Talk:Footprints in the Sand (Leona Lewis song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 23:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nominator wished to withdraw nomination after review had been done. Failed per GAN rules on withdrawing after the review has taken place so a record can be kept. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 09:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Lead info

1. Remove the composition info at the start of the second paragraph, no need to mention that here.

   Not a reason given for remove. 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

   Because you don't need to mention it here. It doesn't fit with the rest of what you are saying. Remove. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

2. "...A-side appeared in Germany and Switzerland," → "...A-side charted in Germany and Switzerland,"

   "Footprints in the Sand" charted as a single in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Hot 100 Singles, while the double A-side charted in." 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

3. "and was certified silver in the UK by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)." → "and has since been certified silver in the UK by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)." Also, when was it certified silver?

   If you want the year also, then the correct wording is not "and has since been certified". 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

   Change it accordingly then. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

4. "In 2008, Lewis performed the song live on the television programme Dancing on Ice," → "Lewis performed the song for the first time in the UK live on the television programme Dancing on Ice in March 2008.".

   Yes in 2008, but you ommited it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

   Re-worded what I wrote so you understand. Sometimes you need to use your own initiative to work things out. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

5. "and the next year it was covered by Welsh singer Lucie Jones on The X Factor." → ". Series six contestant of The X Factor, Lucie Jones, covered the song on the first live show on 10 October, 2009, which met with mixed reviews from the judges." Make it into a new sentence separate from Dancing on Ice. You don't have to re-word exactly as I have done, but make sure you add in the main points of what I wrote, and add the relevant hyperlinks.

   The main question is how you know it received mixed reviews. Also, I see original research on "10 October, 2009" [sic]. 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

   The judges themselves gave mixed reviews. Find sources for it. I'm not here to do literally everything for you. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

• Background

1. You have written the writers of the song in a different order to that which you used in the lead info, pick one order and stick with it to be consistent.

   Done 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

2. "It is a R&B and pop song," → "The song incorporates elements of R&B and pop musical genres," Add relevant hyperlinks for R&B and pop.

   Changed. 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

3. " with Lewis' vocal ranging from the tonal nodes of E♭3 to the note of G♯5." → "with Lewis' vocals spanning from the low note of E♭3 to the high note of G♯5."

   Changed. 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

4. "and it includes" Remove 'it'.

   Done 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Release and promotion

1. "this would be her third single in the United Kingdom.[12]" Remove, this is not needed.

   Removed. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

2. "To promote the song, Lewis performed it live on the British television programme Dancing on Ice on 9 March 2008,[18] with a special ice dance routine performed by Torvill and Dean.[19]" → "As part of promotion, Lewis performed the song for the first time live on the British television programme Dancing on Ice on 9 March 2008,[18] with a special ice dance routine performed by Torvill and Dean.[19]" Also, add that Better in Time was sung on the show as well, with a valid source.

   ? Done the first. For the second, "BiT" performance is in its respective page. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

   It's more informational to know that she performed two songs on the same show. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

3. I think it's very important that you write that she performed the song on Sport Relief. I surprised you haven't included this, considering the song was the the official song for the charity that year...

   ?? You must include this. This song was for Sport Relief, and you haven't written that she performed it on Sport Relief!!!! Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

   Perhaps because I have not searched about? Calvin, you gave me a week, if you cannot wait that time, I advice you to not make reviews. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 14:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

   I was only commenting about it because you hadn't said anything even though you addressed other points. If you don't want me to help and would rather me be vague and non-constructive, then say so. I think you have got it the wrong way round. Would you prefer me not to say anything for a week, then the 7 days is up and you haven't done it and you get failed? I am pushing this point about Sport Relief because of how inherent and important it is to include it. That's all. Most reviewers do not get this involved, I want to pass the article, and I'm sure you want it passed too, I'm only telling you. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 14:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

   Calvin, check my previous GANs. I do not reply to stuff that I'm not going to do immediately and I'm not obligated to do so. Is it "vital" to add it? Yes, but do not expect that just because I add "Footprints in the Sand Sport Relief" at Google, 5,000,000 of useful information will appear. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 15:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

   What? When have I ever told you to do it asap??? I haven't, I just left a comment, and you're taking it out of context. Mirror and The Telegraph. There are two sources. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 16:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

4. Can you find some reviews about the music video from critics.

   I'd tried, but there are not many information about (online). I'll research this week. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

5. "intercalates" That is not the right word. Use "intercut".

