Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lips Are Movin/archive3

Lips Are Movin

 * Nominator(s): NØ 13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Meghan Trainor's second single "Lips Are Movin", which she wrote within eight minutes. Almost every critic that reviewed it compared this song to Trainor's debut single, and its release made Trainor the fifth female artist in Billboard Hot 100 history to follow her debut number-one single directly with a second top-five. Additionally, it is noteworthy as the first-ever music video made entirely by social media influencers. After its recent peer review, I am confident that this article has a decent chance of passing an FAC. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
 * The lead states that the song "is about Trainor leaving her significant other after discovering he is cheating on her". However, the text states that this is an interpretation by some reviewers, and indeed quotes a different explanation from the co-author. Be careful that opinions and facts are clearly distinguished throughout.
 * I have now made it clear this was just a critical interpretation.


 * "The first-ever music video with a cast consisted of only social media influencers" - the text says it's the first with a production team of influencers, which is a slightly different thing. Also this phrasing is grammatically incorrect.
 * The producer was not an influencer, so I have amended this.
 * I don't see that the cast claim is supported in the text? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Now switched to the Billboard wording: "created entirely by", which can be found in the Reception section.


 * FN1: link credits a different author
 * Robert Cocuzzo was the author upon the original 2013 publication, but I have now made the change.


 * What makes N Magazine a high-quality reliable source? Mashable?
 * N Magazine's about page provides evidence of editorial oversight, and its publisher has worked for The Boston Globe. The Mashable piece cited in this article is only used for critical commentary, its author Brian Anthony Hernandez has a documented history of contributing to several reputed sources, including Billboard.
 * What evidence of editorial oversight are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That it has editors. Nevermind, I changed it to Cape Cod Times and Billboard.


 * Fn15: don't see that author credit at given link
 * Different authors reviewed different songs for this article. The commentary about this particular song is attributed to Hampp here.


 * FN17: how confident are we that the sheet music released accurately reflects the song as recorded?
 * I am confident about the reliability of this since it credits the songwriters as the author.
 * I don't doubt that the source is reliable for what it is; my question is, how do we know that it matches up with the recorded version? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Trainor has recorded this song more than once. I believe it is safe to assume details like BPM and vocal range are about the one known recorded version.
 * I don't think we can assume that sheet music will correspond exactly to the recorded version even if it's the only recorded version to exist. See for example this explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed, albeit a bit reluctantly.--NØ 06:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * FN22: what kind of source is this?
 * FMQB is only being used to source the radio impact date as the AllAccess archives do not have a snapshot of this particular date. Would you like me to look for replacements?
 * If possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is in Idolator too but it is probably better to site a radio magazine directly for this purpose. Your call.
 * Pardon my chiming in, but I think FMQB is appropriate for radio releases. It monitored radio releases across the U.S. and could be compared to trade magazines i.e. MusicRow. HĐ (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Are FNs 24 and 25 the same source?
 * The first one is the German release and the second is Swiss.


 * Best Buy is a publisher, not a work
 * Amended.


 * FN53 is malformatted. Ditto FN63, check charts throughout.
 * FN53 is the result of the singlechart template. Should it still be changed? I believe its use is highly recommended.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this something that can be changed at the template level? It might make sense to normalize, or provide a version that is normalized, to line up with CS1. If that is not possible then yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done this for the New Zealand ref for the time being. But it seems like every other song FA (literally all) uses the singlechart templates instead. I think a larger discussion about this may be needed at the template talk page. I don't believe it is feasible to manually change them all.--NØ 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source review, Nikkimaria. I have replied above.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 15:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi : are you happy with this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Still think it would be better to look for a replacement for FMQB. Otherwise yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, as the above Idolator link and Bustle magazine confirm, "Lips Are Movin" was listed with an October 21 impact date on AllAccess. It just wasn't archived in a timely manner and the FMQB directory is now the best option available to verify this information.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 05:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro
Oh, man, Meghan Tumblr (it's an A Dose of Buckley joke)'s gonna get her own featured article. An as atheist, I can use this as proof there is no god...... Just kidding around.
 * I see you haven't treated yourself to a read of this one ;)
 * Oh.... Oh, man. Well, good work getting that article to FA anyway. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:
 * The lead section categorizes the song as "A retro-tinged doo-wop and pop song with girl-group harmonies and bubblegum pop hooks." (1) Girl group is not a doo-wop genre, it's a type of band and there have been many of all genres; we wouldn't categorize Destiny's Child, Spice Girls and Tegan and Sara as doo-wop groups, for instance, and I don't think this songs sounds like any of them. (2) This is a non-objective characterization from a Slant Magazine review. I understand this specific statement is in the lead cause it describes the genre of the song, but I'd like it presented it as an attributed saying to the Slant writer in said lead.
 * From what I've read at Girl group, it does seem to be a genre in the US that denotes doo-wop-influenced female pop groups from the 50s. For international readers' understanding, I will add a link to that page. And I understand where you are coming from, but musical elements are always covered unattributed in the lead and attributed in the article body. The lead is just supposed to be a brief summary that compels readers to read the rest of the article. (See Diamonds (Rihanna song), Style (Taylor Swift song), etc.)


