Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Like I'm Gonna Lose You/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2022 [1].

Like I'm Gonna Lose You edit

Nominator(s): NØ 00:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", which features guest vocals from John Legend. She almost didn't include it on her debut major-label studio album until being convinced otherwise by her uncle. When it was ultimately released as its fourth single, it revitalized the album's commercial momentum and became Trainor's third top-10 single from it, also reaching number one in Australia, New Zealand, and Poland. Since its first GA review in 2016, it has been a rocky road for this article. I rewrote it recently and think it fares well with regard to the FA criteria. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 00:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • The following part, soul love ballad, is a WP:SEAOFBLUE to me. I would unlink love song to avoid this, and I do not think this link is particularly beneficial since it is a very well-known concept that would be understood by a majority of the article's readers. I would do this for each instance of these links throughout the article.
  • I tried some alternate wording here.
  • I still do not think the love song link is entirely necessary, and I think saying "a soul ballad" is better than saying "a ballad in the soul genre". Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, singing the song in a candlelit room, I would just say singing in a candlelit room to avoid the repetition of singing/song.
  • Done.
  • Removed size.
  • For the Legend image, I would clarify in the caption what year it was taken.
  • Clarified.
  • Done.
  • That makes sense.
  • The classic link seems unnecessary to me.
  • Removed.
  • I'd vary the sentence structure of the third paragraph of the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section as there are three sentences with starting with "Trainor/She..." and the prose could be re-worked to be more engaging.
  • I reworked the prose a bit. It is necessary to distinguish where we are talking about Trainor's verse vs. Legends so this type of sentence structure is unfortunately inevitable.
  • That's a fair point. Thank you for addressing this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid this sentence construction, with the latter commenting, as I have seen repeated notes in the FAC space to avoid using "with X verb-ing".
  • Rephrased.
  • I would re-examine the "Critical reception" section's structure. I know I've suggested WP:Reception to you a few times so apologies for sounding like a broken record, but I do find it to be an incredibly helpful resource. I'd more clearly organize this section by topic and while I see bits and pieces of this, this section does not strongly back up the critical consensus brought up in the lead. I'd think further revision would be beneficial for this.
  • Apologies, I too observe this as something I struggle with. I tried to organize it into thematic elements with para 1 being general positive commentary on the song, and para 2 about Trainor's vocals and about if it suits her.
  • No need to apologize. These sections are notoriously hard to write well. It looks better to me, but I will do a more thorough read-through later this week. I am uncertain about the "eulogized" word choice as I always associate that with deaths and funerals (i.e. delivering a eulogy) so I am not sure if that is the best choice for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the "Critical reception" section, you use "deemed", and I would avoid that as it does make the prose somewhat repetitious.
  • Changed to "found".
  • When I first read this part, She dueted with Matt Prince during the show in New York City, my immediate question was who is Matt Prince? I am guessing he is a singer of some sort, but further clarification would be helpful since he does not have a link to support him unlike the other artists mention in the same sentence.
  • So true. Introduced as "American singer" now.
  • I am uncertain about this part, she was steady while singing its towering notes and did not struggle. It is currently being presented in Wikipedia's voice, and I would instead more clearly attribute in the prose who is describing the performance in this manner.
  • Attributed more clearly now.

