Takin' It Back

Takin' It Back (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1

Nominator(s): NØ 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's album Takin' It Back. After the disastrous rollout of her third album, which was delayed for several years and rewritten four times, Trainor successfully incorporated TikTok into her promotional strategies and achieved a comeback. She trusted her instincts in the studio and took a more spontaneous approach with Takin' It Back. While critically the album went under the radar, it produced the bonafide hit "Made You Look". Happy Mother's Day, and thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

Addressed commentary moved to talk--NØ 20:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

• This is so nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part (Trainor worked with producers including Federico Vindver, Gian Stone, Kid Harpoon, and Tyler Johnson, to create it.), I am not sure the "to create it" part is necessary.
• It has been a while since I looked at an album article that had a deluxe rerelease so apologies in advance if this question is obvious. Should the "Mother" single release be represented in some way in the infobox?

• Deluxe singles have been represented in infoboxes when the deluxe edition was released the same day as the standard, e.g. 1989, but the template seems clear that this shouldn't be done on re-releases.

• Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure about this sentence: (Her collaborators would previously dismiss ideas she had conceived prior to sessions, but the material worked on for Takin' It Back was started by Trainor alone.) I understand the meaning, and it is solid information that is worth including in the article, but for whatever reason, I just found the wording off. I had to read a few times. It might just be me, but I would look at this sentence more to see if revisions would improve. Apologies for being vague about it as I cannot quite put my finger on it.

• It's definitely not just you! Hopefully I was able to improve this a little bit.

• Thank you for the edit. It looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (minimally employs electronic elements), would it be beneficial to include a link to electronic music?
• Motown was recently deleted so now it is a red link. There is nothing wrong with red links, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.
• Apologies again as this is nitpick-y, but "elements" is used twice in a similar context for two sentences in a row: (Its production incorporates digital elements and modern R&B beats.) and (The fourth track, "Don't I Make It Look Easy", has percussion instrumentation and R&B elements). I would avoid that sort of repetition if possible.
• It might be helpful to link girlboss here, (typical narratives about women being "girlboss[es]"), as while it may be a common phrase now, I could see some readers wanting more context for it.
• Would it be possible to link debonair horns? I have never heard of these kinds of horns before so I think a link may be helpful for an unfamiliar reader like myself. I might just be dumb though lol.

• Debonair is just an adjective here, it's referring to regular horns :)

• I feel really dumb now lol. Thank you for that clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At the end of the "Composition" section, I'd clarify in the first sentence about "Mother" (i.e. "Mother" is a doo-wop-influenced song) rather than implying it as part of a sentence at the end of the paragraph. I just found the shift from discussing the standard edition's final track to this part a little jarring.
• Was there any coverage on "Special Delivery" and "Grow Up", like on the lyrics or composition?

• None, unfortunately. The Rolling Stone article came the closest but even that barely mentioned the names.

• That was my understanding. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Release and promotion" section, the "Mother" music video is mentioned, while the ones for "Bad for You" and "Made You Look" are not so I would be consistent with whether music videos are discussed in this section or not. On a similar topic, I am unsure about the sentence in general (Kris Jenner appears in the music video.). I get its inclusion as that seems to be one of the more notable aspects of the video, but the current wording makes it seem a tad trivial if that makes any sense.

• The "Bad for Me" and "Made You Look" music videos were very critically low-profile releases. Jenner's appearance in the "Mother" video is the primary reason for the song's notability and garnered enough coverage to warrant a mention in my opinion, weightage-wise. I've reworked the sentence keeping your comments in mind.

• Understandable. Unfortunately, "Bad for Me" faded completely, while the focus for "Made for You" was its popularity on TikTok. Thank you for the clarification here. I have looked at the other album FAs, such as 1989, and it is best to keep the more specific information on the songs to the respective song articles. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would avoid using "thought" twice in close proximity for (Piatkowski thought the album) and (Renowned for Sound's Max Akass thought it).
• It might just be a personal preference so take this with a grain of salt, but I would end the paragraph with the Piatkowski review as it is more mixed than the others. That way, the paragraph goes from positive reviews and ends with a more mixed one, which serves as a bridge to the following paragraph about negative reviews.
• I am not sure what to think of the "Commercial performance" section as it is a single and rather short paragraph. I could see this information being collapsed into the "Release and promotion" section rather easily.

• I am not sure about "Release, promotion and commercial performance" as a section title, and the current section order of release→reception→commercial performance makes chronological sense in my opinion. The current arrangement is my preference.

• The section title would not need to be changed. Pod (The Breeders album) puts the chart information in the "Release" section. Chart performance and critical reviews are not really connected in my opinion, but I think it is a matter of personal preference. I can understand your rationale, and I think it boils down to personal preference. Matangi (album) has a similar structure with a single-paragraph "Commercial performance" section so I believe it is permissible for a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of the comments above are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I catch everything. I think you have done a wonderful job and a majority of my comments are either nitpicks or clarification questions. To be clear, I am focused primarily on the prose. On a side-note, I am surprised Trainor did not try promoting more singles from the standard edition after "Made You Look" blew up as I could see "Mama Wanna Mambo" getting a similar treatment. That being said, I understand the rationale behind "Mother". Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the very helpful review, Aoba47! If I am being completely honest I look forward to a review from you on any nomination I make, so I seriously appreciate it. Given Trainor's pregnancy and her current book tour, I guess I understand her decision to halt promotion despite the album potential.--NØ 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the very kind words. At the risk of sounding corny, I am just glad to help where I can. Thank you for the responses above (and I agree with your clarifications and explanations). When I am done with my review, would you like me to collapse my comments to prevent the FAC page from becoming too wordy? I do not imagine I will find anything major, but I still wanted to offer. I will do a few more read-throughs of the article tomorrow. I hope you are having a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have two related questions about this part: (revolves around her pregnancy's impact, its complicated nature). Could you clarify what her pregnancy is impacting (such as Trainor as a whole, her health, her relationship, etc.) and what is meant by complicated nature (such as this a broader description of pregnancy as a whole or is it more specific to Trainor)?

• I am not sure about this part, ("Shook" is about her impressive looks), specifically saying "impressive looks" in Wikipedia's voice. To be clear, this is not meant as a critique as Trainor as I would not think it is entirely appropriate to say someone has "impressive looks" in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. presenting it like a fact).

Thank you for your patience with my review. Once my final two comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review—pass

• File:Takin' It Back.png has an appropriate FUR.
• File:Meghan Trainor Alt. 2020.png appropriately licensed in Commons
• File:Meghan Trainor - Made You Look.ogg is 10% of the original song, length is permitted per WP:SAMPLE

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the media review!--NØ 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]