Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1: Difference between revisions

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Content deleted Content added
Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers
90,423 edits
→‎Aoba47: Thank you for your patience. This should be the end of my review.
Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers
16,052 edits
Line 10: Line 10:
====Comments from Heartfox====
====Comments from Heartfox====
* {{strike|cover is missing alt text}}
* {{strike|cover is missing alt text}}
* "on shows such as ''The Today Show'' and ''The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon''" → three "shows" in a row
* {{strike|"on shows such as ''The Today Show'' and ''The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon''" → three "shows" in a row}}
**I would just reword "shows" to "programs". ''Today'' and ''Tonight'' are a bit jarring and nonspecific
**{{strike|I would just reword "shows" to "programs". ''Today'' and ''Tonight'' are a bit jarring and nonspecific}}
* {{strike|"deeming it more than just a sequel to Title" → only one reviewer (Piatkowski) seems to say this definitively. Maybe include Akass, but then you have Erlewine and Westrom who disagree that it is different from ''Title''. So it's basically a 2v2 thing.}}
* {{strike|"deeming it more than just a sequel to Title" → only one reviewer (Piatkowski) seems to say this definitively. Maybe include Akass, but then you have Erlewine and Westrom who disagree that it is different from ''Title''. So it's basically a 2v2 thing.}}
* {{strike|"with audiences on it. Trainor gained popularity on it" → "on it" repetition}}
* {{strike|"with audiences on it. Trainor gained popularity on it" → "on it" repetition}}
Line 19: Line 19:
* {{strike|"AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine believed that Takin' It Back employs electronic elements as a small part of the execution, with old-timey but contemporarily presented tracks at its heart" → verbose}}
* {{strike|"AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine believed that Takin' It Back employs electronic elements as a small part of the execution, with old-timey but contemporarily presented tracks at its heart" → verbose}}
* {{strike|"It has a digital style" → what is a digital style?}}
* {{strike|"It has a digital style" → what is a digital style?}}
* "a moody and ruminative" → these are the exact adjectives used by Piatkowski... also subjective
* {{strike|"a moody and ruminative" → these are the exact adjectives used by Piatkowski... also subjective}}
**a ref is needed after "moody, ruminative"
**{{strike|a ref is needed after "moody, ruminative"}}
* {{strike|"on radio-format charts" → specify which}}
* {{strike|"on radio-format charts" → specify which}}
* {{strike|"The second single, 'Made You Look'" → not supported by AllAccess ref}}
* {{strike|"The second single, 'Made You Look'" → not supported by AllAccess ref}}
Line 34: Line 34:
::Just two follow-up comments. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::Just two follow-up comments. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Done on both points. Cheers!--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Done on both points. Cheers!--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Everything has been addressed, but because the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/My_Man_(Tamar_Braxton_song)/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=1155042672 moaning]", I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 20:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


==== Aoba47 ====
==== Aoba47 ====

Revision as of 20:38, 16 May 2023

Takin' It Back

Takin' It Back (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator(s): NØ 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's album Takin' It Back. After the disastrous rollout of her third album, which was delayed for several years and rewritten four times, Trainor successfully incorporated TikTok into her promotional strategies and achieved a comeback. She trusted her instincts in the studio and took a more spontaneous approach with Takin' It Back. While critically the album went under the radar, it produced the bonafide hit "Made You Look". Happy Mother's Day, and thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

  • cover is missing alt text
  • "on shows such as The Today Show and The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon" → three "shows" in a row
    • I would just reword "shows" to "programs". Today and Tonight are a bit jarring and nonspecific
  • "deeming it more than just a sequel to Title" → only one reviewer (Piatkowski) seems to say this definitively. Maybe include Akass, but then you have Erlewine and Westrom who disagree that it is different from Title. So it's basically a 2v2 thing.
  • "with audiences on it. Trainor gained popularity on it" → "on it" repetition
  • "connect with everyone globally" → can be paraphrased
  • "Is this trash or amazing? Is this garbage or is this dope?" → needs a ref after quote mark
  • "Takin' It Back's title was inspired by the positive feeling Trainor felt after songwriter Mozella told her other artists wished to emulate her sound, the first time she felt it since writing "Dear Future Husband" → I don't understand what this means
  • "AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine believed that Takin' It Back employs electronic elements as a small part of the execution, with old-timey but contemporarily presented tracks at its heart" → verbose
  • "It has a digital style" → what is a digital style?
  • "a moody and ruminative" → these are the exact adjectives used by Piatkowski... also subjective
    • a ref is needed after "moody, ruminative"
  • "on radio-format charts" → specify which
  • "The second single, 'Made You Look'" → not supported by AllAccess ref
  • MOS:CONFORMTITLE
    seems to be missed in many cases
  • "He believed Takin' It Back did not constitute a definitive return to form for Trainor, some of its catchier parts "sound[ing] light and airy to the point of candy floss", but believed the ballads, on which she attempted to "write something more substantial", were high points of the album and highlighted her "talents as a top-shelf pop tunesmith" → three quotations and four commas in one sentence is needlessly complicated
  • Not really seeing a structure to the critical reception section; there aren't any summarizing sentences. After reading it I don't know what to take away.
  • Commercial performance could use some more context as to the album's performance in relation to her discography other than just the US
  • what is the source of the track listing, track length, and personnel?
  • "Chart performance for Takin' It Back" → specify whether it's weekly, monthly, annual, etc.
  • Pop Culture
    PopCulture.com

