Talk:Follow God

Music video

Nice to see a thumbnail of the lyric video in the infobox, anyone think they could upload a snapshot of the music video so it can be included in the accompanying section? I would but I'm not too good at reducing quality... --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Caption

@Nice4What: Do you believe the sample of this track needs fixes for the captions? --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Any updates on this? --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Father sentence in lead

In the sentence that references West mentioning God and Ray West, the latter needs to be named as his real father there so that it doesn't cause confusion due to father being mentioned before that occasion in the sentence. Putting this here because it has been switched twice by now. Edit: you can put biological that's fine. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Follow God/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coolmarc (talk · contribs) 06:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 1

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Infobox and lead

• Remove venue parameter. This parameter is for live recordings.
• WP:OVERLINK of Kanye West in songwriter parameter.
• Full name for Kanye West in the producer parameter as this is not a track listing, but an infobox.

• According to West's wiki article, he is a rapper and not a recording artist. Please change for consistency.

•  Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• It was sent to UK mainstream radio and US radio stations as the lead single on November 8 and November 12, 2019, respectively, with both releases occurring through GOOD Music and Def Jam. West had decided on releasing the song as the lead single in the United States on November 5, 2019, with it being the top performing track from the album on streaming services at the time of his decision. I would suggest a more clearer and concise, It was the top-performing track from Jesus Is King on streaming services upon release and was sent to contemporary hit radio as the album's lead single on November 8, 2019.

•  Not done since it was on November 5 that the song was the top performing track, while release of the album was October 25. Also, the US radio release is definitely notable for the lead even though it isn't stated which station, specifically, plus contemporary hit needs to be noted as UK. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  There are too many dates and too much detail here, Per MOS:LEAD Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. This bit makes for confusing and boring reading, rather stick to the most relevant points (the first release date and it being the top performing track on streaming services). Save the other release dates and details for the body or a release history table. Cool Marc ✉ 11:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done with changes, look good now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  much better. Cool Marc ✉ 15:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Within the song's lyrics, West speaks about the connection between him and his father, which is in reference to both God and his biological father Ray West. An argument between Kanye West and the latter leads to him questioning the meaning of being "Christlike" within the lyrics Try trimming this to one concise sentence, it's beating around the bush a bit and I'm not sure if there is a difference to his father and biological father here? Please clarify. "Within the lyrics" is excessive, try keep it simple and stick to the most relevant points.

•  Done with changes, tell me if there's any issues. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are MOS:SAMESURNAME issues in the lead.

•  Done, I think? --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  This will fix it: The lyrics are about Kanye West's connection with his father, which is in reference to both God and his biological father Ray West Cool Marc ✉ 16:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done with changes, since the "Christlike" term was covered enough to be mentioned within the lead's info about the lyrics. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song received universal acclaim from music critics and was often cited by them as being among the best tracks on Jesus Is King, while general praise was directed from critics towards the Whole Truth sample. -> "Follow God" received universal acclaim from music critics who often cited it as one of the album's best tracks and appreciated its Whole Truth sample.
• giving West his 18th track to reach the top ten of the chart. -> becoming West's 18th song to reach the top 10 on the chart.

•  Done with minor changes for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per MOS:NUM "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.", please check that you either use numbers throughout or spell the numbers out throughout.

•  Not done since that occasion is not present in this article and MOS:NUM instates "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.". --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  I am very aware that MOS:NUM states "integers from 0 to 9 spelled out in words", but its also states, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." the issue here in the lead is "the top 10 in nine other countries" and "debuted at number seven, becoming Kanye West's 18th track to reach the top 10". These are not in line with MOS:NUM. Cool Marc ✉ 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• That doesn't mean change throughout the entire article, also the numbers are not comparative just because they are in the same sentence in this area. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Will you be so kind to explain how the numbers are not comparable when they are all referring to chart positions? Cool Marc ✉ 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

They are not all listing out separate chart positions, therefore this doesn't violate MOS:NUM. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

They are numbers referring to chart rankings therefore they are comparable. Cool Marc ✉ 09:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but it doesn't have to be changed to the same layout in the entire article. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• On October 26, 2019, a lyric video was released for it not really relevant for the lead.

•  Not done since the release of a lyric video is relatively notable for the lead single, especially since a snapshot is in the infobox. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Kyle Peake, The article body only mentions A lyric video was officially released for "Follow God" on October 26, 2019. If it was notable there would be more details on it. 11:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• The lyric video was released one day after the album, which was before the single release, hence there not being a heavy amount of detail. It was an official visual for the track, which is obviously notable; I could understand your reasoning if there were many videos released, but it was literally this and the music video only. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per MOS:LEAD, "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." This is clearly not the case here for the lyric video. There is only one sentence in this entire article about it, and none or barely any coverage in the media on it. Cool Marc ✉ 15:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• An accompanying music video for the song was previewed on November 6, while released the following day. Within the video, the Wests drive ATVs in the snow of Wyoming. "accompanying" and "for the song" mean the same thing, choose one, no need for both. The preview release date is not relevant here. "Within the video" - verbosity, the Wests are they only Kanye and Ray or are there others? The music video could be summarized here in one concise sentence.

•  Not done since the preview received significant coverage so is notably for a brief mention in the lead, but explained "the Wests" better. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Kyle, I don't think anybody cares when the preview of a music video was released, they care about when the actual music video was released. Save the stuff about the preview for the article body. Cool Marc ✉ 11:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• That would be understandable if there was loads of info about the preview in the lead, but there is only one mention and the sub-section clearly shows that the preview is notable due to the amount of coverage that it received. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The preview was released the day before. Where is the amount of coverage for the preview during this 24 hour period? I don't see it in this article. MOS:LEAD "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Why are you saying "Within the video" and not "In the video"? "The snow of Wyoming" implies that Wyoming always has snow? Cool Marc ✉ 15:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I should mention West's screening instead actually since that was the more covered topic? Plus what should I change the snow bit to? --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The Burberry store private screening does seem more relevant. Use "snow in Wyoming". Cool Marc ✉ 09:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• The visual was released to positive reviews from critics, who mostly commented on the appearance from Ray West. Was Ray West appearance the reason for positive reviews, maybe try something else here and have a look at the reception section again or remove this altogether.

•  Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• What is "Sunday Service" and why is it in quote marks? The article links to West's choir. Please explain.

