Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive2

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2015 [1].

Man Down (song)

edit
Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 17:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Rihanna's reggae and Bob Marley influenced song called "Man Down" which is about violence and murder, and has a very controversial video about rape. In the past two weeks, I've had a Peer Review as suggested and had input from three editors.  — Calvin999 17:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikicup nomination.  — Calvin999 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 18:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
;General
  • No credits and personnel section?
    • Because Efe asked me to remove it in the previous nomination.
Lead
  • "It was released by Def Jam" why is SRP (whatever that means, found in infobox) not mentioned?
  • The mentioning of Leona Lewis in the lead of a large article like this seems rather undue considering the cover didn't chart, and only received minor media coverage.
  • Link "radio airplay" in the infobox.
Release and reception
  • Can nothing be done to improve the length of the critical reception section? It's rather brief for an article that gives an entire screens worth of length to controversy for the songs music video.
    • No. That's all I found. The music video was controversial, not the song, hence more info. 12:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Chart performance
  • Chart performance → Commercial performance. The section also comments on sales and certifications.
Live performances and covers
  • Nothing on how the live performances by Rihanna were received? The section currently gives more weight to Lewis than it does Rihanna.
Charts
Alphabetical purposes, this applies to the above also. Azealia911 talk
Okay, done.  — Calvin999 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Ultratop in the Flanders entry.
  • Make the three tables with only one French entry in unsortable.
  • Considering it's used all four other times, add (SNEP) to the French 2012 year-end chart.
Release history
  • Switch the two references for the US radio release.
References
  • #1 — HipHopDX should not be italicized.
  • #2 — NPR should not be italicized.
  • #3 — MTV News should not be italicized.
  • #4 — The source includes an author who is uncredited in the reference.
  • #5 — Digital Spy should not be italicized.
  • #6 — MTV News should not be italicized.
  • #7 — Def Jam Recordings → Def Jam. SRP Records → SRP.
  • #10 — BBC should not be italicized.
  • #15 — Pitchfork Media should not be italicized.
  • #17 — CNN should not be italicized.
  • #19 — MTV News should not be italicized.
  • #20 — NBC should not be italicized. It should also be Wiki-linked.
  • #23 — Digital Spy should not be italicized.
  • #24 — Digital Spy should not be italicized.
  • #25 — Digital Spy should not be italicized.
  • #26 — Digital Spy should not be italicized.
  • #27 — All Access Music Group should not be italicized. This reference also needs an accessdate.
  • #29 — iTunes Store should not be italicized. This reference also needs an accessdate.
  • #30 — 7digital should not be italicized.
  • #31 — 7digital should not be italicized.
  • #32 — 7digital should not be italicized.
  • #33 — NME should be unlinked.
  • #34 — The source includes an author who is uncredited in the reference.
  • #43 — This reference needs an accessdate.
  • #45 — Hung Medien should not be italicized.
  • #48 — Official Charts Company have nothing to do with the reference, the work should be Zobbel, which should not be italicized.
  • #49 — Official Charts Company should be linked per above change, but should not be italicized.
  • #50 — Official Charts Company should not be italicized.
  • #51 — Official Charts Company should not be italicized.
  • #52 — Official Charts Company should not be italicized.
  • #53 — Official Charts Company should not be italicized.
  • #54 — Official Charts Company should not be italicized.
  • #55 — Ultratop should not be italicized.
  • #56 — Ultratop should not be italicized.
  • #57 — Belgian Entertainment Association should not be italicized.
  • #58 — Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana should not be italicized.
  • #59 — Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana should not be italicized.
  • #61 — MTV News should not be italicized.
  • #63 — MTV News should not be italicized. The source includes an author who is uncredited in the reference.
  • #65 — Digital Spy should not be italicized.
  • #66 — AlterNet should not be italicized.
  • #67 — Hollywood Reporter → The Hollywood Reporter
  • #68 — Digital Spy should not be italicized. The source includes an author who is uncredited in the reference.
  • #70 — BBC should not be italicized.
  • #73 — BBC should not be italicized.
  • #74 — Digital Spy should not be italicized.
  • #76 — Why is there a (London) following The Guardian? I can't see any use of the word on the article, and it seems to have been written in Clyde Auditorium, Glasgow.
  • #80 — Unlink Billboard.
  • #89 — Sverigetopplistan should be linked, but should not be italicized.
  • #93 — Unlink Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana.

