This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "All About That Bass", which she initially offered to other artists but decided to record herself. It reached number one in 58 countries and became the best-selling song by a female artist in the 2010s in the United States, earning two Grammy nominations. Over the past few days, I started rewriting it "from the bottom to the top". After a copyedit from Baffle gab1978 and peer review comments by Aoba47 and SandyGeorgia, I am confident about this article. It is quite large so thanks to everyone who will take the time to offer their feedback here.--NØ 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other details will follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review! I removed the Minaj and Lopez pics and added a screenshot that would be more beneficial for readers' understanding. Looking forward to your other comments ;)--NØ 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and this portion of the article now passes when the critical commentary focused on File:All About That Bass screenshot.png is definitely a better inclusion that the previous video screenshot. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
July 2013 is actually when the song was written, not necessarily recorded (all I can say for sure from the given link is how recording took place in between that month and January 2014)
Kadish says he finished the demo two to three days after the session and confirms it is the version that was released: "what I sent her is what you hear on the radio", this is also confirmed by Reid here.
Not sure why the US of all places is being singled out within the lead among the many charts it topped. Perhaps you could rework this so it says something along the lines of "These included ________, where it also received multi-platinum certifications" after mentioning how it went number one in 58 nations?
I changed it to a mention of its US sales record.
Is "played an important role in the song's rise to prominence" based on the subsequent "rock star in two days" bit regarding the music video?
That and its viewcount.
Since "attractive" is an inherently subjective description (people's tastes widely vary on what does/doesn't look good), I'd scrap "conventionally attractive"
Removed.
Tworeviews on their own don't seem like much to substiantiate "Some" from "Some music critics viewed 'All About That Bass' as a novelty song"
Added more.
For the accolades it only got nominated for, let's mention who won instead
I guess this is considered out-of-scope, since the FAs I was looking at—Shake It Off and Blank Space—do not include it.
Is it known when the video was filmed?
I don't think so.
Try to avoid having super short paragraphs like the first and third ones from "Background and concept"; that makes the text flow seem choppy
Fixed that one.
Something about the tone of "essential" from "Social media was an essential factor" doesn't feel optimal
Once these are resolved, I'm sure the article will be closer to FA-material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments, SNUGGUMS. :) I made the changes and have responded above.--NØ 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, and I now support the nomination. My bad on recording time (I initially misunderstood the demo part when reading about it). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am less certain about the music video screenshot. I understand SNUGGUMS' comment about the original screenshot, and I do understand the purpose of it as it does illustrate a common point of criticism directed at the video. I just have not seen a screenshot used to emphasize negative reviews, and I would like to hear @SNUGGUMS:'s perspective on this as they are far more experienced than I am. I was just under the impression that images were not used to focus on negative reviews, but avoiding that completely may cause some NPOV issues. If the current screenshot is kept, I would move it down to the "Reception" subsection as it is more about the critical response to the video.
In the "Critical reception" section, the first sentence of the first paragraph has four citations. I understand why the citations are there to support that information, but to prevent citation overkill, I would encourage you to bundle the citations instead.
Thankfully, I was able to get around my current computer issues by figuring out how to connect my wireless keyboard to my computer. I had participated in the last peer review for this article, and all of my comments were addressed there. I just have two quick comments (i.e. a question about the music video screenshot and a recommendation about citation bundling), and once both are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion #8 of WP:Non-free content criteria is Contextual significance, requiring that files such as these help illustrate a point more easily for viewers when text alone wouldn't be helpful enough. I've seen other pages use screenshots featuring aspects of videos that get criticized by reviewers, especially during instances where it sparked controversy. In this case, I feel the image of twerking helps give readers a better sense of what the complaints were about. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very quick response. That makes sense to me so the image seems appropriate to me now. I have moved it down to the "Reception" subsection per my suggestion above as I think it is a better fit there, but feel free to revert if you disagree. Thank you again for the help. It is always nice to learn something new about Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Aoba47. I removed the AllMusic ref. The other three are cited multiple times so bundling them could cause confusion. And as for the music video screenshot, I do agree it looks more relevant in the reception section :)--NØ 06:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not convinced about the screenshot. The description already in the text of the scene is sufficient to understand why critics objected, I am not convinced that its "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" as required by WP:NFCC. It is not the specific action of twerking that is significant here but its cultural identification with a specific group of people, so I don't think the visual is necessary. Likewise, I am concerned that it highlights a negative aspect of reception that barely gets 2 sentences in the article, thus potentially being a POV issue especially considering BLP implications. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe, I will remove it if you insist. However, I think the screenshot is demonstrating a number of things in this section—the pastel pink backdrop, the "retro pop world" comment, Trainor's size (which resulted in a debate), the dance sequence and colorful sets being designed to attain online popularity, the "Baby Got Back" influence, finally the accusations of cultural appropriation—the latter is just the one I considered the most worthy of being the caption. So I do see its omission being detrimental to readers' understanding of this section.--NØ 09:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can see that, but if it's being retained for other uses, I would change the caption to reflect that, rather than giving undue prominence to cultural appropriation claims by repeating them in the caption. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you for the comment!--NØ 09:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly certain of this, but I believe titles/references are supposed to be converted as if they were prose. For example, All About That Bass would be "All About That Bass" and Billboard would be Billboard in a title parameter.