 * I have no problem with context or background sections if they connect to the primary topic, but the only part of the background that seemed to influence the song's creation was "All About That Bass"'s commercial success. I'd only include that plus the making of "Lips Are Movin" itself.
 * Removed Trainor's independent albums. I believe keeping the details of how Kadish and Trainor met and the doo-wop pop nature of "All About That Bass" is reasonable, though, as it had a direct bearing on the creation of this song.


 * Why have the sample be the intro? Why not during the hooks where the "girl group" vocals are prominent as well as the handclaps and other instruments?
 * The current sample includes the hook: "lyin', lyin', lyin'", and the handclaps in the production. It most aptly demonstrates the song's "upbeat and catchy" nature, and is the part most similar to the chorus of "All About That Bass", aka the song's two qualities that were the biggest focus of critical commentary.
 * Actually, I just listened to it again. The intro actually does have girl group vocals, it's just they played the same pitch, hehehe. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

More comments soon. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's absolutely correct :) <b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 14:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have some issues with the composition section
 * "Trainor told The Tennessean that "Lips Are Movin" and "All About That Bass" follow the same formula," Specify. I know "formula" means the composition of the song, but I'm an experience editor who's worked on music articles before. I don't think the general audience (which is most WP readers) will get this. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering a wider perspective on this :) Clarified.


 * I just noticed a misinterpretation of a source, and I didn't even plan on a spot check of this article to find it: "saxophone beat.[15]" (1) Saxophone is also not a genre and a type of instrumental and (2) The source actually says "sax bLeats." Notice the "L." "Bleat" is defined as "a characteristic wavering cry"; in other words, it's not synonymous with "beat." I don't blame you if you didn't notice this, since it's one skinny letter hiding between fatter letters, but it shows you the importance of being healthy to have a fully-functioning brain (like I've been doing ;).
 * Whoops, definitely takes a smart one to notice this. Corrected.


 * A major problem with redundancy. The review summaries of "equally inspired by "vintage 45s and Amy Winehouse's snazzy new-millennial revival,"" "doo-wop throwback" and "Gary Trust characterized "Lips Are Movin" as doo-wop and pop" all state the same thing when you boil them down: it's a retro-inspired doo-wop track. If the genre is this widely agreed on, attribution is not needed.
 * Done. But imo "Lips Are Movin" being a doo-wop track should be stated explicitly once even after the line about its formula, just for readers' clarity.


 * Another redundancy issue in the last paragraph. In addition to word fluff, I don't think the quote is needed. I would write something like "While Kadish explained that the lyrics of "Lips Are Movin" were about by Trainor's frustrations with her record label,[8] critics Dave Paulson and Christina Garibaldi interpreted the track's lyrics as about leaving a significant other after being cheated.[12][19]"
 * Done. Although, chronologically, Kadish's explanation came after both the reviews were published so I framed it accordingly.


 * For completeness sake, I also found FN15 (The Billboard Singles "Worst to Best" piece), bringing up "a sly self-reference into its snappy chorus. "I gave you bass/You gave me sweet talk,"" I think we all know what that "self-reference" refers to, so I would put it in the composition section.
 * Already there in the composition section.

HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Other comments:
 * The Tennessean archive link is now dead, as Internet Archive has excluded the site from the website. Man, Tennessean newspapers are such pu- uh, anyway...
 * Removed the archives and tagged it for subscription.


 * The reception section is disorganized and, while not another quotefarm, has a fair amount of problems commonly associated with the way of writing. In simplier words, it doesn't have the best prose it could:
 * First, the beginning is presumably a section of "negative reviews," as the second paragraph prefixes with "Other reviewers were positive of the song" which indicates the paragraph will summarize the song's supporters. However, there are two reviews in the middle of the first paragraph that make positive comments: "Billboard's Carl Wilson complimented the lyrics, saying that they proved Trainor had "more going on than a topical trifle" [...] Brian Mansfield of USA Today called "Lips Are Movin" the "better record" of the two despite it lacking novelty.[36]" WTF?
 * Calm down... I have fixed this.
 * Sorry if my response was a little lengthy here HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Second, while there is an attempt at summarizing multiple opinions with the prefix sentences of both paragraphs, the section still suffers from redundancy. The Time quote establishes nothing new, while some of the other quotes give the same skepticism and criticism of "Lips are Movin" being the same song as "All About the Bass." The Clash and USA Today quotes also make the same statements of it having less novelty than "All About That Bass."
 * Definitely disagree on removing the Time review. Feeney's comment that "Lips" was created only to milk the commercial success of "Bass" isn't repeated by other critics so I fail to see how it constitutes redundancy.
 * Oh, that's not what I said. Probably should clarify. We already know in the background section that "Lips are Movin" was created to follow "All About That Bass"'s success. I think Time's statement means it's trying to be another "All About That Bass," as it "replicate[s]" the success of the song's style, but I'm pretty sure the later review quotes are similar. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense, fixed. Sorry for not getting this earlier. HumanxAnthro, I believe all of your comments are addressed now ;) <b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 14:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also. what's up with FN 53? HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I have made some of the changes and addressed the rest of them above.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 07:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good work, although I still have more of the article to read. I have to say, when I searched the song on Google News for later coverage for completeness, it was a bunch of results unrelated to the track all because they described her as the "Lips Are Movin singer." Things us Wikipedians do for research, hehe. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I remember when I use to read Billboards coverage of the Hot 100's top 10 back when I was a mid-teenager, and they would bring up the number of sales, streaming and radio for that week. Since the citation for "Lips are Movin"'s.... uh... move to the top ten brings up these numbers ("The similarly doo-wop/pop-styled cut soars to the Digital Songs top five (8-5; 110,000, up 2 percent) and the Streaming Songs top 10 (13-7; 7.8 million, up 20 percent). On Radio Songs, "Lips" lifts 44-36 (36 million', up 26 percent)."), plus I don't want just being another list of chart numbers and certifications when we already have those below, plus for completeness sake, these should be added. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessary--per WP:CHARTTRAJ. Adding them for the sake of demonstrating weekly moves could constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We should adhere to summary style i.e. peak positions, debut positions, charting weeks, should be enough. We are not meant to collect each-and-every detail. We are not a newspaper. HĐ (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. I didn't say to talk about every week on the chart. I just said to add info of the sales numbers for that one week, since it's covered in the Billboard article. I'm talking about the number of sales for a single week, which I'm pretty sure summary style has tolerated in every other music article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This was brought up during the PR as well. Weekly sales numbers are usually noteworthy when a song debuts high on the chart. "Lips Are Movin" is a sleeper hit, and highlighting its sales numbers during a random week when they were high is random and not in compliance with INDISCRIMINATE. The certified units sold in the US are already included to give people an accurate image of its overall success. Also, pardon me but I don't understand what is being implied with the excessive amount of periods in "'Lips are Movins.... uh... move into the top 10".--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b>'' 18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) The periods you're talking about, it was a joke. The joke was that the song had "Movin" at the end of its title, and that I couldn't think of an alternate word for "move" to avoid it sounding repetitive. It's a kind of joke I took from video reviews of movies and video games. Now you know the importance of real-life communication instead of just texting every time.
 * (2) "Sail" by Awolnation and "Somebody I used to Know" by Gotye are sleeper hits. "Lips are Movin" isn't; it got from 93 to 8 within a month (four weeks), with upward movements of around 20 positions each week, which is a pretty substantial move if I say so myself. Also, when a song gets to the top 10, that ain't no random week.
 * (3) Excuse the tangent here, but this relates to 1b of the FA criteria. I've seen the WP:Indiscriminate rationale used in other discussions, but with no explanation why it's "indiscriminate" or what the heck that even means. Aren't all encyclopedia articles already collections of information from sources? On a side note, why aren't we considering list of peak chart positions and certifications WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of information? While we're at it, why not extend the indiscriminate label to lists of albums and singles in discographies, or a list of personnel that worked on a single or album, causes the sources never cover the behind-the-scenes people, ya know? HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Discography lists and credits section are not INDISCRIMINATE--they simply summarize the most vital details i.e. chart positions, certifications that an album or a song received, so I think you are confusing these two things here. Top 10 weeks are acceptable if you insist, but specific sales figures for specific weeks raised the question--if we mention the sales each week it moved upward, shouldn't we mention the sales each week it moved downward, or even until it dropped out of the chart? I do not see anything significant about that, unless the song saw a sudden surge in sales somewhere in the middle of its charting trajectory. HĐ (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On another note, I also do not think Lips Are Movin was a sleeper hit--but that makes sense to not include specific sales week to prove its success. In the digital age, songs that move 20-30+ positions on the Billboard charts are the norm, I'd say. HĐ (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * HumanxAnthro and HĐ, I am going to let you two decide what to do about this. I had included this information in the article before HĐ asked for its removal: . So quite frankly, I am perfectly fine adding it back, and have done so for the time being so both of you can see how it looks. Best.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing the before and after edits (on the U.S. chart and sales paragraph)--I do not think the before section adds more substance to the readers' understanding with week-by-week sales and streaming figures. They are redundant especially when the song has sold millions way beyond the 100k-200k weekly sales (unless it received commentary from Billboard i.e. it was one of the highest weekly digital sales in the chart history). The most important takeaway, which is the fact that Trainor was fifth female artist to have two debut top-ten Hot 100 singles, is already mentioned. I am not seeing if week-by-week sales add anything substantial, and I shall reiterate my stance that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so even if the data per-se are mentioned by Billboard, we shall design the article in an encyclopedic manner--concise, straight to the point, no excessive details. HĐ (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with HĐ that it would be unnecessary to bring up weekly moves (unless they are noteworthy and have received coverage, like a huge drop or rise in the charts) and it would be best to stick the summary style. Apologies for the intrusion. I just wanted to second HĐ's point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, got busy working at my dad's small business, editing other Wikipedia articles on video games and learning Japanese. Here's a few more comments.
 * No problem.


