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]

• MOS:CONFORMTITLE
  as a way of assessing article preparedness for FAC, but helpfully pointing out that without meeting this guideline an article will not pass criterion 2 and will be ineligible for promotion. That they were also gently reminding you that in their opinion you seem to be repeatedly bringing articles to FAC with similar failings. This is the sort of thing which reviewers are supposed to do: to quote the FAC instructions "the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria". Further "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism". Heartfox might reasonably have expected thanks for pointing out weaknesses in the article, especially considering that as they consider them repeated and systematic issues they would not have been out of order to oppose.

• Heartfox, thank you for your contributions - here and elsewhere - to ensuring that nominations to FAC meet the criteria. I appreciate them. However, it is possible that you are over-reacting to the diff you post above. I see no mention of you or any other editor; just an in context comment that MOS:CONFORMTITLE "issues should probably be fixed before an FAC, lest someone moan about it there". In this they are quite right - it is the sort of thing I have had reason to moan about myself when reviewing, and which I moan about further immediately above. I think it helpful that they are passing on such tips and do not, myself, find the mildly jocular way in which they do so inappropriate.

• I hope that you will both assume good faith, step away from the horse and concentrate on what you are both so good at - improving Wikipedia articles.

• For information, the closing coordinator will be taking into account Heartfox's comments above in reaching their decision, regardless of whether they subsequently decide to formally support or oppose. If time permits I shall review the article myself, taking especially into account MOS:CONFORMTITLE. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation here, Gog the Mild, and thanks for addressing me by my name which I prefer to "the nominator". And I do thank Heartfox for their review, which I think has improved the article tremendously whether they decide to support or not. Anyways, the fact that they went through seven (!) of my FACs and then also started reading peer reviews I was doing for other articles stood out as quite unusual to me. Obviously, my comment on the peer review was a general one and this user was not tagged or mentioned by name in any way. I do not anticipate being stalked all the time and having to censor myself everywhere I post... To date I have commented on only one or two of their FACs, which were years apart. I hope their review here is registered as a support because this was a decent amount of work...--NØ 12:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I can't assume good faith here, not after MaranoFan's edit summary is a boldface lie. At no point publicly or privately have I "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". Show me the diff, MaranoFan. You moved the comments here because, as you noted on my talk page, you think my review might dissuade other editors from reviewing. What a ridiculous thing to do to move comments to a talk page simply because the reviewer did not support and say it's because of "page loading time". There's three reviews; how can the page loading time be slow? Support is not mandatory, and there is no oppose, so I don't know what the issue is. I did not go through your peer reviews to find the comment. I am active on the peer review page and it is one nominated by Aoba47, who I have worked with frequently. I don't stalk you and have never even edited any of the Meghan Trainor or Adele articles you focus on. The featured article stats are all available publicly at https://facstats.toolforge.org/editor.php. I did not systematically go through your edit history to find anything.

But you are recently commenting in various places clearly referring to me, but not by name, like at Gog's talk page about this FAC: "and it would be a good confidence building measure after someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards (my nom would be eligible for the same award) tried to derail it by starting political arguments". Wtf is this about? Nothing was derailed, there is no oppose (and never was), the review concluded (as I indicated), and the article is better. You are reading into things that are not there and continue mischaracterizing the review. The above comments should be returned to the main page as they were moved here under false pretenses, and I hope MaranoFan will retract their outrageous lie about my withdrawing from the review, which I never did nor indicated. In fact, I said that "Everything has been addressed". Heartfox (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under no obligation should an inflammatory

WP:FAC, not this individual review page. I think we are done here unless there are any further concerns with the article content or anything strictly related to the FA criteria (which is an article award, not "who's the sweetest cutuu reviewer" award). Please disengage immediately if you cannot bring it back to the content.--NØ 17:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• @
  WP:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE says that "reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive." I didn't know nominators can also do this, even when the resolved commentary is relatively short? I am struggling to comprehend my future at WP:FAC if nominators can just transfer all of my reviews to the FAC talk page because they feel like it. Heartfox (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]