Done.
fn 24 is not the Cape Cod Times; unsure of its reliability too.
I removed its usage for the musical elements. I hope it's fine to keep the interview-sourced details since its video is linked at the bottom of the article, and no replacements were found.
Is it the only source for the music video elements like director and filming period? If you want to keep her quote maybe I'd just cite a timestamp from the audio interview on YouTube, so we can be certain the quotes are correct. Also "Trainor described Robinson as "the best of the best" and credited her for making Trainor" doesn't really make sense; Trainor credited her for making Trainor?
For the filming period, yes. Retargeted this to the video itself.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stereogum is italicized in prose but not citations?
All italicized now.
fn 54/165 are not a Vogue article
They aren't but they confirm the claim they are used to cite, since the Vogue article itself seems to have been deleted.
I would suggest removing the New York Post ref given the sentiment surrounding it in general (WP:NYPOST).
Removed.
fn 80 url is dead
Archive added.
the music video really premiered on Idolator?!
I was shocked too, lol. The YouTube upload date is the following day.
suggest changing itunes links that redirect to apple music to apple music links
Amended.
fn 87 doesn't reflect the figure cited; looks like it's for "On The Floor".
Fixed.
should be clear in the certifications table that 10 million US figure is units not sales? (currently no symbol is listed)
Done.
for Spain, platinum streaming certification = 8 million units?
The template automatically generates 8 million streams for a Plat cert, while Promusicae states it is 10 million streams; for now I am trusting the former. Please feel free to suggest otherwise.
Template:Certification Table Entry cites the Wikipedia article as the source... maybe add refs that indicate the threshold amount/definition of all the certifications too? (I realize that's a lot, but Meghan Trainor required refs for the discography section, and that's for something with an article, bu this is via a template). For the sake of accuracy I would prefer to rely on a direct source rather than a template that apparently cites Wikipedia articles. It appears the Spain certification threshold is here, so the 8 million looks correct. Heartfox (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that the PDF that opens from the reference link includes the streams. There is only one asterisk in front of "All About That Bass" and if you scroll down they confirm it is just "Disco de oro" (Gold) = "4 million escuchas" (4M streams).--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
didn't do text–source spot checks
sources not noted above are suitable for their usage, Heartfox (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Italicize the second instance of "X Factor UK" in prose
I think fn 93 title would be 03.11.2014 - 09.11.2014
the trans-title parameter should be added for those with non-English language titles (e.g., fn 98, 109, 125, 192) (some have them already, but some don't)
Not sure where fn 87, 102, 112 publisher are coming from. What companies are "Top 40 Singles", "Top Digital Download", "Canciones Top 50"? These seem to be chart names but are used as the publisher?
fn 122 website title looks to be El Portal de Música Heartfox (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, most of these are what is automatically transcluded through the singlechart templates. Their use is recommended, and can be seen on longstanding featured articles like Diamonds (Rihanna song) and Blank Space. With all due respect, it is not fair to task me to change them all manually for a song that charted in, like, 200 countries. If you want to change them on a large scale, start a discussion at Template talk:Single chart. I have fixed some of these out of courtesy.--NØ 05:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fn 104 is dead.
fn 196 missing trans-title.
fn 208 missing language
fn 202 "Adult Pop Songs" is not on the page.
