Talk:Lips Are Movin/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Rationale

In my opinion this article (this is the version I'm looking at) does not meet GA standards. Most importantly, it fails the very first criterion, "the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct". The prose is, unfortunately, not clear and concise, and there remain grammatical errors. I was going to make a few minor edits but that quickly turned into this series of edits, and I tackled only a few sections. Winkelvi noted that some of my edits repeated some of theirs; I have found that in a few cases this was indeed so, and Winkelvi's edits were most likely reverted before I got to the article, by either MaranoFan or Lips Are Movin. I note that MaranoFan undid a few of my edits as well. At any rate, my suspicion about the writing was confirmed by Eric Corbett, and looking at the article I see plenty still needs to be done.

In addition I see some MOS issues. Dates, for instance, are not always done right; there are more of these commas to be inserted. Titles of publications/websites are inconsistently italicized/wikilinked. While Billboard seems to be correctly wikilinked in the text, the references (see #2, for instance) have a wikilink not for the publication but for the publisher--and as far as I'm concerned that publisher isn't even necessary if the publication has an article and is linked (I don't know what can be gained from linking the publisher, besides more characters). See also the Time citation in #25, which has wikilinks for the publication and the publisher, and the decidedly awkward citation for US Weekly, #18, which has a confusing and redundant link to Jann Wenner in it. At the very least this should be done consistently.

A writing issue on a slightly different level than that of copy editing is the mixture between relevant and well-sourced information and trivia. One can quibble over whether individual performances of the song should be listed--I think they shouldn't, since that's just normal stuff for a pop musician and nothing special. But other sections suffer seriously from a concatenation of factoids, esp. the video section and the reception section, where it appears that every single remark on the webz about this song is reproduced, including some from (and this is also a GA issue) rather unreliable sources. I do not accept RyanSeacreast.com as a reliable source, and the multitude of references from sites like Idolator.com are also suggestive of a lack of editorial exercise--I mean, AXS (ticket merchant) is cited among the newspapers and magazines. For a clear example, see this recent edit.

I could go on, but I've already piled up enough, I think. At this very moment a peer review is going on; it would have been better had that been done before the GA review. I hope that a bit of exposure will help in attracting the editorial work that this article needs so that it can keep its GA status. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Addition: I note, to my dismay, a diff posted in a related ANI thread by NE Ent (thank you Ent): this one, where a negative remark by a critic is removed by MaranoFan with a highly inappropriate edit summary. The tone of the article already suggested to me that there was a preponderance of positive criticism of this bubblegum song, and this edit confirms that the fourth GA criterion, neutrality, is not met: Ben Rayner is not a nobody, and the Toronto Star ranks a bit higher in terms of notability and neutrality than AXS or RyanSeacrest.com. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:As if posting all this ina reassessment rather than PR wasn't BAD FAITH enough, you have stated these concerns in a very strange manner. It looks like you just want to delist the article rather than improve it. Please state the concerns in a "ABC" to "DEF" format. MaRAno ^FAN 11:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, MaranoFan, if you want to play it that way, the edits I made to the article speak for themselves, and I think the Ben Rayner diff speaks volumes about your contributions. I suggest you try and improve the article some. As for WP:GAR, you need to understand that GA is serious business; the peer review should have been done before the GA review. This badge was, in my opinion, slapped on this article too quickly. As a GA writer and reviewer, I think I know of which I speak. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Drmies' comments above were quite clear, I had no problem reading them as written in anecdotal format. He sees the article as no longer meeting GA standards. In fact, he (as well as I), question how it became a GA to begin with. He's been here quite a while, so have the editors he's also had look at the article. There's no reason to distrust motives. That said, he does want to see the article delisted if it doesn't meet GA standards. So should anyone who is desirous of seeing the article's integrity improve and the encyclopedia's standards for such articles deemed to be GA stay intact. His suggestions are a start toward getting the article to a true GA status, I've already worked on his suggestions and observations, so can you, Marano. My next step will be dealing with the undue weight of the video section then getting input, and hopefully consensus, to take the majority of what's in that section to create an article on the video alone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Only you can save this article now. I am not a paid editor and am just a 17 year old kid. You, and Drmies have discouraged me deeply. I have utterly lost interest in Meghan Trainor articles/Lips Are Movin included. I am going to focus on my studies and leave Wikipedia. Congratulations to your dictatorship. :) MaRAno ^FAN 16:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. No one wants you to leave the article or Wikipedia. And neither Drmies nor I are paid editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

