Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dear Future Husband/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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) 25 June 2022 [1].

Dear Future Husband

Nominator(s): NØ 09:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about

gender roles. This nomination marks a full circle moment for me as this was one of the first proper articles I created, way back in 2014, and I have seen it through DYK, GAN, and now an FAC! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 09:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Support from Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the

wikicup
once this review is over.

Lede
  • Revised.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin Kadish produced the song and wrote it with Trainor, could we mention Trainor first, perhaps say that Trainor wrote the song alongside Kadish, who also produced the song? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--NØ 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song went top 20 in 15 countries, so I figured naming all of them in the lead would be excessive. Let me know what you think.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Switched to "chant". Hopefully that works better?--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are separate releases, an EP and an album.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Additional comments
  • I have no idea how this actually works, but it looks like the title of the song is "Dear Future Husband" with speech marks, is this not also suitable for the article title? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title does not include the quotes, this is just the MOS.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not all that important, but the audio sample states it is 19 seconds long, not 18. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminated the sample length with an alternate caption.--NØ 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • baritone saxophone and tenor saxophone - could we not say "baritone and tenor saxophones?" Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • named it one of the two best songs on the album - bit of a weird thing to be happy about. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I think it is noteworthy.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee Vilenski.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi LV, since you already indicated that was the conclusion of your review in a summary, I wanted to ask if the concerns have been addressed to your satisfaction. Thanks!--NØ 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. I'll probably have another squint over the article in a bit and confirm there's nothing else that pops out and then support. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

  • Added Trainor's Facebook too, Popdust was also an option but I personally do not prefer that.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Facebook page should work. It is a primary source, but I believe that would be appropriate in this context and it is a better alternative than either Amazon or Popdust.
    Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I have a suggestion about this part, it lists things a potential romantic suitor needs to do to win Trainor's affection. I think it would be better to say something like: in it, Trainor lists things a potential romantic suitor needs to do to win her affection. I think attributing listing to the song itself reads a little weirdly, but that may just be me.
  • I do not think piano needs a link since a majority of readers are likely familiar with the instrument already and it would cut down on the amount of links in that particular section. I have a similar comment for the sailor link.
  • Agreed on both. Thanks for noticing that!--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may just be a personal preference, but I do not think it is necessary to include this part, awarded the song an "A−" grade, I would only this kind of grading in the prose if it is notable in itself, but that does not appear to be the case here. I think it would be better to use this space to focus more on what the reviewer says in the article. However, I know other editors appreciate so it is up to you. I just wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • Removed that bit. Don't think there's anything else in that source worth adding instead, though.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part: when he brings her a carryout pizza. Maybe it's because I'm an American, but I've not really heard "carryout pizza" before. I think it would be simpler to say, when he delivers her a pizza.
  • Removed "carryout". I think the word "deliver" may lead readers to believe that Puth portrayed a pizza delivery guy, though, which wasn't the case, so probably we shouldn't use that.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point and I do agree with your rationale for this.
    Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Done. I'm not sure the sentence structure I have used is the best so do mention if you have any other ideas for it.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does look better. I will re-read that part in the future. I do appreciate that it is brief as it should not be too long, but I will put more though into it in the future.
    Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I would re-examine the first paragraph of the "Reception" subsection in the "Music video" section. It has solid content, but I think it could be structured better. There seem to be two common ideas: 1) the retro and domestic image present in the video and 2) how it is more frightening or more concerning than other music videos. I think this section would benefit from a more solid transition from one idea to the other because it is rather abrupt right now.
  • That looks better to me. Thank you for the edits to this.
    Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

These are my comments from my first read-through of the article, and once everything has been addressed above, I would be more than happy to look through it again so I can do my due diligence as a reviewer. If I am being honest, I am not a fan of this song, and I actually prefer "

Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks a lot,
Aoba47. Looking forward to your read and subsequent comments! I do think a lot of Trainor's early decline can be attributed to a bad PR team and managerial decisions. I'm currently working on the Title album article so I guess the song of the same name might eventually be on my radar too, lol.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Support from Ippantekina

I heard this song back in the day and I thought, wow, what a cheesy song. I did not expect a doo-wop song to gain such attention in the 2010s, but I guess some trends do receive revived interest... Either way, here are my first comments after glancing at the article, will go through the prose in-depth in the upcoming days.