Adult Top 40 is Adult Pop Songs.--NØ 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fn 224, 238 is not in English
weekly Hungary Radios Top 40: there are two consecutive parentheses. Heartfox (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, does the source review pass now? It will make the coords' work easier if this is stated explicitly.--NØ 11:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fn 128 does not seem to indicate filming occurred over a two day period. Also url-status=live. Heartfox (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Note that Heartfox indicated this was the last of their concerns, on their talk page, so this concludes the source review.--NØ 04:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noted issues to the people at the certifications template, and Template:Singlechart's code is fully protected, so major overhauls which I believe are necessary would unlikely be completed in a timely matter. I will say this source review passes as I would not oppose when certain things are out of the contributor's reasonable control. MaranoFan, I know you want to nominate other articles but telling the coords "this concludes the source review" yourself feels a bit over-the-top to me. It's not like I'm going on vacation tomorrow... I tried to be as thorough as possible and would hope proper citation formatting and taking advantage of appropriate parameters is in the best interest of an article, especially one to exemplify "Wikipedia's very best work ". Heartfox (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After reading the article (twice) I could not find any grammar mistakes. It is a well-written, extensive, and well-detailed article about an essential commercially-succesful song. The sources seem to be reliable and images well-used as well. Congratulations! — Tom(T2ME) 11:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, this is far enough down the queue that I will have to directly approach someone to get another reviewer. Will that be necessary?--NØ 16:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be several thorough reviews here, and I am inclined to believe that once they are all completed there will be sufficient indication of whether a consensus to promote has formed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, this is just to let you know Serial concluded his review and now supports. Sorry I just really want this to be promoted in under a month (since the nomination) haha.--NØ 20:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would want to leave it for four or five days to see if it attracted ant further comments, but I have made a note to go through it some time prior to 17:16, 27 April to see what I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. If my math is correct everything should be in order. I will just note that buidhe, above, does not plan on posting a full review.—NØ 02:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, Gog, but I'm on a roll and might appropriate the close just a bit before your own deadline... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"After independently releasing three albums as a recording artist": would we lose anything by simply saying "three albums herself", as that would eliminate a degree of repetition with "artist" (used later in the sentence?
(On that, I don't really understand what's being implied: she released albums herself, and then wrote for other people because she didn't think she could ever release albums herself? Had they tanked? If so, please say so.)
No reliable sources offer commentary about the albums' commercial performance. From what I understand, they weren't commercial pursuits at all, just Trainor playing with Garageband. She never considered being a serious recording artist herself due to her chubbiness, which I think is already being sufficiently implied.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can a date be inserted in this section to anchor it in the chronology?
Potential song titles: do we know what the others were? (Perhaps a footnote if it would burgeon the text.)
Unfortunately not.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about "and suggested these as a basis for the lyrics" (or something), to remove repetition of "themes".
"and wrote lyrics criticizing...": for this song? In which case, that they're lyrics is probably self-evident by now; how about something like
"while Trainor started singing sang the hook" (because, yes she started, but she also carried on).
"Acc. to Kadish...three days later". Could merge these two short sentences? E.g. "contributed to the lyrics and melody,[5] and Kadish finished the demo..." (removing repetition of "Kadish").
Concision: "Although both were satisfied with the song"?
"and wanted to record it": Would we say '"rerecord it", since it's already been recorded the first time?
So did they record it with synths, etc? The next thing we hear, she's singing it with a ukelele! The two instruments aren't mutually exclusive, of course, but could this be clarified?
"Speaking in 2015, he said..." (repetition of Reid).
Comp & Lyr. int.
Could tighten the first sentence: "The song was produced, engineered, programmed, sound designed, and mixed by Kadish—also played drums, electric guitar, and bass guitar—at the Carriage House studio in Nolensville, Tennessee."
In its first sentence, the second section uses the word £song" three times in less than thirty words: repetition.
It gets a bit technical here, for us WP:RANDYs. E.g. "bass instrumentation across its beats" (what is that?) and are the adlibs wordless if she's saying "bass bass" etc?
I tried to clarify this.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link to Scat singing? (Notwithstanding SEAOFBLUE of course)
"shimmying melody",[20] which has been compared..." is tighter, and gets rid of both the stubby sentence and a repetitive "melody".
"promote a positive body image": I think removing the indefinite article makes the point a more general one. I admit, though, that I may now be diving the caves of minutiae!
"In the song, Trainor": "In her song, Trainor...", as the previous song mentioned was Timberlakes'.
"She addresses the listeners and...": don't all singers do this?
"if they are only enticed...": I know what you mean; the premise could be simplified, perhaps "if they are only attracted by thin women"?
(Aside: it's probably an ironic comment on popular culture that a song from 2002 is no longer "modern". Guess Andy was right!)
Actually, I thought it unlikely that The Grauniad would propagate postmodernism; sure enough it doesn't. The actual quote is ...the song speaks to people as a 2014 version of Christina Aguilera’s self-empowerment classic Beautiful. I assume all the other quotes used are accurate.
Correct, and yes they are!--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rel
"debut extended play (EP) Title in 2014 and her studio album of the same name the following year", reduces parentheticals.
"and serviced it to contemporary hit radio": Lose the industry slang, no one knows what it means.
"n August 14, 2014, and for download on September 28". The year's implicitly the same.
Personally I think these specific days of the month could be safely removed; per summary style, surely it's unnecessary detail. Gets kinda repetitive too.