 * "AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine described the track as Motown bounce.[17]" This stylistic description doesn't come close to reflect the most widely-agreed upon genre of the song by critics, that being a retro-tinged doo-wop number. I think it's redundant and unnecessary. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's being fairly attributed to Erlewine and not being misrepresented as anything more than his opinion. He is a reputed critic and his take is necessary to include for the sake of completeness.


 * "Spin's Dan Weiss dismissed the song as "the oldest-joke-in-the-book-ask-a-lawyer".[34]" Can someone clarify what the heck this means or saying? Cause (1) it breaks the flow of the paragraph and (2) it seems to be a simple "it's good," "it's bad" opinion, which we want the sentences to add substance to the topic. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely an "it's bad" opinion. Clarified.


 * "Yahoo! Music writer Lyndsey Parker compared the latter to the ones featured in a poster for The Rocky Horror Picture Show.[73]" I'd say this is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue. Why are we devoting an entire sentence to this? I wouldn't mean if it incorporated the concept of being like the Rocky Horror lips in the previous description about the other lip visualizations, but why a full sentence about one person's abstract view not shared by any other critic? HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merged into preceding sentence, works much better in my opinion.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 08:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the comments a bit delayed again. I'm on a general food and sugar detox (I mean, I still a little bit of a sugar, but far less) and focus on getting my brain as well as editing VG articles.
 * Most of the music video section looks good, but "She expressed excitement about the video's concept and concluded "it still feels very 'Meghan Trainor,' which is amazing!".[70]" (1) "Expressed excited" just sounds weird, and (2) we've already established she's talking about the "video's concept" in the previous sentenece.
 * Fixed.


