Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No (Meghan Trainor song)/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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 10 May 2022 [1].

No (Meghan Trainor song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 21:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "No", which she released as the lead single from her second major-label studio album. Hot off the heels of her winning the Grammy Award for Best New Artist, "No" became the most positively received single of Trainor's career and drew attention for its music video. I have worked on this article for several years now. I would like to thank Aoba47 for giving it an extensive and highly helpful peer review. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 21:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • In the lead's opening sentence, I believe the semi-colon should be a comma. From my understanding, a semi-colon is used to link two independent clauses, which is not the case here.
  • Fixed.
  • The lead says the music video received criticism for its choreography, but I only see one source (i.e. the Out one) that is explicitly negative about this.
  • Reworded.
  • Added.
  • For this part, Lynch stated that she was more confident on "No", I'd clarify the "she" being discussed is Trainor.
  • Done.
  • I am not sure the "on the former song" part is necessary in this sentence: Writing for Spin, Brennan Carley thought Trainor gave up her "sock-hopping persona" in favor of straightforward truth-telling" on the former song.
  • Removed.
  • How are the first two paragraphs of the "Critical reception" section currently structured? The content itself is good, but the structure is not entirely clear to me as various trends in reviews, such as the song's more pop approach and its lyrics, are brought up in both paragraphs.
  • Rewritten. First paragraph - Positive reviews, Second paragraph - Mixed to negative reviews, Third paragraph - Year-end lists.
  • I have a comment about this part, Time and Carvell Wallace of MTV News accused Trainor of appropriating the African-American accent. The Time article reports that outlets include the MTV News one has discussed, but Time writer themselves does not make this critique. They are more so reporting about it. I would clarify this point in the article.
  • Amended.
  • I do not think the "just as awesome" quote is particularly informative or necessary.
  • Removed.
  • This part, Trainor could comfortably execute choreographed dance routines in, seems unnecessarily word. Wouldn't something like Trainor could comfortably dance in, be more concise?
  • Reworded.
  • I believe the first paragraph of the "Reception" subsection in the "Music video" section could benefit from further revision. The content itself is good, but the prose comes across more like a list of different critics and their opinions. I think the information could be presented in a more engaging way.
  • Revised. First paragraph - Comparisons, Second paragraph - Positive reviews, Third paragraph - Mixed to negative reviews.

Great work with the article. Once my above comments are addressed, I will read through the article again just to make sure I do as thorough a review as possible. I've been feeling under the weather for the past few days so apologies for not getting to this sooner. Aoba47 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Aoba47, sorry for my slow response. I randomly ended up deciding to rewrite two sections completely. I have implemented all of your incredible suggestions and await your read through :) Greetings!--NØ 17:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Critical reception" section, the end of the first paragraph and the beginning of the second one use a similar sentence construction (i.e. "Writing for X") so it may be beneficial to change it up to keep the prose engaging.
  • Changed up.
  • I'd specify which season of Superstore that this song was featured on, and I would say television show instead of TV show as the latter seems a little too informal for Wikipedia.
  • Added and changed.
  • I'd make sure to archive all of your web citations to avoid any future headache with link rot and death. I am only recommending this as I have noticed Citation 23 is not archived.
  • Archive added.

I believe this should be the end of my review. Aside from my last point, my review is focused primarily on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much for the review. I believe I have addressed the outstanding concerns. Have a great week!--NØ 12:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for adding one additional comment. I have a question about this sentence: It concludes with all previous scenes meshed with shots of women holding torches. I have rewatched the video and it looks like they are holding flares and not torches so I checked the source being used to support this sentence, but I cannot find it supported there. Could you clarify this for me? Sorry again for this rather nitpick-y point. This should be the last point before I support this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must have made the mistake while paraphrasing, perceiving the words to be synonyms. Please check the new wording and feel free to change anything else.--NØ 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver

[edit]

