Talk:Takin' It Back/GA1

GA Review

Passed.

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: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 19:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Taking this on proudly per your request! --K. Peake 19:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Pipe bubblegum pop to Bubblegum music
You need to write out the production credits in prose for them to be included
"Artists featured on the album include" → "Featured artists include"
"The album's lyrical themes revolve" → "The former's lyrical themes revolve"
Mention some of the shows that the live performances included
"The album was supported by" → "It was supported by"
"becoming her first song" → "becoming Trainor's first song"
"to label it a sequel to" → "to be labeled as a sequel to"
"It debuted at number 16" → "The former debuted at number 16"

Background

"she was writing" → "she was recording" per the source
"as Trainor rewrote it four times in an attempt to "adapt" → "as Trainor rewrote the album four times in an attempt of "adapting" per the source
Remove commas around Title
"have the chorus written" → "have the c[horus] written" per the source
"will be released on October 31," → "would be released on October 21," per the source
"Its deluxe edition was" → "The deluxe edition was"

Composition

"Its subject matter revolves around her" → "The subject matter revolves around Trainor's"
"and it's still a party."" → "and it's still a party."" per the source
"a cappella song built on harmonies and features" → "a cappella song, built on harmonies and featuring"
"after her pregnancy, and an exercise" → "after her pregnancy and a challenge"
I would suggest using something more encyclopaedic than rear end
[8][15] only [8] should be used for the "Shook" sentence; the previous one shall invoke both

I think how it's done currently is fine as well due to the absence of any direct quotes here.

Pipe acoustic to Acoustic guitar
The first sentence about "Superwoman" needs the ref invoked again, as it uses direct quotes
"that dismissed common narratives" → "that dismisses typical narratives"
"and acknowledged difficulties faced" → "and acknowledges difficulties faced"
"she thought would resonate with moms on" → "she thought would resonate with those on" to be more encyclopaedic
"give your heart a break"." → "give your heart a break."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences and invoke the ref here too
None of the "Remind Me" info is sourced

? All of the "Remind Me" info occurs in the Yahoo! source directly following the quote.

"The album closes with" → "Takin' It Back closes with"
[9][27][28] should be invoked after all the "Mother" info, with only [9] at the end of the last sentence

Promotion

Mention that the performances were in the summer of 2022
"in the United States on" → "in the US on" per MOS:US, but the archive does not source this
"and the United Kingdom." → "and the UK." per consistency with above
Start a new para at the Today performance

Critical reception

Merge with the below section and retitle to Reception

The article only has five sections of prose so I would rather not. This section is too huge and it would swallow up the the part about the Commercial performance, whereas I think both of these parts deserve to be highlighted separately and a merged section doesn't transition well.

"He added, "this doesn't mean" → "He added, "This doesn't mean"
"Piatkowski thought it reflected" → "Piatkowski thought the album reflected"
"but believed its ballads," → "but believed the ballads,"
"after being controlled by her record label on previous releases;" → "after being controlled on previous releases;" per the source
"ventured into new musical territory and took" → "ventures into new musical territory and takes" for correct tense

Commercial performance

Make this the second para of the above section since one para is too short to stand alone

See above.

"Trainor's highest entry since her second major-label studio album," → "becoming Trainor's highest entry since her second major-label studio album"
I'd suggest only mentioning top 50 positions here, as below is not notable for prose

Given the dearth of international chart entries for this album, I think the very few ones can all be comfortably mentioned.

Track listing

Pipe Maureen McDonald to Mozella

Personnel

Pipe Ajay Bhattacharyya to Stint (producer)
Pipe Theron Theron to R. City

Charts

Good

Release history

Good

References

Copyvio score looks decent at 39.8%
Pipe Billboard to Billboard (magazine) on ref 5
Pipe People to People (magazine) on ref 6
Shouldn't you pipe Meghan Trainor Store to Meghan Trainor on ref 12?
For refs 14, 18, 34, 44, 53 and 54, the formatting of Official Charts should be consistent
Remove or replace ref 24 per WP:FORBES
Remove Associated Press from ref 26
Cite YouTube as via instead on ref 29
Cite Today as work/website instead on refs 45, 46 and 47

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; I did this just for you at a rapid pace! --K. Peake 10:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the in-depth review, K. Peake! All addressed I hope.--N Ø 15:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass now, I did some slight copy editing and this is now ready to go! --K. Peake 19:55, 11 April 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.