I've done everything Azealia911  — Calvin999 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • The last comment of mine meant that the information found in the production section is just a "prose" version of the section "credits and personnel", without the bullets and adding no further information whatsoever.--Efe (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'technical' information, which serves as filler, can actually be found in the "Credits and personnel" section. Why go into including them when there's not much more information that can be obtained from it? --Efe (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting.  — Calvin999 19:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand what she means by "cutting the record" so I haven't included it yet. Shontelle said Rihanna was present while it was being written so I'm not sure why Rihanna called Sham months later saying she loved it.  — Calvin999 16:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shama Joseph, professionally known as Sham, was hired as one of the producers to work on crafting songs at the camp. He confirmed that Def Jam had rented out nearly every recording studio in Los Angeles in order to create as many songs as possible." sounds news-y to me. it's a fact anyway. should the article say it again thru Sham's confirmation? if there's bit of important info there, i suggest merging it with other relevant sentences. --Efe (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There I think was a suggestion to trim down the first blockquote under "Composition and lyrical interpretation". I concur it's hard a quote to read. Also, I suggest bringing it further down the article, probably in the music video section as it fit there. In the current state, readers will probably wonder why Sham was having that sort of reaction. --Efe (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Efe I've done all that I can see you've added today I think.  — Calvin999 16:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Calvin999, thanks for the prompt response. It's already past 12 AM here. So I'm probably checking on the improvements same time later. I can see you've been making major changes on the article, especially the lead which has gotten better. --Efe (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "very much native to where she came from" I suggest paraphrasing that, instead of quoting, because it seems redundant wordings. there's not much technical in it so I guess we can have better wording. --Efe (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shontelle commented on Rihanna's work ethic" I cannot see the importance of this to the songwriting. --Efe (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and compared the process to a reality show in which Rihanna was the judge" this too, sounds way too trivial. --Efe (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I can listen to reggae music all day long" the first long quote under the second section needs trimming down as it contains repetitions of a single idea that she's into reggae. retain that which is important. --Efe (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Composed during Rihanna's Last Girl on Earth tour, the song's instrumental was recorded by Cary Clark at The Village in Los Angeles." Why the clause? Was Clark part of the tour crew? Or was The Village proximate to one of her concert venues? At this point, a connection is not established. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and to provide any riders" reading this made me think what a rider is. as I have said before, there's so much blah blah blah in that paragraph. --Efe (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done all Efe  — Calvin999 13:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Coolmarc

edit
  • Oppose:
    • Why is radio airplay a format in the infobox? It's not a purchasable format, practically all singles receive radio airplay...
      • Radio is a format, and not all singles are released to radio. Some are radio-only singles.  — Calvin999 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Template:Infobox single suggests purchasable formats like CD single, vinyl, maxi single, download etc be used in this parameter not radio airplay. The song was not a radio-only single, it was released for download so airplay becomes redundant in anycase. It's the first time I've seen radio airplay in this parameter in a song article...
          • That doesn't say radio can't be included, it only gives examples as to what you can include. Being available for digital download doesn't make radio airplay redundant by any means. Radio was the only format for the United States. I've complied with all your other points, but I disagree with this for the reason I just gave. Radio release makes a song a single, so you saying that it's redundant implies that it was not a single in the United States.  — Calvin999 21:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're missing the point, where was there consensus that radio airplay is now included as a format in the infobox. It's like saying you might as well include it in a formats and track listings section of a song article as well. I don't see the need why you all of a sudden want to be inconsistent and include it, I have never came across a song article that includes let alone a FA or GA, and for example your own previous FA "S&M (song)" does not include it yet here you are arguing that it should be included. It's not included for a reason because the majority of singles receive airplay - its redundant info!
    • The three big blockquotes: at least two of them could be paraphrased, they make up quite a large percentage of the article's prose. This is discouraged per WP:LONGQUOTE.
    • Kitty Empire and HipHopDX can be linked.
    • The reviews give no indication at all that the song received "positive reviews"; they all basically describe what the song sounds like, you can't say it received positive reviews based on mere descriptions of what it essentially is ("Island rhythms", "Caribbean lilt"). Loud was highly covered in the media, it's one of Rihanna's best sellers and most-anticipated albums - there ought to be plenty articles which compliment or criticize the song... Dig a little deeper...
    • Are there no reviews for the video? The only reception we get is the controversy surrounding it which is rather WP:UNDUE in my opinion... Such a controversial video would surely have critics' views as well...
      • Critics mainly all said the same thing, and gave a description more than a review, as such. When there is controversy, that is all critics will comment on, highlighting what is controversial. Anything else I found was either not reliable, like a blog.  — Calvin999 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, I don't believe you. With several editors handing you sources in FA and peer reviews. It's clear that you have not put effort into researching the article.
