Talk:Holidays (Meghan Trainor song)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 04:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hello! I will take on this review either Wednesday, August 16 or Thursday, August 17. As with my two previous GAN's on songs, I will informally review this song, which will have no effect on the nomination, but add some smiles. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! For some reason, I am more excited about your song review than the article review, lol.--N Ø 05:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In an article review for Wikipedia, a dog stated as opposed to the "earworm [that] inhabited [his] life for a month ... the same way Elsa did for a year", the song Holidays "surprisingly was a pretty good, albeit, weirdly not a Christmas song which the song is thematically, but a song for any holiday spirit". The dog continued his review, stating "the song is compounded by the odd feature: Earth, Wind, and Fire, traditionally an R&B group (which lately is his favorite genre), somehow working well with Trainor, a pop sensation, making for a dynamic duo of entertaining proportions" and finishing up by stating "the song is fun, the music video is electric, and left a positive impact [on him]" knowing that it will not become annoying good. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valid!--N Ø 02:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the actual review: the following are suggestions during my first skim-through for the editor-at-large on grammar or sentence structure fixes. If you do not agree with them, think they are not appropriate, or not needed, disregard them with a comment:

Prose

Lead

"Holidays" is a song by American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor from her fourth major-label studio album, and first Christmas album, ... The first comma after "album" might not be needed.

Removed

... and she sang it on the television shows ... I think "the" should be omitted, as paired with "television" implies one show instead of the two listed.

Removed

Background

The song became available for digital download on A Very Trainor Christmas, which was released by Honest OG Recording and Epic Records on October 30 might read better as The song became available for digital download on A Very Trainor Christmas, which Honest OG Recording and Epic Records released on October 30.

Implemented the suggested wording

"doesn’t" has a curly apostrophe when the straight is used consistently.

Replaced

Composition

One of the lyrics repeated throught ... "throughout" or "through"?

Throughout. Fixed

Reception

... and debuted at number 10 on the Holiday Digital Song Sales chart issued dated November 14, 2020 "issue" instead of "issued"?

Done

Aditional comments or concerns

MOS:DUPLINK "music video" in "Background", link is in another paragraph before.

Well, this will be a fairly quick review, not a lot of issues if at all for the first skim-through. I will start and end the review in one post, unless anything else comes up. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In "Background": With the gloom surrounding the world at the time ... I feel like this runs a bit awkward because it is missing something or starts with the wrong part of the sentence. Possibly: In an interview with NPR, Trainor explained with the gloom surrounding the world at the time ... or Trainor's intention with the project was to "spread some joy this year" in contrast to the gloom surrounding the world at the time.
The inspiration for the project's creation was Trainor's observation ... (bars, I had typed this one out as a for-real suggestion and did not realize until now how it read...no).

I see nothing wrong with your second suggestion so I've used that!

In "Composition": All three provide background vocals alongside others. "provided" instead of "provide", any specificity on who the "others" are, or are they not important to mention?

I don't see why not. Anticipating a further clarification question, no I have no reason to believe the Maddie Ziegler providing background vocals here is this one, lol.

I would wikilink "uptempo song" to uptempo.

Done

Same section, I think ... according to Allan Sculley of The Spokesman-Review should appear at the beginning of the sentence for clarity. Readers might confuse it as part of the other review in the sentence before.

Done

Same section, I think the review that quotes "moves forward a couple of decades" should also insert in the quotes "production-wise" for clarification, as the news article specifically mentioned how Trainor had moved forward compared to the other song.

Done as suggested

Same section: ... and call their families to inform them that they will be reaching soon "will be reaching soon" is unclear and a bit awkward. I would rephrase to possibly: ... and call their families to inform them that they will be there soon.

Sure

Same section, to double-check with you, should the quote: One of the lyrics repeated throught the song is "It's a celebration / Get ready for the holi-, holi-, holidays" have an analysis of why it is important to note? I say this in two parts, one because WP:SONG#LYRICS talks about having quotes with analysis, and two, because it seems like a random verse to mention other than its use of repetition.

The repetition was why I thought it was important to note, actually. It's the titular lyric, main hook and also the part sampled; this is my own explanation, though, and cannot be included in the article.

Same section, GQ's Olive Pometsey described it: ... I would add "the lyrics" before "it" to better preface why this review is here.

I believe this should stay "it" since the quote briefly also touches on the vocals.

In "Music video and promotion", wikilink "evening gown" to Evening gown?

Done

Same section, ... noticed by people on social media "noticed by the public" instead of the former?

I switched to public but it is worth noting it was on social media, imo.

In "Reception", "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution" should be italicized.

Done

The article was a nice, concise read-through. I have some clarifying points above. I will do spot checks momentarily as I did some to the above for clarity! Article is looking at a pass. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: " The Kelly Clarkson Show,[6]", ref 6. is not needed here since ref. 7 mentions the same line it its own article.

If it's not too much of an issue, I would prefer keeping it. Sorry for being weird, lol.

Spotcheck: " Trainor stated: "[They] are [one] of my family's all-time favorites... should be double quote as it is a quote of a quote, so: Trainor stated: "'[They] are [one] of my family's all-time favorites ...

Done

Spotcheck: for the sentence starting "The lyrics of "Holidays" are about celebrating ..." it may need an accompanying source as the People article quotes the song lyric's subject matter, but no analysis of the lyrics itself to describe it as "about celebrating the holidays and having a party"; if that makes sense.

This type of usage is fine and I have seen it on multiple FAs. Citing the lyrics itself, it is uncontroversial to conclude the song is about celebrating the holidays and having a party. Analysis would be a requirement for something subjective.

Well written + verifiability

The article is well written with some minor grammar or sentence structure fixes. The article follows a general manual of style layout. The article is verified with a list of sources from reliable publications. The reference page is properly laid out. There is one small issue with a spotcheck, other than that, all good. Earwig comes up clean with just quotes properly referenced. No issues with plagiarism, copyright, or close paraphrasing. Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness + focus + neutral

The article is broad in scope, and presents the content with a nice focused perspective. The article is neutral about the song's subject. Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images + stability

The article features images that display the cast of the song along with a poster and a bow. I will put a question mark on whether an image of the bow is relevant here because it is a random bow, not the one or ones used on Meghan Trainor herself in the infobox image. I think the reader will probably not need that visualization, mainly because there is the infobox image, and "bow" could be linked to the article Ribbon for visual purposes. By chance is there another freely licensed image of the bow on her? The article is stable, with no ongoing or active edit conflicts. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture of a bow specifically in the Promotion section would be beneficial to readers since it was prominently used in multiple modes of promotion for the song. We do have to keep non-free content usage to a minimum, though, so I don't believe it needs to be a music video screenshot. And no, there are no freely available pictures of Trainor wearing a bow in one of the performances.

Thank you so much for the thorough review despite this being a smaller article, Adog. Open to discussion on any points. Best!--N Ø 02:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think the explanations above are all good. I am willing to make it good for good article sake (I will take the valid)!Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.