I hope this review is helpful. I will do a more thorough read-through of the article later in the week. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is tremendously helpful as you always are. I do remember you telling me that this is your favorite Trainor song so I hope it will be an enjoyable read for you :) --NØ 06:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. It is flattering that you remember that this is my favorite Trainor song. It may be simple, but I am a sap for these kinds of love ballads. I do enjoy this song and others like "Like You'll Never See Me Again" which explore similar themes. I will look through the article again later in the week, but I do not imagine that I will have much to add beyond this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, They wanted Trainor to record, I would clarify the "They" as it is not immediately clear to me. Is it referring to Epic Records as a whole or the specific people mentioned earlier (i.e. L.A. Reid, etc.). I think further clarification would be beneficial.
  • Specified it is Epic now.
  • Christina Milian did a cover of this song for Resort to Love, but I could not find any third-party coverage. Could you find anything about this? If it was not covered by a third-party source, I would not include it as it is not notable enough then. I just wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • It seems the cover did not make any record charts or draw coverage in reliable secondary sources. We could point a reference to soundtrack credits but I have doubts we can demonstrate notability and thus WP:WEIGHT for its mention.
  • Agreed. Thank you for checking into this. It seems like this largely flew under the radar, probably because the film did not seem to get a lot of attention in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is likely a matter of personal preference, but I'd put Credits and personnel adapted from Title album liner notes. at the top of the section. I've seen it like this more often in other articles, and I think it would be beneficial to establish at the start of the section where this information is being supported.
  • Agreed and fixed. Honestly I have no idea what made me not do this in the first place, lol.
  • It happens. I have seen some articles use this structure, but I've seen more articles put it first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard Hot 100 is linked twice in the "Charts" section. Once in the weekly table and a second time in the year-end table. It seems odd since the other items in the year-end table are not linked a second time so it is not entirely consistent. I'd imagine it would only need to be linked in the weekly table.
  • Good catch.
  • I decided to remove this altogether.
  • Has there been any retrospective reviews of this song? I could not find any when I did a brief search, but I was curious if you had any luck with that or if this kind of articles are just not written for this song.
  • Personally I could not find anything. Sad since it is one of her most lasting hits.
  • Thank you for checking into this. It is interesting that Trainor does not receive the same retrospective reviews or lists as other artists. There are of course retrospective articles written about specific songs (such as "All About That Bass" and "Dear Future Husband"), but others seemed to have fallen out of popular discussion (at least in terms of published articles). Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. My review is based primarily on the prose, but I could not see anything obviously wrong with the images, media, or citations. Best of luck with this nomination and thank you for putting up with my nitpicks lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All should be addressed now. Thank you so much, Aoba47. Personally I found all of your suggestions reasonable. Hope you have a great week ahead!--NØ 18:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS (Pass) edit

I meant to assess this sooner but got sidetracked. Sorry for that. Anyway, here are some comments:

  • For File:Meghan Trainor - Like I'm Gonna Lose You (Official Single Cover).png, try to avoid using Discogs even for file sources when that site is full of user-generated content. Can the artwork be found anywhere outside of that or the YouTube link? If neither Meghan or John shared it on their social media, then your best bet is a music retailer or streaming service.
  • The original uploader pointed a link to a blog where it is no longer found. I have eliminated the Discogs link and cited the record label.
  • To be blunt, I always get suspicious of potential fabrication whenever seeing cover art without any accompanying URL to help prove authenticity, so getting one from Epic would help. Someone might otherwise think you're trying to cover up how a piece isn't actually the official artwork used. In this case I know you didn't just pull this out of nowhere or create it on your own, but no links at all is never a good solution. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems Epic published it on the Italian radio site so I added that too. Its use in the official audio is a pretty solid proof of its authenticity though, in my opinion.

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, SNUGGUMS! :) --NØ 12:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SNUGGUMS edit

  • "debut major-label" → "major-label debut"
  • I do see how your suggested wording makes sense too but I prefer to use the former since "debut major-label", "second major-label", "third major-label", etc. can be a consistent wording format on articles for her future albums, while the other sounds weird with other numbers.
  • Something about the tense from "attaining" within "attaining 5× Platinum certifications in Australia and Canada" doesn't feel right. Maybe go with "and attained" when the sentence begins with "It peaked at number one".
  • Done.
  • Commonly recognized terms like "single" and "music video" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
  • "it was not in keeping with its doo-wop sound" reads awkwardly; you'd be better off with something like "it did not keep with the album's doo-wop sound"
  • Changed.
  • I'm not convinced the exact album release date is particularly relevant here
  • Gonna have to disagree since that is the date the song first became available to stream or buy. Essential information in my opinion.
  • "an unlikely pairing to perform a love duet" doesn't really convey how much Jeff Benjamin enjoyed this track
  • Fixed. :)
  • Amended.
  • "reached number 99 in the United Kingdom, earning a Gold certification" should have an "and", plus I'd change "earning" to "earned"
  • Agreed.