•  Done the performances were during concerts and the article is about them as well as the choir. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the title of a concert or performance in quotation marks? Cool Marc ✉ 11:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done as this differentiates from the implication possibly made that all performances were by the choir when they indeed weren't always

Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS quotation marks are used for the title of songs and NOT concerts. Cool Marc ✉ 14:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: may I ask that you not use bullets (*) in your responses as it is causing errors for me on reply-link. Thank you. Cool Marc ✉ 15:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Sorry about that if it's becoming irritating, also I don't mean to be argumentative with you more so than to not comply with changes that I believe were misguided. I do definitely respect your suggestions but some may require more reasoning and do you understand my consistent signing off of posts, however?. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, My comments are not "misguided". I have edited Wikipedia for 6 years and I am very knowledgeable of the MOS and policies on here. This article very clearly fails the first GA criteria, "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 many grammatical errors. There are also close paraphrasing and copyright violations in the Composition section and the Critical reception section is not written in a neutral tone. Yet here I am volunteering to assist you to help this become a better and more encyclopedic GA-quality article. Please consider a different attitude in your responses and try take the constructive criticism on board. I would appreciate you not using the "not done" template in this review and instead respond as normal. I am not an IP making edit requests on a protected article talk page. Thanks. Cool Marc ✉ 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Background and development

• In June 2018, West and Kid Cudi, as the hip hop duo Kids See Ghosts, released their eponymous debut studio album, with the album including production from record producer BoogzDaBeast. needs work and no need to mention "with the album including production" when you just mentioned the word "album" one word prior, rather just keep it simple and say "which included production".
• "Follow God" stands among the six tracks on Jesus Is King that BoogzDaBeast worked on, while he lies among the album's lesser-known producers.[2] also needs work. The words "stands among" and "lies among" is awkward and too formal for an article on a popular song when you can use a word like "is" instead.

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• With BoogzDaBeast having contributed to the majority of the album's material, he stands among those who shaped the sound of it.[3] This is relevant to the Jesus Is King article, not so much "Follow God".

I understand your point of view, maybe I should reword this sentence a bit? --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just remove it. It's fluff. Cool Marc ✉ 09:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Should I still keep this as two separate paragraphs since that will now be three sentences? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI I have gone and copy edited and restructured this section myself. Cool Marc ✉ 19:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Alongside BoogzDaBeast, the track was produced by West and Xcelence.[4] -> BoogzDaBeast produced the track with West and Xcelence.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• On September 27, 2019, "Follow God" was first announced through a revised track listing for Jesus Is King shared by West's wife Kim Kardashian via Twitter.[5] -> The song title was first revealed in a revised track listing of Jesus Is King that West's wife Kim Kardashian shared on Twitter on September 27, 2019.

 Done with slight change --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• West later previewed the track at a listening party for the album at The Forum in Los Angeles on October 23 of that year.[6] _> West first played the song at a listening party for the album at The Forum in Los Angeles on October 23, 2019

 Not done since it flows better in prose with the previous sentence the former way. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song title reveal and listening party details feel out of place in a Writing and development section. Consider moving them to "Release and promotion"

 Not done since this is Background and development section, so info about the title itself being revealed and the song being played are more relevant to "background" than "release" or "promotion". --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

So you are telling me that the song title reveal and listening party took place before the song's development was finished? Cool Marc ✉ 09:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have never instated that here or anywhere else against WP:OR, but revealing of the title is Background info more than it is Release. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A song title reveal and listening party has nothing to do with how the song came about or how it was made. A song title reveal and listening party is used to tease, hype and promote the release. Cool Marc ✉ 12:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To me, I feel like it gives info on the background of the song and the release and promotion is not about pre-release promotion, which I barely think this is anyway. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand your explanation. Thanks. It can stay then. Cool Marc ✉ 19:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song was one of the three tracks that caused the release of Jesus Is King to be delayed due to the mixing being fixed.[8] "mixing being fixed" can be reworded.

 Done, look alright? --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• The title "Follow God" is an example of literal gospel.[9] What is a literal gospel?

Means highly pure to the actual term "gospel" --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the view of a critic doing in a background and development section? Did the Pitchfork critic help with creating the song title? Cool Marc ✉ 18:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• West collaborator Consequence spoke of the song during a phone call with Complex, claiming that it is of high importance due to West being "up against the ghost of" tracks such as "Otis" (2011), "Good Morning" (2007), "Champion" (2007) and "Heard 'Em Say" (2005).[10] -> West collaborator Consequence said "Follow God" was important to West due to him being "up against the ghost of" his previous tracks "Otis", "Good Morning", "Champion" and "Heard 'Em Say". The years in brackets by each song are clunky and make for difficult reading here, "previous tracks" suffices.
• Consequence elaborated, stating: "These new records got to go somewhere new. They got to be mechanically in tune with the people."[10] -> According to Consequence, "Follow God" had "to go somewhere new" and "be mechanically in tune with the people".

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• In a January 2020 interview with GQ, West cited the song as an example of him creating a track "that people never heard before" and West viewed it as being a stronger first single than "Power" (2010).[11] The "in a January interview with GQ" bit is not important. "stronger first single than 'Power'" is WP:UNDUE - West says in the interview that he felt "Power" was his worst lead single.

I understand what you mean, but he directly stated that as one of the songs "versus" it in the interview and what's wrong with mentioning it being January with GQ? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference if he had the interview in May or January or with GQ or Billboard, these details are not relevant. Saying that Follow God is better than Power which he regards as his worst lead single is undue weight because he thinks all of his lead singles are better than Power. Cool Marc ✉ 21:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I could understand if his exact quote was "all of my lead singles are better than 'Power'", but he actually did not even mention all of them by name if you read the full interview. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Him not mentioning them all by name does not change the undue weight here. Cool Marc ✉ 12:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• West sampling "Can You Lose by Following God" by Whole Truth meant that he had sampled an obscure track within the song.[9] This is the opinion of the Pitchfork critic and not West or people who worked on the song, I suggest rather removing or incorporating in the Music and lyrics section if you feel the need to.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I also saw in the Complex article that Consequence mentions that the version that’s on the album is a dirty version that got cleaned up. In this day and age, Kanye and I both decided, “No, let's just do the dirty one.” It’s not like it’s on a two-inch tape where everything has to go in unison. Just put the dirty one on it. That’s the one. It doesn’t matter who does it for me, it matters what feels authentic, and what feels like the people are going to gravitate to it Maybe consider including a sentence on this? I found this interesting and it feels relevant to this section.

 Done but added at a position earlier than the ending of the section --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Cool Marc ✉ 15:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Composition and lyrics

• Consider renaming this section to "Music and lyrics". A composition in music means "creative work, especially a poem or piece of music."

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The infobox says Christian hip hop and trap song, but this section says hip hop song with a trap beat. What is the truth?

Yes hip hop and trap are the genres directly mentioned in this section, but it is also stated that there is Christian lyricism, which combined with the former makes the song Christian hip hop. Understand your confusion, though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That's WP:SYNTH, you need a source explicitly calling it a Christian hip hop song per WP:EXPLICITGENRES and a trap beat does not make it a trap song. Cool Marc ✉ 18:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll remove Christian hip hop from the genre box now, but trap being incorporated as such warrants it as a secondary genre. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No it does not, the source says it has a trap beat. They didn't call it a trap song. Cool Marc ✉ 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

So just because it isn't exactly stated "the track is a trap song" I should remove it? Doesn't this classify as elements being included so it works as a genre??? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I see Counter Currents calls it a "trap-rap concession". This source supports the trap genre being included. Cool Marc ✉ 09:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• MOS:SAMESURNAME issues here.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Follow God" is a hip hop track that incorporates sampling reminiscent how West did so in his earlier work, with the song including a sample of the 1974 recording "Can You Lose by Following God" by Whole Truth.[8][13][14] The sample was noted as being soul music[15][16][17] and received comparisons to West's track "Father Stretch My Hands, Pt. 1" (2016).[14][18][19] These sentences are to an extent saying the same thing twice. I would suggest rewriting to "Follow God" is a hip hop track which features a sample of Whole Truth's 1974 soul song "Can You Lose by Following God". It recalls West's earlier releases which used samples, and 2016's "Father Stretch My Hands, Pt. 1".