 * Not sure why the first paragraph of the synopsis section is in there instead of the background and concept section.
 * Moved.


 * The music video reception sub-section is another quotefarm, with some of the quotes being summaries instead of real opinions. For example,
 * "Pell wrote that the clip continued the "bubbly and bright" theme of the "All About That Bass" video.[74]"
 * "Parker noted Trainor's fashion in the video, and stated that it "seems to be an unofficial campaign to land her own M.A.C. Viva Glam endorsement deal".[72]"
 * She described the video as "a super-meta technicolor dance party".[73]
 * Mashable's Brian Anthony Hernandez wrote that "the visuals are what you would expect from a bouncy pop song: young dancers, colorful backgrounds, quirky outfits and exaggerated expressions".[75]
 * These quotes are equivalent to review of music analyzing the genre of the song instead of giving a good/bad opinion.
 * I picked out more critical quotes from the article and rewrote the section. Mashable removed as it didn't offer anything critical.


 * The live performances paragraph also has a bit of a quotefarm vibe; I mean, there's no quotes, sure, but it's got that indiscriminate list feel to it. I think it's just the first paragraph.
 * Hmm, it doesn't have any quotes. I rewrote it a bit though and made the first paragraph more informative.

OK, I think these are all the comments I need to make, plus Nikkimaria's checking the sources, so I'll let them take care of that. Best of luck HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, everything has been addressed.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 08:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Welp, Support. Should've commented this the instance you responded but, hey, self-discipline requires slow building. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
I participated in the article's last peer review. I am leaving this up as a placeholder. Please ping me if I do not post anything in a week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will wait to further comments until the above review as I do not want to step on anyone's toes. Apologies for interrupting their discussion above. Just wanted to let you know. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would revise the following part from the lead, The song had a premiere on MTV News on October 15, 2014, and was released to United States contemporary hit radio stations by Epic Records, to the following, . I am recommending this for a few reasons. I think it is important to clarify that the MTV news premiere was also done by Epic Records. This revision would also put this part into a more active tense, and change up the sentence variation as most of the first paragraph has the song at the start of the sentences.
 * Sounds better to me. Done.


 * I am uncertain if the novelty part of this part of the lead, it too derivative of its predecessor and thought it lacked novelty, is really supported in the article or if it is really needed.
 * Given the equal amount of weightage negative and positive reviews have in the article body, I think it is important to represent the negative ones in this sentence too. Therefore, I have tweaked and kept some of it. Please feel free to change it to wording you think represents it better.
 * To be clear. I was not asking you to remove the negative criticism part entirely. I was only referencing the thought it lacked novelty. I think the revision looks good though. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would revise this part, 2015's That Bass Tour and MTrain Tour, and the Untouchable Tour (2016)., to, as I actually think the repetition makes it read better than having the year represented in two different ways.
 * Done.


 * I am confused by this sentence, The two had an additional day to work together and went into the studio., in the "Background" section. What do you mean by "an additional day"? There was not a time frame or schedule set up prior to this so "an additional day" lacks any context to be really understand (at least in my opinion).
 * I could have sworn the part about it being after the album's initial completion used to be in the article lol. Just added it back.


 * For this part, He spoke fondly about writing with Trainor: "It's almost like we share a brain musically when we're writing a song. I've never had that with anyone before.", I would add in the prose the year that he said this to just clarify that to readers. I would say something like.
 * Done.


 * Since single is linked in the lead, I would also link it on the first mention in the article for consistency.
 * Done.


 * I have a clarification question about this part, "Lips Are Movin" was briefly available to stream on mobile application Shazam. Why was it only briefly available on Shazam?
 * Shazam does this thing called "First listen", where a song exclusively premieres on there for a while and is available to stream upon shazamming the artist's previous single. This stops working when the song is officially out and is replaced with links to retailers like Apple Music instead.


