Talk:Mean (song)/GA2

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

Looking through this article, it currently doesn't meet the GA criteria. I will say the edition that was promoted to GA back in December 2010 wasn't too bad, though the article has substantially changed since then. Comments will follow shortly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting to this sooner; got sidetracked. Anyway, here's my comments:


 * Lead
 * There should be descriptions of the composition and lyrics as well as the promotional release before this was a single
 * While "mixed" and "positive" are viable descriptions for review ratings, "Mixed to positive" tends not to be used. "Lukewarm" would probably be a better term.
 * The use of "profound" in "profound country sound" doesn't really seem neutral
 * "The song received commercial success"..... awkward phrasing
 * It would be better to say "reaching" than "debuting at"
 * "The magazine The Rolling Stone" → Rolling Stone
 * Song titles need to be in quotation marks


 * Background
 * This section is rather short, I'd merge it with the "release" section below per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
 * It would help to give time ranges for the interviews
 * E! News shouldn't be in italics, and isn't even mentioned in either of the attributed references
 * "who criticize whatever she does"..... anything she does
 * Remove ".ca" from "Dose.ca"
 * "where she sang off-key" sounds biased, and should explicitly state that this is about Swift
 * Unless Swift officially verified that Bob Lefsetz was (or was not) the subject of the song, I'd leave his name out


 * Release
 * As mentioned before, this should be merged with "Background"
 * It's worth mentioning the promotional release date and single release date within prose here
 * I don't see any of the listed items within Swift's website, even when archived


 * Composition
 * "Roughstock" shouldn't be italicized
 * "noted the song for its" doesn't really read well
 * Something about "This is echoed by Jill Serjeant from Billboard" doesn't feel right
 * "that 'Mean' 'smacks down critics who say she can't sing (I stand accused) by declaring that someday she'll be "livin' in a great big city' and they'll be drunk in some dive bar, bloviating into the void'."..... per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, singular quotation marks (') are used for titles or quotes within quotes as opposed to double quotation marks ("). Additionally, I'm not so sure about using the "Mean" title directly before going into a quote.
 * If anywhere, the lyrics discussed in Entertainment Weekly should instead be included in "Critical reception" below


 * Critical reception
 * Four reviews total doesn't seem like much for a well-known song like this
 * See above note in lead regarding "mixed to positive"
 * See above note in "composition" for use of singular vs. double quotation marks


 * Commercial performance
 * There is currently one really large paragraph and one really small paragraph, which are both discouraged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS; try evening them out
 * "'Mean' was released as a promotional single from Speak Now on October 19, 2010, as part of Countdown to Speak Now, an exclusive campaign by the iTunes Store" should be moved to the section on release
 * "Hot Country Songs" isn't explicitly mentioned in the attributed source, though it does say this debuted at #55.
 * "It made Swift one of two women (Carrie Underwood)" → "It made Swift the second female, following Carrie Underwood,"
 * Neither Blake Shelton nor "Honey Bee" are mentioned in the attributed source
 * The 54th Annual Grammy Awards should be in "Critical reception" rather than here, and it would help to give the ceremony's date. Additionally, the Grammys ref used is displaying results for the 57th ceremony instead of the 54th.


 * Music Video
 * Background and release
 * I think a better title would be "Production and release"
 * "In an interview with MTV News, Whitebloom said" → "Whitebloom told MTV News"
 * I added quotation marks to "it's about a critic who was a little too harsh on her"; not only could this otherwise have been a potential copyright violation, but it also would go against WP:CONTRACTIONS
 * "Jocelyn Vena of MTV predicted that the video of 'Mean' will be"..... would
 * "Country Music Television" should link to CMT (U.S. TV channel)


 * Synopsis
 * I don't think it's necessary to include resemblance to single artwork
 * I'm not sure if "helpless" is encyclopedic
 * "However, Swift and the others are hardly the only victims in the video" is unnecessary, and the tone isn't really professional
 * "Taylor" should be "Swift" per WP:SURNAME


 * Reception
 * The "i" should be in lower cases for iVillage


 * Live performances
 * No commentary on her performances?
 * I did a bit of tweaking
 * The given URL attributed to her Speak Now World Tour performance is about a completely different subject
 * "She also performed "Mean" live at the 2012 Grammy Awards, changing the first line of one of the final choruses to 'Someday, I'll be singin' this at the Grammys' and receiving a standing ovation afterwards. And in 2013 and 2014 she also performed it at the The Red Tour" is unreferenced, and the "standing ovation" claim is quite contentious. Starting sentences with the words "for", "and", "nor" "but", "of", "yet", or "so" is discouraged since they are supposed to instead be transitions between compound sentences.


 * References
 * There should be no bare URL's or incomplete references; all citations need authors (except for things like Swift's official website), titles, names of works, and publication dates/accessdates
 * "EW.com" should read Entertainment Weekly
 * "CMT.com" and "CMT" should read "Country Music Television", and shouldn't be italicized.
 * See above note on "Dose.ca"
 * "Songfacts" is not reliable
 * Wired (magazine) should be italicized
 * The review from Matt Bjorke is erroneously labelled "EW.com" when it should be "Roughstock"
 * No need to include Swift's name in the references to her official website; just "TaylorSwift.com" will do, and no italics
 * The Village Voice, The New York Times, Billboard (magazine), and Los Angeles Times all need italics
 * Is "Country Universe" a good source?
 * iTunes Store shouldn't be italicized
 * While Nielsen Business Media published Billboard from 1989 to 2009, it has been published by Prometheus Global Media since 2010, and should therefore use Prometheus within references from 2010 to present.
 * I don't know if "aCharts.us" is reliable
 * "iVillage" shouldn't be italicized, and I'm not sure if it's reliable
 * New York (magazine) needs italics
 * I'm not convinced "Salon.com" or "Zap2It" are the best sources to use
 * OK! magazine is a gossip rag with poor journalistic credibility, and the link is dead anyway
 * MTV News shouldn't be italicized, and publisher is Viacom
 * Not sure if "neonlimelight.com" is a good source, but its italics should be removed either way
 * "Gather.com", "The Huffington Post", and Daily Mail are not the most reliable sources
 * Don't italicize MTV
 * "tasteofcountry.com" → "Taste of Country"
 * "Time" should read Time, Inc.
 * Omaha World-Herald needs italics


 * Overall


 * Well-written?
 * Prose quality: Doesn't look too good
 * Manual of Style compliance: Many issues


 * Verifiable?
 * Reference layout: There are many problems with the reference formatting, and some dead links that need addressing.
 * Reliable sources: Not up to par
 * No original research: Not everything is properly attributed to given references, and content becomes more difficult to verify with dead links


 * Broad in coverage?
 * Major aspects: Not quite
 * Focused: Close, but not exactly


 * Neutral?: Almost


 * Stable?: Looks good


 * Illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * Appropriate licensing: Seems OK
 * Relevance and captioning: I'm not sure if File:Taylor Swift - Mean.ogg or File:TaylorSwiftDress.jpg provide any benefit, though a picture of Joey King might be good to add


 * Keep or Delist?: I am placing this reassessment on hold for seven days. This will need lots of work to be up to par with GA standards, though just might have a chance of being redeemed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since no work has been done here at all within seven days, I am now delisting this article. It will need extensive work to be up to par. Regards, Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 05:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)