Wikipedia:Peer review/Lips Are Movin/archive3

Lips Are Movin


I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring this up to FA status. With a few more editors weighing in, I believe we will get it this time.

Thanks, NØ 16:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton, SandyGeorgia. I will make sure to participate as much as possible :) NØ 03:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton, SandyGeorgia. I will make sure to participate as much as possible :) NØ 03:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HĐ

 * (Unrelated note) I wonder what went wrong for Trainor. I do not follow her closely, but she blew up even after a few years following her debut. The songs "No" and "Me Too" were everywhere, which kind of drove me insane lol. Either way, I hope she is content with the music she is making now.
 * She was one of the hardest working people in the industry during her debut. Unfortunately, the vocal cord hemorrhage is where it all began going downhill for her. But the silver lining is her new songs flopping and not being notable enough to create new articles for has forced me to work on improving her old ones to FA status lol.

Very nice work, just tweaking here and there since my comments are rather nitpick-y. The section that I am looking forward to after c/e is the "Critical reception" section. I hope my comments are helpful, and feel free to respond to wherever you do not agree with. HĐ (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the review so far, HĐ! Sorry for having so many queries but I guess it makes sense since this was the largest batch of your comments.--NØ 14:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine. I hope my large amount of comments does not bother you lol. On a minor note, is there a location for the mastering process by Dave Kutch? HĐ (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All your comments and insight are valuable to me :) And yes, I have added the location for the mastering process now.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 08:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
Leaving this up as a placeholder. I will wait until HĐ has completed their review first. My only comment right now is that I would recommend you remove (and replace if possible) the Idolator sources as I have seen several instances lately in the FAC space where that source is not considered high-quality enough for a FA. I do not have a strong opinion about it myself, but I think it would be best to handle that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The only other alternatives to source the song's leak are Bustle and DirectLyrics. I guess it's WP:UNDUE to cover it if only unreliable sources reported on it, lol. Removed!
 * Thank you for doing this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I was surprised that N Magazine was used in a music article. I am not familiar with that publication at all, but I was not expecting to see a naturist magazine used to support information in a music article. Would it be possible to cite this information with a more music-focused source?
 * Oop, I apologize. Naturist Society and Nantucket Magazine are definitely different sources. I removed the incorrect link now.
 * That makes more sense to me lol. Thank you for the correction. Aoba47 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I know that at one point in time, Musicnotes.com was considered a high-quality source for a FA, but lately, I have seen that this site (and sheet music in general) is not considered appropriate for a FA so for that reason, I would encourage you to remove this source (and replace it if possible).
 * I'm afraid there may not be replacements for this. It does seem, though, that it wasn't brought up as a concern on the recently conducted "Don't Start Now" FAC; it is also still in use at "4 Minutes", "Diamonds" (Rihanna song) and "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)". Apologies if it feels like I'm doubting your good judgement, but just for reference purposes can you link me to an FAC where its reliability was questioned?
 * The source was brought into question in my FAC for Style (Taylor Swift song). They decided that it caused no harm, but I believe quite a few editors are still bugging about it. HĐ (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be cautious about "4 Minutes", "Diamonds", and "Single Ladies" as those are all older FAs. I have used Musicnotes.com for a FA in the past myself, but I just wanted to caution you about this as it is something that I have noticed during the FAC process. HĐ, I know you meant this as a joke, but I would be careful about saying stuff like "a few editors are still bugging about it" as tensions can run quite high in the FAC space at times (as I am sure you already know) so I would just be careful about stuff like that. I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with questioning and discussing how we use sources. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I was initially confused by Citation 102 as it has Mexican Airplay for Meghan Trainor, so I clicked on it. The citation currently leads to a "Looking for something on Billboard?" error screen so I would find a way to correct this.
 * Corrected.


 * I am uncertain about this part, the song is included as the 11th track on the album Title, as I do not see how the song's placement on the album's track listing is particularly relevant. I can see it being notable if it was mentioned in critical commentary (see "Delicate" (Taylor Swift song) for an example of that), but I do not think this is the case here.
 * Good catch! I actually used "Delicate" as a reference while restructuring this article and that's probably when that happened.


 * This quote, "pseudo-feminist empowerment", reads more like a negative review to me so it does not make sense in the "Composition and lyrics" section. You repeat this quote in the "Critical reception" anyway so I would remove it from the other section.
 * Done.


