Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Title (EP)/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [1].

Title (EP) edit

Nominator(s): NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's debut extended play Title, which was promoted for a very short duration in 2014. It had a modest commercial performance and was the first appearance of Trainor's best-selling single "All About That Bass" on a full-length project. It received mixed reviews from critics who noted its repetitive lyrical themes despite its short duration. You may have heard its title track when it went viral on TikTok last year. I have reworked this article recently and think it is in good shape. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

  • The lead says the EP received mixed reviews, but only the negative aspects are highlighted.
  • Added the positive aspect.
  • It may be worthwhile to link catchiness in the "the catchiest stuff" quote.
  • Linked.
  • Agreed on both.
  • I'd change the ballad link to sentimental ballad as I believe that is more accurate and reflective of this type of music.
  • Done.
  • For Citation 41, there appears to be an author named for the article (i.e. Ians). It's not much of a by-line, but I'd include it in the citation for completion sake.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks solid to me. These are my comments after reading through the article a few times. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through everything one more time. I hope this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for another very helpful review, Aoba47! These should all be addressed now.--NØ 01:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds great to me.--NØ 01:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once this last point, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. It's going well. Hope you are having a great week as well!--NØ 10:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias edit

  • Article's prose is looking good so far, although some concerns present themselves.
  • The standout one - the article says that the EP "received mixed reviews"; however, no source directly says this. We need to be careful with summarising reception like this, since this counts as novel synthesis and goes against the original research policy. Does Metacritic aggregate reviews for EPs? They might help.
  • Metacritic usually picks up releases with more than four mainstream reviews so this one didn't get a page, unfortunately. However, I think a summary sentence is necessary and "mixed reviews" is the best way of putting it. A true example of synthesis would be if I said "Every critic in the universe raved about the EP and thought Trainor's vocals resembled Mariah Carey"
  • Ah, I see. With the reviews using a five-star system to indicate a positive, negative, or mediocre review, I suppose I'll let this one slide as a summary sentence. Usually I'm more critical of things like these in song articles, where multiple, separate reviews for songs are rare, and it's harder to make value judgments of commentary. Consider this resolved
  • Minor nitpick - "It additionally entered charts", shouldn't this be "It also entered charts"?
  • Done.
  • "Trainor's eponymous 2009 release" we can simplify this to "Meghan Trainor (2009)" since the previous sentence doesn't mention her name and there's no concern with repetition.
  • Probably it would cause confusion to any readers that don't understand italics demarcate album titles.
  • We could sidestep that by changing "These included ..." to "these albums included ..."
  • I see that the above suggestion has been implemented, though I'm still keen on simplifying "eponymous ... release". Both album and release are already in the previous sentence, so there's some clunkiness in here
  • Switched.
  • For the "Music and lyrics" section, I've added some commas and semicolons in places where I think they were missing, as well some (hopefully) minor copyedits. Diff to visualize. Feel free to revert some of these. Otherwise, this section is pretty good.
  • The copyedits look good to me, though I really prefer making all the changes myself, lol.
  • That's neat to know. I'm just concerned with asking editors to make really really minor and nitpicky changes that would be resolved faster if I were to boldly do them myself.
  • "Epic Records released the EP as a ... digital download four days later." - "released the EP in compact disc (CD) and digital download formats"
  • Hmm, I'm not sure about using "in" in the sentence with "formats". Can we keep the existing wording if it's not too much of an issue?
  • Fuck, miswrote this, I meant to write as "released the EP through CD and download formats" etc.
  • "The October 3, 2014, digital release of 'All About That Bass' ... shared an identical track list." this would fit better in the second paragraph, preferably after the opening sentence
  • The second paragraph is about singles and the first one is about release formats for the EP. Since it shares an identical tracklist (aka basically is the EP), I think it goes in the first paragraph.
  • Perhaps it's because of the way it's currently worded that made me think it was out of place. That sentence alone is giving me a lot of details, overwhelming me. I would suggest trimming the release dates for the German-speaking countries
  • I hope the revised wording addressed your concern.
  • Way better; thank you
  • The body shaming wikilink can be expanded to "shaming thin women" to reduce WP:EASTEREGG issues
  • Done.
  • "The title track became a trend" hard to parse. -> "The title track went viral" might be better
  • Worded this a bit differently and I kind of prefer to link to Viral marketing instead since the other one is too general.
  • Fair enough
  • "various television shows." she also performed this on concerts
  • Added, sans the Jingle Ball Tour which isn't noteworthy enough for the lead in my opinion.
  • I was referring to the wording in "Release and promotion", but nonetheless good catch
  • Added there too.
  • Also performed some copyedits on the "Critical reception" section. Diff to visualize. Again, feel free to revert anything here.
  • "...as 'soulful' and 'highly resonant' and deemed it catchy" you can simplify this to 'soulful, highly resonant, and catchy'
  • Done.
  • "Others criticized the repetitive lyrical themes on Title given its short duration. I don't understand the "short duration" bit.
  • The criticism seemed to come from the fact that the EP is short in duration but still features repetitive lyrical themes.
  • I see, this explains things. Though I imagine there is a clearer way to express this meaning in the article, no?
  • Changed to "despite", can't think of simpler wording than that.
  • Is it possible to split the critical reception section into two paragraphs, dividing the positive/not-very-negative details from the more critical ones?
  • Compared to other paragraphs in the article, two split paragraphs here would stick out and look too short.
  • I'll allow it. There is still some cohesion in this one paragraph, so a split isn't too necessary
  • Omg, thanks for allowing it!
  • Tables and lists are okay.
  • Glad to hear that.
  • That is all from me. The article covers all the important details of the EP with sufficient comprehension, and apart from the stuff I pointed out, it's written and researched pretty well! Ran Earwig for any copyvio; no glaring issues found. Will support(tm) once all my concerns have been addressed. Well done for another great article, Marano.
‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks.--NØ 05:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to prose, five two concerns remain. I've striked the ones that are already addressed.

