Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lips Are Movin/archive2
- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 August 2020 [1].
- Nominator(s): NØ 03:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is about "Lips Are Movin", the second single by American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor. Its music video was the first to feature social media influencers in it as we know them today, with a Billboard author describing it as a "historic milestone in the realm of YouTube creators". While the song drew widespread comparisons to Trainor's debut number-one hit, it eviscerated any doubts about Trainor being a one-hit-wonder as she became just the fifth female artist to follow her debut number-one single directly with a second top-five hit. The article has received two peer reviews and a failed FAC in the past. Although I've rewritten basically everything after the Trainor bio became an FA, so this one should go more smoothly. I appreciate any comments and am open to doing QPQ for anyone who may support this nomination. I will ping Jaguar and SNUGGUMS to let them know about this nomination as prior peer reviewers. Cheers--NØ 03:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
[edit]Resolved concerns
|
|---|
|
Just skimmed through the lede, and here are my concerns:
— HĐ (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The article overall is in pretty good shape, though prose concerns exist. Continued:
— HĐ (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
|
I regret to oppose for now; the prose is yet not up to FA quality in my opinion. I have pointed out some examples above, and below are a few of my concerns, which is by no means exhaustive:
"Lips Are Movin" received widespread comparisons to "All About That Bass" from music critics.[27][28]
→ I am not sure if two sources equate to "widespread"; plus this comparison has already been mentioned in the Composition section. I get that the majority of the reviews compare this song to it predecessor, but citing two sources for this claim is SYNTH unless there is a source explicitly saying so. Otherwise, I recommend removing the bit
- There are upwards of 10 sources comparing the two songs, not just two. It would just be WP:OVERKILL to put them all after this sentence. Basically 90% of this section is a testament to the comparisons.
a catchy ladies' anthem
→ This sounds awkward
- I will work on fixing this.
- Lengthy quotes such as
"She's versatile, confident, vulnerable and smart, something everyone should already know based on 'Lips Are Movin."
can be shortened or paraphrased
- I will try to paraphrase it, but it is composed of mostly adjectives so that will be hard.
t it reminding him of Christina Aguilera's "What a Girl Wants" (1999) saved it from being a "complete mess"
→ grammar; plus I don't know what this means
- The author wrote this. For some reason the song's similarities to "What a Girl Wants" are what saved it from being "a complete mess" according to him.
- The Critical reception section is very bloated; try grouping the reviews into similar themes (i.e. Those complimented the song's production included A, B, C. Those who criticized the similarity to its predecessor included D, E, F)
- I will try doing this.
- Some opinions don't really need to be quoted (i.e.
writing that it "strictly adheres to the same beat sheet as its predecessor"
/the two songs are "nearly interchangeable"
). They are just the same opinion reiterated multiple times
- I will take this into account while rewriting.
- Clash's remark on the song's "pseudo-feminist" theme is worth discussing at the Composition section
- Will do.
- The Teen Choice Awards is by no means a critical or academic award
- Will remove.
- The Reception of the Music video section is mainly comprised of positive reviews, while the headlines of some (most notably
"Meghan Trainor's 'Lips are Movin' and the art of corporate patronage"
) seem to potentially provide varying perspectives on the video's production and relation to the excessive corporate environment, as well as apparently some criticism. That said I'm not seeing any of that discussed.
- Will look into this.
I apologize for not having taken part in the peer review (which I barely noticed), but the prose needs more polishing for FA quality. It'd be great if copyedit can finalize within days to prepare for FAC, but I don't think FAC is the place to address issues that could have been resolved elsewhere. I will oppose for now, but will take a second look after a few days to check up on the progress. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I understand that this specific FAC is doomed now, so I'll try it later after working on your concerns.--NØ 05:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Media review
[edit]- I will assume good faith that File:KK color pic.jpg is the uploader's own work as claimed, and all other media is fine per my comments here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for this ;) --NØ 04:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawal
[edit]With some extensive concerns being pointed out by HĐ, I will withdraw this nomination for now and attempt later. Thank you, @FAC coordinators: .--NØ 05:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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) 07:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.