MaranoFan seriously don't worry about it! I'm not much older than you and I've retired twice through even worse circumstances. I'm sure you'll get used to it, it's all part of the experience of growing to be a better editor. I'm sure everybody here is trying to help, so please do not lose faith ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: All the concerns have been resolved except for the publishers one. Because, saying that the publisher field doesn't help the reader and so we shouldn't add them is stupid. It is a valid parameter and very well deserves to be filled. The user has since not come back with any more concerns, so I think that the article can now stay listed as a GA and we can call it a day on reassessment. Although, if still there, I will be happy to resolve any remaining valid concerns MaRAno ^FAN 07:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My concerns aren't addressed at all--the only positive change that I see has been the addition by Winkelvi of the not-so-bubbly reviews. And in some respects it's worse now: you may think this publisher thing is stupid, but eh, stupid is as stupid does, to keep it on the right level. What I see now is that "Billboard", for instance, isn't wikilinked in the templates anymore (that's fine, I suppose), and it's no longer italicized since, duh, it's in the wrong field--"Billboard" is the magazine, not the publisher (in note 2). Similar mistakes are found (this version) in note 7, where "Sugarscape" (the publication) is not italicized, but "Hearst Magazines UK" (the publisher) is. Compare that to note 3, where "Seventeen" is italicized but "Hearst Magazines UK" is not. And one you notice that, you'll notice inconsistencies throughout. In note 44 "Billboard" is italicized and in the right field, but the publisher is also still in there, unlike note 2. Other things--well, the prose of "which lyrically tell of a cheating, lying boyfriend and the assets of the girl he betrayed" is still there. The article is loaded (still) with throwaway statements like "The singer also sports lip-shaped earrings and sunglasses for some of her outfits"--and ten occurrences of the word "also" is way too many, and another indication of poor prose. The "also" in this sentence is just there cause the sentence was simply thrown in as an afterthought: "It also bowed at number 199 in France". And what is "bowed"? And since when is "evolve" a transitive verb?

    So, no--the responder's anger is understandable, but this is not a GA. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I request you to suggest how the prose YOU find faulty, should be rewritten. ALSO, there is nothing wrong with the word "also". It is English, a proper word. It has 13 instances in FA Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) and 14 instances in FA [{Diamonds (Rihanna song)]]. Just 10 instances in this article are not indicative of any poor prose. MaRAno ^FAN 09:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand the point. Shall I spell it out again? As is indicated for instance by the ubiquitous and gratuitous occurrences of the word "also", sections of this article consist mostly of accumulations of sourced material without rhyme, reason, or organization, and with no editorial discretion. It is your job, as the supposed author of this article, to rewrite it and make it acceptable. Also, I'm getting kind of tired of your latching on to one single point and missing the rest--but that also indicates that the forest is being missed for the trees. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have delisted the article. It is clear to me that there is no good-faith response to my questions, with no real efforts made (except for those made by other editors) to improve the article. The very lede of the article still has awkward, clunky phrasing--"which lyrically tell" is not GA prose (and it should be "tells", no?); "the assets of the girl he betrayed" is some sort of euphemism (assets? that's a reviewer's very subtle pun for "ass", I think); "comparing it" dangles, since the logical subject is "Lips Are Movin" where the unmentioned reviewers are intended; "the song changed Trainor's one-hit wonder status to becoming a rival for current successful female pop acts" is grammatically incorrect and semantically messed up; "commercially" is redundant; "has" in "has peaked" is redundant; "the single marked the singer's third top ten hit" is incorrect since the single didn't mark anything--it was the third top ten hit; "The single release of "Lips Are Movin" coincided with the release of the song's music video" is...well, what is it? is anyone surprise that the two coincided?; "...was noted for its imagery" is vague since "noted" is a hollow word (we know that critics commented on its imagery--"noted" means more than that); and that she performed the song on a few TV shows is utterly redundant. And that's just the lede, just the writing--matters of content and relevancy have been left untouched. To the writers: I'm sorry, but I tried to give you every opportunity to improve this. It is not impossible, and perhaps the peer review will help accomplish that. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, you made the right suggestions for improvements and did the right thing in delisting the article. A few others editors along with myself have tried to make some positive changes but our efforts have been thwarted and reverted time and again. As has already been noted by others, it's a surprise (putting it lightly) that this article ever became GA to begin with. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)