Image review (Pass) edit

Will also do this since I have free time. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 03:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Meghan Trainor Title EP Album Cover.png - infobox image and cover art; FUR is good. ALT text is fine. For the source link, including an archived version would help for posterity and verifiability.
  • Included an archive.
  • File:KK Fano.JPG - licensed to public domain by the photographer, a Wikipedia user. It shows Kadish in a recording studio, which is appropriate given its placement in the article. ALT text is sufficient.
  • Agreed.
  • File:Meghan Trainor (15996126761).jpg - optional, but this photo looks too big on my screen, so I would recommend doing |upright=0.7 on it. Flickr licensing is verified. There's ALT text, although only the first sentence is really essential; try to keep them short and avoid oversharing.
  • Shortened alt text; the picture looks fine on desktop as well as mobile for me, though, and looks too small with upright. Also in the past I have been discouraged from modifying image sizes.
  • Thanks for clipping. From my observations of FAC throughout the months, it seems like using fixed px size isn't allowed. Scaling is fine - see MOS:UPRIGHT

Pseud 14 edit

Placeholder, going to provide comments soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to be in good shape. Here are a few comments/suggestions from me:

  • but considered the lyrics too repetitive given its short duration and questioned what else Trainor is capable of doing musically – perhaps you can be direct by saying “but considered the lyrics too repetitive and questioned Trainor’s musicality (or musical talent)”
  • three albums of material she had written – three albums from material she had written..
  • felt a strong song-writing – believe either is correct, but be consistent with use of songwriting or song-writing
  • due to its doo-wop pop production - perhaps replace production with either "style", "theme" or "sound"
  • I would probably unlink either girl power or women empowerment, as I think they are both synonymous.
  • Same with "body image" and "self-acceptance", as they tend to be self-explanatory, to avoid WP:OVERLINK
  • That's all I have. Another solid Meghan Trainor related article here. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the really helpful review, Pseud 14. I really appreciate it! All done.--NØ 17:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support this article for promotion.
If you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your feedback as well on my current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG edit

Placeholder FrB.TG (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FrB.TG!--NØ 15:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The EP debuted at number 15 on the Billboard 200 and sold 171,000 copies in the United States." Is this figure in total or just for the debut week?
  • It's the total figure. I'd go with something like "debuted at number 15 with 171,000 copies sold" if it were for the debut week.
  • "These albums included Meghan Trainor (2009), and her 2010 albums I'll Sing with You and Only 17." - repetitive prose ("these albums included ... albums").
  • Fixed.
  • The release and promotion section lists three singles from the EP, yet the EP infobox only mentions "All About the Bass" as its single.
  • "Lips Are Movin" was only included on the 2015 full-length and "Husband" served as a single from that as well. Though not released in the promotional run for the EP, I considered this relevant to mention here.
In that case, it should be clarified that the singles were released as parts of the LP and not the EP. FrB.TG (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes N-Magazine a high-quality reliable source?
  • Removed.
  • Done.
  • Us Weekly is a subpar source and should generally be avoided in an FA.
  • Eliminated.
  • Ref. 58 returns a 'not found' result.
  • Fixed.

I have made some changes here to make minor copy-edits, eliminate prose redundancy and fix MoS/punctuation issues. Let me know if I messed up something or if you don't see them as improvements. FrB.TG (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edits all look great to me. Thanks again for the review, FrB.TG!--NØ 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns were addressed in a speedy manner by the nominator. I have left one reply above concerning the release of Trainor's next two singles, but that should not affect my support. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar edit

To come soon. ♦ jaguar 18:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--NØ 15:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jaguar is now inactive for almost a week and has not been able to respond to my message and email.--NØ 06:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was in hospital a few days ago which was why I couldn't respond, but everything is alright now. As I'm making my read-through very late I cannot find any issues with the article which warrants rectifying. It is evidently well-written and comprehensive. I was going to do a source review but was beaten on that, so I have little choice but to outright support it. Sorry for the lame comments! ♦ jaguar 10:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, no worries at all. I hope you are doing better now. Thanks for taking the time to give this article a read anyways!--NØ 10:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Done.
  • Is the title of ref 56 intentional?
  • Yes, it doesn't go to the right link with any alternate titling.
  • Assuming USA Today is meant to have a link in ref 67
  • Yes! Thanks for catching this.
  • jpc (last ref) seems to be stylized in lowercase? Not sure if should be here as well
  • Seems to be an abbreviation of "Jazz Pop Classic" so I figured it probably goes in caps.
  • Indeed—I refer to the jpc Wikipedia page, with the title all lowercased, making me assume this is how they market themselves. Fine with it either way. Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • Songwriter Universe seems kind eh in this regard, but as an interview it's probably fine
  • Agreed, I probably wouldn't use it for critical commentary but I deemed it a quality interview for background information.
  • Well the Wikipedia page for Stereogum doesn't make it sound all that reliable, but that site itself seems high-quality reporting in regards to the subject matter
  • The critic cited has contributed to several prestigious publications like Billboard and Rolling Stone (Full list). I do think its usage in this particular article is important and irreplaceable.
Verifiability
  • I greatly appreciate the source review. Cheers!--NØ 21:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to help! I've left one brief response. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: Sorry for bothering, just asking if it would be okay for me to nominate another one at this point. Regards.--NØ 16:29, 26 July 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/Title_(EP)/archive1&oldid=1101234989"