   Done. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

6. I feel like there are too many pictures on this article and very close together disrupting the flow and aesthetic. Remove the picture of the city.

   Removed the image about the footprints, if you believe it should be added back, notify me. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

   No, that's fine. It seemed a bit too constrictive with 3 pictures close together. Also, why are there two one-liners in this section? Make the entire section one paragraph because it is all over the place now. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

• Reception - Critical Response

1. "from the Evening Standard" → "of the Evening Standard"

   Changed. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

2. "Columnist Sarah-Louise James commented for Daily Star that it contained" → "Sarah-Louise James of Daily Star commented that it contains"
3. "Sal Cinquemani" Who is she writing on for?? She writes for Spin or Slant I think.

   Added. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

4. "Nick Levine" Who is he writing for??
5. "Alex Fletcher" Who is he?? Who is he writing for??

   For both above, it already says "Digital Spy's reviewers gave similar opinions about "Footprints in the Sand"."

   Hmm okay, wasn't clear at first.

• Reception - Chart performance

1. "In November 2007, following the release of the album, the song debuted on the UK Singles Chart at number sixty-five, staying on the chart for another week." WP:OR Source?

   Removed. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

2. "debuted on the Swiss Singles Chart at thirty-five" Did it debut AND peak at 35?

   Reworded (I believe). 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Mention that Mercy by Duffy sold about 300 copies more than Better in Time. This is quite a famous fact and should be noted. Find a valid source for it.

   Relevance or importance? It already says "After selling 40,476 copies, and being beaten to the number one spot by ... "Mercy"." This is WP:UNDUE. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

   It's just an interesting fact that she was held off #1 by a mere 300 copies. Don't include if you don't want to. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

• Lucie Jones cover

1. Not worthy of it's own section, too short. Remove section and place the sentence at the end of the first paragraph in the 'Release and promotion' section.

   Moved. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• References

1. Ref 6: Make individual references, I don't know why you have bullet pointed them.

   Removed. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Ref 16: Publisher?

   Added. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Ref 29: Publisher?

   Self-published reference. 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

4. 1 dead link

   Sony made changes on their sites. 05:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

5. 2 links with connection issues

   As above. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to be more detailed in what you write. Live performances needs to be more through, you need to add the vital info about the song being performed on Sport Relief, considering it was the official sport relief song, add more about the Lucie Jones cover as right now I don't think it is notable enough. Add more detail about the music video synopsis, as well as adding reviews from critics. One case of no original research and you have problematic links. I am checking to see whether or not all the pictures meet rationale. Very close to a fail, but I will place on hold on 7 days. Ask me questions on my talk page if you are unsure of anything I have said. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 15:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The information already present is the only I could found about the perfirmances and Jones' cover. Other sources I fould were videos, forums, blog, and download websites. Jones' cover is notable, unlike you believe, but the problem you see is that it is too short right now, which is different from N. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying her cover isn't notable, but it wasn't notable enough to warrant having it's own section as it was only one line. There's a difference. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 16:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvin, I withdraw the GA nomination due reasons that I cannot say in highly-public place. Sorry for this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, then the article has to be failed to close the process so that a record of it can be made. "If you wish to withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, then the nomination must be closed using the fail process to record the outcome of the review ." (GAN article). As the review had already been started, it is too late for you to withdraw. The article is failed. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 09:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)