  • Removed.--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per
    WP:PERSONNEL
    we don't generally include studios; mention them in the prose instead.
  • I can't find any quote specifically asking not to mention the studios, so I've always considered it a matter of personal choice. Personally I find this information useful.--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's really down to personal preferences.
    Ippantekina (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Glad to have a review from you,
Ippantekina. I regularly refer to the 1989 articles for inspiration. Looking forward to your comments :)--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I really admire the work some Swifties put into the 1989 articles as well! I am currently nominating "
Out of the Woods" at FAC to save the status of 1989 as a featured topic (with the recent addition of "This Love
" as a non-FA...), and I hope you could give some feedback there.
  • Lead—"her debut extended play, which was later included on her 2015 debut major-label studio album of the same name"; dangling modifier
  • I suppose you meant I should remove it. Removed.
  • A link to
    music critics
    would be helpful
  • Added.
  • "fellow Trainor songs" sounds off; "other" is more straightforward
  • Since "other" was causing repetition I went with "various". I'm open to ideas here, really.
  • "and attained multi-platinum certifications" can a song "attain" a certification?
  • Changed to "received".
  • MOS:THEMUSIC
    )
  • Done.
  • Background—"and reached number one in 58 countries, selling 11 million units worldwide" these two clauses are unrelated
  • Hopefully my revision fixed this.
  • "was included as a B-side on the digital release of "All About That Bass" in Austria,[13] Germany,[14] and Switzerland," I think these three sources are not exhaustive, so a general statement (in some European countries) could do
  • Done.
  • "and serviced it to contemporary hit radio stations" can a label "service" a song to radio? "send" would be a better and simpler word choice
  • Agreed.
  • Music and lyrics—I am unsure if Stereogum qualifies as a FA-worthy source, but I will leave this up to the source reviewer.
  • I have qualms about Stereogum as a site too but DeVille is considered an expert in the field and is admissible for critical commentary.
  • I think the Rolling Stone sources do not require paid subscription for some first reads, so set the url-access parameter to "limited" instead of "subscription"
  • Thanks for pointing this out!
  • I could see it either way but removed the link just to be safe.
  • Critical reception—"betrayal of conventional gender roles" I am unsure what this means
  • Hopefully "alternative take" gets the point across? What I'm trying to convey is it differed from them.
  • "poetically and sonically similar" "poetically" is a little POV (?) would "lyrically" do?
  • Causing slight repetition but I changed it.
  • Revised.
  • Commercial performance—"initially peaked" I thought the song initially peaked back in 2014?
  • It entered the chart in 2014 and its peak as a non-single was on the chart dated January 10, 2015 (which was still 2014 in real time).
  • "On the Canadian Hot 100, the song charted at number 22 and Music Canada certified it 3× Platinum" I would say "In Canada, the song peaked at number 22 on the Canadian Hot 100 and was certified 3× Platinum by Music Canada"
  • Done.
  • Music video—"She premiered the video at Today" on Today?
  • Works better imo. Changed.
  • (unrelated) "she approves of Puth when he brings her a pizza" why is this so funny
  • The whole video is kind of parodic and humorous in my opinion, lol.
  • "Some critics directed positive commentary" simply "Some critics praised" to me personally, simplicity is king.
  • Changed.
  • Live performances—I find information about what the singer wears and what accessories were used for some live performances trivial for a Wikipedia article, unless the performance receives extensive media coverage and a certain degree of "iconicity" to it (like Britney Spears' python use during the 2001 VMAS; but again, who defines what is iconic..?). I am up to discussion with you on this matter though, and the rest of the section is well written.
  • I decided to include this commentary because the song only received two real performances outside of the tours, so the section would really be kind of short without it. I could see an argument for omitting it but I don't think keeping it is too harmful, since it is available from reputed sources.
  • Those are my comments on prose, and I will leave other reviewers to take care of media/source/spotcheck/MOS reviews if necessary. Please ping me if you have any queries. Cheers,
    Ippantekina (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. One remaining issue I have is with the opening sentence--can we reword it to something like in the "
    Ippantekina (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Happy to support this article on prose. A personal note... when Meghan Trainor released such songs as "Me Too" or "No", I was surprised she could stay relevant reinventing her styles. I wonder what went wrong with her following releases... Brilliant work with the article!
Ippantekina (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Media review from SNUGGUMS (Pass)