 Done but does this look alright? Remember, not too many refs can be next to each other. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have added a ref from Def Jam's official site about where the sample starts from, is this alright though? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, it's good but I think this information would work better combined with the sentence Follow God" is built around the sample's vocal line, "Father, I stretch/Stretch my hands to You."[9] The opening sentence of this section is already long one with many citations. Cool Marc ✉ 19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song is built around a sample of the recording's vocal "Father, I stretch/Stretch my hands to You."[8] Too descriptive, just say - The song is built around the sample's vocal line, "Father, I stretch/Stretch my hands to You."
• To begin the song, the sample is used as a deceleration.[14] After the opening, the sample is chopped up over a trap beat.[11] Consider merging these sentences.

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song includes only one verse, which is performed by West.[12] Who else could perform the song other than West?

There could be additional vocals not mentioned until now in the body, for all the readers knows by this point. It is definitely worth noting that the number of verses is only one, either way, though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree the one verse bit is worth noting, but "which is performed by West" is not needed. Nobody else is featured on this song so its one verse cannot be performed by anyone other than West. Cool Marc ✉ 18:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song sees West discuss connecting to his father, though West references God under this connection as well as Ray West, and the former also speaks about unplugging from the "evil ways" of social media.[14] needs work, close paraphrasing. This does not make sense to me unfortunately. Please try clarify in a clearer and more concise way?

 Done does that look alright? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• However, the lyrical content of the song is not entirely religious. How are they not entirely religious? Please explain.

Maybe this should start the second para of this section instead, since a few quotes mentioned afterwards are not "religious", as such? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If the source does not explain how it is not "entirely religious", then cite an example that proves this, because at this point nobody knows. Cool Marc ✉ 12:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done with the current source, which flows into the other in prose, I think? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I've done some copy editing in this section as well, and moved the bit about the lyrics referring to the negativity of social media closer to this. Cool Marc ✉ 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Kanye West begins his verse with lines about the hardness of being pure in a world full of sin.[14][21] Certain lyrics are used by West to compare himself to both Jesus Christ and Michael Jordan within the verse.[21] Close paraphrasing issues here also, consider combining these two sentences to one concise sentence.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The phrase "what your life like" is repeatedly used as a question by West, which has been compared to fellow rapper Shotgun Suge's phrase "What's your life like?"[22] After hearing the song, Shotgun Suge noticed the usage of his slogan and wished that West would give him worthy acknowledgement over using it. who compared the two phrases? Stan Twitter or Shotgun Suge? Feels trivial.

 Done, if that works better? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It works better, The Source explaining the difference in context between the two phrases would be worth including here as well. Cool Marc ✉ 12:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• West considers what it means to be "Christlike," which is questioned as the result of an argument between him and his father, with the two of them becoming annoyed in their relationship with each other. Too much beating around the bush here. Consider rewriting to: West questions what it means to be "Christlike" after an argument with his father.

 Done with changes --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song concludes with West climaxing the argument, accompanied by a scream from him. -> The song ends with West climaxing the argument with a scream.

Not really appropriate wording, since the scream isn't the entire climax of it. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the climax then? What does the source say? Cool Marc ✉ 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Cool Marc ✉ 17:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Release and promotion

• "Follow God" was released on October 25, 2019, as the third track on West's ninth studio album Jesus Is King.[24] This suggests that it was the third track released from the album. Please clarify.

Should I add a term like "track list"? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what term to use here, but the sentence needs to be clarified. Cool Marc ✉ 12:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done if that's alright? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Reads clear now. Thanks. Cool Marc ✉ 20:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• On November 5, West made the decision to release the song as the lead single from the album in the United States, with it being slated for such a release the next week.[25] Prior to his decision, the song was being tested on October 30, 2019 for release as a single by West and Def Jam, with it standing as the most popular track on streaming services from the album at the time of the former's decision.[25] How was it being tested? Also a bit of a back and forth and unnecessary, excessive detail for something that could be simply written as After becoming the album's most popular track on streaming services, West announced its release as the lead single from Jesus Is King on November 5, 2019.

Are you sure about that though, since it is notable that the next week release was slated at the time? Also, the testing is notable and does it really need to be explained how testing was done? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I am sure and I have copy edited and trimmed the excessive trivial detail in this section. The "testing" is from a random tweet that gives no context as to what they are doing to "test it". Cool Marc ✉ 20:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song was serviced to UK mainstream radio stations by West's labels GOOD Music and Def Jam as the lead single in the United Kingdom on November 8, 2019.[26] It was added to BBC Radio 1's playlist, that is one radio station in the UK. Were there any others? Or do you have a proper source that establishes this without it appearing as WP:OR?

Don't see how this appears as OR, Radio 1 is seen as a reliable source for releases. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Being playlisted by one radio station in the UK does not mean "serviced to UK mainstream radio stations". Cool Marc ✉ 22:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point there, but this still does indicate a single release so what should I change to since it's not WP:OR? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, you can just say it was playlisted by BBC Radio 1, unless you have a source that it was playlisted by other mainstream radio stations in the UK like Capital FM for example. Cool Marc ✉ 09:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What should I change the lead to if I switch to this though? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Three days later, it was released to radio stations in Italy through Universal.[27] The song was sent to US radio stations by West's labels on November 12, 2019.[2] Combine these two in one concise sentence.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Alongside releasing the song across radio stations in the US, West's labels pushed it elsewhere.[25] Where is elsewhere? WP:WHATPLACE

Maybe I should reword to something else, like the labels promoted it further? (Making sure to mention labels so we know it was them doing this, not West) --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If we don't know what "elsewhere" or "further" is then there is no point including it. Cool Marc ✉ 12:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• A lyric video was officially released for "Follow God" on October 26, 2019. No need for "officially". Where was the lyric video released? YouTube, Spotify, MTV?

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary for every Sunday Service concert performance to be mentioned separately? Can we not just say "West performed the song as part of his Sunday Service concerts in 2019." and then mention the Rodney Reed namecheck?

