Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Timeless (Meghan Trainor album)/archive1

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 February 2025 [1].

Timeless (Meghan Trainor album)

Nominator(s): N Ø 17:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the album Timeless by Meghan Trainor, who you might be familiar with if you are interested in the featured article process. She kept with the Takin' It Back formula, rapidly promoting songs to TikTok during the album’s release month, but unfortunately she was not able to make them look this time. The way Epic Records treated this album was criminal. On the bright side, Trainor enjoyed suspicious amounts of airplay and finished the era with one of her biggest global radio hits! It does have some really nice songs, like track numbers 1, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16. I am planning the TFA in 2034, as we will know by then if it is truly, um, timeless... Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--N Ø 17:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image/media review (pass)

File:Meghan Trainor - Timeless.png has a clear purpose, appropriate WP:ALT text, and a complete WP:FUR.
File:T-Pain 2019 by Glenn Francis (cropped).jpg also has a clear purpose and ALT text. I do not see any issues on the WikiMedia Commons side as the credit and permission seem to be all documented and approved, although I do think one of the extracted images, which is a close-up of T-Pain's eyes, is a bit odd.
Everything seems fine with File:Meghan Trainor - Whoops.ogg. The caption provides a solid rationale on how it represents something about the overall album that cannot be conveyed through prose alone, in this case, the album's usage of doo-wop and pop music. The WP:FUR is complete and also do a good job in justifying the sample's inclusion.

Everything checks out image-wise and media-wise. Apologies for not being able to do a full review right now, but I hope that this helps. Just as a quick note, I notice that "Whoops" is linked in this article, but it just redirects back to this article, so the link does not seem particularly useful. I would recommend removing that (and any other similar instances). Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the media review and the observation, Aoba47! I have removed that link.--N Ø 16:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help, and thank you for removing the link. Aoba47 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"on video-sharing service TikTok in 2021" => "on the video-sharing service TikTok in 2021"
"while regularly sharing clips and other content with influencer Chris Olsen." - this sounds like she only shared the clips and content with Olsen, which I presume is not what you mean.....?
"10 days after giving birth" => "Ten days after giving birth"

Isn't it optional for integers greater than nine per MOS:NUMERAL? I have now rewritten this so the sentence does not begin with a number after rereading that manual, though.

"Trainor sent him two songs, propositioning him to feature on them" => "Trainor sent him two songs, suggesting that he feature on them" ("propositioning" sounds too racy to me, unless it means something different in US English....?)

I used to think it just meant something akin to proposing, lol, but you seem to be correct.

"and she appeared as a feature on it" => "and Nash appeared as a feature on it" (current wording is ambiguous and could indicate that it was the manager who appeared)
"Trainor rejoiced the 10-year anniversary" - "rejoiced" isn't a transitive verb so this doesn't work grammatically. I would suggest maybe "celebrated"
"society's hypocritical expectations from women" - "for" women, surely...?
"In the cover" => either "In the cover photograph" or "On the cover"
"Its lead single, "Criminals" was" => "Its lead single, "Criminals", was"
Think that's all I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the prose review, ChrisTheDude! Everything should be addressed.--N Ø 19:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Averageuntitleduser

"and she began writing material that would resonate with audiences on it." — maybe, "with its userbase"?
"She gained popularity on the service while regularly sharing clips and other content featuring influencer Chris Olsen." — suggest removing "other content" or specifying it: "clips and skits" could work.
"for both the songs" — could they be specified?
"After Trainor had written many self-confidence songs for the album, she ran out of inspiration. Her manager sent her a speech by Niecy Nash, which inspired 'I Wanna Thank Me', and Nash appeared as a feature on it." — it may be worth emphasizing that the speech renewed Trainor's inspiration.
I feel the entire second paragraph of the "Recording and production" section would work better before the sentences about Trainor previewing songs to Epic, the album's producers, etc. At the moment, the article double backs on "Been Like This" and "I Wanna Thank Me", and I think this would create a clearer timeline.

I believe you are right about "I Wanna Thank Me", and I have just moved that earlier. However, T-Pain's verse for "Been Like This" would not have been a part of the version that Trainor previewed for the label, since she only heard it on December 22, 2023. So his involvement chronologically belongs at the end.

