Talk:Whoops (song)
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Theleekycauldron talk 21:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- ... that while announcing her song "Whoops", Meghan Trainor clarified that it was not about infidelity from her husband?
- Source: Instagram
- not a full review: this hook is only interesting because it raises the question of her husband's infidelity. Both are WP:BLP and the song appears to be not about that, and it doesn't seem that he's had any kind of notable affair? It's also cited only to a primary source. MaranoFan, could you offer an alternative hook? Rjjiii (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that despite being happily married for five years, Meghan Trainor released a song about an ex-partner who cheated on her in 2024?
- ALT2: ... that when imagining what a collaboration between her and Jack Harlow would sound like, Meghan Trainor wrote a song about infidelity?
- @Rjjiii: These seem like good options to me, and I will open to suggestions as well. If the cheating theme has to be thrown out altogether, I could create a hook about the Tonight Show performance but this is way more interesting. Thanks.--NØ 05:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
ALT2 works. I don't see ALT1 in the article. The song's about cheating, so that's fine; I was wary of a hook that could be easily misread to imply something about a living person. WP:EARWIG is busted, so I did plagiarismdetector.net and quetext.com, and they both say it's all from Wikipedia. I spot-checked three sources,[1][2][3] and they all verified the article content. Looks good, and thanks for the quick reply, Rjjiii (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
per a discussion at WT:DYK, MaranoFan has redirected the article to Timeless (Meghan Trainor album). Thanks, all :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Whoops (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 06:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 11:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Will review in a few days. Arconning (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan Short comments! Arconning (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Prose and MoS
Lead and infobox
- No issues.
Background
- No issues.
Composition
- ""Whoops" is two minutes and 28 seconds long.", I feel like 28 needs to be spelled out to retain consistency.
- Why is the "pop" part of the "pop-doo-wop" statement the only one wikilinked while the full statement is wikilinked in the lead?
- In the article body, doo-wop already appears linked in the Background section so to avoid overlinking.--NØ 03:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Release and promotion
- " she reconsidered the song choice and believed she should sing "Whoops" instead.", believed? Would it be more apt to word it as "decided" or something similar?
Commercial performance and the rest...
- No issues.
Media
- Album cover is on a free use license. All good.
Refs
- Refs 16 and 17 have the same title, could they be different to differentiate them?
- Earwig's alright.
- Spotchecks: 1, 5, 11, 15, 16, 24, 30, 34. All good.
Misc
- No ongoing edit war, broad enough information, neutral.
- All done, Arconning. Thanks a lot for the review. Hope you enjoyed reading this.--NØ 03:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.