My only qualm right now among files used is the audio length. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the sample duration thing seems to be happening on a lot of articles. I can vouch for the (original upload's) length being compliant with the limits as the uploader, though.—NØ 21:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that consistency issue gets resolved ASAP. In the meantime, the media review passes for this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • I think SongwriterUniverse should be italicized? Isn't it a work/magazine?
  • You could consider Scott Simon and Trainor as co-authors for ref 10, but I wouldn't think this is required
  • Title case for ref 18? Are you meaning to do title case every time or something else?
  • All Title case now.
  • Something weird is going on with ref 20's link, it's saying that the link is unsecure
  • Ref 21 doesn't have a date
  • ref 63 needs an 'in Polish'
  • Refs 73 and 74 shouldn't be italicized (should be publishers)
  • I'm gonna guess you meant 72 and 73?
Reliability
  • I'm fine with the use of primary sources as the YT and Insta refs, as long as there's no secondary alternatives available?
  • There are none.
  • I would say the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is from a big enough city to warrant inclusion, but perhaps the Knoxville News Sentinel is a bit niche? What do you think about this?—getting at the 'high quality' requirement here
  • I had included it because it is owned by Gannett, which publishes several reputed newspapers including USA Today, The Tennessean, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (full list in the article), and their extensive staff team didn't give me any pause either. Removed since its inclusion isn't very important here, though.
Verifiability
  • I've spotchecked this nominator before so see no need to do so here. Happy to do so if request by the coords, nominator or someone else. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Addressed. Thanks, Aza24!--NØ 09:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source review pass now, then, Aza24?--NØ
Yes! Pass for source review. 19:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Support from SNUGGUMS

  • I'd trim "It was included on Title (2014), her debut extended play, and later on her 2015 debut major-label studio album of the same name." down to something like "It was included on Title, her 2014 extended play, and later on her 2015 studio album of the same name."
  • Done.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A doo-wop and pop song, 'Dear Future Husband' has lyrics about chivalry and dating; in it, Trainor lists things a potential romantic suitor needs to do to win her affection." is quite a mouthful! Try splitting the sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • Done.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commonly recognized terms like "music critics", "critics", "single", and "digital" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
  • I'll keep one of the links which was requested by another reviewer but have removed the rest.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about the use of semi-colons from "He handled drum programming, sound design, and plays the acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, and synthesizer; David Baron plays the piano and Hammond organ; and Jim Hoke plays the baritone and tenor saxophone." doesn't feel right. Commas might work better here.
  • Changed.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rewrote its lyrics to make them less problematic" could use some elaboration on what the changes involved
  • Pointed a link to Political correctness which hopefully helps. I'm trying to avoid quoting lines from the lyrics as it may give excessive weightage to this review.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When citing Instagram posts, they need to be quoted verbatim in the titles.
  • Done.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you can find something better than Us Weekly to use
  • Generally what they are cited for is individually corroborated by other sources (WaPo saying it "[aroused] lots of strongly worded opinions", MTV News saying "Those images sparked quite the backlash, with many calling the clip anti-feminist."), but they just provided the best summary which is the best source to use for that purpose. With the source review passed it's probably not too concerning.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully this isn't too far off from being FA-worthy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate you taking the time to leave a review, SNUGGUMS! :)--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, and I support after making just a minor change to focus more on political correctness (which seemed more specific than just saying something was "problematic"). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause

  • Lead section: "3x Platinum" may look better with nbsp.
  • Composition section: "It incorporates brisk piano", might look better as "After the 'stylus' intro, the song then incorporates brisk piano...".
  • Credits, Charts, and Certifications sections all look fine.

Article otherwise looks well-researched and well-written. Look forward to seeing your edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would prefer to avoid the repetition with the stylus bit. Otherwise, done. Thanks a lot for the comments!--NØ 17:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

Hey! Five Supports, completed image and source reviews, and it is down to "Older Nominations" with 21 days elapsed now. More traction than the recently promoted nominations so I am excited to call your attention to this one, @WP:FAC coordinators: If you would be so kind.--NØ 03:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

  • Commercial performance section. Consistency please re the positions reached being in words or figures. Eg "number four in Venezuela, number five in the Netherlands, Poland, number 11 in Belgium, the Czech Republic, number 12 in Scotland".
  • All figures now.
  • " Trainor stamps the word "fail" and rejects them all one-by-one as they fail to follow her rules. In the end, she approves of Puth". 1. Is it possible to avoid using "fail" twice in the sentence. 2. How come she "rejects them all" if she accepts Puth?
  • Replaced "fail" with "are unsuccessful in" and removed "all".
  • What are "galluses".

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linked.--NØ 18:32, 25 June 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/Dear_Future_Husband/archive1&oldid=1095027173"