Yes, whoops! Forgot that recording finished so early. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"placing emphasis on the consequences of men's actions and societal misogyny with a theme of women's empowerment" — "placing emphasis on [...] with a theme of" reads a bit odd. Could you rework the sentence?
In the "Songs" subsection, the sentence about "To the Moon" is a bit packed. Maybe split it in order to address the production and lyricism seperately.
Does "Been Like This" specifically sample "The Charleston"? If so, could this be made clearer?

It is not filed as a sample, since Charleston went into public domain in January 2024. The current wording is probably the best way we can put it.

"which features American band Lawrence" — suggest moving this right after the first mention of "Crushin'".
"male counterparts" — "men".
"The same day, she announced the album, titled Timeless, would be released" — add a "that" before "the album".
"'Bestie' discusses self-love with a theme of friendships over a simplistic production" — maybe, "in the context of friendships". Also suggest removing "a".
"dons" — "wears".
"adumbrated" — suggest finding a synonym.
"the Timeless Tour" — capitalize "the".
This review by Renowned for Sound seems to have some good material!

Your work in the Meghan Trainor topic area always impressed me, so I had to give this a look. A lot of nit-picks, and as always, feel free to oppose any suggestion! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great review, Averageuntitleduser! I just have explanations countering two points, but everything should have been addressed with my last edit. My excessive work on the Trainor stuff occasionally invites negativity, so I really appreciate your kind words!--N Ø 08:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The explanations and additions look good! Some really fun tracks here too ("Rollin'" is a bop). I'm actually interested to see where Trainor goes next! Support. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Pretty sure I have reviewed these sources already, they seem to be OK as is the source formatting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

Recording and production

Could Niecy Nash be briefly introduced here?

Done.

Timeless has been mentioned multiple times in this article. Could it be replaced with "the album" in a few of those places where it is clear that the reference is to the album?

I count 23 Timelesses and 18 "the album"s, so replacing a few of the former with the latter would probably mean "the album" is repeated too much. Thus, I do not see the benefit.--N Ø 19:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. MSincccc (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

In this section, could the repeated mentions of "2024" be avoided especially when it is clear that the reference is to this year? You could also replace it with "that year" in some of the cases.

Replaced a few with "that year", like you suggested. I am not excluding it from the names of festivals that it is a part of.

Critical reception

AllMusic's Matt Collar thought... and South China Morning Post's Rhea Saxena praised... could be rephrased as:

Matt Collar, writing for AllMusic, thought... and Rhea Saxena, writing for the South China Morning Post, praised... to avoid false titles.

There are multiple instances of false titles being used in the article. I will not insist upon fixing them but since they are not preferable and in case you want to do so, I can point them out to you.

I am not a fan of that type of sentence structure, so I would rather avoid it. Based on my observation, music articles/contributors differ in their opinion on false titles, and the only thing strictly enforced is that their usage or omission should be consistent within the individual article.

MaranoFan This rounds off my suggestions for the article's FAC nomination. Looking forward to your responses to the above. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and you can find the responses above, MSincccc.--N Ø 19:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Rollinginhisgrave

Hi MaranoFan :) I'll have a look over.

The first paragraph reads like it would function better as bullet points. Is there a way you can rewrite this to attain better flow?
The first sentence of #Background reads a little ambiguously, as COVID's impact on live promotions being responsible for the decline in popularity.
sharing clips featuring influencer Chris Olsen some clarification that she's not merely reposting clips featuring Olsen, but she is in the clips.
10 days after giving birth to her second son on July 1, 2023. ten days after giving birth is July 1, or her son was born on July 1?
Trainor wrote the song "Forget How to Love" with her brothers and Scott Hoying 10 days after giving birth to her second son I'm going to leave a note here, although my feelings are incomplete. It appears like her son's birth is relevant to the content/themes of the song given how it is written here; it appears it is written in response to the birth of her son. Is this true?

Trainor does use the birth of her son to impart a timeline to the beginning of the album's creation process, so my phrasing feels like a fair way to convey this. While I respect your opinion, I personally do not think how it is written here conveys anything about the song's lyrical content.