Placeholder. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looking forward to your review, Realmaxxver.--NØ 13:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song's instrumentation also makes use of whistles; Isabella Biedenharn of Entertainment Weekly described it as "a catchy sundae of whistles and sassy quips".[23]" → "The song's instrumentation also makes use of whistles; described by Isabella Biedenharn of Entertainment Weekly as "a catchy sundae of whistles and sassy quips".[23]"
  • Done, but with a comma since a semicolon is inappropriate here.
  • "Billboard named "No" the 100th best song of 2016, writing that Trainor decimates the entitled male ego on it. The magazine noted that the song encapsulates the drivel a woman has to put up with before finding a husband.[38]" → "Billboard named "No" the 100th best song of 2016, writing that Trainor decimates the entitled male ego on it; noting that the song encapsulates the drivel a woman has to put up with before finding a husband.[38]"
  • "On April 9, 2016, it moved from number 12 to number six on the Billboard Hot 100 and became Trainor's fourth top 10 entry.[41] "No" peaked at number three in its fourth week on the chart.[42]" → "On April 9, 2016, it moved from number 12 to number six on the Billboard Hot 100 and became Trainor's fourth top 10 entry,[41] peaking at number three in its fourth week on the chart.[42]"
  • I am sorry but I don't see how making these sentences longer improves the reading experience.
  • "and Trainor's outfits to the ones the latter wore while promoting her album Erotica (1992).[75]" replace "the ones" with "those"
  • Replaced.
  • "Trainor sang it on The Voice UK's fifth season finale on April 10,[86] and The Ellen DeGeneres Show 10 days later. She accompanied both performances with one-armed choreography.[86][87]" → "Trainor sang it on The Voice UK's fifth season finale on April 10,[86] and The Ellen DeGeneres Show 10 days later; accompanying both performances with one-armed choreography.[86][87]"
  • Done with a tweak.

Pseud 14

[edit]

General prose review. I've dabbled in a few FAC reviews of songs prior, so hopefully this be helpful. I have not gone through the above comments, so apologies for the repetition, if you find one.

  • Suggest naming the section "Commercial performance" instead of "Chart performance" since it does touch on chart placements and sales too.
  • Done.
  • US Billboard Hot 100 issued for March 26 -- I think you should also include the year for context as this is the first sentence under Chart performance section.
  • Included now.
  • which was filmed on March 4. -- include year, same as above, for any reader who may want to jump straight into this section.
  • Ditto.
  • with a female dance troupe -- I would say female dancers or female backup dancers
  • Done.
  • MTV News' Sasha Geffen – be consistent with usage, since you've started using MTV News's
  • Fixed.
  • arms with the troupe – perhaps use of 'dancers' is simple and straightforward, same as above
  • Fixed.
  • during the promotional cycle for her album Erotica (1992). – while promoting her album Erotica.
  • Amended.
  • Real thought the video recalled – I would probably include the publication he writes for just to distinguish that this is a writer/person.
  • Real's full name and publication are mentioned in the sub-section right above so repeating it so soon might be overkill.
  • performed "No" live at the 3rd iHeartRadio Music Awards on April 3 -- same as above, I would add year, as the first instance in this paragraph.
  • Added.
  • in a sparkly skirt and military jacket on The Ellen DeGeneres Show -- I don’t think it’s necessary to include what she’s wearing, same as with her 2016 Billboard performance. I’ve referenced other "Live performances" sections for similar FAs, and this doesn’t seem to be the inclination IMO.
  • Removed this part.
  • Happy to support this article for promotion. By the way, if you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your feedback on my current FAC, as I see you have experience with BLPs as well. Not to worry if things are busy on your front. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

[edit]
  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Made some minor edits.
  • Looks great.
  • "Jacob Kasher Hindlin, which Epic Records released as the album's lead single" → "Jacob Kasher Hindlin; Epic Records released it as the album's lead single"
  • Semicolon added.
  • The RIAA acronym isn't used again in the lead and doesn't need to be mentioned.
  • Removed.
  • "said that 'let's" → The "that" isn't necessary.
  • Removed.
  • "A karaoke version of "No" appears as the 18th track on the Japanese edition of Thank You." → Is this really significant enough to mention?
  • Removed.
  • "keyboards, piano, produced" → "keyboards, piano, and produced"
  • Changed.
  • "song is way more suitable" → "song was way more suitable"?
  • Reworded.
  • RIAA and BPI aren't used in the body and so don't need to be mentioned.
  • Removed.
  • Amended.
  • "Spears's" → "Spears'"?
  • Changed.