I respect your point of view, but no since they happened out of order with the other performances and one of the three was performed with West and the choir themselves, while the other two weren't so it would be confusing to combine them all. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• whom Kardashian helped to get a stay of execution. what does this mean? Please rewrite and clarify

 Done, I think? --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• West delivered a performance of the song at American musician Travis Scott's Astroworld Festival in Houston on November 9, 2019, though his appearance at the festival was a surprise.[30] -> Travis Scott is a rapper per his Wiki and not a musician. Consider rewriting to the more clear and concise On November 9, 2019, West performed the song during a surprise appearance at fellow rapper Travis Scott's Astroworld Festival in Houston.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fellow rapper Pusha T freestyled over the song on December 9, 2019, with the rapper announcing the first child of him and his wife Virginia Williams during the freestyle. -> Rapper Pusha T announced his wife Virginia Williams' pregnancy in a freestyle rap over "Follow God" on Instagram on December 9, 2019.

 Done with changes --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Critical reception

• A big concern for me in this section is that XYZ critic thinks it is the best song the album. Rather just have one sentence saying, "Many critics cited it as the best track on Jesus Is King."[references] There is no need to mention it in every single single sentence.

•  Not done as I understand where you are coming from, but these reviews aren't worded repetitively and mention other aspects as well as it being among the greatest tracks, plus there's too many naming it that to put into one sentence with all the refs. --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Kyle Peake, with all due respect I owe to you, it is very repetitive: Dean Van Nguyen cited "Follow God" as the best track on the album, Wren Graves listed the song as being among the best tracks, Jordan Bassett of NME named the song as the best track on the album, Ross Horton cited the song as being among Jesus Is King's best tracks, listed by The Independent's Roisin O'Connor as one of the best tracks on Jesus Is King, Will Rosebury cited the song as being among the best tracks, Carl Wilson listed the song as one of the best tracks Those are 7 instances already. Cool Marc ✉ 11:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I understand what you mean as it may read tedious, but should I try to find ways of rewording the content so that it reads better? --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, see my first recommendation before you planked the not done template on it. Cool Marc ✉ 15:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I could use something similar to the notes of Making a New World? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean the use of a note? That would be a good compromise here. Cool Marc ✉ 09:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:PUFFERY like "universal acclaim" would need a source on this occasion. As far as I know, Jesus Is King was West's worst-reviewed album of his career. Were there absolutely no negative opinions on this song?

• That's reception of Jesus Is King, this is one song from this album that actually received widespread praise unlike the majority of it; even the F review by COS praises the track. Should I change to a different term instead for the beginning sentence though? --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  The song receiving passing positive comments in album reviews and being called a poorly-reviewed album's best track does not a warrant puffery claim like "universal acclaim", unless you have a source supporting this claim. I think for the sake of meeting the GA criterion of being neutral, this could be reworded to "Follow God" was well received by music critics who frequently cited it as the best track on Jesus Is King I can't review this section with the current "best song on the album" issue that's affecting the prose at the moment. I will continue with the other sections in the mean time. Cool Marc ✉ 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Edited now, look alright? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, "called it the best track on the album" is still present throughout this section. You mentioned it in the opening sentence, why mention 7 times over for every critic again. I don't understand the logic. Cool Marc ✉ 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Does "widely positive reviews" work for this instead? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It's better but it's awkward. Cool Marc ✉ 12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Done a re-write of the section and changed to "generally positive" after include more from the Exclaim review, look good now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I would say "well received" or just "positive" is better. "generally positive" feels a bit undue when 99% of the commentary is positive. The note as suggested above for all the mentions of "best track on the album" would be a good compromise for the issues in this section. Cool Marc ✉ 10:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Coolmarc Are you sure this doesn't seem fine with the phrasing being decreased from using "Jesus Is King" and "the album" too much? Also, I have more sources that I found very recently to verify a "generally positive" reception, does this work now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I am 120% sure. Use a note. It doesn't matter how you word it, it is still saying the same thing 7 times in one section just by different critics. Cool Marc ✉ 20:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc:  Done this by now. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's it for today. Please let me know when you've addressed the above, then I'll continue. Cool Marc ✉ 19:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Accolades

• I'm failing to see how a weekly "FIRE EMOJI" playlist on a music website is an accolade let alone encyclopedic and relevant? Cool Marc ✉ 18:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious that this playlist is compiled of the "music website" best tracks of the week, so it is clearly an accolade. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The definition of an accolade is "an award or privilege granted as a special honour or as an acknowledgement of merit." this is not an accolade if it's only playlist of songs they change every week. Cool Marc ✉ 09:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Jay-Z placed the track among a playlist of his favourite songs of 2019, which was uploaded by him to Tidal on December 19, 2019.[42] Not an accolade and obviously he would include since Jay-Z and West have collaborated numerous times and even did an album together. Cool Marc ✉ 18:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Well you may think that upon first glance, but Jay-Z and West haven't been too close for the past few years and a year-end list is notable from the rapper, could understand removing if it was someone as biased as West's wife but it's not so keep. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not an "accolade". It's a playlist of songs and not a Year-end list. It is also clearly very biased since all of Jay-Z collaborators including Kanye and even his wife Beyonce are on the playlist. Cool Marc ✉ 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Should this be in the main reception area instead, or just removed altogether in your eyes? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, it should be removed because Jay-Z as an associated act does not make it neutral. Cool Marc ✉ 10:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The track was ranked by Complex as the 48th best song of the year, with Eric Skelton of the website citing the production of it as "vintage Ye" due to the Whole Truth sample, which he claimed "should please anyone who still pines for a return of the 'old Kanye.'" Please avoid using the word "claim" as per WP:CLAIM To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question The sentence also needs work as it is unclear as to whether the writer is referring to the song or the sample when he says "should please anyone who still pines for a return of the 'old Kanye." Also unclear if "vintage Ye" is referring to West's previous album or his old music, if it's the old music you have already established this view in "still pines for a return of the 'old Kanye.'" I thought Complex were a magazine with a website?
• PopSugar are a gossip website and not a reputable music critic. That year-end list was compiled by a student who says "Currently, I write for CelebMix, HerCampus Temple, and PopCrave. I am hoping to gain more experience within the next couple months while I am still in school. Cool Marc ✉ 18:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Follow God" was ranked by listeners of Australian radio station Triple J as the 87th most popular song of the year. Poor grammar. The radio listeners did not compile the ranking, Triple J did. Radio stations are not italicized. Cool Marc ✉ 18:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I think? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Music video

• Consider starting with directing and location info first and the release info later since the music video was filmed before it was released.
• The location is Cody, Wyoming according to the text that appears in the video. Dazed source also mentions this.

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Kardashian shared a preview of an accompanying music video for the track via her Instagram stories on November 6, 2019, though the release date for it was unknown at the time and the preview was shared around two weeks after the release of the album.[46][47] this goes into way too much unnecessary detail and the last half of this sentence is stating the obvious. Consider rewriting to a more concise and relevant A preview of the music video was shared by Kardashian on Instagram on November 6, 2019.

