Wikipedia:Peer review/Meghan Trainor/archive2

Meghan Trainor[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is already ranked at GA quality and I definitely see potential for a successful FAC in the future. Also, the last FAC was closed with a brutal amount of two opposes and no supports. So I will only opt for an FAC should at least five editors approve of it here. So feel free to weigh in even if you lack the time to do a full review.

Thanks, N Ø 17:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

I still don't know much about this artist, but would like to offer some comments. In starting, I'd note that the article seems appropriately comprehensive and is well constructed and written - nice work - so the following are my thoughts on areas of potential improvement:

The first para of the lead should note what she's done since 2011 per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH - not least as her main claim to fame is her music released after 2011
"The song drew criticism for its lyrical content and was included on her debut major-label studio album" - this wording is a bit awkward (it suggests it was included on her album due to the criticism)
"Trainor has lent her voice to animated films" - At the risk of being pedantic, this is needlessly imprecise: I suspect (and hope) she was paid for this work
"She released "Take Care of Our Soldiers" on April 16, 2010, a charity song in support of American troops abroad" - in what way did this support soldiers overseas?
"Trainor was introduced to former NRBQ member, Al Anderson" - presumably by her former tutor?
The para starting with "Kadish and Trainor wrote "All About That Bass"" is heavy going - it's a pretty dense set of facts, with no reflection on the song at all (what genre was it, what were the lyrics about, etc?).
Some later paras have the same issue, though not to the same degree - each significant ranking, chart, etc, doesn't need to be separately noted as this should be in the articles on each album, her discography, etc. Including them make the article a slog, and raise issues around balance (why include only metrics showing where the music did well, and not those which show where it didn't?). I'd suggest looking to summarise this kind of material. By the time we get to the "Achievements" section, it feels unnecessary given the emphasis on them throughout the article - this might be where these topics are best covered.
"Treat Myself was initially delayed for a January 2019 release,[97][98] but was instead released on January 31, 2020." - why was it delayed for a year?
Without having listened to much of Ms Trainor's music, I found the first para of the "Musical style and themes" section to be overwhelming - it references a wide range of musical styles and artists. The only artist I'm familiar with in this list, Neko Case, doesn't produce hip hop, reggae or doo-wop music so I'm not sure what the familiarity is. Someone discussing how Ms Trainor is versatile (...and/or a jack of all trades) might help to pull this material together.
There's probably a bit too much going on in the sentence starting with "MTV News' Carvell Wallace analyzed the singer's relatability "
The sentence starting with "According to Jada Yuan of Billboard, Trainor's image is defined by her "curves"" seems out of place in the para
" "All About That Bass" was accused of anti-feminism[132] and cultural appropriation,[133] " - a bit more detail here would be helpful
"while its lyric "skinny bitches"" - I suspect that more context is needed
Why does the "Discography" section not include her self-released albums? Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments. I've effected most of the changes in the article, but will get back to you about points six, seven and nine tomorrow since they may take more time.--N Ø 13:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D Do you find this rewrite of the "Breakthrough with Title" section satisfactory? I will rewrite the other two sections in a similar fashion when we agree on this one. Regards.--N Ø 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, but still a little complex. The sentence starting with "It spent eight consecutive weeks atop the Billboard Hot 100..." may not be necessary given that the previous sentence notes the sales. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the invitation, I will now look and write what comes to mind. I'm unfamiliar with the topic, but fell that sometimes the views from an "outsider" can be more particularly helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment after each bulleted item, using *: for indenting.

