Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

Made You Look (Meghan Trainor song)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking about taking it to FAC soon, and I want to get some reviews on it as this will mark my first time nominating an article about a song this recent. Since the song has now peaked on almost all national charts, I expect this article to remain stable and hopefully move towards an FAC soon after some reviews. Advice on everything from prose to references is welcome and I would like to thank everyone who will take out their valuable time to provide reviews here! :)

Thanks, N Ø 11:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Addressed comments

I am unsure if I will be able to commit to a full review, but I wanted to bring up a quick comment about the article. Currently, the article only addresses the Kim Petras remix in the "Release history" table, but I believe this release should also be mentioned in the prose. I did a quick Google search and found the following citations (Rolling Stone, NME, and American Songwriter) that discuss this remix. I would also add information about the remix's lyric video to the article, even if it is just mentioning its existence.

Again, I am not sure if I can do a full review, and I am sorry for that, but I still wanted to bring this to your attention as it was something that I noticed. I might make some time in the future to try and help, but I cannot guarantee it. I am glad to see you bring this article to the peer review space with a potential FAC in mind. This song is a more recent release (as you've already mentioned) so props to you for all the work on this! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for pointing this out and for hunting the sources! I'll work on the remix part soon. I do think the article would benefit greatly from a full peer review from you but please only do it when and if you have the time.--N Ø 11:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take as much time as you need to add the remix information to the article. I will try my best to make some time, but I just wanted to be clear that I cannot fully guarantee that I will able to. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend archiving the source links for the images (i.e. the cover art and the Daryl Sabara image).
Title in Citation 1's title should be in italics. I believe the rest of the citations have the correct format for the album titles, but I'd still encourage you to go through all of them just to double-check.
Tomás Mier should not be credited as the author for Citation 22. While he did write the part on this song, the article does not list anyone in its by-line.
I do not see this part (who directed positive commentary towards its throwback production but some criticized its lyrics) from the lead fully supported in the article. In the "Critical reception" section, I do not see praise specifically for the throwback production, and the only review I see that explicitly mentions this (the one from Far Out) reads more negative to me. The reviews on the lyrics seem more mixed. Plugged In dislikes them, while Rolling Stone enjoys them. There does not appear to be a strong critical consensus to comment either way in my opinion.
For this part (After the former album's title track attained), I would use the song's name directly in the prose as it has been a sentence since Title was mentioned and a separate album (Treat Myself) was mentioned in the space between. I think it would be best to avoid any potential confusion for the reader.
I felt this part (along with the influence of her pregnancy) seemed tacked-on at the end of an already dense sentence. It would be beneficial to make it into a separate sentence. You'd also be able to provide more context for how her pregnancy influenced her doo-wop return.
It seems that Trainor has a strong presence on TikTok and based on interviews like one for Entertainment Tonight, she wrote this song, and the rest of the album, with the platform in mind and the intent for it to go viral. I think that would be beneficial to include in the article. I also think the TikTok part is notable enough to mention in the lead as that is the whole reason for this song's success.
For this part ( A choreographed dance routine by TikTok users Brookie and Jessie set to "Made You Look" became a trend on the platform), I think it would be beneficial to clearly state that this was an online challenge (as done in the "Streets" article).
This Renowned for Sound review has a nice, simple sentence about this song that may be beneficial for the article.
Are these the only reviews for this song? This is more of a clarification question as I trust you are the most knowledgeable on this. I would not be surprised if the coverage was limited as I could see music publications at least initially ignoring this album and song. I do not think anyone expected Trainor to have this kind of comeback, but I still wanted to ask about the coverage to just make sure.

Unfortunately, I believe these are all the reviews we have. This isn't the type of song critics swoon over and Trainor's name probably doesn't bring a lot of clicks to their articles nowadays.

That is what I thought, but thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would re-examine the prose for the "Critical reception" section. The jump from the first paragraph to the second seems rather abrupt, and the second paragraph seems to just have two random reviews put together without a clear reason.

Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to refashion the already included reviews and the Renowned one into two paragraphs, with the first one commenting on the throwback style and comparisons to early Trainor music, and the second one commenting on the flirtatious nature and risqué lyrics. Let me know if this looks better or if you have some other ideas. And is there anything here that could be used to elaborate on the critical reception in the lead?

The section does look better. I will try to do a deeper read-through in the future. I am not entirely sure how to represent this information in the lead with more detail. I could see some variation of this line (commented on the flirtatious attitude and lyrics) from the section being repurposed for the lead, to something like ("Made You Look" received mixed reviews from music critics, who commented on the lyrics and Trainor's flirtatious personality), but even my suggestion could use some further work to be honest. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know who directed the music video? Were there any reviews for the video?

No, Trainor's team was weirdly secretive about who directed the video. I can't find anything online other than the collaboration with Candy Crush. The Vevo Footnotes video even only includes trivial facts that I am doubtful about including in the article.

