Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother (Meghan Trainor song)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2023 [1].

Mother (Meghan Trainor song)[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 05:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know: ...the fact that Meghan Trainor is literally mother right now?

I was confused about what to work on next, and decided to turn my eyes to this one since Trainor just gave birth to her second child. To make something even campier after the success of "Made You Look", Trainor enlisted the help of not just Chris Olsen but also Kris Jenner. The song was well received on TikTok but did not do very well outside of it. However, the music video is a must-watch! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 05:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

That should complete image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the media review! These are always really appreciated.--NØ 10:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check (pass), and comments (voorts)[edit]

Forthcoming. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did some light copy editing. Based on my review, this passes criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, and 4.

Thanks for this. The changes made all look acceptable to me.

Source review

  • All sources are reliable.
  • Citation style is consistent.
  • Cites to Youtube should use {{Cite AV media}}.
  • I'm not sure if ISSNs are required, but from my review of other FAC nominations, it seems like something other source reviewers ask for for print publications.
  • It's 19658803092 for your reference. From my experience, these are not mentioned in most recently promoted FAs.
  • When Billboard is cited as a chart, I think it should be {{Cite web}} with Billboard as the publisher, instead of {{Cite magazine}}, with Billboard as the publication. That would make it consistent with the cites to the other charts.
  • It's generally accepted that all instances of Billboard anywhere should be italicized, and this is automatically generated by the singlechart templates as well.
  • Ref name "Jezebel" should cite to Jezebel itself instead of Yahoo! Entertainment.
  • Good catch!

Spot check (this diff)

  • Ref 1 is good
  • Ref 13 (first use) is good
  • Refs 16 and 17 are good
  • Ref 22 is good
  • Ref 26 is good
  • Ref 29 is good
  • Ref 31 (first use) is good
  • Ref 35 is good
  • Ref 49 (first use) is good
  • Ref 31 (third use) is good

One other comment: Trainor recorded 60 different vocals for the chorus of "Mother", and her brother Justin made a sub-bass for it, after which Ryan said "I hear it now" and could not prevent himself from singing the song repeatedly. Citation needed.

This occurs around 33:10 in the Gian Stone episode linked after the succeeding sentence. Since the timestamps are close enough, I haven't referenced it separately to avoid citation overkill.

Great work! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting the source review out of the way early in my nomination, voorts! I've made the changes with some explanations above.--NØ 06:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for FAC now that these issues are addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • The Pat Ballard writing credit (i.e. being from the interpolation) should be more clearly explained in the lead and the article. Right now, it is not discussed in the prose at all and only pops up in the infobox, credits, and as a category.
  • I accomodated this into a note if that's okay. I felt odd incorporating Ballard's credit into the "Trainor wrote 'Mother' with ..." phrasing used in the prose since he died in 1960...
  • Agreed. Just to be clear, I was not recommending that Ballard be added in the "Trainor with "Mother" with ..." kind of way, but rather in the "Mother" uses an interpolation of "Mr. Sandman" which means Ballard got a writing credit kind of way. The note looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be beneficial to link interpolation. I know it runs the risk of having a sea of blue, but I would consider this more of an example of music jargon that may not be immediately understood by some readers, especially when compared to things like sampling.
  • I have a question about this part (in which Trainor addresses men who said her pregnancy would end her career). It reads like Trainor explicitly sings about this in the song, but I do not see that in the lyrics, unless I am just being dumb and overlooking the obvious. According to the article, this seems more like what influenced the making of the song, and I think that should be more clearly defined here as again, it could be read as a part of the song, not just one of the influences.
  • Would it be worth noting in the lead that "Mother" did not have the same success as "Made You Look"? I appreciate how it is discussed in the "Reception" section, and it made me wonder if it is worth briefly including in the lead as well. Feel free to disagree of course as I am honestly asking for your opinion.
  • Hmm, I don't think so. Mainly because of how limited discussion about this is in secondary sources.
  • Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the Cult Gaia branding is notable enough for the lead.
  • I think for this part (a few critics described it as glamorous), there are enough critics/citations to support this just being "critics" rather than "a few critics".
  • For this sentence (The song was influenced by "silly men" that told her "that having a baby would end [her] career.") I would directly attribute that these quotes are something Trainor said just to avoid any potential confusion.
  • I have a comment about this part (The snippet garnered some criticism from online critics). I would remove the "some" part unless the citations explicitly say that this criticism was only from a handful of critics. I only bring this up as I could see this word choice as being interpreted as minimizing this criticism.
  • I would fully spell out extended play and link it for readers who are not as familiar with this kind of music jargon. I believe this is the only time the acronym EP is used (unless I am overlooking anything) so I do not think it is necessary to use it here.
  • I would also link programmed as that is another instance of music jargon that could confuse some readers. I would also link engineering for this same reason.
  • This is 100% a clarification question, but do we know anything about the guy who speaks at the start of the song? I am just curious if this was brought up anywhere, like in an interview, etc.
  • I've heard rumors this was taken from a tiktok made by a random person. Unfortunately, there is no discussion about this in high-quality sources.
  • That is what I thought, but thank you for explaining this point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't this quote ("catchy ear-worm tune") count more as a position review than a more objective discussion of the song? I am just not sure if it is in the right section.
  • Would it be worth linking God complex? I know it is pretty basic, but I wanted to ask you anyway as I did think of it when reading the article.
  • The lead says that the musical composition received praise, and while I could see this being discussed in the "Reception" section, would it be possible to further highlight this with a topic sentence?
  • Hopefully I understood this right and the sentence I have now included addresses this.
  • Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my above comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again to just make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Aoba47! A few silly oversights on my part, and I am glad you were able to catch them. I've also now incorporated an audio sample, hopefully that looks alright!--NØ 09:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I would notify the editor who conducted the media review that you have added the audio sample so they can update their review with that in mind. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Watch[edit]

