Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Made You Look (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) 4 April 2023 [1].

Made You Look (Meghan Trainor song)

Nominator(s): N Ø 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Made You Look". After years of experimenting with different genres to little to no commercial returns, Trainor returned to her doo-wop roots and delivered a shocking comeback with this global top-10 single. Although not her most acclaimed release, it appealed to TikTok users and the rest is history. I would like to give special thanks to Aoba47 and SNUGGUMS for their help with the prose and media during this article's peer review. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--N Ø 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns were already addressed during the peer review (where I assessed files used so media review passes as problem-free in my eyes). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"She struggled while creating her third one" => "She struggled while creating her third album"
"rewriting it four times as an attempt of "adapting to"" => "rewriting it four times in an attempt to "[adapt] to""
"She stated the elevated emotions" => "She stated that the elevated emotions"
"Trainor reprised the song at the eighth season" => "Trainor reprised the song during the eighth season" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just addressed these comments, ChrisTheDude! Thank you so much for the review :)--N Ø 12:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Suggest linking "trend" to viral phenomenon
Trainor wrote "Made You Look" alongside songwriter Sean Douglas -- co-wrote consistent with the lead

Now wrote in both places.

attained viral popularity -- same as above, perhaps should be linked to Viral phenomenon instead
Piper Westrom thought harken back to the sound of Title. -- per WP:NOTSIMPLE, perhaps something a little simpler than "harken back"
it achieved a correct balance between -- achieved a right balance IMO is more appropriate

That's all from me, great work overall. As a note, I have not read other editors' comments so apologies if there are overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the swift review, Pseud 14! I believe it should all be addressed now.--N Ø 15:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. Happy to support on prose -- Pseud 14 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

Fun! I remember reviewing this at DYK, and now it is finally here at FA.

Briefly introduce Sean Douglas (you can say "the songwriter Sean Douglas")
ALT for File:DarylSabara2022.png could be more descriptive.
Likewise introduce Sean Douglas in the body.
You mention in the lead that Federico Vindver was a producer but he is not referred to as such at first mention in the body.
"Her body image insecurities after pregnancy and an exercise where her therapist asked her to look at herself naked for five minutes inspired the song" This sentence is rather long and awkward; I suggest rewording it.
"Trainor came up with the lines "I'll make you double take / Soon as I walk away / Call up your chiropractor just in case your neck break", a reference to how Trainor's husband..." Suggest: "Trainor came up with the lines "I'll make you double take / Soon as I walk away / Call up your chiropractor just in case your neck break", as a reference to how Trainor's husband..."
"Petras adds new ad libs and high notes during her verse..." I believe it should be "added", not "adds", especially since the following sentence (also about Petras) is in the past tense.
"The lyrics and flirtatious approach of "Made You Look" were discussed by critics" Can we have a reference for this statement?

This is a summary statement to transition readers between the paragraphs so it's not directly stated in one secondary source but sourced by the following sentences.

Ditto with "'Made You Look' debuted at number 95 on the US Billboard Hot 100 issued dated November 5, 2022"
"Additionally, the song charted within the top 20, at number 11 in Hungary": if we know that it debuted at number 11, is it really necessary to say that it was top 20?

Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article's DYK had the most views any of my hooks have ever gotten, if I remember correctly. Thank you so much for that and for coming back to review this for FAC, Unlimitedlead! All the comments should be addressed now :) --N Ø 19:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will support this nomination. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I participated in the peer review process for this article, and all of my concerns were already addressed there. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

Source review

What makes ~~Renowned for Sound~~, Riff, and Plugged In high-quality reliable sources?

Renowned for Sound was launched by an editor who now has 20 years of industry experience. Riff has an extensive editorial team and is ran by Daniel Willis according to their About page, who has contributed to LA Times, The Atlantic, and several other reputed publications. I believe Plugged In is not a great source for anything controversial but another user at a noticeboard suggested it should be incorporated to represent diverse critical opinions about the song. I would be willing to remove this one if you insist.

Has Riff been cited by any other publications, or does the author of the article (Piper Westrom) have any credentials of her own?
The Plugged In author is listed as an intern, and while it is good to have diverse critical opinions, this website does not seem like a high-quality source for music criticism so I would remove it

I'm not sure how to check citations but Riff has been recognized with three awards by the San Francisco Press Club and the author in question has written for Newsbreak. They have an extensive editorial team and there doesn't seem to be any oversight problem. I have now removed Plugged In.

Do note that News Break is deprecated per WP:RSPSS. I'm just trying to get at why we care about their opinion as the author seemingly hasn't written for any other publication of a higher notability. Upon searching on ProQuest, it appears that Riff Magazine has been quoted/cited a couple of times. I would personally not include it, but I'll leave it up to you.

Italian radio refs should use Template:Cite press release; the second is missing author
"Meghan Trainor Chart History (Billboard Vietnam Hot 100)" → Billboard Vietnam Hot 100
link PopCulture.com
"as the second single from Takin' It Back (2022)" → not supported by All Access ref

This passes the source review. Heartfox (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

"An online dance challenge choreographed by TikTok users Brookie and Jessie set to "Made You Look" became a trend on the platform, following which around two million user-generated videos also used the song." → this is confusingly situated between a sentence discussing the a capella version release and one discussing the other remixes
the commercial performance section should have an intro sentence saying it was one her highest-charting songs in years
likewise for the performances paragraph, an intro sentence like "Trainor promoted the song with appearances on several television shows" would help distinguish the paragraph topic
what order are names in the credits section listed in?

Just the liner notes order I believe, which goes: producer, songwriters, instruments, and mix/master.

Some of the quotations could be paraphrased to be more understandable because Trainor doesn't seem that eloquent discussing the song. For example:
""[adapt] to what's going on in the music industry" → could be paraphrased "respond to market shifts in the music industry"

"Everything I write I'm like 'Yo, TikTok's gonna eat this up,' like I truly um am focused on like, my fans on TikTok, [...] that's my home and I'm writing for TikTok."

"I knew for this music video that I wanted it to be bright, fun colors. That's my thing, always ... but I wanted this to feel like (an) elevated (version of 'All About That) Bass,' more saturated"

Once these comments are addressed, I will be happy to support promotion and pass the source review :) Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the source and prose reviews. I believe the above comments should be addressed.--N Ø 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Heartfox (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Since this one racked up six supports within two days, I was wondering if I can proceed with another nomination soon or should I wait for a certain timeframe? Regards.--N Ø 06:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to need an image review pass first. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, SNUGGUMS has passed the media review above. There was also briefly a second passed media review. Regards.--N Ø 17:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed it. Yes, you may fire up another one. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 1 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) 10:24, 4 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.