          • I have, take a look for yourself. I found only three publications which had critics opinion of the video, all the others just gave a brief synopsis and/or focus on the groups who slammed it. Have a look, they are at the end of the Analysis section because there's no enough critics opinions for a sub-section of it's own.  — Calvin999 19:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also feel that Leona's live rendition receiving more attention in the "Live performances" section than Rihanna's several performances of it is WP:UNDUE. There are surely articles/views on Rihanna's renditions too?
      • Rihanna only ever performed "Man Down" on tours or gigs/festivals, and critics hardly ever comment on every song in set list. She never performed it on a televised show, and thus there is no commentary for that.  — Calvin999 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop there. I would suggest that you go through the whole article again (or read it aloud that always helps me lol) to spot awkward-reading sentences and quotes that go on and on about essentially the same thing. CoolMarc 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The depth of some of the weaker sections are starting to improve with the sources I gave you which is good to see. CoolMarc 10:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More issues:
    • Why is the infobox cluttered with unnecessary brackets that are explained already in the prose?
      • I didn't think it was clutter or unnecessary. Rather, that it was informative by clarify which was for music and which was for vocals. Anyway, I've now de-cluttered.  — Calvin999 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does the lead and infobox say the single was released by Def Jam Recordings when the release history and source says The Island Def Jam Music Group, they are clearly not the same, you need to figure this out.
      • The lead and info box does not say Def Jam Recordings, they are Def Jam (Both the same label by the way). We tend to only include "Records" or "Recordings" in references and the table, not in prose or the info box.  — Calvin999 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reggae-influenced track Is it a reggae song or a song with reggae influences, you need clarify this throughout the article - infobox, lead, composition they all need to correspond...
    • Kitty Empire's article is actually from The Observer (the sunday newspaper of The Guardian)
    • According to its lyrics since when have lyrics become people with opinions?
    • In one line you say its a Barbadian patois, the next it's a Bajan accent...
      • That's not me, that's the critics. Patois is non-standard language, accent is pronunciation. Two different things.  — Calvin999
    • The prose should also say who August Brown wrote for, not just in Chris Brown's image caption. His image is anyways grossly WP:UNDUE since only two critics in the article believe the song is loosely related to him. A FA can't jump the gun on such controversial topics, especially when you're taking their comments out of context and then highlighting it with a big image of Brown? Please remove the image altogether, especially since the caption only emphasizes what one writer has said... A music sample for this section would work so much better...
      • It does say who he wrote for. Not sure why you're saying it doesn't. An image of Brown is not undue at all. That's your opinion. A lot of the video articles mentioned the assault and said exactly the same thing, but there's only so many citations I can include at the end of a sentence when they all repeat the details of what happened identically.  — Calvin999
    • Again the response to the "accusations" is completely over-emphasized, you could merely write a sentence about the big quote box instead, especially when according to the article only two sources mildly suggest the song is related to Brown...
      • I think the quote is fine. I was asked to paraphrase two of the three block quotes, and I did two of them. This one is fine.  — Calvin999
    • On March 1, 2011, Rihanna asked fans to help her choose the next single from Loud using Twitter, saying that she would film a music video in the forthcoming weeks tense issues, "choose" is not the right word to use here, read "next single from Loud using Twitter" aloud. I'm starting to understand why editors are saying this is poorly written now...
      • I read it aloud and it flowed perfectly well to me. What else to you want to me say? 'Pick'?  — Calvin999
    • On March 12, she confirmed that "California King Bed" had been selected as the next international single,[27][28] although the releases were subsequently changed,[29] and "Man Down" was sent to rhythmic and urban radio stations in the United States on May 3,[30][31] before the May 13 release of "California King Bed", making "Man Down" and "California King Bed" the fifth and sixth singles from Loud.[32] this needs to be extensively simplified as it is barely making any sense...
      • I've removed a clause so hopefully you find it easier to read now.  — Calvin999
    • Jon Pareles of The New York Times said that the singer "plays up her West Indian accent",[13] and August Brown of the Los Angeles Times described the vocals as reasserting "her Caribbean lilt".[8] These belong in the composition section, not a reception section like I suggested to you before.
    • Consequence of Sound writer Ryan Burleson wrote Uhm?
    • Entertainment Weekly writer Leah Greenblatt described "Man Down" as a song with "island rhythms".[12] This also does not belong here, but the composition section instead.
    • The track peaked at number 56 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart,[44] number 20 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs chart[45] and number 40 on the Radio Songs chart.[46] " These charts are component charts and not notable. Why are you going into detail about such aspects? If anything you could state that it was Rihanna's 20th/30th/whatever top 10 on Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs. Talk about what the media said about its chart performance, vary it up a bit with something more interesting. Who cares about how many weeks it spent on the UK R&B Chart, for all I know people barely even know of such a chart. You keep drifting off on trivial, unimportant details and then completely neglect others that are key and important to the article.