Media review from Elias (Pass)

[edit]
  • I'll take a look at this. By the way, I have my own song FAC over here, and while of course you are not obligated to review, a QPQ would be appreciated.

‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT TEXTS are succinct. It manages to strike the perfect balance between short and descriptive. Nice!
  • Thank you.
  • File:Meghan Trainor - NØ (Official Single Cover).png - the non-free use rationale needs to indicate a source link. Otherwise, the other parameters are alright
  • Added.
  • File:Ricky Reed 2015 BMI Pop Awards.png - I like the caption, but you may wish to add the year in which the photo was taken
  • Since this isn't compulsory I would prefer not to, just out of personal preference.
  • Fair enough
  • File:Meghan Trainor - NØ.ogg - The sample's non-free content rationale could use a little work. I find that File:Taylor Swift - Shake_It_Off.ogg is an example of how to do this well. A lot of the times, samples are included in song or album articles to illustrate its production (instruments and such are hard to convey through text alone, after all) as well as the mood or tone that they give off. Reading the composition section, I could see a case for its inclusion in the article if it was used to audibly illustrate the "crisp guitar instrumentation and a beat that recalls The Neptunes" and the comparisons to the works of Britney Spears and Max Martin (a well-known record producer - I'll specify that in the article if I were you)
  • I would prefer to keep the sample caption in the article concise if that's okay. It is obviously demonstrating a bunch of things that are discussed in the section and I have updated the rationale to reflect that. This is acceptable practice from my experience at FAC.
  • I would agree that the sample caption should address only one or two aspects of the song to keep things concise! Though I'm not entirely sure if Trainor "repeating 'no' to emphasize the word's eternal nature and decisiveness" should be the main thing that the caption tackles. Primarily because I think that text alone will suffice in conveying that information (?) if that makes sense. I'm leaning towards including info about the instrumentals in the caption because, as has been mentioned earlier, such info is hard to convey through words alone. Something like "A 21-second sample of 'No', a dance-pop song in which Trainor, on top of a crisp guitar instrumentation, repeatedly says "no" to emphasize the word's eternal nature and decisiveness" will suffice, honestly, and I think the sample caption would still remain concise that way. However, I will leave the decision of what to include up to you
  • I like the wording you just suggested so I have kept it around those lines.
  • Neat :)
  • PS, hooray for subtitles!
  • File:NØ screenshot.png - while the source cited in the caption does compare Trainor's video with Spears's and Madonna's works, this is coming from a Billboard writer who drew the comparison themself, instead of describing how multiple other writers made the comparisons. I'd change that from "Critics observed..." to "Joe Lynch of Billboard observed..." and such, to uphold source-text integrity
  • Too much text in the caption box causes the section to be dominated by the picture. The comparisons were not made by just one critic by the way as you would be able to tell upon reading the whole music video section. I have highlighted Spears and made a general mention for the other artists. Hope this is satisfactory.
  • The additional citation in the caption helps address my concerns. Thank you!
  • Thank you as well for bringing this to my attention. :)
  • Furthermore, the caption says that the sexual nature of the video was a departure from Trainor's previous MVs, but the fair use rationale does not state this. You might want to add that detail in there to strengthen the justification used to include it in the article, as well as state the names of some writers who pointed out the sexual vibes just in case
  • I hope you like the updated rationale.
  • That's better ^^

