Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mean (song)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2025 [1].

Mean (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a self-written track by Taylor Swift from her album Speak Now (2010). Although inspired by a particular critical review, the track addresses all of Swift's detractors who questioned her vocal ability in 2009 and 2010. Several music journalists considered it the most country-sounding track in her discography and one of the best country songs of all time.

Thanks to CatchMe for the great GAN review. Any comments from all editors are very much appreciated. Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

By far one of my favorites from her discography. I'll take a look soon. λ NegativeMP1 13:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fully transparent, I delayed this review so that what other reviewers were bringing up–which seemed to be fairly significant issues at first, would have a chance to get their word in before I left my own comments. Let alone a support or an oppose. I'll wait a bit longer since there's still a bit more that seems unresolved but I should hopefully still get the review done soon. λ NegativeMP1 00:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NegativeMP1, just checking to see if you will be doing a review. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot that I volunteered to review this, sorry. I'll try to take a look today. λ NegativeMP1 15:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I really can't find anything wrong with the article. I believe that everything I would have pointed out got caught by the other reviewers that were doing their own thing while I stepped back. I really do apologize for taking nearly a month to actually give a stance here and not end up providing any feedback at all in the end, but I support. λ NegativeMP1 23:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Medxvo, I appreciate your efforts on T.Swift articles thus far! However I seriously think this article might need some more work before FAC. Some immediate issues I see include failed verification of a very significant claim: Swift said that the particular inspiration came from a critical review by Bob Lefsetz, who chastised her following her performance at the 2010 Grammy Awards. Swift did not mention the said critic by name in the 60 Minutes interview, and the Rolling Stone source said: "She’s never fully admitted it". Also, I am unsure if this article has been thoroughly researched, in regards to academic/scholarly analyses and not just webzine/newspaper sources. There are very useful sources like Zaleski 2024, Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol 2024, or academic papers/book chapters (that can be accessed to via the Wikipedia Library Platform) like this, this, this, this or this that have not been explored to add to the prose. I would suggest exploring all available sources possible to ensure that this article meets criterion 1c. Ippantekina (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: Quoting the interview ref: "One nasty review said she had killed her career overnight, and was 'too young and dumb to understand the mistake she'd made.' (Taylor Swift: The things that were said about me by this dude, just floored me and like leveled me. [...]) But then Taylor did her thing, and turned the wound into a song, the hit single 'Mean'." Not sure how that fails verification. The Rolling Stone source was added there to confirm that Mr. Lefsetz was the one who said those statements. I'm uncertain if some of the provided sources contain significant information that isn't already available in the article. Unless I'm mistaken, all of Zaleski's statements can be found in the article (excluding her excessive Lefsetz trivia). And, to my understanding, the Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol book critiques the "gendered judgements" of some of Speak Now reviewers (e.g. Ritchie and Keefe that are present in the article) in the context of the song "Mean", and I'm uncertain if that's worth adding or even related to the song itself. Also not sure if the Smialek and Ledbetter articles have anything particularly useful, unless I'm missing something, of course. ("Mean" being the first song where she sings about her career doesn't add anything significant to me). The remaining three sources are certainly useful and I've incorporated them in the article. Prior to this FAC, I only checked the Swift-related books, so I appreciate the sources and the reminder to check the Wikipedia Library. I've checked again and tried to search for other sources via TWL but didn't really come across anything helpful besides these sources, and it's particularly challenging to search through random books when the song title is just "mean". I'll keep searching, and I'm definitely open to more useful sources and more elaboration from you. Medxvo (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the Lefsetz reference, that is a very much case of WP:SYNTH because in both sources, Swift never confirmed that he was the target of this song, and she only said "this dude". Retrospective commentary from the Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol book could add value to the "Critical reception" section (could be how initial reviews have been cross-examined retrospectively, for example). Ippantekina (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: "This dude" explicitly refers to Lefsetz since he was the one who wrote the "nasty review". I've replaced the Roling Stone source with another source that I hope supports this more effectively. The Klimchynskaya & Tontiplaphol book would've been great had they focused on the initial reviews of "Mean", instead of Speak Now as a whole. I'm not sure if it's relevant here but I'll take another look and see if it can be added. Medxvo (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the People source said, "Swift’s song “Mean” is rumored to be about critic Bob Lefsetz." Your claim (""This dude" explicitly refers to Lefsetz since he was the one who wrote the "nasty review"") is subjective that is nowhere found in the 60 Minutes interview. Besides how do we know that Lefsetz was the only one that wrote a negative review of Swift's performance? Presenting something treated as a rumor in Wikipedia voice is not it... especially when Swift never confirmed it. Ippantekina (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: People also wrote, "Swift said, referring to Lefsetz", when they were talking about the 60 Minutes interview. Re. "Besides how do we know that Lefsetz was the only one that wrote a negative review of Swift's performance?", the interview ref said "One nasty review said she had killed her career overnight, and was 'too young and dumb to understand the mistake she'd made'". These are Mr. Lefsetz's statements and they put them in quotation marks. Medxvo (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced and I think this should require a bigger RfC to have a third-party opinion. But from what I see, nowhere in the 60 Minutes interview is Lefletz's name mentioned... Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also re. the print/journal sources, thanks for your swift action (pun intended) incorporating them. But I hope it also should point to a larger concern... that is an extensive survey of the existing literature should have been done prior to the FAC. I'm not sure if it has been done thoroughly now, but I'll take a look at the prose soon. Ippantekina (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: Thanks, I'll be waiting for your thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this adds more context and doesn't come across as an "other stuff" argument, but I myself am a Swift-focused editor, and you and I, as with (I assume) a lot of editors who listen to pop music frequently, know that her songs almost always have a subject behind them. I would only include it in Wikipedia voice and present it as a fact when Swift has confirmed the subjects herself (i.e. "Hey Stephen", "Forever & Always"). In most other cases, it's always best to leave out the speculations/rumors... unless there have been widespread commentary regarding the possible subject (for example the article for "Dear John" does not present in Wikipedia voice that it is about John Mayer, although it must have been 99% the case.. or "All Too Well" is about Jake G., or "My Tears Ricochet" is about Scooter Braun/BMR, and the list goes on...). In the case of "Mean", I reckon one way to do it is, to present a background information (Swift was chastised by critics at the Grammys), an interview (Swift mentioned "this guy"), and the surrounding commentary (several journalists have speculated that Lefsetz is the target), although I am still not the best fan of this approach, it should be much more objective than presenting it straight-up as a fact. Ippantekina (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: Thanks for elaborating. If you're also interested in more context, my inclusion of the song's inspiration wasn't based on any journalistic speculations, and I generally have no interest in speculations regarding song subjects. It was mainly based on the 60 Minutes interview source, which directly mentions Lefsetz's statements followed by Swift stating "this dude". I don't think it would make sense to discuss the Grammys performance and the comments of "this guy" without mentioning Lefsetz. He was the one who said those specific comments that were mentioned and quoted in that specific interview. I personally see no speculations here but I understand your point and I've removed that paragraph now since the "music and lyrics" section already covers similar themes. Would you like to take another look? Medxvo (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Greetings to you all. Would you like to share your thoughts as third opinions on the above discussion or does it require a noticeboard discussion? I don't really want to waste anyone's time and I would highly appreciate the feedback. Medxvo (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a FAC coordinator, but it seems like the questioned sentence about Lefsetz has been removed. Regarding academic literature ... I see the problem: The name of the song is so generic that you get over 13000 hits, most of which irrelevant, if you search for it, even when also requiring "Taylor Swift". Are there any search engines or databases about sources specifically on music-related academic publications? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo for replying. I'm not sure if there's a search engine for academic publications, I'm only aware of this search engine for sources listed at WP:MUSICRS. Medxvo (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar has a few bad sources in it but is otherwise pretty good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been searching throughout the day but couldn't really locate any useful sources for the song on Google Scholar... I would appreciate any sources that I may have overlooked. Medxvo (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TPH