 * I have another clarification question about this part American actress Liza Koshy. I never really associated Koshy as an actress (no offense to her, but I think she is far more well known as a YouTuber). Is that a fair assessment? I would put a description next to her that reflects what she is most well known for and I frankly do not think actress is it (but feel free to correct me if I am wrong).
 * I had initially gone for "actress" as it was the first profession listed in the opening sentence of her bio but you're right, her being a YouTuber is way more relevant to the context of her starring in this video. Changed.


 * I would either paraphrase or remove the "fierce" quote. I have always been told to avoid one-word quotes as they are never particularly useful, and the quote used later in the same sentence is much more interesting and informative anyway.
 * Removed.

Great work with the article. I have focused primarily on the prose. I do not notice anything obviously wrong with the images or the citations, but I have admittedly only looked at them superficially and without any deeper analysis. All my comments above are quite nitpick-y, and once they are addressed, I will read through the article again (and will likely support this FAC for promotion at that time). I am happy that you have gone for another FAC and I hope this encourages other editors who may have less-than-stellar experiences in the FAC space to consider doing future nominations. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Aoba47, thanks for your kind words and comments. I believe I have addressed them all :) <b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 06:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I support the nomination for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Media review

 * File:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.png and File:Lips Are Movin screenshot.jpg have appropriate FURs
 * When there's no evidence to the contrary, I'll assume good faith that File:KK color pic.jpg is the uploader's own work as claimed
 * File:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.ogg appears to meet WP:SAMPLE
 * No copyright concerns with File:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Moving (Jingle Ball) (cropped).jpg

The media assessment passes. I might come back later with comments on other details. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the media review. I eagerly await your comments!--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 06:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe SNUGGUMS now only reviews media and nothing else. HĐ (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I assess only that during FAC's, other times (like this) I review more. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from HĐ
I participated in the article's peer review, and will look through the article one more time to make sure it meets FA criteria. HĐ (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "However, critical commentary has described it as a song about Trainor leaving her significant other" I am uncertain if using "However" is correct--removing it would cause no harm.
 * Grammarly did not pick up any mistake in this sentence. I think the word "however" is beneficial here to represent the contrast between what the song was actually inspired by, and what critical commentary interpreted it as.


 * "it conceptually portrays" shouldn't "it portrays" suffice?
 * Done.


 * Very nice improvements with why "All About That Bass" was rejected!
 * The composition section is also very nice!
 * "have deemed" I don't think present perfect tense is encouraged--simple past ("deemed") should be enough.
 * Fixed.


 * "and was quoted as saying" by whom?
 * Kadish. Added.


 * "manufactured sass" shouldn't this be in quotes?
 * I turned it to "factory-produced sass" so it would be a direct quote but done.


 * Link feminism
 * Linked.


 * The Andrew Hampp link has the title "Best and Worst Singles of the Week"--I think it would be helpful to note whether Lips Are Movin was among the worst or best of the week.
 * The article does not make an explicit distinction between these but the tone of the review seems favorable so I added that.


 * "versatility, confidence, vulnerability and smartness" shouldn't this be in quotes?
 * Done.


 * I see that the weekly sales for its top-10 entry was re-added. I don't press to remove it completely--it's just that it reads incomplete that there is weekly sales for one week, and then this information disappears in thin air.
 * This was a re-addition insisted on by another reviewer. Since this information is also available for the following week, I have now added it.


 * Link laptop (I know this is a common term, but still..)
 * Linked.


 * "Andelman suggested showcasing behind-the-scenes events occurring during a music video shoot, which was used as the video's theme" convoluted. Is there any more straightforward way to word this?
 * Clarified.


 * "The x360 was utilized by each influencer who participated in the clip" I think something like "The x360 laptop appears frequently in the music video as a product placement" would sound better.
 * Changed.


 * Ref 9 has a harv error (to see this error, you must install this script).
 * It doesn't show the error anymore. Please feel free to verify if I have done this correctly.

