Talk:Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 15:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this article looks great. I just have a few issues below relating to WP:NPOV, and nitpicks on the clarity of one sentence and the fair use rationale for one image.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

A few minor issues with the intro.

I think you could cut some detail from the lead about the song's commercial performance. I think it's enough to say the song was a commercial success, and then give a 1 or 2 key indicators, e.g. its peak on the Billboard Hot 100 and maybe its platinum certifications in Australia/Canada/US. The more detailed stuff (e.g. reaching the top 40 in Latvia, Hungary and Czech Republic) should probably go in the "Commercial performance" section.
It's a little odd not to see any mention of critical reception in the intro, since I think that's a pretty standard feature of articles on creative works. Combined with the point above, it could give the impression of a WP:NPOV issue (i.e. suppressing mention of negative critical reception from the lead, and spending a lot of time touting the song's commercial achievements).
Lyrically, the electro and R&B song extends her compositions about self-love and self-empowerment, urging listeners to be more content and confident with themselves. Wording here is a bit awkward. "extends" her compositions? I think I get what this is trying to say, but there must be a better way to write it.

The second paragraph of the "Background and composition" section reads more like critical reception. Even with quotation marks, I think It has a "catchy" chorus. runs afoul of WP:AESTHETIC. For this paragraph I would try to describe the content of the lyrics or other elements of the song more neutrally and specifically. I think one or two brief quotations from the lyrics (per WP:LYRICS) could help to illustrate high level points about the song's subject (especially if you can find a citation that discusses that lyric).

I think the fair use rationale for File:Me Too (Official Single Cover) by Meghan Trainor.png may be incomplete, per WP:FUR. In particular, I think the "Minimal use" field isn't filled in correctly. It's supposed to state whether the whole work is being used, or just a portion or a low-resolution version. (And if the whole work is used, why it's necessary). Also, I think there should probably be something filled in for "Not replaceable with free media because" and "Respect for commercial opportunities". I would just look at Category:Album covers for some examples of how these fields are filled in for other non-free album covers. Colin M (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I went ahead and made some improvements to the article. I also copy pasted the image rationale from the one at Diamonds (Rihanna song) so should be fine now.—N Ø 17:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say it’s neutral now? I updated the lead as you asked and we already have a ton of negative reviews included. I don’t think much more could be done to improve neutrality here.—N Ø 18:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the quick changes. My only other neutrality concern was that second paragraph under "Background and composition". Specifically the WP:AESTHETIC issue with describing the chorus as catchy. I just tried my hand at making some edits to that paragraph to improve its neutrality - what do you think? Colin M (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

btw I removed the sentence The song has lyrics about self-love and self-empowerment, urging listeners to be more content and confident with themselves. because a) it felt a bit redundant, but also b) it's not cited, and doesn't strike me as being supported by the lyrics? i.e. I can't find any line in the actual lyrics that could be interpreted as "urging the listeners to be more content and confident". But let me know if you disagree. Colin M (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the changes you made. The article does look much better than before! Let me know if any more changes are necessary.—N Ø 18:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all the boxes checked for GA. Nice work! Colin M (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.