Have removed the bit about the album since that is not needed, but kept the remainder since the source states that the release date was not currently known at the time and it's notable that the sharing was via her stories, not posts. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• That same day, West privately screened the visual at the Burberry Store in New York, with the store having been rented out by him.[48] -> West rented a Burberry store in New York the same day for a private screening of the video.

 Done with changes --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• A large projection was readied in a room for it to be screened, with the visual being played back multiple times.[49] trivia.

Wouldn't say so, since it is giving information on how the video was screened, which is relevant to the background sub-section. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, how else do screenings happen? These are obvious trivial details. Cool Marc ✉ 10:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: That's true for the first bit, should I reword to something like "During screen, the visual was played back multiple times." since this doesn't basically state the definition of screening first but gives info on how the screening went down, more so? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I honestly think it's really trivial, but if you feel the need to include something so minor then do it. Cool Marc ✉ 20:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Among the attendees of the screening were Tyler, the Creator, ASAP Rocky and Kardashian. "among the attendees" is awkward and too formal. And Kardashian being included here is random when she's West's wife and shared the preview, obviously she was going to be there.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• After the screening, West thanked Tyler, the Creator for attending and said that "he's one of the people I look up to" when it comes to videos.[49] off-topic trivia

Not really since he's talking about taking inspiration for videos and thanking Tyler for attending a video screening. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanking him for attending the music video screening is the definition of trivia. He doesn't specify if the Follow God music video was influenced by him unless I missed something in the source? Cool Marc ✉ 11:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• The music video was directed by Jake Schreier and recorded at West's $14 million ranch in Wyoming. use "filmed" instead of "recorded". Remove the cost of West's ranch which is irrelevant to this video and feels like puffery.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• On November 7, 2019, the video was released. awkward choppy sentence. Where was it released? Consider writing The video was released on YouTube on November 7, 2019.

 Done with changes --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Simultaneously, West shared it via Twitter.[51] trivial, unnecessary detail

Since it's not violating WP:SELFPUB with a direct citation from West's twitter and is giving info on promotion of the video, I believe this works. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Consider merging it with the previous sentence if you feel it is important. It's 2 choppy sentences in a row at the moment. Cool Marc ✉ 11:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Follow God" became the first song from Jesus Is King to receive a music video, which followed on from the release of the album's accompanying concert film of the same name. stating the obvious, Follow God was the first single, why would it NOT be the first song to receive a music video? How does the Follow God video "follow on" from the album film? How are they related?

 Done for the album film bit but kept the other fact, since sometimes artists release music videos for non-singles, e.g what 50 Cent did with his studio album The Massacre. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• The visual was used to further promote the track after West's decision to release it as a single.[53] Well, obviously. Why would it not be used to promote a popular song single release?

I could understand if I had come to this conclusion on my own by adding sources together or something, but the citation directly states that. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

All music videos are used to promote songs and single releases. This is not brand new information. Cool Marc ✉ 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I know that it's logic 101 but this is being specific that it is for promotion notably after the single release; this release hasn't been mentioned for sections so is fine to mention here for relevancy to the video being specifically for a single post-release. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to go into such obvious, intricate detail. Cool Marc ✉ 20:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The inclusion of vehicles within the clip follows on from cars having been present in the past for the music videos of West's 2008 single "Flashing Lights" and his Jay-Z collaborative single "Otis". this is the opinion of the Vulture editor and is already stated in the reception section, so keep it there and do not state it as a fact here.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• MOS:SAMESURNAME issues from Synopsis section onwards.

 Done, I think? --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• At the beginning of the music video, Kanye and Ray West walk around in the snow of Wyoming - > The music video opens with a scene of Kanye and Ray walking on snow. We already know the location is Wyoming from the previous section.
• with it being reported by Billboard to be the first video that Kanye and Ray have appeared in alongside each other.[49][55][56] You are insinuating that this is a claim by Billboard and not a fact that this is West's first video to feature Ray. This is also more relevant to a background section and not a Synopsis plot section.
• "the latter" being used frequently here makes for confusing reading in the Synopsis section especially with the MOS:SAMESURNAME issues.

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Avoid using "in the clip" and "within the video" in a music video synopsis section. You are stating the obvious. The Synopsis section is about the music video, it's not happening anywhere else.

 Done in part, but this becomes confusing when starting sentences if you have a read-through; help? --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article. This in reference to your use of ATV in this section.

 Done should have remembered that from my experience, bad mistake. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Though initially driving around in a large ATV in the visual, the Wests go on to change to an even bigger one for transport and use the vehicle to perform donuts.[58][59] needs a lot of work, please rewrite. Please replace "even bigger" with "larger", starting a sentence with "though" is a no-no as is saying a vehicle "performs" donuts.
• To conclude the music video, white text is displayed over a blue background.[60] The conclusion is a message from West, which sees the rapper explain that it took him 42 years to realize that his father is his best friend.[51] Consider combining these two sentences into one concise sentence.

 Done for the above, if they look good? --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Vulture should be in italics. Per MOS:ITALICTITLE sites with original content should generally be italicized
• Consider rewriting the first bit in reception to the more clear and concise Craig Jenkins of Vulture wrote that "Follow God" continued a streak from "Otis" and 2007's "Flashing Lights" as West's "most striking" videos that were also filmed in cars. Jenkins found the setting symbolic for the Wests due to Ray recalling a time when his children never saw snow, and Kanye now owning ranch lands that Ray's grandchildren can call their "backyard".

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Where is the "praise" for these things in Justin Curto's comments exactly? I am failing to see "praise" in the source, it is only noting the existence of these things.
• Consider rewriting Justin Curto comments in a more neutral, clear and concise way. after possible past issues between them are touched on within the track and also wrote positively of the ending message from Kanye West is very vague, what "possible past issues"? How did he "wrote positively of"?

"And if that’s all not enough to warm your cold heart when it comes to Kanye, just read what he wrote at the end of the video, about his dad's first visit to his Wyoming ranch" is written directly after the "really are all good now" quote that ends with an exclamation mark; this is clearly praising the video but didn't write it out in the exact words and the term "Hallelujah to that" is used too which indicates praise. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Michigan Daily are a student newspaper, please replace with a professional source as per WP:RSSM.

Will look into this and find a source to replace the newspaper. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done but does this quotation from the new ref have any issues with prose? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice find! The sentence reads fine to me. Cool Marc ✉ Cool Marc ✉ 20:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Following 14 hours of release, the music video had surpassed 1.4 million views on YouTube.[62] grammar issues and the source says 1.6 million Try The music video received over 1.6 million views on YouTube within its first 14 hours of release. Per MOS:NUMERAL a "nbsp" template should be used between the number and the word million.

 Done but here's a good question; should the trending rank be mentioned or not, as I've been unsure for this? --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The trending ranks change constantly so I'd say rather leave that out. Cool Marc ✉ 11:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Yeah, I won't add. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• How many views has it received since the first 14 hours?