Overall I wish the nomination was more prepared. For example, MOS:CONFORMTITLE has been brought up by three different reviewers in four of the nominator's last seven FACs, and yet it is mostly ignored again. I would have expected it to be addressed before nominating at this point. Heartfox (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing such an in-depth review so swiftly, Heartfox. I believe I have addressed it all. I disagree that MOS:CONFORMTITLE is the best way of assessing article preparedness, since this is something that doesn't affect readers as much and plenty of editors forget to do it until it is highlighted to them. In good faith, I have addressed that too.--NØ 11:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just two follow-up comments. Heartfox (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done on both points. Cheers!--NØ 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been addressed, but because the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as "moaning", I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process. Heartfox (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • This is so nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part (Trainor worked with producers including Federico Vindver, Gian Stone, Kid Harpoon, and Tyler Johnson, to create it.), I am not sure the "to create it" part is necessary.
  • It has been a while since I looked at an album article that had a deluxe rerelease so apologies in advance if this question is obvious. Should the "Mother" single release be represented in some way in the infobox?
  • I am not sure about this sentence: (Her collaborators would previously dismiss ideas she had conceived prior to sessions, but the material worked on for Takin' It Back was started by Trainor alone.) I understand the meaning, and it is solid information that is worth including in the article, but for whatever reason, I just found the wording off. I had to read a few times. It might just be me, but I would look at this sentence more to see if revisions would improve. Apologies for being vague about it as I cannot quite put my finger on it.
  • It's definitely not just you! Hopefully I was able to improve this a little bit.
  • For this part (minimally employs electronic elements), would it be beneficial to include a link to electronic music?
  • Motown
    was recently deleted so now it is a red link. There is nothing wrong with red links, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.
  • Apologies again as this is nitpick-y, but "elements" is used twice in a similar context for two sentences in a row: (Its production incorporates digital elements and modern R&B beats.) and (The fourth track, "Don't I Make It Look Easy", has percussion instrumentation and R&B elements). I would avoid that sort of repetition if possible.
  • It might be helpful to link girlboss here, (typical narratives about women being "girlboss[es]"), as while it may be a common phrase now, I could see some readers wanting more context for it.
  • Would it be possible to link debonair horns? I have never heard of these kinds of horns before so I think a link may be helpful for an unfamiliar reader like myself. I might just be dumb though lol.
  • Debonair is just an adjective here, it's referring to regular horns :)
  • I feel really dumb now lol. Thank you for that clarification.
    Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • None, unfortunately. The Rolling Stone article came the closest but even that barely mentioned the names.
  • That was my understanding. Thank you for the clarification.
    Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The "Bad for Me" and "Made You Look" music videos were very critically low-profile releases. Jenner's appearance in the "Mother" video is the primary reason for the song's notability and garnered enough coverage to warrant a mention in my opinion, weightage-wise. I've reworked the sentence keeping your comments in mind.
  • Understandable. Unfortunately, "Bad for Me" faded completely, while the focus for "Made for You" was its popularity on TikTok. Thank you for the clarification here. I have looked at the other album FAs, such as 1989, and it is best to keep the more specific information on the songs to the respective song articles.
    Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I would avoid using "thought" twice in close proximity for (Piatkowski thought the album) and (Renowned for Sound's Max Akass thought it).
  • It might just be a personal preference so take this with a grain of salt, but I would end the paragraph with the Piatkowski review as it is more mixed than the others. That way, the paragraph goes from positive reviews and ends with a more mixed one, which serves as a bridge to the following paragraph about negative reviews.
  • I am not sure what to think of the "Commercial performance" section as it is a single and rather short paragraph. I could see this information being collapsed into the "Release and promotion" section rather easily.
  • I am not sure about "Release, promotion and commercial performance" as a section title, and the current section order of release→reception→commercial performance makes chronological sense in my opinion. The current arrangement is my preference.
  • The section title would not need to be changed.
    Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of the comments above are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I catch everything. I think you have done a wonderful job and a majority of my comments are either nitpicks or clarification questions. To be clear, I am focused primarily on the prose. On a side-note, I am surprised Trainor did not try promoting more singles from the standard edition after "Made You Look" blew up as I could see "Mama Wanna Mambo" getting a similar treatment. That being said, I understand the rationale behind "Mother". Best of luck with the FAC!

Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you so much for the very helpful review,
Aoba47! If I am being completely honest I look forward to a review from you on any nomination I make, so I seriously appreciate it. Given Trainor's pregnancy and her current book tour, I guess I understand her decision to halt promotion despite the album potential.--NØ 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I have two related questions about this part: (revolves around her pregnancy's impact, its complicated nature). Could you clarify what her pregnancy is impacting (such as Trainor as a whole, her health, her relationship, etc.) and what is meant by complicated nature (such as this a broader description of pregnancy as a whole or is it more specific to Trainor)?
  • I am not sure about this part, ("Shook" is about her impressive looks), specifically saying "impressive looks" in Wikipedia's voice. To be clear, this is not meant as a critique as Trainor as I would not think it is entirely appropriate to say someone has "impressive looks" in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. presenting it like a fact).

Thank you for your patience with my review. Once my final two comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose.

Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Media review—pass

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the media review!--NØ 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]