That's all from me! Please make sure to ping me when you are done addressing the following concerns. Thanks ^^‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Troubled.elias, do go through the changes and my explanations whenever you are able to. Regards.--NØ 13:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan, thank you for the prompt response! Most of my points have been addressed, although I still am somewhat unsure about the sample caption. Hopefully we can work out a solution to that issue I raised---once that's resolved, I'll be happy to give the media review a pass.
All the following comments above have been addressed accordingly. Hence, the media review gets a pass from me.
  • Additional comments: I hope you wouldn't some comments beyond the media review. Here are some things I noticed through a very quick skim of the article.
  • "Fatima Robinson directed the music video for 'No', which features Trainor performing choreography in a warehouse and entwining her arms with female dancers. Critics compared it to the visuals of various 1990s female artists and praised her evolution in it..." I'd change "female dancers" to "backup dancers" to avoid repetition in this part. And it would help to clarify what kind of "evolution" she showed in the music video, which was a stylistic one. I first got the impression that her choreography evolved because of the emphasis on dancers, so it will help if things were clearer
  • Unfortunately I don't think "backup dancers" evokes the same imagery in the reader's mind that "female dancers" does. Honestly the current wording doesn't seem like too big of an issue to me, what say?
  • I'd be fine if you kept the "female dancer" wording, honestly. It's not that much of a dealbreaker; sometimes, repetition can't be avoided. But if you ask me, I still believe the lead needs to specify what evolution she went through in her music video. It's not that obvious that the evolution was stylistic at first glance, especially to any readers who will be unfamiliar with Trainor's past work.
  • Someone once advised me that the lead is supposed to entice the reader and draw them into reading the rest of it. So if they are curious about her evolution, we are establishing this purpose!
  • I looked at the release history section and noticed something odd. There was a rough consensus per this discussion not to use BBC Radio 1 as a source for single releases in the UK. Since WP:FACRITERIA states that we have to use high-quality, reliable sources to support information in an article, I believe that that table row can go.
  • Removed from the release history section. The discussion you linked seems to have concluded that it should be kept out of that section but is fine to mention in prose? Either way we aren't using it for the single release date but just noting it was selected as "Track of the Day". Let me know what you think about this. "Shake It Off" seems to use it in the prose as well.
  • I'd hazard a guess and say that it will be fine to keep it, but I don't know. Perhaps a second opinion from other editors would be beneficial
  • It passed the source review so that's our second opinion right there.

Source review by Mike Christie (Pass)

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • What's the logic behind your use of the publisher and work/newspaper/website parameters? I see some use publisher and some don't. For {{cite web}}, you have some with publisher and some with work/website -- there's a good deal of latitude but you have to have a consistent rule.
    Generally I've kept up with how the Wikipedia articles for the respective publications do it. Which seems to be websites, magazines and newspapers where only content is written are italicized, and TV channels (Fuse, MTV News, ABC News), radio shows (BBC Radio 1, Radio Airplay SRL), and download providers (Amazon, iTunes) are not italicized.
    That's an acceptable approach but then GfK Entertainment should not be italicized in [125]; and I see you call it just "GfK Entertainment in [125] but "GfK Entertainment Charts" in [57]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.
  • You don't link Billboard in 90 but do elsewhere; this is the only inconsistency of this type I saw but please check.
    Should be linked now.

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • Stereogum
    The critic cited has contributed to several prestigious publications like Billboard and Rolling Stone (Full list). Stereogum itself has an editorial team and is cited on various FAs.
  • [48], which is a dropbox link to a PDF
    Although quite bizarre, ARIA's official website produces a link to Dropbox if you scroll down to find "Latest accreditations"
  • hitparada.ifpicr.cz
    These links are automatically produced by the singlechart template so we can only assume it is accepted on Wikipedia. It seems to be the only official site maintaining these.
    I think we need to know a bit more. Can you find a discussion about why they were assumed reliable by the builders of that template? I can't tell whether it is in fact official just from poking around on the site; can you find anything on the site that would support that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only find this discussion where it is referred to as the official site, along with its usage on every song FA ever. Not sure if these pages are any help. A bit random but can you give a better justification for the reliability of this chart site, Ss112? It would be detrimental to a lot of song articles if it became unacceptable at FA.--NØ 12:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The pages you found are what I was looking for; this looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tophit
    Tophit, again, is the official chart provider for Russia and we can trust their official website. It is entered as an acceptable chart at Template:Single chart.
    OK -- I was able to find some more details on their website. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at links next and will check formatting again once you've responded to the queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In [18], why are you using the "others" field? See this.

