Talk:Bad Day (Daniel Powter song)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 10:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Calvin999 and I'm reviewing this nomination. — Calvin999 11:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The non-free material tag should have been sorted out.
 * Four dead links need removing or replacing.
 * Apply the flat list coding that you've used for format and writers in the info box for the genres, too.
 * The music sample should go in one of the main prose sections, because it hasn't got a description for why it is there.
 * Power ballad isn't a genre, per se. It's like saying "club banger", it's just a way or describing the tempo
 * You need a precise release date really. Have you looked on iTunes, Amazon, 7digital?
 * "Bad Day" is a song written and recorded by Canadian singer-songwriter Daniel Powter. Produced by Mitchell Froom and Jeff Dawson, it was released in Europe in early 2005 as the lead single from Powter's self-titled debut studio album. → "Bad Day" is a song by Canadian singer and songwriter Daniel Powter from his self-titled debut album (2005). It was released by Warner Bros..
 * It's Billboard Hot 100, not Billboard's United States Hot 100
 * You've said it was certified gold, but the certifications table says 3x platinum?
 * and was also successful, registering 10 million views in 2006. → Not very encyclopaedic. A brief one sentence synopsis should be given as to what happens.
 * I'd say the lead is actually quite messy and not very well written to be honest. It doesn't have any flow, sounds like hard list of facts and isn't very chronological in comparison to the order of section.
 * Of the three sources given for the pop genre, none of them say it is a pop song, and one of them is dead.
 * Pop rock is not sourced anywhere, so I'm not sure why you've included it in the info box.
 * You listed In the United States it was digitally released on February 22, 2005., so I would use this as the release date
 * The chart performance section is far too long and overly detailed.
 * The Synopsis section of the music video section is too short to warrant being a sub section
 * The quote box in the Usage in media, cover and parodies section isn't appropriate, it's only a few words long.
 * The Formats and track listings section is completely unsourced.
 * Quite a lot of the references haven't got the work or publisher linked the first time they are used.
 * Foreign language sources should have a language parameter with the language listed.

I'm sorry but I'm failing this nomination. There are lot of issues with structure, sourcing, prose and free usage of files. There are dead links and unsourced information. There is a free-media usage tag at the top. I don't feel as though this article is ready for the green icon. I saw that a copy editor from the GOCE has been through it and made a lot of edits, but I still don't think this article is well written. — Calvin999 11:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Outcome
 * Hi,, thanks for the review. While copyright violations and a bad prose may justify quickfail , I think you could have been reasonable. Except for those, all the other points are minor stuff (and some of them not even required for WP:GA?). Indeed, it only took me some minutes to resolve them. Anyway, my replies:

Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion about it right now. But for now I've just removed the audio file, which is the source of the problem. Btw, your opinion would be appreciated on the discussion.
 * Archived.
 * It's no more necessary as only one genre is listed now.
 * I removed it. I don't feel it's necessary.
 * Ok.
 * Yeah, I looked on all the available retail sites; they all list the American version only, and that's why February 22 is not the release date. The track debuted in radio in France, so the debut was not in the U.S. (I used FAs S&M (song) and Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) as parameters and they list the first airplay as the release date).
 * I don't see the problem with the current wording. Could you elaborate?
 * Fixed. But I guess the copyeditor did it because the previous sentence is about UK.
 * Sorry, my bad.
 * I don't see how it's not encyclopedic and there's not much too say about the synopsis. Real-word information is preferred than WP:IN-U, right?
 * I can see what you say but again I tried to follow "S&M" and "Single Ladies" (mainly the latter): the first paragraph is about the production and release, the second about critical response and chart performance, and the third is about music video, usage in media and live performances.
 * That's because none of the sources were there to back up "pop" but to source "power ballad". I mean, it's obviously a pop song, otherwise it would haven't been featured on pop charts.
 * Yeah, good point. Added a source.
 * Replied elsewhere.
 * I guess it's proportional to its popularity and the "Charts and certifications" section. But what would you suggest me to cut down?
 * I'm not sure about it. Anyway, I removed since it doesn't make any difference to have or not to have it.
 * Okay. Incorporated into prose.
 * Hm, I forgot it. Done (although it's kind of self, primary-sourced stuff). Sourced what I could, removed what I couldn't.
 * Not necessary. My rationale was WP:Repeatlink so I link an article only once (except for the lead which is allowed), whether in the prose or in the ref section.
 * Good catch.

I didn't quick fail the nomination. A quick fail is leaving no comments and failing it seconds after being opened. I spent a lot of time reading the article through. The article is not well written, and could do with being re-written entirely. And you wouldn't be able to do that in a few minutes. — Calvin999 17:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. But there's always the possiblity of an "on hold" period that you could have given to me in order to solve the problems. Anyway, thanks for taking your time to read it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do for articles that don't need to be re-written in their entirety. Some articles take weeks, if not months, to get right. — Calvin999  21:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)