      • According to WP:USCHARTS, they are not allowed in the table as they are components. Nowhere does it say that they can't be mentioned in prose. Again, this is just your personal preferences. Being components doesn't make them any less notable for prose. Not including would not be covering all aspects, would it. You're telling me that I'm saying there's no info for certain things, yet you're saying this info isn't needed. If I hadn't of included, you would have presented me with three charts that I hadn't included. So, it's a redundant point. The media didn't say anything (and before you say someone called it a "flop", that's hardly encyclopaedic.) Just because you don't know the UK R&B Chart, doesn't mean everyone else is not informed about it. It's neither trivial or unimportant. It's chart info, and it's relevant.  — Calvin999
    • Director Anthony Mandler filmed the music video Technically no, he directed it, a lot of people are involved in filming.
    • and urged women to listen to their mothers This needs to be explained or put into better context.
      • Removed. It was a hashtag anyway.  — Calvin999
    • The entire analysis is WP:UNDUE, it's entirely by one writer and needs to be trimmed and other views needs to be added, more reviews as well as analysis. You have not dug deep enough here. I keep telling you this.
    • The Parents Television Council (PTC) criticized Rihanna for her portrayal of "cold, calculated execution of murder" in the music video, arguing .. Tense
    • rationale for the storyline: that the video has why the colon?
      • Why not? It's linking to an explanation. — Calvin999
    • Rihanna responded to the PTC's criticism on Twitter, saying Tense
    • For the Loud Tour, Rihanna performed the song on "a levitating, rotating platform, a conveyer belt and graffiti-laden car shell."[ this really does not need to be quoted but paraphrased instead
      • No, it would be too closely paraphrased. Unless you have synonyms for levitating, rotating and graffiti that are better, the quote is fine.  — Calvin999
    • Please go through the article again and check for all instances where references are not used at the end of a sentence where a quote is made, irregardless of WP:OVERCITE, a sentence which has a quote always needs to be cited after the full stop.
      • The only section I did this for was the Analysis section. I didn't and never did do it anywhere else, and never usually do. I only did it for this section because it was only the same citation every time.  — Calvin999
    • Throughout the article you also vary between using full names and last names of writers/people not prominently involved in the article. For example Kitty Empire in the composition becomes Empire in the reception section and the live performance sections. The same with Bradley Stern. But then Chris Brown has his full name in the music video section for example when he's already been mentioned in the composition section. You should just stick to a method of 'last names only if already mentioned in the same section for subjects like Kitty Empire or critics, by the time the reader comes to the end of the article he/she would have already forgotten who "Empire" or "Stern" is for example...
    • Leona Lewis is definitely not a singer-songwriter...
    • But The Guardian‍ '​s Malcolm Jack thought the performance cringeworthy and called Lewis a "reasonably priced Rihanna".[81] Silly mistakes again...
    • Per MOS:CHARTS "Albums and singles which peak on different charts during different years are formatted with the charts for the more recent year(s)". The song peaked in 2011 in France - where it continued to chart in other years no longer becomes notable as it did not return to number 1 or achieve its peak in these years...
      • That's what I've done, bit confused...  — Calvin999
    • Another big issue that bothers me is all the charts among plenty of websites are cited in italics in the references section. Azealia911 pointed this out to you earlier and you've falsely said you addressed it when it's still there. Like I mentioned with your random usage of radio airplay in the infobox? Why do you choose to be inconsistent, you are only making things harder for yourself in review process like this, for example if you merely stuck with using Template:Singlechart like the vast majority of song articles do you wouldn't have all these issues with the chart formatting...
    • The lead does not properly summarize the article anymore now with all the info you've been adding. It barely gives mention of the background and recording sections which seems to be where the most focus has gone into this article.
    • Reference issues:'
      • HipHopDX should not be in italics
      • NPR should not be in italics
      • MTV News should not be in italics (Ref 3, 6)
      • Digital Spy should not be in italics
      • The labels cited in the liner notes ref does not correspond with the ones in the infobox/prose/release history. In fact none of them correspond, the reader now has no idea under which label this single was released...