 Not done since I searched and searched but cannot find any reliable source covering that statistic. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I'm confused now about the music video whether West's father says the children never walked on snow or whether they were scared of snow. The reception and synopsis give to different interpretations now. Cool Marc ✉ 21:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Commercial performance

• There are MOS:NUMERAL issues in some sentences. Comparable numbers should either be all spelled out or all in numbers.
• "Hot Shot Debut" happens every week, nothing important. Millions of songs have had a "Hot Shot Debut", does not seem neutral and appears to be inflating the song's success here.

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song stood behind American singer Selena Gomez's single "Lose You to Love Me" at number one as the second highest entry in the top 10 and followed on from YNW Melly's track "Mixed Personalities" as the second track including West to chart on the Hot 100 in 2019.[64] Same as previous, these are trivial details that makes one question if this article was written in a neutral or fan-written tone.

Since the stats were reported by Billboard, I believe there are notable; I initially had your state of mind at one point, until a discussion on Talk:All Day (Kanye West song)/GA1 where I was told to further stats. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging MarioSoulTruthFan, I honestly think that these specific stats are really insignificant. Cool Marc ✉ 11:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: and @Kyle Peake: That was not the states I told you to further, I said "further regarding the song on the article", never others. You can re-write like this "The song was the second highest entry in the top 10", no need to meniton Gomez peak. You also have "FourFive Seconds" on the article I reviewed because it was the same date and a Kanye West song, as well, unlike Selena. I do believe you would mention that if the song entered at number two behind selena gomez, but that was not the case. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for what MarioSoulTruthFan said, since this article doesn't need to focus on Gomez because it is about a song by West that she had no involvement with at all. Have kept the other statistics though, as of current. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The song being his second single to chart in 2019 is really not a significant or important "statistic". Cool Marc ✉ 20:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Can understand what you mean since it's a big name artist in West, but Billboard reported this? --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to mention every single trivial detail Billboard reports, only the significant ones relevant for an encyclopedia. Cool Marc ✉ 11:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Since it's his second single to chart in the Hot 100 within a year, I think it can be contested as notable. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, it is definitely not notable. The entire or most of Jesus Is King charted on the Hot 100 in 2019. Cool Marc ✉ 20:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• This stood as West's 18th track to reach the top 10 of the chart, though marked his eighth debut in the top 10, and his first since the Lil Pump collaboration "I Love It" reached number six in 2018.[65] "stood as" and "marked" are awkward and too formal for an article on popular song and it being West's first top 10 single in a year is hardly a long time or an achievement.

 Done but kept the achievement per above. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, per what above? This is not notable. A year is not a long time. Cool Marc ✉ 20:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• By entering atop the US Billboard Christian Songs chart, the song ended the 66 week reign of American singer and songwriter Lauren Daigle's single "You Say" at number one on the chart.[67] needs to be rewritten. Starting a sentence with "By entering atop" is very awkward. Especially considering the previous sentence is not related to its charts performance on Christian Songs. A hyphen is needed between 66 and week. Try use a more neutral, less formal term than "reign".

 Done even though I struggled to think of what term to use, does the current one work? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The sentence still needs work. Cool Marc ✉ 20:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Any suggestions? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• How many weeks did it spend at number one on Christian Songs?

Have searched and cannot find any sources providing this info; Billboard no longer says under chart history how long songs remained at their peak position for either, but should I just add a sentence with a source instating that the song remained atop the chart in its second week, since that is relatively notable at least? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

So it wasn't number one for more than 2 weeks? Cool Marc ✉ 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The song was number one for more than two weeks; however, I cannot find any sources stating how long it was NUMBER ONE for, only how long it remained on the chart. The exception is using the Billboard Christian Songs chart for the issue where the song was last atop it, but that does not verify it was the all time reign as the average reader would not know what happened the next week. --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If we can't verify how long Follow God was number one on this chart then only mention that it reached number one. Cool Marc ✉ 11:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song was less successful on the US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, debuting at number three, though it remained on the chart for six weeks in total.[69] a song charting in the top three of a chart does not make it "less successful".

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• In its second week on the Hot 100, the song descended 30 places to number 37, standing as the largest decline of a top 10 entry on the chart from the previous week.[65][66] Why go from talking about its performance on Christian Songs and Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs to all of a sudden talking about the Hot 100 again? This is not good flow. Keep the Hot 100 details together. Replace "descended" with "dropped". Remove trivial standing as the largest decline of a top 10 entry on the chart from the previous week.[65][66]

 Done and looked at WP:CHARTS --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This is where I'm confused and have left the majority of the section  On hold until I figure this one out with you; I'm aware the different charts were mentioned not in exact order within this section, but shouldn't ALL stats for second week and succeeding ones come after first week? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it makes the section a mess because you are constantly jumping back and forth between the different charts and countries. Cool Marc ✉ 20:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• For how long was it present on the Hot 100 chart?

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• The song was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for selling 500,000 certified units in the US on December 9, 2019.[70] By doing so, it became West's 40th track to achieve the certification in the US. Consider combining these to a clear, more concise sentence.

 Done with changes --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• As of January 11, 2020, the song ranks as West's most successful Christian track in the US.[72] The song has remained atop the US Gospel Songs chart for 24 weeks as of April 14.[73] Back and forth again. You were just talking about the certification now you are talking about Christian Songs and Gospel Songs performance again. Try avoid USING WP:ASOF. The exact dates are not needed, and remove the word "has" in "has remained", unless the song is still number one on this chart?

 Done in part but kept the term "has" because it is still atop and would be tedious to update the reign constantly every week. --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• In response to the song's chart success, West questioned the format of the success.[10] This feels random. Please provide more context.

 Done, I think? --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, still makes no sense to me. What are you trying to say here? Cool Marc ✉ 20:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are flow issues in this section . Keep details about certain charts together, don't go back and forth. Same with this last section. Start with Canada, then do Oceania countries and then UK and European countries.

Coolmarc Shouldn't it be ordered from highest to lowest positions? --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

According to who are details like this "ordered from highest to lowest positions", that has never been the way to do it. Cool Marc ✉ 11:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• For some reason, you felt the need to have a sentence for every single chart entry, even very minor markets and minor chart positions. Consider trimming this last paragraph and for the Europe charts use a summary sentence for the most notable chart peaks. Elsewhere in Europe, "Follow God" charted in the top 10 in Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia. It makes for boring, tedious reading otherwise. The chart table is there for a reason.

I had purposefully only done the top 40 positions and already did what you stated in parts, are you sure this isn't alright currently? --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure per above explanation. You can say it reached the top 10 in XYZ countries and the top 20 in ABCD countries. There is no need to mention every single chart here. Cool Marc ✉ 11:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but does this need fixes? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, not done. You are still mentioning every single chart entry. Remove the details from Greece onwards. You are going into way too much detail. Please refer to it as the New Zealand Singles Chart and not the abbreviated NZ Singles Chart. Cool Marc ✉ 20:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• How long was it present on the UK Singles Chart?

