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

Comments from Heartfox

Moved from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1--NØ 20:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]