[edit]
  • Could "Background" and "Production and release" be combined? Both are very short. I also feel that listing out the musicians in this part is redundant to the "personnel" section closer to the bottom, and would be better if only the latter were included.
    • Agreed, combined the two sections under the title "production and release" since the writing process is inherently part of production anyways. But most of the recently promoted song FAs incorporate the credits in the article prose, mainly to avoid giving undue weight to specific contributors (such as including writers and producers only and excluding other contributors), and also to provide readers with a brief preview of the recording process and instruments utilized. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if both of the above were combined, I feel the article is still rather lacking on the song's conceptualization.
    I'm not sure what's missing, but it just feels short relative to other FA-class song articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TenPoundHammer, I think I understand your point now. I added more info related to the album that could be beneficial for this article, please let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that looks a little more fleshed out now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of the "some critics" being relegated to footnotes. Why not include their opinions within the body? I've never seen this "attributed to" used so many times as a footnote in any other article. It feels ungainly.
    • It's just because they share similar statements, and sometimes they don't say much beyond "catchy" or "has great narrative". I was also encouraged to combine similar opinions at my previous FAC. But I realize that many consecutive footnotes may seem awkward so I've added more opinions, please let me know if it looks any better. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music and lyrics" should include what key the song is in, which should be verifiable by any official sheet music. I use musicnotes.com for this.
    • Some editors had issues with musicnotes.com on previous FACs. I think the most recent one was this FAC. I concur that this would be beneficial, but I haven't seen any recent FA that incorporated musicnotes.com or other similar sources. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how else can the key of the song be confirmed? I would think that's a basic fact. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we would need official sheet music that verifies this is how the song was originally written. But those published on musicnotes.com and other similar websites are mainly written by music experts and can differ from website to website. Most of the recently promoted FAs don't include sheet music info anymore, though I agree this info would be helpful.. Medxvo (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could the sheet music be cited with a {{cite book}} without directly linking to musicnotes.com? And an attribution of "According to the sheet music published by X, the song is in the key of whatever and has a tempo of about X beats per minute." Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TenPoundHammer: Thank you for the suggestion, I hope I did this correctly. Medxvo (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Thanks a lot for the comments. I've responded to your concerns above and am open to suggestions if anything remains unsatisfactory. Medxvo (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think every issue I brought up has been addressed, so I support. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]