The rest of the article is in very good shape. HĐ (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have resolved the concerns. Please let me know if you'd like anything else done.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 06:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I revised the wording for one sentence--please feel free to revise/revert if you think it reads awkwardly. Other than that, all of my concerns are now resolved. Happy to support this article for FA. Well done! HĐ (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

HĐ Please remove your blue templates from everywhere in FAC. Transclusions are to be avoided at FAC because they cause the page to exceed template limits, meaning FACs later on the page get cut off. Hopefully people can read a quote by ... using quote marks rather than colors. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me about that. Just curious, could tq be appropriate for FACs?` HĐ (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See WT:FAC; in the past, it was encouraged, but it seems that it may now be a problem. I prefer just to use straight quotes without any transclusions at all, as we now have such a problem at FAC.  It is being discussed on FAC talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

 * Extended commentary moved to talk (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Following sufficient changes (which include a couple compromises), I now support this nomination. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 18:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from LOVI33
Overall, I would say this article is extremely well done. Congrats MaranoFan! The prose is engaging, I see no original research and this article is definitely broad in its coverage. The only issues I have are with the citations, although all of them seem reputable and high quality. Here are my concerns:
 * Note 'A' cites six sources at the end (WP:OVERCITE?). I see that ref 2, 8, and 12 are used throughout the article so maybe remove those or convert ref 9-11 to a bullet point list ref.
 * Fixed.


 * Repeating a wikilink is okay on citations per MOS:REPEATLINK. I would recommend adding them in as it could enhance understanding.
 * Added in.


 * Idolator should be cited as a work or website on all citations per this discussion.
 * Fixed.

LOVI 33  20:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 138 is missing a translated title and language.
 * Added.

All addressed, LOVI33. Thank you for this :)--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 05:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great MaranoFan! I am now happy to support this! LOVI  33  18:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

 * , this nomination has accrued five supports and complete source and media reviews as well. I just wanted to bring that to your attention since I am excited and this seems to be the average count at which recent nominations got promoted. Regards.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 03:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no particular problems, but it has only been nominated for two weeks. I intend to leave it open for a few more days to allow time for other potentially interested reviewers to chip in. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox
The Tennessean gives me 3 free articles; looks like url-status=limited, not subscription. here is an archived link of AllAccess with October 21 impact date. I will read the article tomorrow ;) Heartfox (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the link! Looking forward to your comments :) --<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 05:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Kevin Kadish met Meghan Trainor" → who is Kevin Kadish?
 * Clarified.


 * fn 6 url didnt work
 * Fixed.


 * "Trainor overheard the track for "Lips Are Movin" through Kadish's headphone box and insisted they write it that day" → I'm a bit confused. Did she hear like an instrumental version and then they wrote lyrics to it?
 * Yes. Since it's clear from the references the lyrics weren't written yet, I have changed it to instrumental track.


 * fn 17 use the archived version which contains the text cited in the article
 * Done.


 * "The record label sent it to radio stations in the United Kingdom" → I believe BBC Radio songs are added their playlists by BBC (as does every radio station), but unlike US/Italy, the record label doesn't officially send them on a date. Maybe reword?
 * Changed.


 * fn 27 missing first/last, suggest adding via= as it's published by Sony, not the website
 * Fixed.


 * "Mikael Wood of Los Angeles Times considered "Lips Are Movin" as one of Title's dozen versions of the latter, which he found as cheerful but also as annoying." → Mikael Wood of the Los Angeles Times considered it one of Title's dozen versions of the latter..."
 * Amended.


 * fn 37 "spells great things for" is the same text as in the article, but no quotation marks are given?
 * This must have slipped out. Thanks, reworded.


 * "which Parker likened to the one in American television program So You Think You Can Dance" → I think this part is unnecessary
 * Removed.


 * "The music video's release reportedly boosted Trainor's social media presence, including an 11% surge in Twitter followers and 16% on Facebook." → the Billboard article fn 77 cites has more info; also "reportedly" makes it seem it could be untrue
 * I have kept "reportedly" as there is no explicit way to know that the music video was the sole reason for the gain. It is just what was reported :)


 * fn 85 "EW" should be in italics, same for "Billboard" in fn 41
 * Done.


 * fn 90 "TODAY" is a stylization, not an acronym, so it can be written as "Today".
 * Done.

Comments above :) Heartfox (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All done, Heartfox. Sorry for some of these basic errors and thanks for catching them :) --<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 03:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "C List" may be an unfamiliar term for many; maybe just rotation? Heartfox (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. I changed it to rotation.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 06:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to support! Heartfox (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)