Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2023 [1].

Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)

Nominator(s): N Ø 00:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Me Too". This song received considerable attention twice, once when Trainor pulled its music video down after allegedly unauthorized photoshopping of her body, and another time when she fell on-stage while performing it on The Tonight Show. It has a simple production and bumptious lyrics which received criticism at the time. Nonetheless, the song has enjoyed enduring popularity and Trainor has continued performing it later into her career. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--N Ø 00:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review—pass

File:Me Too (Official Single Cover) by Meghan Trainor.png has an appropriate FUR
File:Jason Derulo 2013 December 1.jpg appropriately licensed in Commons and use seem fine in the article as its co-writer
File:Me Too (Meghan Trainor song - sample).ogg is 10% of the original song, length is permitted
File:Me Too screenshot.png has an appropriate FUR and use of non-free image provides visual context of the digital manipultation and is adequately discussed in the "Music video" section.

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. I really appreciate it!--N Ø 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

"benefits of her lifestyle" I do not think this is reflected in the article's body. I can see that it is vaguely implied, but I suggest explicitly saying this or just getting rid of it.
"...the chairman of Epic Records..." This does not make it apparent that Trainor herself is associated with Epic Records; can you make this clear?
"Following the disagreement..." Personally I did not understand from the previous sentences that there was a disagreement.
If Jason Desrouleaux is more well-known as Jason Derulo, would it be beneficial to refer to him as such?

Changed everywhere except the infobox, where birth names are usually used in the songwriter(s) field.

Also I think introducing Derulo and Peter Svensson would be helpful.
Brennan Carley of Spin compared it to Will.i.am and Britney Spears's 2012 single "Scream & Shout": The wording here is somewhat unclear- it could imply that "Scream & Shout" was a song by both Will.i.am and Spears (which it is), or it could imply that Carley compared the song to Will.i.am, and then also compared it to "Scream & Shout" by Spears.
"Some music critics commented on the production and Trainor's performance on "Me Too"; this has strange wording. Maybe something like this would work: "Some music critics commented on the production of "Me Too", as well as Trainor's performance of the song"
Link Gap Inc.?
"Some critics were positive." --> "Some critics were positive regarding the lyrics."
"This week it appeared at number 4 on the Digital Songs chart..." Which week? The eleventh?

These are all my comments at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments, Unlimitedlead! They should be addressed now :) --N Ø 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will support this nomination, then. Nice, short, and well-researched. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Album titles should be done in italics per WP:CONFORMTITLE so Thank You should be in italics for Citation 4. This is also true for show titles so The Tonight Show and Today should be in italics in the citation titles. Song titles should also be consistently in single quotation marks.

Should be good now.

Citations 5 and 6 should have the albums linked.

I was discouraged from doing this during a previous source review.

Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 61 has a by-line from The Hollywood Reporter as it was an article that had originally appeared in that publication so I would mark it as such in the citation.

Done.

In this case, I would recommend just replacing it with the original publication (here). Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a majority of the citations just include the site without the publisher, but Citation 17 includes Andpop and Channel Zero so it is not consistent with the others. Is this done to solidify that Andpop is an appropriate source? Apologies for wrapping a few comments in one, but what makes Andpop a high-quality source for a FA? Since it appears that the site is dead, it is harder to check the primary source.

I've corrected the formatting error with the ref. Not sure why they went defunct but they had a multi-staff editorial team which included Brittany Rodrigues who has written for Huffington Post and Baltimore Post Examiner and Julia Lennox who has written for Global News and ET Canada so it should be good.

That makes sense to me. That is a solid explanation for how it is an appropriate source for a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has this song been the subject of retrospective reviews? I could not find any, but I have only done a superficial search. I believe we have discussed this in a previous FA, and it just do not appear that Trainor gets this kind of retrospective coverage compared to other artists.

Added.

Apologies in advance as this does not technically fall under the scope of a source review. Would it be possible to trim down or consider the paragraph on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon performance? I am not sure four separate sentences on the reviews are necessary for instance as they could be bundled for the overview sentence and one or two examples given. An example of possibly excessive details are (in a green and black sequin dress and high heel) or an overly wordy part (was accompanied by a backing band which gave the performance a big rock and roll finish)

The size of the content included represents the due weightage proportionate to the extensive media coverage drawn by the performance. I believe it is regular practice to briefly note what someone wore during a performance if this was covered by sources and the removal of anything else will be detrimental to readers. You are right in pointing out that this falls more under the scope of a prose review, though.

Fair enough. I do remember that this was one of the main discussions around the song (this and the edited music video) and I still do see discussions on both cropping up periodically so I think that is a fair point. I will leave this matter up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this source review is helpful. I will do a deeper dive in the sources to make sure all the information matches and is supported once my above comments have been addressed. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba47! Hope you are having a great week as well.--N Ø 11:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will look through the sources again later today. I do not imagine I will find anything major. Thank you for the responses to everything! Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 13 uses this link, which does not go to the actual article, and I would replace it with the following link instead. The current link leads to a "Listen to this article" audio file and an image, but not to the actual article.
Citation 14 requires a subscription so it should be marked as such in the citation. The same comment applies to Citations 26, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 72.

