Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meghan Trainor/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2018 [1].
Meghan Trainor edit
This article is about American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor who has achieved seven multiplatinum hits in the United States including "All About That Bass" which is one of the very few songs to scan diamond. She was the recipient of the Grammy Award for Best New Artist in 2016 among her various other achievements.--NØ 07:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Comments, leaning oppose The article seems to be overly positive towards the subject and some of the sourcing is problematic:
- The only thing I know about Ms Tainor is the extensive discussion of her song "Dear Future Husband", with many commentators arguing that its lyrics and/or filmclip were sexist (e.g. [2], [3], [4]). There's no coverage at all of this in the article, aside from a vague and factually incorrect claim that a single website published an article arguing that she was anti-feminist: this actually seems to be a fairly widespread view.
- The statement that "Music critics and writers have noted Trainor's lyrics as a contemplation of 21st-century womanhood" is not supported by the source, which is a lightweight Buzzfeed listicle by a single author which makes no claim that her view is more widely held. This sentence is also very vague (the passive voice doesn't help).
- More broadly, the article seems to confine itself to critics with positive views of this artist, when it seems that there are also critics who hold negative views. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nick-D I completely agree with your assessment that the article lacked info about her criticism. I attempted to make it more neutral by expanding a bit on the body-shaming and sexism accusations. Could you have a look over the added content? Your input is highly appreciated!--NØ 00:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Spotchecks
- The list of instruments in the infobox and the body text do not match
- "Trainor has said that she aims to "break the chains" of the "absurd standards of thinness" she believes are promoted by the beauty industry with her lyrics" - as presented this seems to be a quote from Trainor herself, but it's not
- Conversely, "pairs a throwback sound with lyrics that contemplate 21st-century womanhood" is a direct quote from the source and should be presented as such
- Not seeing her mother's full name in any of the three citations provided
- "Aged 15, she took guitar lessons" - source has guitar lessons but not the age at which she took them
- "She earned her first songwriting royalties by writing for Italian and Danish artists" - sources support the Italian but not the Danish. (Sources says her song was released in Denmark but not that it was among her first songwriting royalties).
- "1950s doo wop-inspired songs that straddle the line between modern R&B and melodic pop" is a direct quote from the source
- "Her work is reminiscent of the famous Brill building composers, such as Gerry Goffin and Carole King, Ellie Greenwich and Jeff Barry, Neil Sedaka" - not seeing this in given sources
- "perpetuating retrograde beliefs about relationships" is almost the same as "perpetuates a retrograde belief about relationships" in the source
Oppose at this time as I'm concerned by the results of spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Rectified all of these concerns with this edit: [5]. Please look it over when you have time. In most of the places only the wrong source was cited at the end of the sentence instead of any information being incorrect, so I just had to move sources around for verification.--NØ 12:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Before I do that, have you had a chance to look at the other refs to see if there may have been other sources needing shifting around? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm confident about all the sections after Title. Most of the content about her early life was added by Lips Are Movin (who's inactive now but has been honorably added as a co-nom here anyway) so I'm not completely sure about its sourcing but am here to address any concerns that may arise.--NØ 16:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's not really how it's meant to work -- if a reviewer expresses fundamental concerns about the sourcing then it's up to the nominator to go through each and every reference and ensure that all claims are supported by sources and there are no instances of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. That takes time and legwork and is best done away from the FAC process; I'm going to archive this so that can take place. After that, I know you tried a Peer Review before FAC but I'd have another go prior to a future nomination here. Alternatively you'd be eligible to seek the involvement of a FAC mentor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have withdrawn the nom or supported archiving it so soon. I think you took my statement a bit out of context. I've read the whole article completely and as a fan I'm 90% sure that all of the information is correct. Its just that incorrect sources are present at the end of some sentences which don't completely verify the information. Letting this FAC stay open for at least a month would have created absolutely no problems and have only been benificial for the article.--NØ 10:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- As I said above, it's not simply verifying that the sources support the article text but also ensuring there are no instances of directly quoting without attribution or closely paraphrasing, cases of which Nikki also identified in her initial spotcheck. Once that's done it will require further independent spotchecking, and I'd like to see all that done away from FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have withdrawn the nom or supported archiving it so soon. I think you took my statement a bit out of context. I've read the whole article completely and as a fan I'm 90% sure that all of the information is correct. Its just that incorrect sources are present at the end of some sentences which don't completely verify the information. Letting this FAC stay open for at least a month would have created absolutely no problems and have only been benificial for the article.--NØ 10:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's not really how it's meant to work -- if a reviewer expresses fundamental concerns about the sourcing then it's up to the nominator to go through each and every reference and ensure that all claims are supported by sources and there are no instances of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. That takes time and legwork and is best done away from the FAC process; I'm going to archive this so that can take place. After that, I know you tried a Peer Review before FAC but I'd have another go prior to a future nomination here. Alternatively you'd be eligible to seek the involvement of a FAC mentor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm confident about all the sections after Title. Most of the content about her early life was added by Lips Are Movin (who's inactive now but has been honorably added as a co-nom here anyway) so I'm not completely sure about its sourcing but am here to address any concerns that may arise.--NØ 16:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Before I do that, have you had a chance to look at the other refs to see if there may have been other sources needing shifting around? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.