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• It debuted with first-week sales of 32,806 track-equivalent units in the UK Source consider including more interesting details like this.
• The song dropped to number 15 in its second week with sales of 22,367 units. Source

Can't seem to work with the above, since I have to be a subscriber apparently; I do assume good faith, but how can I insert these statistics when I don't know what they are outside of the units you told me? --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's referring to its chart and sales performance in the UK. Cool Marc ✉ 11:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done but not added the second week stats per WP:CHARTS, does the first work right now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, 2 of 7 weeks is not a WP:CHARTTRAJ. Cool Marc ✉ 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• According to the OCC source you provide, West has had 20 Top 10 hits on the chart and not 23.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Credits and personnel

• There are format and grammar issues here. See the examples at WP:PERSONNEL "songwriting" should be "songwriter", "production" should be "producer", "mastering engineering" should simply be "mastering", "recording engineering" should be "recording engineer"

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I see that in the Jesus Is King article that two of these songwriters are only credited because of the sample. This is a very important fact that should be mentioned in the lead and background section. You need to clarify who wrote the song and who wrote the sample. Cool Marc ✉ 21:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Charts

• Target Estonia chart to Eesti Tipp-40 and not Eesti Ekspress

 Done good catch, I was initially not sure which to target the chart to myself. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Target Iceland chart to its publisher Plötutíðindi, not Tonlist which translates to playlist in Icelandic.

 Done but changed the target as in what is written out, since the wikilink "target" is supposed to be to Music of Iceland either way. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Release history

Consider including the US and Italy radio releases here or removing it altogether. There is no need for a table if there is only one release date.

 Done since Talk:Yikes (Kanye West song)/GA1 made me aware, do not note if a release merely says "radio". --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 2 to follow. Cool Marc ✉ 13:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 2

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

References

I will be checking all the references and each comment below is under their number as they existed at this time. The order in the article may change from this numbering as refs get moved, added or deleted. Cool Marc ✉ 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 3] - MOS:QWQ issues
• [Ref 4] - MOS:CAPS issues in title, rv "Tidal" in the title, since they are in the publisher parameter

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 5] - MOS:QWQ issues in title and stray spacing in the title

 Done for the first one, but what is stray spacing supposed to be? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 6] - WP:OVERLINK of Complex

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 9] - WP:OVERLINK of Complex, MOS:QWQ issues, stray spacing in the title

 Done for the first two, but what is stray spacing supposed to be? --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 12] - The Chicago Maroon are a student newspaper and not a professional source. Please remove or replace.

Will do soon, do this or this classify as reliable, though? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No they are both student sources not professional sources. Cool Marc ✉ 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 16] - should be Clash, that is WP:COMMONNAME.
• [Ref 18] - should be Slate, not Slate Magazine
• [Ref 23] - link Consequence of Sound
• [Ref 24] - MOS:CAPS issues in title
• [Ref 28] - MOS:CAPS issues in title

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 32] - MOS:QWQ issues and stray spacing in title

 Done for the first part --Kyle Peake (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 34] - WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone
• [Ref 41] - MOS:CAPS issues in title
• [Ref 42] - WP:OVERLINK of NME
• [Ref 43] - WP:OVERLINK of Complex
• [Ref 45] - Triple J should not be italicized
• [Ref 46] - WP:OVERLINK of Highsnobiety, MOS:QWQ issues in title
• [Ref 47] - MOS:QWQ issues in title
• [Ref 49] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 50] - WP:OVERLINK of NME
• [Ref 51] - WP:OVERLINK of Pitchfork
• [Ref 52] - WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone
• [Ref 54] - Vulture should be in the website/work parameter
• [Ref 57] - MOS:QWQ issues in title
• [Ref 58] - WP:OVERLINK of Vulture, Vulture should be in the website/work parameter
• [Ref 60] - the website/work is Dazed per WP:COMMONNAME

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 61] - The Michigan Daily are a student newspaper and not a professional source. Please remove or replace.

:Will try and find a replacement soon. --Kyle Peake (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done with a much more reliable source. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 63] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 64] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 65] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 66] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 68] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 69] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 71] - ThatGrapeJuice are not a reliable source.
• [Ref 78] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 82] - MOS:CAPS issues in title
• [Ref 84] - MOS:CAPS issues in title
• [Ref 107] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 110] - WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone
• [Ref 111] - MOS:CAPS issues in title
• [Ref 112] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard
• [Ref 113] - WP:OVERLINK of Billboard

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Coolmarc Can you explain what stray spacing is to me please? --Kyle Peake (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, it means there is an extra space randomly when there shouldn't be one. Cool Marc ✉ 13:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Coolmarc I have looked at the sources in the edit preview and cannot see any random spaces in the titles or other areas, could you help out a little bit here? --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I must have imagined these spaces because I don't see them anymore! Cool Marc ✉ 20:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Verification

I will be verifying all the references and each comment below is under their number as they existed at this time. The order in the article may change from this numbering as refs get moved, added or deleted. Cool Marc ✉ 16:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 13] The Guardian does not "praise" the sample. They just say "features a lean soul sample that evokes memories of Bound 2". This is not "praise".

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 16] Billboard uses the word "declaration", not "deceleration". These are not the same thing.

 Done that was a silly typo on my part, glad you spotted it. --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 22] Consequence of Sound does not "direct praise" at the sample. It just mentions its existence.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 23] I cannot find the release date from the Allmusic source.

Don't understand this error, since when I look in the left sidebar on both the original and archived refs, the release date is fully visible as October 25, 2019? Or have you just not checked this part of the page as of current? --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I see it now. Thanks. Cool Marc ✉ 20:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 34] Exclaim does not "praise" the "chopped and screwed sample and heavy kicks". It mentions it existence. The source also says the song is "painfully short" but for some reason this is not included in the article.
• [Ref 37] The Independent is not "praising" these things. A different and more neutral term should be used.
• [Ref 53] MSN New Zealand page is gone and redirects to their home page.

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 55] "orange hoodie, insulated overalls, brown gloves and a white vest." is copied directly from the source, perhaps change the order or paraphrase if possible?

 Done but does that look alright with the switched order and slight change of words? --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Cool Marc ✉ 20:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I could not verify Vulture references due to them asking me to subscribe to read the articles, but I will assume good faith.
• [Ref 65] does not say the song debuted at number one on Christian Songs. Please add a source for this.

 Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 67 and 106] are duplicates.

I can see this issue too when opening the refs, but don't understand why it is happening since the former usually leads directly to the info about the specific song that it links to; maybe I should use a different archive? --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's the best one to use here, but only one is needed. Cool Marc ✉ 21:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 75] OCC says West has had 20 Top 10 hits on the charts, not 23.

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 78] does not say Follow God was the second highest entry on the chart that week, although this is trivial info and should be removed anyway.

 Done with changes --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• [Ref 79] chart peak cannot be verified in archive.
• [Ref 84] chart peak cannot be verified in archive.