These are typical in song FAs. It is my opinion that they should be kept to establish a proper timeline of the song's release in different territories.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason an EP was released called 'AATB' when we have just been told an EP called 'Title' has already been released?
Probably to push sales for the single. That's too WP:OR to be stated in the article, though.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On that, what are these German-speaking European countries—all six of them?—and why did they get different treatment?
VP: should be spelt out in full as first (and indeed only) usage.
Crit. rec.
"worried the misuse of the word "treble" in its lyrics might ruin the word's meaning for a whole generation": why?
The author really doesn't give a good idea why. They do draw a parallel between it and Alanis Morissette's "Ironic", the inclusion of which probably won't help clarify anything for the layperson.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"thin women": the three references after this are out of order.
Match the tense between "imitated body standards" and "appropriating colloquialisms". (You could also lose the 'that'.)
"criticized the lyrics for encouraging": "criticized Trainor" would be less repetitive.
"writer Yomi Adegoke said the song": Let's have it that she argued rather than said (again).
"is insulting": To whom? Women, or men and women?
"Shah said critics": "Shah suggested critics", or something, as someone has already said (again).
Accol.
"was placed at number": Easier to say, "reached number"?
Chart. perf.
Don't suppose its slow rise in popularity has been attributed to anything?
No, other than Trainor being a new artist which is a fact prior sections already communicate.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mus. vid.
Suggest inserting the sentence "Music website Idolator premiered it..." before "Social media played..", where it would fit neatly. Then the first two sentences—both about Fatima Robinson—aren't broken up by something that happens later.
"according to her" is superfluous: suggest "as 'the best of the best' and that Robinson made her 'a rock star in two days'".
"reflect the fun nature of 'All About That Bass'": Tighten to "reflect the fun nature of the song". I think we know what song you're talking about by now!
Add "To that end, Robinson suggested..."
Tighten: "which would popularize the video during summer".
Remove "to which Trainor agreed".
If "a cartoon" is a quote, it should be cited per WP:MINREF.
Suggest recasting that sentence: suggesting sth like "Trainor told The Boston Globe she considered the caricature "a cartoon" that she only ever intended to portray in the video. However, she said she felt pressurized to retain the look after the video became popular".
I'll go with your wording but omit "However", some users in the FAC space have strongly deterred me from using that word, lol.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"would inspire viewers to dance, even while seated": suggest a direct quote here, as you don't quite manage to capture the meaning behind the idiom. (Not your fault; that's the nature of idioms.)
"Grein said the video...": Grein suggested the video...
Suggest "Emma Garland of Vice found the video enjoyable"
This sentence ("On the finale...on December 13.") needs tweaking.
H'mmm, fours "tours" together. Tricky.
I know! Tried really hard and managed to reduce one repetition, let me know if you have any ideas.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular significance of the no.22 position? (To either the Cowboys or the Redsjins, perhaps?)
No. I will remove the jersey number.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"She also performed it "
"BBC Radio 1's game 'Your Lyrics Different Song', which Billboard's Glenn Rowley considered a successful rendition"? (In any case, atm you've a stray space before the semi-colon.)
Cult. imp.
A single word ("curves") needed be quoted.
Might be worth linking to Basting (cooking) in "Baste" (even though it is a title).
"ardent delivery"?
"million views on Bradlee's": the latter's?
All these are mostly suggestions (although, naturally, I know them to be best!), and nothing's non-negotiable. (Forgot to say, anything I get wrong wrt to AmEng can just be ignored, although it's always a useful lesson.)I look forward to seeing this promoted. It's ironic that, while Wikipedia has a reputation for being full of fancruft and pop-culture trivia, it's actually pretty hard to get that kind of thing to FA status: the sources rarely allow it. Although you don't seem to have any trouble: congratulations are in order at doing so...again. ——Serial 16:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your very helpful comments, Serial Number 54129. Regarding the date concerns, I consulted some FAs—"Diamonds" (Rihanna song) and "Style" (Taylor Swift song)—while they do not omit dates entirely, they do avoid repetition of the years, which I have now done here. Please do let me know if you find the changes satisfactory. Greets!--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for disturbing again, Serial, but I understand coords will promote this nomination once we have your approval; do you believe your concerns have been addressed? ;) --NØ 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now then, now then MaranoFan, I haven't received my brown envelope from the Guv'nor yet.
I am hunting for an appropriately coloured envelope even as I type. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that, with this edit you dealt with almost every prose nitpick and that with subsequent edits you removed repetition etc? ——Serial 12:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I explained the few things that couldn't be done due to lack of available information above :) --NØ 13:02, 23 April 2021 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
