Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Very Trainor Christmas/archive1

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 September 2023 [1].

A Very Trainor Christmas edit

Nominator(s): N Ø 18:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's only Christmas album. I know it's not September yet, but this album does have a really nice Earth, Wind & Fire collaboration on it. Also, this one has nothing to do with TikTok, thankfully... which is kind of refreshing! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--N Ø 18:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

After doing a very brief Google search, I found that Honest OG Recordings is a record label started by Trainor and I think that is worth mentioning here.

Totally agreed. We'll see if the document I have cited passes the source review, lol.

It should pass in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain about this part, (her first Christmas album), as it is her only Christmas album so this may be interpreted as she has released more than one of these. It might be worthwhile to combine this part with the first sentence to make something along the lines of (is a Christmas album and the fourth major-label studio album) instead.
I think it would be worth explicitly saying in the lead that "White Christmas" was a single.
This is just a suggestion so feel free to disagree, but I think File:Meghan Trainor - Macy's 2014.jpg would look better to the left. In my view, the infobox pushes the image slightly down and it is always preferable to avoid having an image look away from an article (or at least that's what I've been told in the past).

I believe we have a slight WP:SANDWICH situation upon doing that.

Fair enough. I will leave that up to the image reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would link and spell out extended play on its first use in the article.
Again just a suggestion, but I was curious if this part, (for the playlist Spotify Singles: Christmas Collection), would work better as (for a Spotify playlist). Just tried to work in the Spotify link and I was not sure if the link or the playlist title was more valuable for inclusion in the prose.
Are the quotation marks necessary in this part, (was done in "July and August"), for saying just the months?
I would paraphrase this quote, ("all-time-favorites"), as I find that this paragraph is already quote-heavy.
For this part, (contains 10 cover versions of), I would write out the number as later in the same sentence, six is done this way and it is somewhat jarring to have numbers represented in two different ways in the same sentence.
I would link lilt for readers unfamiliar with the word and concept.
Since the 1980s and the 1960s both get links, I would also link the 1970s in this quote, ("illustrates the connecting threads between '70s R&B/pop and current-day pop").
Do you think an audio sample would be helpful? Just to be clear ay audio sample for an album article would have to be used in a way to represent the album as a whole and in a way that cannot be conveyed through prose alone. Maybe if a critic mentions either discusses doo-wop or pop represented in the album and ties it to a song? I have not looked through any of the sources so this is purely a suggestion.

I considered it but there isn't a particular song really representing the sound of the entire album, in my opinion.

That makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially confused by this wording, (wears accessories on her face), as "accessories" could mean a lot of different things in this context. I checked the source and I find their "ornaments" word choice to be much clearer. Not saying to do a single-word quote for that, but I think this part could be clearer.
The prose for the first paragraph of the "Release and promotion" section can come across as rather list-y at times with the repetition of "In X time". I would play around with a few instances of this to avoid the prose from being too repetitive. For instance, this part, (On November 23, a music video for "Holidays" was released), could be changed to (A music video for "Holidays" was released on November 23.).

I tried to work on this. Let me know if you think more needs to be done.

Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead specifies two themes in the critical reviews (i.e. Trainor's charisma and the material) and that is not immediately clear in the "Reception" section. I think the prose for this section could be improved in generally to have it be more engaging.

I sorted this into the two themes expressed in the lead section, hopefully this has improved the engagingness.

Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idolator is not considered a high-quality source and it should be removed (and replaced where possible).

Mike Wass is a reputed critic and has been published in Billboard, Variety, etc. Concerns have been raised about Idolator's factchecking, etc. but they do not apply to subjective critical opinions to which its use is limited to here.

I will leave that up to the source reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. I always have a soft spot for Christmas music, and I am 100% that lame person that would listen to "All I Want for Christmas Is You" at any point in the year lol. This would be a fun article to run on the main page for Christmas (although not this year as someone has already wants that spot). Once all of my comments above are addressed, I will read through the article again just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC as always! Aoba47 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this, lol. I have the Christmas and Mother's Day TFAs covered. The original songs on this album can be played all-year-long, in my opinion, so feel free to listen to them right now if you want. Excited for your re-read!--N Ø 07:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything! I have read through the article again and it all looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the terse responses. I was in-between doing a few errands, but I still wanted to get back to this FAC in a timely manner. I should have taken more time and care in my replies. Just to be clear, I agree with all your explanations above, and I only mentioned leaving it up the image and source reviewers as a way to emphasize that my review was focused primarily on the prose. I do agree that it is best to avoid sandwiching whenever possible and that sources have situational uses (and the links to support the author's credibility are always appreciated). Apologies for the double post. Just was on my mind and wanted to clear it up with you as I do value your work on here and appreciate it whenever we get a chance to talk. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're good! Appreciate you making time to comment here while running errands and hope everything is going well.--N Ø 04:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Have you considered including a sample? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered it but there isn't a particular song representing the sound of the entire album so I ended up not using one.--N Ø 07:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

The article looks to be in great shape based on the tweaks after the two other reviews. My only suggestions (nitpick) would probably be:

perhaps using production instead of creation in the lead.