Thankfully there aren't any glaring issues that I could find. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing as well, SNUGGUMS. Do let me know if there's anything else!--NØ 04:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and I support after making one minor change here to follow the numerical sequence you allude to for future albums. Your mileage may vary on this but I personally think it reads less awkwardly than "debut major-label". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Speatle edit

  • Lead looks fine.
  • Her uncle, Burton Toney, forced her manager to hear it: "You need to hear this song, she didn't show you this song, you need to hear it." Is the quoted stuff really necessary?
  • Removed.
  • Ref 13 doesn’t need to be cited three sentences in a row, just cut it to the last one.
  • Done.
  • Trainor wrote it after having one of "those nightmares that your brother or sister or boyfriend just dies", following which one is relieved to find them still breathing… per MOS:CLICHE this should be changed to “still alive”.
  • Agreed and done.
  • Music critics including Gittins and Newsday's Glenn Gamboa thought "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" sounds like a "classic"; the latter commented that it will serve Trainor throughout her career which will surely last long. Last five words probably aren’t needed.
  • Removed.
  • Elysa Gardener of USA Today deemed it proof that she is most appealing when she is not cunning and agitational. Trainor hasn’t been referred to in a while, so replace the first “she” with her last name. Also, tense problem. “is” should be changed to “was”.
  • Both done.
  • Some critics like Gittins and Sims praised Trainor's vocal prowess on "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", while others thought its subdued style did not suit her. The latter felt that the song was the "most refreshing" on the album, and found its focus on her voice a welcome change from the production-heavy nature of other tracks. This could mean either Sims or the song’s critics. Make it clearer.
  • Done.
  • Wow. That was both shorter and longer than I expected. My I-90 review had 10+ bullets while this one only has 8.
Thanks a lot for the comments, Speatle. It is much appreciated!--NØ 12:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dugan Murphy edit

Though I just authored my first music article (Oshima Brothers), I am still largely inexperienced in this end of Wikipedia. Having said that, I'll read through the article and type out some comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't seem necessary to me to repeat in John Legend's photo caption what is said in that section about his guest vocals. I recommend changing the caption to simply "John Legend in 2008" or something like that.
  • WP:CAPTION recommends that a caption be succint but still "establish the picture's relevance to the article"
  • I'd say something similar about the music clip caption repeating information about the song's genre and Trainor's musical style. If you decide to keep that info in there, definitely change ", where" to "in which".
  • Likewise with this caption, we need to give readers context of what they're supposed to be hearing. I will take your wording suggestion.
  • Is it worth redlinking Big Yellow Dog Music? When I search for the phrase, I see it coming up in lots of other articles.
  • Personally I haven't done this on my other FAs and don't see how it would be particularly useful.
  • I am likewise remiss to redlink things, but I thought I would raise the question anyway, especially because this article is well outside my knowledge area. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's because I don't read many articles about music, but "sonically in the same vein" sounds awkward to me, and perhaps unnecessarily verbose. I recommend changing "served as the follow-up singles, which were sonically in the same vein and" to "served as similar follow-up singles" or something simpler like that. Just an idea.
  • Changed to "sonically similar". I think it is helpful to specify if the similarity is sonic or lyrical.
  • The use of "serviced" sounds odd to me. Is that industry jargon? Sounds to me like it should be "sent".
  • Changed to "promoted" since "sent" would cause repetition in the following sentence.
  • I had to read "following which one is relieved" a couple times to figure out what was being said. I think that should be reworded for clarity.
  • Does "after which one is relieved" work better according to you?
  • Not really. My mind first reads "which one is" instead of "following which" or "after which". What do you think about adding a comma after "which"? I've read it so many times that I'm not longer a good test subject, but I think adding that pause ought to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Same sentence: I think it may be worth changing "Trainor wrote" to "Trainor said she wrote" or something like that to make it clear who is being quoted, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution.
  • Done.
  • The sentences that begin "Trainor sings about how" and "In his verse" include quotes, but it's not clear who is being quoted. That information should be in the text of the article, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution.
  • Actually it is quoting the lyrics, which is already expressly implied. It is standard practice that these objective things not be erroneously credited to just one critic. I would suggest checking out composition sections on some other song FAs to get a hang of it.
  • Re-reading it now, I see how the text makes a clear reference to the lyrics. After the previous paragraph's discussion of critical interpretation, I guess I was stuck in that mindset in the second paragraph. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm being silly here, but shouldn't "Legend talks" be "Legend sings"?
  • Changed. This works too.

