. (But don't take my words to the heart because I'm not an FAC coord--just my opinion lol). Good luck, HĐ (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to go to me. I just have one minor comment about this part, Billboard's Andrew Hampp noted it as the first-ever music video with a cast consisted of only social media influencers, in the lead. I do not think it is necessary to put in the Billboard attribution as a MTV News citation (i.e. citation 71) also covers this and it is not limited to just the Billboard source alone. I recommend changing this up as I initially found this point rather trivial if it was only reported on by one critic. Otherwise, great work with this and best of luck with the FAC. Ping me when you nominate it and I will look through the article again. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, both of you. I'm going to look for some more reliable sources about the video's synopsis. I just noticed that a usage of Idolator is still remaining in this section. Really happy to have both of yours' co-signs and I will proceed with the nomination very soon.--N Ø 09:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]