This would imply all family members took on a production role which wasn't the case.
- Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. All good. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which features her biting a candy cane while dressed in a Christmas hat and a tinsel and bows-adorned dress. -- she's dressed ... [in a] dress, which is repetitive. Perhaps wearing or something similar.

Done

Other than that I can go ahead and support the article for promotion. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for stopping by. It is greatly appreciated!-N Ø 05:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Commonly terms like "music video", "social media", and "single" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK

Removed.

If you can pinpoint specific months of 2020 that she recorded the album's tracks, then those would certainly be worth adding. The only clue I've gathered is that June is when things were close to conclusion based on the quote of trying to finish things up.

While I certainly agree that would be worth adding, this information is not available.

Try to avoid refactoring quotes with the "[]" bits as it compromises integrity of source representation

Any examples of usages you think are controversial? I believe they are used appropriately only to adjust the tense where needed.

While "controversial" isn't exactly the word I'd use, you could easily just go with "my" instead of "[her]" for "finish [her Christmas album"], and "releas[ing] a Christmas Album and to do it with [her] family [made] it that much better" could have "releasing" outside of the quote once it gets changed to "a Christmas album and to do it with my family makes it that much better".

Used both of these. It does read much better in my opinion.

Let's be more specific with which of her sons is in a music video and that she dedicated a song to

She just says she dedicated a song to "my baby". Assumably referring to the only son she had at the time, this still cannot be specified in the article. I've mentioned that Riley is the one who appears in the music video, though.

Yes, I meant to do that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting album chart/sales info under "Reception" gives a false impression that this and reviews are somehow connected. You'd be better off moving that paragraph to "Release and promotion".

I don't think so? Unless the section is called "Critical reception", it should be fine. Album chart/sales are part of an album's commercial reception and have little to do with the release or promotion.

To be more specific, I was saying that it pertains to a work's release when discussing what followed once it was distributed. Up to you on whether "Promotion" would be separated from those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a unique album that did not peak pretty much anywhere during its debut week. Most of the chart peaks were attained weeks after the critic reviews had surfaced. Whereas, release and promotion were intermingled and thus form a well-flowing section. I believe both in terms of chronology and flow, the present structure is the best idea and I am hestitant to move anything.

If you believe that the peaks coming along later had something to do with more critic's commentary showing up, then maybe add text that somehow links these things (assuming you don't wish to give commercial performance its own section). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any update for this aspect? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you following up, SNUGGUMS. I tested several combinations for this section in my sandbox and none really worked better. "Reception" in general refers to how something was received and can act as an umbrella term for responses both critical and commercial. Anodyne, Blonde on Blonde and to some extent Are You Experienced combine these elements in same sections. I am seeing a preferential matter here rather than any objective problem. This is also my first time hearing that one paragraph needs to cause the second one for them to be included in the same section.--N Ø 14:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've observed, the term more often refers to critical, but either way that cause bit was something I thought of to help serve as a transition between matters. I'll now give my support when all my other comments were resolved. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The math of "A Very Trainor Christmas contains ten cover versions of Christmas standards, such as "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas" (1951) and "Last Christmas" (1984), as well as six original recordings" doesn't add up when I count 18 total songs under "Track listing".

This count does not include bonus tracks. You raise a good point and I have now added a note.

Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll presume that the four reviews included were the only quality ones you could find for the album as a whole

Yep, this was it. There's the Associated Press's review but it looks like a puff piece and is a little too flowery/positive. What do you think about its suitability for inclusion here?

Even when very positive for sure, I don't see the harm in adding that. It could help reduce the chances of others complaining the article isn't comprehensive enough. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just added it.

Per WP:REPCITE, there's no need to use the same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph, meaning you only have to implement ref#44 after "incorporation of various genres".

In the past, I have been asked to repeat cites where direct quotes are involved. The GA reviewer for this article also made this request.

Overall, the page looks like it's in good shape. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've left quite a few responses above.--N Ø 23:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, and once further tweaks are made, it'll make the page even better. :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more tweaks!--N Ø 01:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request and qualifying that this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar with. What makes https://swedishcharts.com/, https://onairwithryan.iheart.com/ and https://www.ultratop.be/ a reliable source? #25 is a weird source for a music release date. I am normally wary of sources like Pressparty, but since they are for primary information I guess it's OK. Otherwise, source information and formatting seems consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo! Swedishcharts.com is the official site of Sverigetopplistan, the provider of Swedish national charts so it is a reliable primary source for those; same with Ultratop. Seacrest's show is affiliated with iHeartRadio and is being used for an uncontroversial statement Trainor gave about her own album's completion in an interview. #25 is being used to source Honest OG is Trainor's own entertainment company, the release date occurs in Billboard. Alternatives for the Pressparty usage would be the album liner notes and a retail link to Target but, as you said, for primary information it is probably okay.--N Ø 07:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus, sorry for bothering again. Did you have anything else or this passes?--N Ø 06:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass by a hair (these sources I questioned only barely meet "high-quality" in "high-quality reliable source"), with usual caveats about spotchecks and not knowing the sources well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 12 September 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.