Talk:No (Meghan Trainor song)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No (Meghan Trainor song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151226154145/http://www.sverigetopplistan.se/ to http://www.sverigetopplistan.se/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on No (Meghan Trainor song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposing some changes

I was working on the major expansion of this article and it was bought to my attention that it should be discussed with the rest of you. These are the proposed contents. [1] Does anyone think something could be done differently?--MaranoFan (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan, can you tell us why you think these edits are superior to what has already been the status quo in the article while you were blocked for disruption (then indeffed)? Why is what's there not being improved upon rather than just blanket reverted back to the last edits you made before you were blocked? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

CLOSED

Undoing this review per concern raised at Wikipedia talk:Good articles, and returning the article to the GA Nominations queue at the place it was before. Feel free to start a new review any time. Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:No (Meghan Trainor song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iceywarm2020 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No (Meghan Trainor song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No (Meghan Trainor song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Iceywarm2020 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Decision After further reviewing the article, and taking into account the massive editing being formed, and the lack of vandalism, this article is a Good Article. The article states clear opinions, an non copyrighted bias. With this being considered, I am going to pass the article.

The discussion above 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.

GA Review

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:No (Meghan Trainor song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Paparazzzi (talk · contribs) 00:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Expect a review soon. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this article as part of the 2020 April–May GAN Backlog Drive.

Lead and infobox

"Backed by an instrumental of ripping guitars, the dance-pop and R&B song draws some influences from doo-wop, with lyrics about men who cannot take the hint when their advances towards women are rejected." I would suggest to reword this sentence, especially what is in bold
Its composition was compared by several critics to various pop artists..." I would reword this as "Its composition was compared by several critics to the music of various pop artists " as the comparisons are made to their music

Background and recording

The first paragraph basically has nothing to do with the development of the song, since it consists of a description of the song by Trainor
"Referring to the meeting, Trainor revealed that..." which meeting?
There are too many quotes in this second paragraph, you can reword those quotes

Composition

"Lyrically, the song discusses men who approach women and "can't take the hint" when their advances are rejected." According to who? it should be stated on the article
"...song that draws some influence from doo-wop, with ripping guitars leading instrumentation" this sounds awkward, reword it
"My name is NO, my sign is NO, my number is NO, you need to let it go," remove the capitals in "NO"
There is an overwhelming abundance of quotes in this particular section, which makes the reading difficult. I suggest to reword those quotes
"When asked about the song's inspiration an interview..." I would think you should add an "in" after "inspiration"
"She went into the studio wanting to write a "big, angry anthem", but described the final product as "an awesome woman anthem about being independent"". I strongly believe this sentence, reworded with less quotes, belongs to the Background section

I will continue my review soon. Paparazzzi (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Critical reception

Please reword as many quotes as possible. As I said before, it is a little difficult to read
In the lead, it is stated that "Its composition was compared by several critics to various pop artists of the late 1990s and early 2000s, such as Britney Spears and NSYNC. " However, they are not mentioned on this section...

Commercial

"113,000 sold in its first week..." 113,000 what? copies, units?
"her fourth top-ten hit" I believe "hit" it's too informal
It would be appreciated if the information is divided into continents: first North America (USA, Canada and Mexico), then Europe, Oceania, Asia, Africa (for example), but it seems weird going from Latvia to Mexico and then from South Africa to Israel

Music video

"For the music video, Trainor wanted it to be darker, more sexually appealing and very different than that of her previous videos to match the different sound she opted for with "No"" can be reworded as "Trainor wanted the music video to be darker, more sexually appealing and very different than her previous works, in order to match the different sound of the song"
"The accompanying music video for "No" was directed by Fatima Robinson. It was shot on March 4, 2016." Is there any information about the place where the clip was shot? If not, then combine both sentences

Live performances and other usage

This section can easily be expanded, adding information about each TV performance (clothes, stage, reviews)
"The song was included on the setlist for Trainor's The Untouchable Tour (2016)." This should be mentioned after the 2016 Billboard Music Awards- It can also be expanded while detailing Trainor's routine for the song while on the tour.

Release history

The release date is never mentioned in any other section of the article (besides the lead). It would be appreciated if you can expand about the song's release on the Background section or create another section before the Critical reception one called "Release", detailing the dates, when was it sent to radios, how Trainor teased the track before its release, the artwork, etc.

Current general opinion

@MaranoFan: I actually believe there's still a lot to do with this article in order for it to reach GA status. I don't considered it a quick-fail, however, you have not addressed my initial comments, which makes me wonder if you are willing to keep working on the article. It would be a shame because it waited a long time to be reviewed. I hope you can answer as soon as possible. I'm going to review the sources soon, and then finally decide what's the verdict. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I was waiting for the article to be placed on hold before addressing everything. Your comments so far seem really comprehensive, so they didn't strike me as initial comments but rather the whole review. Let me know if you require me to do all this first before you can proceed with the rest of the review.--N Ø 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Please address the comments even if I have not finished the review yet. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have done everything to the best of my ability. Go through the updated article. Regards, N Ø 04:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

For the first paragraph of the Background section, place sources 1 and 2 correctly
Ref 9 does not state the exact release date of the single
Refs 16 and 17 don't state "No" is R&B
Add an archived url of ref 29, since now Billboard makes you pay to read some of their articles ._.
In the Background subsection of the Music video section, ref 54 doesn't support this sentence: "The video included several choreographed routines with a dance move for each lyric; Trainor said it was the most she had danced in her life." The same reference is used for the following sentence in the Synopsis subsection: "A troupe of women are shown running to a location in the warehouse where they meet Trainor to perform a choreographed dance routine after the song's intro", however, the source only claims "it takes place is a smoky warehouse" and "when she's not executing tightly choreographed dance moves with her backup dancers, she's rubbing them down or letting them pet her".
Music video picture: Ref 56 never mentions Madonna as an inspiration
Live performances: Ref 69 claims Trainor performed the song on The Voice UK on April 10, not 9.
You could still expand on the performances on The Voice UK and Ellen, since both sources said she performed a "one-armed choreography" both times, while Trainor's outfit is described on Ref 70
Expand the information about the BMA performance; the Rolling Stone article said it was one of the worst moments of the awards and describes what she did on stage
There's an error in Ref 120, the template states that "type, position, AND certweek ARE REQUIRED FOR SWEDISH CERTIFICATIONS AFTER 2011."

Other

Composition section: The opening sentence, "Lyrically, the song discusses men who approach women and "can't take the hint" when their advances are rejected according to Los Angeles Times' Gerrick Kennedy" should be placed after the sentence "it features retro music playing through an "old-timey crackle" before coming to a stop, followed by a Neptunes-esque beat."
Copyvio detector: 51% Reduce the direct quotes used from this source

Verdict

@MaranoFan: Since my previous comments were already addressed, I'm going to put this on hold. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Paparazzzi, I believe everything has been done and the article is ready to be promoted. Regards, N Ø 11:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Since my comments were addressed, I'm going to pass this nomination. Congratulations. Paparazzzi (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.