Wikipedia:Peer review/No (Meghan Trainor song)/archive1

No (Meghan Trainor song)

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

Hi, I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this a featured article at some point in the near future. I would love to get some detailed reviews about what could be improved in that respect. Please feel free to bring up any concerns as I may have lost my touch with FAs a little bit and could have made some basic errors. Much appreciated!

Thanks, N Ø 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Addressed comments

I would include the name of the studio (i.e. Ricky Reed's Studio) in the infobox along with the city name.
I would rewrite this sentence, It was written by Trainor, Ricky Reed, and Jacob Kasher Hindlin, and produced by Reed., to something like the following, Ricky Reed produced the song and wrote it with Trainor and Jacob Kasher Hindlin., as it would cut down on repeating Reed's name twice in the same sentence.
For this sentence, The track was released on March 4, 2016, as the lead single from the album., I would add that Epic was responsible for the single's release.
Something about this guitar instrumentation phrasing reads a little too stilted to me. It might just be me so I will leave this up to you. This was something I kept coming back to in the lead so I thought it was worth bringing to your attention.
I have a clarification question for this part, draws some influences. Is the "some" necessary? Would it make a big difference or somehow misrepresent the citation(s) that are later used to support this in the article? I am asking as I find the word to be a little odd here, but I understand if it is necessary.
I have two comments for this part, Its composition was compared by several critics. Since it is a new paragraph, I would say "the song's composition" or some variant as leading a new paragraph with "Its" is somewhat off to me. I would also revise this part to written in the active tense rather than the passive tense (i.e. Several critics compared the song's composition).
I would remove "various" in this part, the music of various pop artists of the late 1990s and early 2000s, as I do not think it is needed.
I have a question about this part, in several European countries (Austria, Spain, Scotland). The wording implies to me that these three countries are the only European countries where "No" reached the top ten, but later in the article, it shows that the song reached number one in Latvia. Why is Latvia not included here?
I have a second comment for the part quoted above. I would remove the "in several European countries" bit, as I do not think it is entirely necessary, and just list the countries.
This part, It was set at a warehouse, noted to be visually darker than, reads rather awkwardly to me and I would clearly attribute who is noting this. I am assuming it is critics, but it would be best to be absolutely clear.
This might just be me, but I do not think "clip" is an appropriate synonym for "music video". I have not really seen "clip" being used to reference a music video, as I have more often see it used in the context of film or television, and it just reads as too informal. I would exchange "clip" for something else.
I would revise the last two sentences of the lead's third paragraph to avoid repeating "performed" two times in a row.
The information from the "Credits and personnel" section should also be represented in the prose for the "Background and release" section (i.e. the mixing, mastering, etc.).

My above comments are focused mostly on the infobox and lead. I think the article looks very good so far. Apologies in advance for doing my review in a more piecemeal fashion. I just want to make sure I read the article thoroughly. Let me know if you have any questions and I will continue my review when my above comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for these! I should have some time to get to them either later today or tomorrow. I will make sure to ping.--N Ø 04:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I can help. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, please continue whenever you please. I got all of them except the credits. Will need to search for the CD to verify those and that will take some time haha.--N Ø 18:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. That sounds like a good idea to me. You can also try looking online to see if anyone has posted the liner notes from this album. I will post more comments by the end of today. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen inconsistencies on MetroLyrics so I generally do not include in the "External links" section anymore. I am not sure what the general consensus is about this though so I will leave this up to you.
I would remove the "See also" section completely. There is no reason to have a random link for the main singer there when Trainor is already linked in the lead, infobox, and the first instance in the body of the article.
I would avoid using "the singer" as a substitute for Trainor as I find that it makes the prose awkward. Again, I am not sure of the general consensus for this. It is discussed in this essay (Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation), but it is only an essay so it is likely a matter of personal preference.
These two parts (Billboard gave a preview of the lyrics: "My name is 'no'/My number is 'no'". and She shared the song's hook "Untouchable, untouchable" two days later.) do not seem particularly notable enough for inclusion in the article.
What make this part, It features the singer with red hair in an emerald green-colored dress., notable enough for inclusion in the article? I would only think this kind of description would notable if it attracted some sort of critical commentary or attention, but that does not seem to be the case here.
For this sentence, It was digitally released on March 4, along with the artwork and preorder for its parent album Thank You (2016)., I do not think it is necessary to mention the artwork for similar reasons to my above comment.
I think it may be worthwhile to get a copyedit from the GOCE prior to a FAC as it is always helpful to get other perspectives. I think this would help with a future FAC. This is just a suggestion though so it is entirely up to you.
I think it would be worthwhile to rename the "Composition" section to make it clear that it is about about the composition as well as the lyrics.
I think a strong caption for the audio sample would be to note how it illustrates the dance-pop sound, specifically its association with "early millennium-pop".
What is a "crunchy guitar"?
This sentence, The song opens with modern doo-wop vocals, before it charges up into an early millennium-pop vibe with its beat and crunchy guitar, would benefit from further revision as it reads rather awkwardly to me.
I am uncertain about this part, followed by a Neptunes-esque beat, as it is seemingly written for an audience who already is familiar with the Neptunes. I would reword it to make it more easily accessible to a unfamiliar reader.
For this part, The song finds Trainor, I do not think "find" really works in this context. I do not think a song can really "find' something or someone.
I have a comment for these three parts (The lyrics were noted to be "clever, sassy" and a display of attitude. and "No" has been noted to showcase and It has been described as "earwormy"). The prose should clearly attribute who is doing the noting and describing as it is currently unclear.
I am not sure this sentence, The lyrics were noted to be "clever, sassy" and a display of attitude., belongs in the "Composition" section as it reads more like a positive review.
I am not really sure what this sentence, It has been described as "earwormy" and called "familiar yet altogether new territory" for the singer., means and further context would be appreciated.
For this part, When asked about the song's inspiration in an interview, I do not think the "in an interview" part is necessary so I would remove it to be more concise.
I would paraphrase the following quotes, "pushy" and "back off", as they do not seem necessary to me.
For this part, and likened it to Mýa's song "My Love Is Like...Wo" (2003), could you clarify how the critic is comparing "No" to "My Live Is Like...Wo"? I would also say Mýa's 2003 single "My Love Is Like...Wo" instead as it reads better to me.
This part, but without the problematic lyrics in her previous work, could use some further context as I do not think an unfamiliar reader would get this. I think it would be helpful to replace "in her previous work" with specific examples of the songs. I am assuming the critic is referencing "All About That Bass" and "Dear Future Husband"?

Apologies for the amount of comments in my review. I hope it is not off-putting in any way. To be clear, you have done a great job so far with the article. I think it would be helpful to have another editor look over the prose, which is why I recommend a GOCE copy-edit. Hopefully, other reviewers will help with this review. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the honesty. Thank you so much for all the help. This will serve as a great outline for me to get back to improving the article.--N Ø 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I can help and thank you for your patience with my review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]