@Medxvo:

Vestrian24Bio 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: Thank you for the review! I believe I've addressed your concerns. Medxvo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 16:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source (form) review

[edit]

I see that someone above is already checking some sourcing; will comment on that separately. Out of curiosity, File:Taylor Swift - Mean.ogg why was this particular part selected for sampling? ALT text and image placements are fine. What makes Roughstock a reliable source? CMT is linked inconsistently to different webpages. Otherwise, it looks like the source formatting is consistent and we are using major magazines and stuff as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus for the review. The sample features the most upbeat part of the song, which I think highlights the production elements effectively. It also includes the lyrics that are mainly discussed later in the section. I believe it would be beneficial to showcase how these lyrics were incorporated in the song, in addition to the production aspects. Roughstock is listed at WP:MUSICRS as a reliable source for country music-related articles, and their staff page seems to indicate editorial oversight from Matt Bjorke (who wrote the Speak Now review used in this article). I believe I've fixed the CMT inconsistency. Please let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Medxvo (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: sorry for the double ping. Just wanted to check if you're satisfied with my responses. Medxvo (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK (although I'll comment above on a different thing) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comments from brachy08

[edit]

Oh hi! Thanks for inviting me to this FAC. Will be dropping as much comments as I can. =D (it's one of my faves on Speak Now)

  • male and woman seem a little... inconsistent not gonna lie. I would recommend changing male to man
  • addressed.
brachy08 (chat here lol) 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also: Another young female (played by King) cannot join a group of girls during lunch because she is wearing a different colored ribbon around her waist and is forced to eat in the school bathroom. Maybe change young female to girl?brachy08 (chat here lol) 08:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Brachy0008. Medxvo (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
alr. support brachy08 (chat here lol) 13:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

[edit]