Lead

Looking at FAs, I'm used to seeing the very first para summarize the whole thing (make it possible for a reader to decide to continue reading or not), followed by some more in chronology, beginning where she came from.
That would also avoid the repetition of her first album in two sentences in a row.
I had a look at Lady Gaga and Mariah Carey, and decided to add a sentence about what she is most known for. Third paragraph of the lead also serves this purpose here, since we don't have any information of Trainor's overall sales to put there instead.
Please split the first sentence of the second para ("rose to fame"), and all similar constructions ;)
Done.
Do we need "major-label" each time, once established?
Calling her second/third major-label albums as just her "second/third albums" may mislead readers, so I changed one of them to "follow-up" album and another to "third album with the label" to avoid repetition.
As someone who doesn't know what throwback style means, it's a bit confusing to be linked to retro, where throwback is not even mentioned.
Removed this entirely, it was only used as a descriptor for her EP and not her in general.
How does she refer to body image? (Another term I don't know, and it reads like you have it this way or that way, but I don't see lyrics referring to it. May be just me.)
A few critics have called her body-positive, others, on the contrary, have accused her of skinny-shaming through her lyrics. Saying her lyrics "refer to body image" is kind of a neutral way of noting this imo.
"currently" is a no-no word ;)
Replaced with "presently", not sure if that one is fine to use either.
After having read the lead, I know a lot about her awards, but have no real idea about what makes her lyrics and music special.
Tried to fix this a bit.

Content

I'm not sure we need all the years, and certainly not "present", nor "and other projects"
The years seem pretty standard. That's how it is on the Carey, Gaga, Taylor Swift and Katy Perry articles.
No idea what "Image" means there ;)
Swapped with "public image".
Not sure "Other ventures" is a good header, but scratching head for something better. Perhaps just subsections to Personal life?
Perhaps "Activism"? Like the Gaga article.
Why "Achievements", not "Awards"? For me, - achievements would be something more general.
From the third line onwards, the paragraph is comprised of general achievements and not just awards.
I understand that tables should have a title, for accessibility. You might call the section Film and television, and have the two in table headers, - a shorter TOC would be nice.
I think "Filmography" is a generally preferable section name, but did swap the sub-sections with table headers.

Reference numbers

They should be in ascending order.
Done. :)
I never need more than three refs for one fact.
Done.

Early life

"She began singing at age six", - I bet she began sooner, - do you mean in public?
Cape Cod Times states she began singing at 6. Couldn't find any article stating she began singing sooner.
What is meant by "singing", then? Most people begin singing while still babies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cape Cod Times just states that she began singing at 6, this source states that she began performing at a church, local fundraisers and telethons when she was 7. If you are suggesting she began singing sooner than 6, I can't seem to find any evidence to that effect.
I am a bit confused about the profession of her father, - is music teacher and organist rather hobby, helping? Do we know the denomination of the church? (... because the amount of singing may be different)

He was a musician for several years before 1967, he then became a professional music teacher for students from 4th-12th grade for 7 years, then worked in a jewelry store for 10+ years which he still does to this day. He would play the organ while Meghan sang at a church, local fundraisers and telethons when she was 7; but this was just a hobby.

What is "an early age" coming between 6 and 11?
Clarified.
I doubt that we need links for "arrangement" and "popular" (and others that may come).
Done.
"During this time" means which time? Last mentioned was 2015.

Meant 2016, swapped for "that year".

To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for accepting my invite :)! I will get these after all the initial comments have been posted (I mean unless I get too excited and do it earlier).--N Ø 07:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do it now, at least some, to give me a feeling of how you respond. I'll have certainly no time today, and probably no time tomorrow, and actually thought I should deal with some other requests on my talk before coming back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded! You are welcome to make any edits to the article as well, in case you feel like doing so.--N Ø 14:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adjusting. Very generally: I changed the format of of your reply, per Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. You will have seen that I'm not shy to edit ;) - Once I get more time, I'll continue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've provided updated replies to two of your comments after doing more research. Hope you get more time soon!--N Ø 13:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, do you think you will be able to provide more comments soon? Apologies if I’m being too clingy, I know you're very busy. I just really hope to start the FAC mid June-ish (June 15-20), and I don’t believe that’s unreasonable. Wanted to confirm if you’re still up for this, since I noticed the section I started on your talk page wasn’t there anymore.—N Ø 15:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]