      • BBC should not be in italics
      • Slant Magazine should not be in italics
      • Pitchfork Media should not be in italics
      • MuuMuse should not be in italics
      • CNN should not be in italics
    • In fact 80% of the references should not be in italics. There are way too many issues, especially for a Featured article... Almost all the references are improperly formatted, the coverage is extremely inconsistent, a number of WP:UNDUE concerns, and I'm afraid the grammar needs a lot of work now too. This is definitely not what "one of Wikipedia's best articles" should look like, sorry... CoolMarc 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • They weren't in italics, but someone went through and made them italics. See here. I reverted it, but I was then reverted. I'm repeating myself now, because Azealia pointed this out and I said this to him, too. And to be quote honest, you have a cheek saying that my references are not properly formatted. Black Widow (song) references, which is one of your three GAs, is littered with errors. You're being inconsistent by using multiple date formats, multiple Billboard refs don't have access dates, your SHOUTING in titles, refs 52 and 53 are missing authors, dates AND access dates. You've said about that UK R&B and components are irrelevant and not interesting, yet you have included UK R&B: "The song also debuted at number fifteen on the UK R&B Chart.[40] In the United States, "Black Widow" debuted at number nine on the Billboard Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart issued for 10 May 2014 [41]" on Black Widow as well as other components. I'm actually questioning your experience with a lot of the points you raise. You've only been active for 18 months, you don't appear in the list of 10,000 most active users indicating a low contribution count and you've only worked on 3 articles for GAN. You make many valid points and corrections above, but you also make some very redundant ones, too.  — Calvin999 20:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Drive-by comment after being pinged) "You've only been active for 18 months, you don't appear in the list of 10,000 most active users indicating a low contribution count and you've only worked on 3 articles for GAN." is extremely petty and I'd suggest striking it. Azealia911 talk 21:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And for what it's worth, I think it's out-of-line to start picking fault with Marc's articles- you've submitted the article here for scrutiny, and consistent and appropriate reference formatting is a part of the FA criteria. The consistency of reference formatting on an article by Marc which has not been submitted for this level of scrutiny are neither here nor there. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999 The "Black Widow" article was promoted to GA before it became a widely popular single release, I have been inactive for a very long time since that then, hence why it looks like it is now and you know this, you even commented about it on Talk:Black Widow (song) a year ago when it was being released as a single. So please don't act oblivious and blatantly come attack me and fabricate nonsense. If you see my user page, I'm currently working on a rewrite of it to bring it up to standard again. This is anyway completely irrelevant to this FA, that is more than a year old GA - big difference and certainly not double standards and you are very much out of line here. I was curious to see if the same issues happened in previous FACs of yours and I happened to notice this same attitude and ignorance each time, and now here again. Please stop acting as if the whole of Wikipedia is out to get you, we are all going out of our way to assist you and you shut everyone down each time in each review and then claim its personal or too picky or now "double standards" - it's none, it's basic editing and Wikipedia policies and review criteria. I've spent a lot of my time trying to help you and a lot of time on this review when I really shouldn't, hell I even did research for you, gave you sources which you claimed did not exist. "My 3 GAs", yes my 3 GAs yet I'm the one spoon feeding you on basic editing and policies? I may not be on Wikipedia as much and I don't have a large number of accolades to my name, but this does not mean that I'm not familiar with Wikipedia articles and policies and grammar. I don't care how many reviews you've done or whatever that is no excuse for the issues in this article. For example you can't excuse an article up for FA's poor referencing because of a blind revert made by another editor. I've been as nice and helpful as I could but I'm not going to stick around to hear you argue and make excuses for everything, ignore very logical and respectable suggestions, and then have myself be attacked and talked down on. Good luck with the FAC further! Cheers. CoolMarc 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  — Calvin999 08:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999 asked me to comment here about italics and refs. It is true that Calvin999 has been consistent with their refs. I did remove italic marks. This was done per Template:Cite web#COinS, Do not include Wiki markup '' (italic font) or ''' (bold font) because these markup characters will contaminate the metadata. I think the problem lies in Calvin being too consistent. One can't use the same template and same parameters in every insistence. It is certainly not easy to know which to use every time. Just to add what has been said just above this... I'm in the top 25 of Wikipedians by number of edits. That in no way makes me an expert at FAC. Amount of edits does not make a person a good FAC reviewer or writer of FAC articles. I'm not a good writer. There is a reason I went into math and computer science. I know alot of MOS rules, but not all. As soon as I know a new rule, one rule has been changed, so it turns into a zero sum game. I admire people like Coolmarc who can do FAC reviews. I admire people like Calvin999 because it takes alot of hard work to get an article to FA. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments Clearly there is no consensus in favour of promotion and I will be archiving this FAC in a few moments. I am disappointed with the nominators response to valid constructive criticism. I don't care if a reviewer has only made one edit as long as their comments are actionable and will improve the article. This FAC is a paradigm of how not to work with reviewers to achieve consensus. Graham Beards (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Man_Down_(song)/archive2&oldid=1138466325"