Thank you for the clarification. I have seen instances of this, and it matches with the song and the video not receiving as many reviews as her past work or more popular artists/songs. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I must admit that I have only done a very quick read-through of the article so my comments are not too in-depth. Apologies for that. Let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments. I will try to do a deeper dive in the future, but I managed to get some time to look through a bit. Best of luck with this peer review! Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this review, Aoba47. I would be glad if you get the time to do a deeper dive but this is already very helpful! It's mostly the critical reception section and the placement of the information about the Kim Petras remix that I am still nervous about, in case you have any suggestions. Regards.--N Ø 09:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I am glad to help where I could. In the future, I will try to do a more thorough read-through of the article. I'll aim to do something this week. Would you prefer if I collapse my above comments? I just would not want potential reviewers to be deterred by them if that makes sense. Best of luck with the article and the peer review in general! Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the comments have been adequately addressed then feel free to collapse them!--N Ø 23:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I just wanted to be certain. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for tacking on one short comment, but I would revise this part (with Tomás Mier positively comparing it to Trainor's previous work) as I've been told in the past to avoid that type of sentence structure in FA writing. Aoba47 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revised accordingly.--N Ø 04:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for just adding random comments at the end of my section. Do you know if you would need a citation for this sentence ("Made You Look" received mixed reviews from music critics.) or the statement that this song received "mixed" reviews? I think you've noticed this before, but it seems that FAC reviewers are pointing this out more and more as of late. I think it is easier to assert that a song has received positive or negative reviews, but I believe the "mixed" part in particular raises the most concerns with WP:SYNTH.
Also, I am sure you are already aware of this, but it may be beneficial to review other editors's peer reviews and FACs to hopefully get some further attention to this peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologise for adding comments! Considering there are very few critical reviews for this song, there is definitely no secondary source stating the critical consensus. However, I think FAC reviewers will definitely take issue if there is no sentence pertaining to the critical reception in the lead, thus, I am hesitant to remove the part about mixed reviews. The usual music FA editors do not have any PR requests up currently but I will see what I can do in that regard.--N Ø 16:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair. I was uncertain about it so that is why I posed it as a question rather than a suggestion. Best of luck with the PR! I am glad to see someone else comment. I can understand the concern for the Daryl Sabara image. Since neither Sean Douglas nor Federico Vindver have images, maybe one for Kim Petras for the remix? That being said, it could be putting undue weight on that remix, but it seems like the best image choice (aside from using one on Trainor). Just a suggestion though. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a Petras image will place undue weightage on her remix, since it's mostly only the original version that is notable and Petras is not mentioned in most of that section. Sabara seemed like a better pick since he seems to have been the primary inspiration for the song and is the "you" Trainor is making look, if that makes sense lol. Also, I'm curious if you think the article is now FA-ready or you'll wait for the FAC to do a deeper dive? Apologies for putting you on the spot.--N Ø 03:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I think the article is ready for a FAC. I was originally planning on doing a deeper read-through of the article, but I do not think I'll have the time for it right now so I think it would be best to take it to the FAC rather than wait for me. I will do my best do a deeper dive at that point. Apologies for that. I honestly just lost track of time. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add a quick suggestion as the "mixed reviews" part was brought up in SNUGGUMS's comments. As I said above, I could see a FAC commenter considering it WP:SYNTH as the line between if it is mixed or leaning more toward a negative or a positive overall consensus is murky without citation(s). You could try and group things by ideas (i.e. lyrics, production, etc.). I think the first paragraph could quite easily reformatted to focus on how critics compared "Made You Look" to Trainor's earlier music, and rather than saying there were mixed reviews in the lead and in the "Critical reception" section, you could highlight things critics took notice of in their reviews. I hope that this makes sense.

I am afraid I do not have many good ideas for the reformatting. Since you are way more experienced, I am not surprised this would be an easy task for you! Please feel free to be bold and make edits to this part yourself. Apologies if you do not have the time or that much investment in this song/article, though.