I used this just now and searched using the named circumstances, worked perfectly fine for both of the peak positions. Are you sure that you haven't performed the correct search procedures; make sure to click on the specified chart under the drop-down box and the same for date, then press Zobrazit. --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It must have been a temporary glitch. It's working now. Cool Marc ✉ 21:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Can this criterion be marked as pass now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 3

It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

It is broad in coverage. Some sources mention additional info regarding the music, lyrics and the music video that could be included in the article, but it is not a train smash. Some sources in the critical reception mention more interesting things than what is included in this article. Cool Marc ✉ 17:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 4

It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

• Some sources have been misrepresented (see above) and so the article's content should be modified. Neutrality can not be determined as a result.
• There is undue weight on the mention that West thinks "Follow God" is better than his previous lead single "Power", when he also calls "Power" his worst lead single.
• There is a lot of neutrality issues in the Critical reception section where the words "praised" is unduly used throughout as well each sentence needlessly saying "called it the best song on the album".
• The word "claim" appears frequently. WP:CLAIM
• A "fire emoji" Weekly playlist is unduly being represented as an "accolade".
• A streaming playlist by Jay-Z is unduly represented as an "accolade". Jay-Z is an associated act of West and therefore neutrality cannot be established here as well.
• There are trivial details used in the Commercial performance section that are not notable to an encyclopedia and appear to be used to try inflate this song's success or lack thereof. Examples of this include, "Hot Shot Debut", The song stood behind American singer Selena Gomez's single "Lose You to Love Me" at number one as the second highest entry in the top 10 and followed on from YNW Melly's track "Mixed Personalities" as the second track including West to chart on the Hot 100 in 2019.[64], his first since the Lil Pump collaboration "I Love It" reached number six in 2018.[65].

The notable of certain statistics is under discussion between us somewhat currently in the Commercial performance sub-section of this review, which should hopefully solve the above problem.  Done for the rest, though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, Please see my above response. These are not "statistics" and they have no significance at all and should have no place on this article. Cool Marc ✉ 21:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 5

It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

It seems reasonably stable, in the last month I can only notice the following:

• On 4 May an editor was reverted over the use of a cover art that was "not official".
• The "biological father" line was changed a few times in the revision history but been reverted by the nominator.
• An editor was reverted by the nominator for the removal of Counter Currents "a white nationalist blog which not reliable for factual claims." I could not find this publication on WP:RSP so they should be fine for GA, although will likely be contested for FA.

Cool Marc ✉ 17:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 6

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• Images are missing WP:ALT text

 Done but is it needed for the lyric video in the infobox too? --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. All images should have alt text for WP:ACCESS and readers who are blind. Cool Marc ✉ 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Audio sample summary purpose of use could be expanded to warrant its use in the article better.
• Audio sample caption has grammar issues.

 Done for the above but Coolmarc, does it look fine now? If yes, then can this be marked as a passed criterion? --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, the file summary for the audio sample still only says "Demonstrate the song in question", and the sample caption still has grammar issues. Cool Marc ✉ 11:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Coolmarc Does this look fine now? If not, what fixes need to be made with it? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, You are saying "an audio sample including a sample". No need for mentioning hip hop here either. Just mention what we hear in the 8-second sample in a clear and concise way. Cool Marc ✉ 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, The audio sample summary on the file page is still inadequate, it still only says "Demonstrate the song in question" - this does not warrant its use on the article. Please check this for what a summary of use should look like for the sample. Cool Marc ✉ 21:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have asked for feedback from an image reviewer as well as at Template:Infobox song because I am not sure if the use of a lyric video screenshot in the cover art parameter in the Infobox is appropriate use. It is the first time I have seen this and I did not find any consensus anywhere. Cool Marc ✉ 21:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

I'm putting this on hold for 7 days (or more if you need me to). Please address my concerns and let me know when you are done. I have another article to review and I am working from home Monday to Friday during the day, so ping me if you need help with something or don't understand a comment I made here. Cool Marc ✉ 17:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Have got back to you on everything but if you have any points to respond to from me, get them done now so I know if any fixes are required. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, the music video reception needs some work with regards to grammar, the use of the word "within" when "in" is supposed to used instead. I'm not sure if you can try attempt writing these sentences in this section better. Also the lead, I feel could expand and give better context to the critical reception of the song and music video. I also left a reply in Music and lyrics section. Please check. Otherwise it looks like everything is OK, I will do a final spot check and final copy edit tomorrow. Cool Marc ✉ 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Coolmarc I have made some fixes related to what you said, finale time now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I've responded in a number of sections above. Unfortunately there is still issues. Regarding my comment about the lead, the song received 90% positive reviews from critics, so the line you added now about it receiving negative comments feels undue. I meant that you should expand in the lead on why the song was well received by critics because it was not only because of the sample. Same for the music video reception, "positive reviews because of the appearance of his father" tells me nothing... What about the appearance of his father made critics like the video? Cool Marc ✉ 21:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I have become impatient with the constant back-and-forth with you so I've fixed the issues myself and the article is now finally good to pass. Cool Marc ✉ 17:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Thumbnail

@Garçon de chômage: You can't add fake cover art, especially one of GA status. Lyric video thumbnails have been used at Violent Crimes (song) and All Mine (Kanye West song), another GA article. The title screen of a music video is a cover used to promote the single. Discuss here before making more bold edits. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Yes and the images on those pages are cropped to be a square. It IS the same pic, just cropped. If you want to add the caption "Thumbnail of the lyric video" like on the two pages that you mentioned, that clearly don't feature the FULL thumbnail, that's fine. And since you bring it up; neither of those images are the cover arts for those songs. They're screenshots of a video used as a thumbnail. Can you point to anywhere else official those images are used to showcase the songs? No, you can't. To be clear, neither the full thumbnail nor the cropped thumbnail of the lyric video to "Follow God" are official either. One just happens to be more presentable than the other. --Garçon de chômage (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Garçon de chômage: "All Mine" and "Violent Crimes" aren't cropped, those videos have a 1:1 ratio. The current infobox is the thumbnail of the song taken directly from YouTube, not just a screenshot. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: No, https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TrQ7w1bdNvY/maxresdefault.jpg that's the thumbnail, and the thumbnail IS a screenshot from the video. --Garçon de chômage (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

YouTube can't display 1:1 thumbnails, so it adds the black border. And "Vevo" appears as an overlay for official artists. Point being, the "Follow God" lyrics video isn't presented in a 1:1 ratio. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I think it should be cropped like other thumbnails that are used, but you seem to be deadset on keeping it like this, even though I'm not the only person who's taken issue with this. --Garçon de chômage (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice4What, just to clarify as the GA reviewer I took an issue with the inappropriate use and fair use rationale of a lyric video thumbnail in the cover art parameter in the review. If it is not the cover art but a lyric video screenshot then it does not belong there. There is no consensus for this type of use and several editors at Template talk:Infobox song have agreed that this as inappropriate use, not encyclopedic and "image-for-the-sake-of-an-image". Cool Marc ✉ 08:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Thanks! I moved it to a more appropriate spot. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)