Talk:I Will Follow You into the Dark/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Under 'Critical reaction', the second sentence is a run-on; cut the sentence down a bit, no need to note that all reviews are from the album reviews.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Where the videos were filmed and the directors need to be cited. The 'Release' section is completely unsourced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Under 'Critical reaction', it says "The nomination category is odd in that it credits the entire Death Cab for Cutie group for Gibbard's solo performance." Unless a source says it's an odd nomination, it's best left out of the article.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The screenshot of the music video is far too big; it needs to be resized.
 * The music sample needs a suitable caption – what is it being used to illustrate specifically? —Zeagler (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days to allow for the above concerns to be addressed. Diverse  Mentality  07:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days to allow for the above concerns to be addressed. Diverse  Mentality  07:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Response
1. Are you sure you're fully aware what a run-on sentence is? The sentence is long, but grammatically correct as far as I can tell. I've reread the sentence multiple times and have found that the way it is currently written flows naturally in my mind. I don't feel obligated to rephrase simply for personal preference. Mentioning that all of the reviews aren't actually for the song itself seems like an important enough detail to mention and lets the sentence feel less jarring. In short, it complies with criteria 1.

2. First thing has been cited.

Release section is unsourced because there's no controversial information within it (See when policy says to cite). Plus I can't think of a good way to cite it. I would have to cite at five sites just to tell some very basic information. Basic, undisputed, and correct information + no good source to cite = please don't make me.
 * The CD single was only released in the UK.
 * The CD single's track listing.
 * The part one vinyl is teal.
 * Part one's B-side.
 * Part two's color, track listing, and UK exclusivity.
 * Hmm… If you don't mind, I'm going to ask on this talk page to see if it's okay to be unsourced. Diverse  Mentality  19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we got a response. What do you think should be done? Diverse  Mentality  23:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Rephrased to be a fact and not opinionated.

6. Image size is irrelevant; only resolution quality matters for fair use. The image is quite clearly low resolution. I reuploaded it at 800px so that the "No higher resolution available." message now appears, but I feel that making it any smaller would deny the readers the ability to tell what's going on in the screenshot and would not help its claim for fair use any further. --Remurmur (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Due to the lack of response and unresolved concerns, I'm forced to fail this article. Please resolved any and all concerns before renominating this article. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you. Diverse  Mentality  05:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)