I have tried to put together an idea in one of my sandboxes. I did very minimal edits to the actual prose. I mostly focused on rewriting the topic sentences. I did move the Rolling Stone sentence to the end of the first paragraph as I think it is stronger to present this in a more chronological order and I did do some minor revisions for the Plugged In sentences, but overall, I kept the focus on the topic sentences. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a quick unrelated question. I asked this earlier, and I do not think there was a response. Do you think it would be beneficial to include a brief sentence on a lyric video for the Kim Petras remix? I could not find any coverage on it, but I think it would be beneficial to just say it existed as it is one way the remix was promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since Treat Myself, Trainor has released lyric videos for each and every one of her songs including her Christmas album. So I am not sure if this type of thing is out of the ordinary for her and is particularly noteworthy.--N Ø 12:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I was more so approaching it from a comprehensive approach, but I do understand how this information may just be too trivial and minor to include in the article. I think the really defining factor is that (at least from what I have seen), the lyric video did not get any coverage in third-party publications so that leans it more towards not including it in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some quick questions. I remember "Don't I Make It Look Easy" being released before "Made You Look". It seemed to be pushed (at least softly) as a single through a lyric video. Was there any coverage on "Don’t I Make It Look Easy" seemingly being bumped out of the second single spot in favor of "Made You Look"? Even if there was not coverage on that, would it be worth mentioning "Don’t I Make It Look Easy" in this sentence, (Trainor released the single "Bad for Me" in June 2022.), since it was one of the songs released prior to "Made You Look" to promote the album in at least some capacity? Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't I Make It Look Easy" was actually just a promotional single; it does not meet the specifications laid out at WP:SINGLE?. Trainor uploaded nearly identical lyric videos for all album tracks from Takin' It Back. While there was some confusion originally, the distinction between these seems more clear in retrospect given the difference in promotion for "Made You Look" and DIMILE. I do think it would be excess detail for the scope of this article to mention promotional singles.--N Ø 04:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAC peer review sidebar standard note

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Here's some things to start with:

File:Meghan Trainor - Made You Look.png has an appropriate FUR
Thankfully File:DarylSabara2022.png has no copyright concerns, but the lighting is subpar, and why not instead use an image of someone who was more involved with the actual creation of this song?
Something weird happened with File:Meghan Trainor - Made You Look.ogg; file page says 12 seconds while text within the bar says 13, so which is it?
Commonly recognized terms like "music critics", "music video", and "online dance challenge" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK.

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the media review and for taking up my request! Unfortunately images of the song's co-writers are not available, and I believe Trainor is amply visible in the song's artwork, so Sabara's image seemed like a good choice to include as he is the subject of the song. Regarding the song sample, it is the file page that displays the duration correctly as the clip I had uploaded was 12s. I've unlinked the terms per your suggestions.--N Ø 04:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and now that I've come back following a delay, I'll continue after making a slight tweak:

Treat Myself is overall her sixth album (no matter how much Epic Records continues to be petty and deceptive by downplaying Meghan's pre-2014 work), so if not including that count, then at least specify it's the third with the label

I was unure about repeating "major-label studio album" in consecutive sentences so I've gone for alternate wording which I hope gets the point across.

"Viral", "radio airplay", "harmonies", "self-love", "slang", and "cameos" are also common terms to unlink in accordance with WP:OVERLINK

Mostly unlinked with few exceptions

"fuses 1950s music with contemporary styles"..... given how "contemporary" is another way of saying "modern", I'd try to use a term that doesn't become outdated per WP:RELTIME

The source really wasn't more specific than that, unfortunately.

It seems safe to use "2020s" or even "21st century" when this is for a 2022 track. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to nitpick, but to avoid WP:SYNTH, let's either remove the "mixed reviews" bit or add a ref specifically talking about overall reception. Solely relying on reviews already listed in a Wikipedia page comes off as lazy and can easily overlook stances that aren't mentioned.

There's no reliable source stating the critical consensus for most songs including this one. Surely there needs to be some sentence pertaining to the critical reception in the lead and to introduce the section to readers, so "mixed reviews" indeed seems like the most uncontroversial way to put it and the rest of the section acts as the evidence.

The use of "Trainor described it:" feels off when you go to the "I" pronoun right afterwards.

Replaced

How about adding some commentary from critics on live performances and the video to flesh out the "Music video and promotion" section?

I believe Rolling Stone was the only reliable source to cover the music video and no sentence from them stuck out as critical commentary to me. The performances were very low-profile and I've used primary sources as references for most of them, which don't offer neutral commentary.

Don't just leave bare URLs like you did with ref#111; those are harder to salvage after expiring

Thanks for catching that!

Before FAC, this definitely could use an expansion or I doubt it'll pass. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literature about this song was limited and I exhausted most of the RS before submitting this to peer review. I hope FAC reviewers will understand this song's main claim to notability is its commercial success. Once again, thanks a lot for the comments.--N Ø 19:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I forgot to mention that "engineered", "mixed", and "Gold" are other instances of WP:OVERLINK. The link for Sanity (music store) also shouldn't display its parenthetical, and to make the "commercial performance" section more complete, I'd minimally add the top 10 peaks for Singapore, Iceland, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Latvia along with going to the top 20 within Slovakia, Austria, Paraguay, and Switzerland (going up to number 19). It wouldn't hurt to additionally include the top 30 chartings for the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, and South Africa. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done! I think I'll keep it to the top 20 placements as reaching the top 30 is not that impressive and including that many positions may make that paragraph too blocky. I've also now wrapped it up with a sentence about certifications to give more of an effect of completeness.--N Ø 12:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]