Once all the above comments have been addressed, this will pass my source review. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for the help. Everything should be taken care of. I will note that I am able to access ref 72 without a subscription, though.--N Ø 12:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. This FAC passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

"Some music critics commented" → it's okay to just write "Music critics commented". Unless it says "All music critics commented", it is already implied that some did.
"blamed it for Trainor's commercial decline" → a footnote or further explanation would be helpful here; this is the first time I'm reading anything about a commercial decline
"MTV News's Madeline Roth admitted all listeners may not fully related to the lyrics of "Me Too", but "its dance-friendly beat will at least have you on your feet"" → this doesn't fit in with the introductory sentence "Some critics were positive regarding the lyrics"

I believe the point this review conveys is that the song's unrelatable lyrics did not completely ruin it, so I think it is appropriately placed. I've tried to amend the introductory sentence a bit to reflect this better.

"During the same week, it appeared at number" → are these its peaks or just a random week?

Switched to peaks now.

"during the smooth performance" → feels a bit POV-ish
Argentina, Israel, Latvia ref needs trans-title and language parameters
release history table needs row scopes and headers
Google Play is in German—this supports a US release date?

Good catch. Surfing through different web archives of this link proves the digital download was available in various countries.

Great work! Heartfox (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox. Hopefully they have been satisfactorily addressed.--N Ø 21:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support :) Heartfox (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude

"She initially recorded doo-wop songs in a similar vein as her debut single" => "She initially recorded doo-wop songs in a similar vein to her debut single"
"Jada Yuan of Billboard believed it delicately forwarded Trainor's retro image to a more urban R&B style" - I'm not sure "forwarded" is the right word here. Maybe "shifted Trainor's retro image towards"....?
"Hazel Cills opined the pulsating" => "Hazel Cills opined that the pulsating"
"Chuck Campbell opined Trainor's sass" => "Chuck Campbell opined that Trainor's sass"
"MTV News's Madeline Roth admitted all listeners may not fully related" => "MTV News's Madeline Roth admitted all listeners may not fully relate"
"Rolling Stone wrote she sang with unanticipated ardour" => "Rolling Stone wrote that she sang with unanticipated ardour" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: - all done -- N Ø 13:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by 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 lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

In It, Trainor asserts her confidence in her looks. - you don't need the first "her". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trainor's confidence in it was not genuine - maybe Trainor's confidence was disingenuous. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isreal having it as a number one (where it wasn't elsewhere) might be relevant. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was number one on Israel's TV Airplay chart, which is different than the national record chart and probably not lead-worthy.

which has a meta concept - what does this even mean to a reader? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She reprised it on television shows - presumably the song, not the fall? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

A fan of his project Wallpaper, Meghan Trainor began co-writing songs with producer Ricky Reed -considering a wallpaper is something that already exists, maybe reword to make it a bit easier to read Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't have your bullet. You don't have that big song." - does this quote add anything not in the prose/ Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When Reid heard it, he jumped up and said "That's what I'm talkin' about!", playing it 29 times in succession - seems a bit overkill. Can easily just say he liked it, or that he thought the style was what was required.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to keep this quote as Reid's extreme appreciation of that song was highly influential on the creation of "Me Too", and it's best conveyed with the quote.

"Who's that sexy thing I see over there?", referring to her own reflection in the mirror.[19] She thanks God for waking up with a positive feeling and declares that she cannot help but love herself.[20] In the chorus, Trainor sings: "If I was you, I'd wanna be me too".[ - quotes should follow the same sentence structure as the rest of the sentence, so they shouldn't start with a capital unless they start a sentence in our prose, even if the original does. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She assumes an Eastern European accent during the lyric, pronouncing the word "wanna" like "vahna" - I have a bit of an issue with this. The source is more derising of the track, suggesting that the songwork is poor, rather than her intentionally using an Eastern European accent (it's also a bit off, because I'd suggest they are suggesting it's more of a faux-Russian accent, rather than say an Estonian, Polish or Moldovan one). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now attributed the accent to the critic more clearly and put it in quotes. We do have to stick to the source so I don't belive it would be appropriate to refer to it as anything other than "Eastern European" in the article.

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lee Vilenski, I believe the comments should be addressed now. Cheers!--N Ø 11:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Article is already in great shape overall, just a few very minor comments:

Minor nitpick - in a similar vein is a MOS:IDIOM, perhaps it can be specified
Same with go back to the drawing board
at number 13 on the chart in its 11th week of charting. -- perhaps a full stop at 11th week. So chart isn't repeated.
Perhaps a variation of the use of "reprise" in the second paragraph of the Live performances section to avoid repetition

I have not read the other editors' comments so apologies if there are repetitions/overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the prose review, Pseud 14. I have implemented your suggestions into the article.--N Ø 11:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. If you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.