One immediate issue I see is that the "Personnel" listed is not for this song specifically. All of the musicians listed are credited for the Speak Now album as a whole, at least that's according to the liner notes of the physical copy that I have at hand... Ippantekina (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the same instruments have been used for all of the songs, and additional instruments for some tracks ("Enchanted", "Haunted", "Back to December") were listed separately. Credits for "Mean" can be seen on Swift's YouTube channel here, which are the same on Qobuz and in the liner notes. Medxvo (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... I'm not exactly sure if the booklet for Speak Now indicates that all of those musicians play the same instruments on every single track. This is OR but I don't think the Hammond B3 or Rhodes are on this song. As this information is not absolutely verified for this particular track, I wouldn't present this information as such...
  • Is Swift's YouTube channel seriously not enough to verify the information for this particular track? I wouldn't remove information posted by the artist themselves just because I speculate the instruments weren't actually used. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The prose seems fine from a glance, but really... I think this needs some more work before it is really ready for FAC. The language/phrasings etc are fine, but I'm not entirely confident that this article has been well-researched (no need to squeeze each and every literature out there, but I believe the points I made previously and below does mean that this article could be expanded using notable sources). I do apologise if I come up as overtly strict, although this article is very close, I think FACs should be reserved for polishing/fine-tuning rather than expansion.
  • I know that listing all personnel in prose has been standard practice for Song articles, but since the FAC of "Forever & Always" I've reckoned otherwise.. as this information can be found in the "Personnel" section (whose veracity is a little doubtful as I pointed out)
    • I'd like to keep them to provide general information on which instruments were used in the song and to credit the musicians. This probably needs a WP:WPMU RfC to avoid confusion between editors, but I'd prefer keeping them. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perone said something about the Rolling Stone list placement that I think can be an interesting add (he highlighted that the song made it to No. 24 on a list that was created less than 5 years after its release, which is both noteworthy and controversial)
    • The 2014 Rolling Stone ranking was present in the article before I removed it because there is already a 2024 updated ranking. I've restored it and added Perone's commentary. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a good essay from Ann Powers regarding this song that could be used in this article.
    • It is a great essay indeed, although I'm not sure how it would benefit the article. I've tried to incorporate some commentary, but let me know what you think. It wasn't focusing on the song itself and was confusing to me. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zaleski wrote about Swift's "overtly saccharine vocal twang" which I think does add value to prose...
    • The "Mean (Taylor's Version)" section states that she used a country twang in the original version, but I've adjusted this part per your suggestion because I agree it was a bit confusing. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ippantekina (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: Thank you for your time, I've responded to your points above. I personally think that the 3200-word, 97,000-byte article is comprehensive enough and meets the FAC criteria as well as the WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC policy. I'm not comfortable enough with adding commentary from every single source I encounter just because it exists, as I try my best to follow the WP:SUMMARY guideline while not overlooking significant details at the same time. I'm unable to see the work that "really" needs to be done outside of FAC or the significant information you think is actually missing from the article, because an "overly saccharine" vocal description and a blog essay about ethics and social behavior do not seem like significant additions or "notable sources" to me. Medxvo (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Medxvo: thank you for promptly addressing my comments. The article looks fine, but I'm still doubtful about the personnel listed, as the CD booklet and web sources seem to all point towards Swift's entire band during the Speak Now era, which doesn't mean that it is necessarily true all of them played the same instruments for every single track. That said, I'm not opposing this candidature, but also not supporting it either... Do consider my vote an abstention and I hope my comments have been helpful, though they might appear nitpick-y at times. Ippantekina (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: After taking a deeper look, the audio for "Ours" on Swift's YouTube channel isn't listing the song's credits for some reason, although it has some exclusive instruments explicitly stated in the liner notes. They're also not listing the orchestra for "Back to December". I believe I've made the necessary adjustments now. Thanks Ippantekina again for your time, I appreciate it. Medxvo (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

putting myself down for a review. expect comments hopefully within a few hours. 750h+ 01:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 750h+, just checking to see if a review is going to be forthcoming. No pressure either way. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ahh sorry about this @Medxvo: i should've reviewed this earlier given you reviewed by article but real life has been in the way. i'll see what i can do today. 750h+ 09:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @750h+: no worries, I'll be waiting for your thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification.

lead
  • her detractors, recognizes her own shortcomings "own" is redundant
  • two on the country-music charts in the latter why is "country/music" hyphenated?
production and release
  • two years prior to its release ==> "two years before its release"
  • reflecting her emotions that assisted her ==> "reflecting the emotions that assisted her"
  • song's climax: "All you are is mean/ And a liar, and pathetic, and alone in life."[33][34] Writing... don't know too much about this but shouldn't there where be a space before the slash?
critical reception
  • "Mean" the 15th best country song of the 2010s add a hyphen between "15th" and "best"
  • considered it the 50th best country track of all time same as above
commercial performance
  • Country Songs chart issued for June 25, 2011 i think it should be "issued June 25, 2011" (from what i've seen but i think either is acceptable).
  • music artist in the digital history "the" is redundant
  • receiving a gold certification by Music Canada. ==> "receiving a gold certification from Music Canada."
critical reception
  • No problems here.
awards and nominations
  • No problems here.
live performances
  • No problems here.
"mean" (taylor's version)
  • Kate Solomon from the i stated that this should be "Kate Solomon from the newspaper i stated that" or "Kate Solomon from i stated that"
sounds good 750h+ 15:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 750h+ 15:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mean_(song)/archive1&oldid=1294001057"