I'll read through the rest and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Trainor performed 'Like I'm Gonna Lose You' at the American Music Awards on November 22, 2015, in a medley with 'Marvin Gaye' (2015), her collaboration with Charlie Puth." After reading this sentence a couple of times, I was still unsure what Puth's role was. Did Puth sing Legend's role in the duet? I recommend rewording to make that more clear.
  • Clarified.
  • Credits and personnel: using a standalone sentence fragment to introduce two lists with bold headings seems like it is against the MOS, but I can't point to what the rule would be. I think I would probably make it a full sentence. But then, all that sentence does is express what is already said in the citation, so then I would be tempted to remove the sentence fragment and move the citation to the headers for the two lists since you probably don't want to repeat it after every single list item and you certainly don't want to put in the section header. What is your thinking here?
  • I converted it to a similar sentence as FAs "Shake It Off" and "Blank Space" which I frequently refer. Should be OK now.
  • There is at least one sentence (last sentence of the lede) with an Oxford comma, but also one (last sentence of the first paragraph of Live performances) without. I believe if you add the comma where it is missing that the article will be consistent.
  • Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed.

I really appreciate the global coverage of the commercial performance section. I don't know how common that is for music articles. Not having much experience with music articles, this one certainly seems comprehensive to me without being overly detailed. And the lede section does a good job of comprehensively summarizing the body without too much detail. I didn't spend too much time looking at the sources, but at a glance, they look reliable. I certainly appreciate that everything in the article is cited. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments and compliments, Dugan! Everything should be addressed now.--NØ 17:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I'm happy to support this nomination based on every criteria but the media, which I didn't check on. Ping me if I'm needed for anything else on this nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Removed.
  • Linked both now.
Prose
  • Amended.
  • Changed first and I welcome any ideas you may have for the other two.
  • There's not much scope for change considering we have to keep an active voice throughout, honestly. Like above, I welcome any specific ideas.
  • Removed.


Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee Vilenski.
Couple more points - one ref goes to a Dropbox page - how do we know this is official? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dropbox is an official link produced at ARIA's site here if you scroll down to click "Latest accreditations".
  • That page does not verify the certification actually. So it cannot be linked for verification here. The current link is automatically generated by the template and what other FAs use. I believe it is the most appropriate.
There is a lot of see also links - seems quite odd why they are in that place - do these fit WP:SEE ALSO. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi LV, sorry for bothering but I just wanted to know if those were all your comments or the review is still pending.--NØ 18:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jaguar edit

Evidently I've arrived late to the party. I have read through the article and cannot find any faults with it, prose-wise or with the sources. It is well-written, comprehensive and meets the FA criteria in my opinion. Support from me. ♦ jaguar 19:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@WP:FAC coordinators: If there is no issue, I would like to proceed with the next nomination sometime early in June. Thanks as always.--NØ 10:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate another article once there's a passed source review. (t · c) buidhe 13:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, do you have some time to do this source review?--NØ 18:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no -- I'm travelling until mid-June and am likely to be busy after that; I might be able to do a content review or two but not a source review which requires more organization of tabs and data than I can manage on an iPad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Hog Farm, I was wondering if you may consider passing this today. It would be cool if it became my second successful nomination within this month.--NØ 07:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • buidhe I meant promoting this nomination, actually.--NØ 20:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass) edit

  • All the citations appear reliable to me. I have a few comments about the formatting, but other than that, it is solid and I have done spot-checking and I could not find any issues with that.
  • Thank you so much. This is really a big help!
  • While this is not required for the FAC, I would encourage you to archive web citations, such as Citation 8, to avoid any future headache with link rot and death.
  • Done.
  • It should be made clear in Citation 91 that this is an archived version of the citation.
  • Done.
  • For foreign language citations, like Citation 56, would it be possible to include an English translation?
  • Unfortunately I wasn't able to find this on any of the other FAs I reference and I am not entirely sure this is possible.
Unless you just meant a trans-title, which I have gone ahead and added now.
  • Thank you for recognizing what I meant. Sorry about that confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Billboard citations are marked as requiring a subscription while others are not. I would imagine that it should be consistent throughout.
  • This is intentional as only Billboard chart refs seem to be behind a paywall. I believe another distinction is that subscription ones have "pro" in the url link!
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for explaining this to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this source review is helpful. Have a great rest of your week. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the citations one more time, but I believe at that point, it will pass my review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very helpful. I believe I have addressed everything, Aoba47.--NØ 07:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything! This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 27 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/Like_I%27m_Gonna_Lose_You/archive1&oldid=1090887887"