Forthcoming sometime this weekend or earlier. The Night Watch (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excited about it, The Night Watch!--NØ 14:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is very well done and a pleasure to read! Just a few minor nitpicks:

  • I think that there should be a "the" before engineering.
  • The transition for Reception "others were less positive" is a bit strange. Most of the critics aren't less positive about the composition and lyrics. You could replace the above sentence with the review from Exclaim criticizing the composition, (Something like "On the other hand, Exclaim criticized…" and then transition into something centered on them criticizing mother: "Some reviewers criticized Trainor for calling herself mother, usually an African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) slang term."
  • I think you do not need to wikilink to all caps in the music video section. I believe that most people will be familiar with the term.
  • "serv[ed] ultimate Hollywood glam". You could also choose a different word and keep it out of the parentheses, such as 'created "ultimate Hollywood glam"' The Night Watch (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, The Night Watch! I believe I have addressed your comments. I don't think they were nitpicky at all, and they have helped improve the article quite a bit!--NØ 06:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great work on this one. Happy to support! The Night Watch (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Chris[edit]

  • Drive-by comment: "A pop song with doo-wop influences, it interpolates the Chordettes's single" should be "A pop song with doo-wop influences, it interpolates the Chordettes' single". You don't use apostrophe + s after a plural noun.
  • I have addressed this comment in the meantime. Thanks a lot for taking up this review!--NØ 06:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full review to follow..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On March 1, 2023, Trainor shared a clip dancing to "Mother"" => "On March 1, 2023, Trainor shared a clip of herself dancing to "Mother""
  • "In the song, Trainor proclaims she is the subject's mother" => "In the song, Trainor proclaims that she is the subject's mother"
  • "It became Trainor's eighth single to reach the top 40 in the United Kingdom, debuting at number 42 on the UK Singles Chart dated March 23, 2023, and peaked at number 22 in its fourth week" => "It became Trainor's eighth single to reach the top 40 in the United Kingdom, debuting at number 42 on the UK Singles Chart dated March 23, 2023, and peaking at number 22 in its fourth week"
  • That's it I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

@FAC coordinators: I wanted to check in about the status of this nomination since the last review was 12 days ago and everything seems to have been in order since then. I stopped trying to get more reviews since there was a great amount of unanimous support already. Apologies if I am disturbing you at a busy time and hope you are all having a great day.--NØ 10:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries MaranoFan, always feel free to ask. I looked at this one yesterday and noted the four supports and source and image reviews. As it was just on the three-week mark I decided to leave it for another two or three days to see if anyone else wished to comment. However, if you have a second potential FAC nomination waiting to go, consider this as permission to run it. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, Gog. Excited!--NØ 09:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the random ping, buidhe, but perhaps you’d care to weigh in on whether consensus for promotion exists. I believe this one has reached the mark. I am about to *ahem* join the other coords on a certain leaderboard with this being promoted and your help seems to be needed to get things moving here.—NØ 20:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? As far as I can tell none of the coords are recused from this FAC. (t · c) buidhe 00:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't but GTM has looked at it several times (and also copyedited the blurb I added to the talk page yesterday) and does not seem to think this is ready for promotion(?) If another review is needed, I'll probably have to specially request someone. What are your thoughts?--NØ 04:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Gog the Mild you're active right now, and assuming this is when you noted the four supports and source and image reviews, I wanted to remind you that this has now been left open for three days since. Regards.--NØ 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such enthusiasm.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mother_(Meghan_Trainor_song)/archive1&oldid=1170749049"