Changed the label to author which seems to be okay from another FA.

Out of time today; will return to this probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • The archive link for [37] goes to a page with only #10 on it that doesn't include #6.
    Assuming this was referring to the Time ref it should be fixed now.
  • The link for [50] doesn't find anything.
    Changed to this which has it as Gold-certified at #27.
  • [61] is giving me a 404 error.
    This seems to be a problem affecting all pre-2016 Slovak charts and this error can also be seen at FAs like "Blank Space" and "Shake It Off", attempts have been made to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Record charts. In the meantime, would you suggest keeping them or removing them from here?
    If the page can't be reached and we have no archive of the page then I think it should go till it can be replaced. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed.
  • The archive link for [69] doesn't work.
    Removed.
  • I don't understand the page reached by [130]. How does that support the Danish gold certification in the article?

That's everything I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gold seems to be written as "Guld" in Danish. If you read it again you will see. Thank you for the review.--NØ 06:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using Google Translate the page says "Submitted by maf on Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:11 Tue, 10/09/2018 - 12:00 TrackMeghan TrainorNoSony MusicGuld2018-SD373223206". I accept that Guld means Gold, but how does this support a gold certification? If anything it looks more like a submission of something by an external user. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every discussion I can find ([2]) seems to discuss it as the official site rather than getting into why it is official. Similar links for Shake It Off and Blank Space by Taylor Swift and Diamonds by Rihanna are used on those FAs. I could, highly reluctantly, remove it if you insist. Their about page looks pretty official to me so I am unsure what other proof I can produce.--NØ 11:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that the site is official, I just can't see how to interpret that page. E.g. if one were able to reach that page from another page on the site that said "List gold certifications for Meghan Trainor" that would be fine. As it stands it seems to be a submission, not a certification. FunkMonk, I recall from other FAs that you speak Danish; would you mind having a look at this site and see if you can confirm it supports the gold certification? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but this[3] particular link seems to be broken or something, can't see any relevant text, perhaps there's an archived version I can look at? FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's the right link -- that's the question. It says something about Meghan Trainor, "No", and gold, but I can't figure out whether that page actually says "Yes this is certified gold". It looks like a submission rather than something the site has officially approved. MaranoFan, how did you find this page? Did you go through some menu or search that brought you to it as a results page? That might clarify what it means. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. I have removed it, for the time being. A larger discussion about the site will need to take place at the relevant noticeboards, outside of the scope of this FAC, given thousands of articles are using pages formatted the exact same way!
    Perhaps they don't know their older links are broken, maybe they could be notified. Nothing useful shows up with the wayback machine. There is nothing in that link that makes sense in either language. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look. NØ, would you mind letting me know when/where the discussion about the link is, when it happens? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure will. Do feel free to start it yourself if you wish to though.--NØ 17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where would be a good place? WT:ALBUMS? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the last of your concerns prior to passing the source review, Mike Christie?--NØ 15:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Yes, that was the last point. I'm quite willing to believe it's a valid link, but at the moment I can't see how one would demonstrate that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I do see the point.--NØ 15:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

[edit]

Hello GTM! I was wondering if given the progress at [this] FAC, would it be okay for me to start another one very soon (maybe within the next 1-2 days)? Sorry for bothering but it's just that I want the next one I'm going to nominate to appear on the main page in June, so I really need to hurry.--NØ 10:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, go ahead. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I was just giving this nomination a few more days to see if it attracted further reviewer attention before looking through it myself. But if one of my fellow reviewers felt that a consensus to promote had already been demonstrated I would have no issue with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2022 (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/No_(Meghan_Trainor_song)/archive1&oldid=1087194674"