Talk:Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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.

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