I feel a little uncomfortable with the sourcing for Impressed by the material; even leaving aside complexities of production politics and Trainor's ability to reliably speak to whether the label was actually "impressed", I would put her characterization of their response between satisfied and impressed. I won't hold up FAC over this point.
Bit nitpicky: "within three months" is sourced to "Took like three months? Three months? Four months?" and "Yeah so I think the album took like three months": within three months implies less than three months.

I hope the new "Timeless was completed in approximately three months" phrasing addresses the concern, but I am open to suggestions if not.

From the same source, I think "Forget How to Love" being written ten days after her son was born has more uncertainty attached than in the article: "And then it was what — 10 days after Barry was born that you wrote Forget How to Love?"

You are right, she has stated that it was after "five days" and "a week" on some other occasions. "Within 10 days" seems to be safe to accommodate all possible scenarios.

The WSJ piece archived url is behind a paywall via archive.org, but archive.today has a non-paywalled snapshot.
Trainor chose Timeless as the album title due to her wanting to live forever for her children This sentence is a bit clunky
She believed the album was her best material attribute, if it is even DUE. For a claim like this to be DUE, I would want her doing a retrospective assessment of her albums, and not an interview she is doing as promo of this album.
switch to another by the chorus by the chorus or with the chorus?

"By the chorus" seems correct according to what Trainor says in the video.

highlighting the consequences of... societal misogyny liberal feminist account of gender relations endorsed in wikivoice here, going further than the article for feminism

Added a "her concerns about" bit like we had done to address this issue on All-American Bitch.

quaintly addresses I can't see the source for this
many vocals that lyrically details awkward, what do you see as the utility of clarifying "many" vocals and that the vocals are "lyrically" detailing?
The reggaeton[38] and girl group-influenced this is interesting. I don't really know how music articles generally deal with a case like this: the source can be read as saying the track falls into the reggaeton genre, that it is reminiscent of the genre, or that it is influenced by the genre. Not sure how to square this circle.
Same with salsa

"Inspired/influenced" is usually the way to go in cases where WP:EXPLICITGENRE is not met.

addresses increase in online hate addresses an increase? The increase? Either way, attribute that hate has increased as Trainor's opinion, for which she is not a RS on (per; I would not cite this source in the article online hate speech to verify that hate has increased)
Trainor addresses society's hypocritical expectations for women and the misogyny and mansplaining they endure from men. same as above, attribution necessary
Different word than disrelishing
reminisce about
would be released on June 14 ~~that year~~
Some overlinking, e.g. tights and music video: words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked
Consider moving their son to avoid
Initially waiting for one of the songs to gain popularity on TikTok reads awkwardly with next clause
Initially waiting for one of the songs to gain popularity on TikTok waiting sounds presumptive, which isn't reflected in the source
Reintroduce some critics, particularly Jack, in the #Reception section, when it's been a bit far since they were first introduced.
I'm going to flag a concern with renownedforsound.com, and perhaps a minor one: I read We work closely with international artists from the world of music and film, entertainment PR companies and artist managers to bring you interviews and reviews from the front line of today’s entertainment world. on their about page as ambiguous on the independence of reviews. I may be reading into it, although it may warrant more investigation if you agree.

I see it is on WP:RSMUSIC. Also, Trainor has never interviewed with this publication or interacted with them in any way, so I do not see reason to question the independence in this case. I do not mind raising a discussion about it at RSN later.

I'm also not sure what to make of the SCMP review, it is qualified as part of the "Youth Post" insert and by a "Junior Reporter". Let me know if this flags any extra considerations for you, and whether you think text should be rewritten in light of this.

SCMP is a source that has been extensively discussed at the noticeboard, with the conclusion being that it is highly reputed and no additional considerations apply when working with it. So I believe the junior reporter should be fine, especially since none of the information used here is controversial.

Though he considered that ? Not sure about this bit

I'll note at the end here that I'm not familiar enough with the full MOS to make a final determination whether prose meets such criteria. Hope the review helps nonetheless. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Rollinginhisgrave. This has definitely been helpful.--N Ø 22:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

"Critics believed it combined genres from Trainor's previous music in a more intense manner, and they discussed the songwriting." "Critics ... discussed the songwriting." I am not sure this is notable!
"Its deluxe edition". Is there a link for this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both done, Gog the Mild.--N Ø 16:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.