 * I would be prepared to defend Mashable as a high-quality source. I am honestly not familiar enough with it to say either way, but I would keep this in mind for a FAC.
 * Brian Anthony Harnandez, the author, seems to have an impressive background, complete with a history at Billboard and everything.
 * Good job with this. This is the best kind of justification I would focus on for a FAC as it shows you have done research on the author and did the background work for it. You have convinced me at least that this would be appropriate for a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Just some quick comments as I could not help myself lol. I will look through the article next week to give HD the proper time and space for their review. I actually really enjoyed (and still enjoy) this song, and I cannot believe that it has been almost seven years since it was release. That makes me feel crazy old lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Aoba47. I have been on a nostalgic Meghan Trainor binge ever since Title's sixth anniversary recently, and I actually cried a few times, lol. The good ol' pre-Corona times...--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 03:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This peer review actually inspired me to listen to her music on Spotify, and I noticed the new re-release of The Love Train. I'd be curious to see what direction she takes with her future music. I know this is likely an unpopular opinion, but I miss when she did more doo-wop style music. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. And given the commercial decline she experienced after switching from doo-wop to R&B, I would guess its a popular opinion among the general public. There's a reason "Mom" (a doo-wop track) is her most remembered song I guess :)--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 14:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have two comments about this sentence: Billboard gave "Lips Are Movin" three-and-a-half stars, adding that it was helping to solidify Trainor "as the self-proclaimed queen of her own genre, 'she-wop'". Since this comes right after a separate Billboard review, I would include the reviewer's name to clarify in the prose that they are separate article. Also, I just never see the value of adding the star rating to the prose as I think it would be better to use that space for something else. I just do not think the star rating is particularly notable or beneficial enough to the reader to put in the prose.
 * Agreed. The first Billboard review doesn't identify a critic but I added it to the second one and removed the stars.


 * In the final paragraph of the "Critical reception" section, the word "while" is used to connect the Erlewine and Chicago Tribune's Matt Pais parts, and I do not think it makes sense in this context. I believe "while" is used to represent some type of contrast, and there is not a contrast between these two reviews.
 * I substituted "and" in its place.


 * While I like this sentence Riley Jones of Complex included the song at number three on his list of "The Most Motivating Songs to Get You to the Gym", deeming it best for indoor cardio. and I think the source is interesting, it seems rather trivial to me and I am not sure why this is notable enough for inclusion.
 * Removed.


 * I have two comments for this part, she entered center stage, accompanied by two backup vocalists who formed a Greek chorus. The citation does not say that vocalists were literally a Greek chorus so this is not entirely accurate. Instead, the writer was comparing the vocalists to a Greek chorus as seen here (practically made up a Greek chorus, emphasis mine). On a second note, this wording is very uncomfortably close to a sentence in the source (i.e. Clarkson entered center stage with two backup vocalists that practically made up a Greek chorus) so please revise further to avoid this.
 * Actually, upon further reflection, I would remove the Clarkson cover altogether. I did a quick Google search to see if more information could be added and it does not seem like this cover received a lot of attention. The current citation in the article is for multiple covers from the show and not just this one (and the entry on this performance is not substantial). Since the coverage on this seems very minor, I'd remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the cover is essential to this article so I have done this. Thank you for the comments so far.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 14:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am a little confused by intended structure for the "Critical reception" section. I thought the first paragraph would focus on the "All About That Bass" comparisons, but I see these being mentioned in the second paragraph as well. The third paragraph seems very well-focused on the positive reviews of the song, so my concern is with the first two paragraphs. I looked back at the lead and I do not really see this sentence, Some deemed the song catchy, while others found it repetitive, being represented here as I do not see a focus on either the catchy praise or the repetitive criticism (although I guess the second half is about the "All About That Bass" comparisons, but that was immediately obvious to me as repetitive could refer to other things as well). Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see how that might be confusing. I have now merged the first two paragraphs together, though it's a bit long it fixes this issue. Now the combined paragraph is comprised of the comparisons as well as the two negative reviews. I do welcome specific suggestions on how to clarify this further. Also, I changed the bit in the lead.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 08:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Aoba47, is there anything else you would recommend I do before posting this nomination at FAC? Do you think it is far from meeting the criteria and I should consult more reviewers, or should I proceed with the nomination now? Sorry but since it will be the article's third nomination I am a bit paranoid :P--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 08:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I recommend you wait for Aoba's full review, but in my opinion it is ready at FAC now. I am uncertain if other editors find the prose ready, but I believe there would be minor issues left should there be any. (But don't take my words to the heart because I'm not an FAC coord--just my opinion lol). Good luck, HĐ (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good to go to me. I just have one minor comment about this part, Billboard's Andrew Hampp noted it as the first-ever music video with a cast consisted of only social media influencers, in the lead. I do not think it is necessary to put in the Billboard attribution as a MTV News citation (i.e. citation 71) also covers this and it is not limited to just the Billboard source alone. I recommend changing this up as I initially found this point rather trivial if it was only reported on by one critic. Otherwise, great work with this and best of luck with the FAC. Ping me when you nominate it and I will look through the article again. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, both of you. I'm going to look for some more reliable sources about the video's synopsis. I just noticed that a usage of Idolator is still remaining in this section. Really happy to have both of yours' co-signs and I will proceed with the nomination very soon.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 09:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)