Jump to content

Talk:Photograph (Ed Sheeran song)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Coolmarc (talk · contribs) 17:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I read through this article a few days ago, but decided not to open a review for various reasons, although the issues and problems present would have constituted a fail from me should I have opted to. But obviously CoolMarc has taken it up himself to provide what I hope will be a very, very thorough review.  — Calvin999 19:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, I see no reason failing an article that have issues but can be easily fixed. --Efe (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not when it shows this many. It shows that it was rush nominated and not check thoroughly. I wouldn't have expected you to have nominated an under-prepared article considering.  — Calvin999 08:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Calvin999 I appreciate your concerns, but as the reviewer I do think this can meet GAC. Feel free to specify what exactly your concerns are or any additional concerns that I have not brought up yet. I would suggest refraining from comments such as "I wouldn't have expected you to have nominated an under-prepared article considering". Such comments do not help the review process and I would appreciate that this review not get derailed like what happened at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive2. Thanks. CoolMarc 09:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given recent events, it did surprise me to see an array of issues. You've generally picked out most of them, specifically the references, which I was glad to see. References with multiple missing parameters does show a sign of being under prepared. Any reviewer would tell any nominator that, I've seen many say so and quick fail for it.  — Calvin999 09:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999, if you saw my comment down the last section, I concede to the fact that maybe this article isn't complying properly with MOS. But as far as preparedness is concerned, I think I have done justice by making sure that major facts are covered. GAs should be abundant, if not complete, in its content. As to MOS compliance, as I have said earlier, that can be fixed in a matter of hours. And I have seven days to get this article to GA standard, so I'll probably be able to address all issues Coolmarc brought out. I'd appreciate it, too, if you have objective and actionable points that you may present in bullets so anyone can easily deal with it. Thanks! --Efe (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999, sparing the citations where I admittedly failed to polish prior submitting, may I have your comments now in bullets, if you still have some? I am almost done with Coolmarc's. --Efe (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Efe. I have added/updated some of the chart peaks. Nice article! Here is my review:

Infobox and lead

[edit]

*Alt text for the cover image, to describe it to visually impaired readers. See WP:ALT. This goes for the rest of the article's images as well.

  • Do we have a source for "Lay It All on Me" being the next single?
  • Per We the Generation, the parent album, the song is a promotional single. I guess we are not considering promotional singles in the chronology, otherwise, Sheeran's would have been different. He's had many for the second album, where "Photograph" was taken from. Removed. --Efe (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is the first properly completed song for the new record I would suggest "it was the first properly completed song for the album" for tense consistency and "new record" will become outdated with time.
  • The song tells, in visually descriptive lyrics, a long-distance relationship of Sheeran and his then-girlfriend this reads a bit awkward for me, as if a word is missing...
  • Reworded to "The song tells a long-distance relationship in visually descriptive lyrics, which was inspired by Sheeran's own experience of being away from his then-girlfriend while he was on tour." Please let me know if its still awkward. --Efe (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest With visually descriptive lyrics, the song discusses a long-distance relationship inspired by Sheeran's own experience of being away from his then-girlfriend while he was on tour. CoolMarc 05:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the fifth and final single released from the album, and gave Sheeran another consecutive chart-performer as it reached the top 5 in 7 countries should be "it was", per MOS:NUM "Generally, in article text: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", I see you've taken a different approach regarding this throughout the article?
  • Do we have a source or sentence in the "Music and lyrics" section that verifies the song's genre as "Pop". This is essential, as I'm sure you know song articles are targets for genre warriors, so the genre needs to clearly sourced in the article.

*The single has also been certified 2x platinum in Australia, and platinum in Canada and the New Zealand drop "the" before New Zealand, replace "2x platinum" with "double platinum".

  • We need a sentence in the lede that discusses the "Live performances and usage in media" section.

Background and composition

[edit]

*Per WP:OLINK, Sheeran and McDaid should be linked again in the first section after the lede.

  • According to Sheeran, they ended up composing the song about half an hour A "for" is missing here.
  • Thanks for pointing that out. The written source says 10 minutes. But I watched the VH1 video again and Sheeran says "within about half an hour". So to be safe, I quoted him and provided direct inline citation. --Efe (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comes strange to me: "Unaware of what they had actually composed, both realized only after listening back to it the following day and then decided on recording it." What can you say? --Efe (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:ALT text for the image.

  • McDaid would then add beat to it tense issues
  • While onto their respective mundane activity vague
  • Sheeran and Mcdaid developed ideas for the song capital D in McDaid
  • According to him, he probably had recorded 60 to 70 versions of the song, varying from live to that with piano accompaniment. "varying" causes tense issues, is "probably" Sheeran's adjective, if so, quotation marks
  • other tracks off the follow-up album. replace "off" with the more encyclopedic "from"
  • Sheeran thought these versions "never fit" and he eventually solicited help from producer Jeff Bhasker "never fit" could be paraphrased, and why it did not fit (if possible) could be added, did it not fit the album or? Reads rather vague at the moment.
  • Sheeran just said "never fit". Hard to assume. The guy seems very artistic we wound't know if he didn't like the feel of the song itself, or it never fit with the other tracks at the time. --Efe (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emile Haynie was credited on the album's liner notes for her additional production as MarioSoulTruthFan pointed out, Haynie is a "he" lol

Music and lyrics

[edit]

*The lyrics chronicles a long-distance relationship Drop the "s" on "chronicles".

  • The song starts with strums of the acoustic guitar that is followed by piano notes, building up until the drums are introduced[7] after the first chorus lots of conflicting tenses
  • The song has a tempo of 108 bpm and the originally published key is in E major bpm should not be abbreviated, tense issues again. I would suggest: "The song is in the key of E major with a tempo of 108 beats per minute."
  • Question. Apparently we only rely on Musicnotes.com. Could it happen that the original composition is not in the key with which the sheet music was published? it is for that reason that I put "originally published". Or may I'm confused. --Efe (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Musicnotes.com, "The Arrangement Details Tab gives you detailed information about this particular arrangement of Photograph - not necessarily the song." Although it might be a note for users who transposed the key to another other than the original. --Efe (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*a Scottish singer-songwriter and guitarist "guitarist" is not needed.

*This long-distance relationship Sheeran had with Nina while on tour for months inspired the song's lyrical content Nina should be by her last name here. Could we clarify "months" and "tour" if possible?

Release

[edit]

*In February 2013, Sheeran played for his fans a demo version of the song to a German radio station without being recorded. This needs to be rewritten.

  • Trying this: "In February 2013, Sheeran played for his fans a demo version of the song to a German radio station. This performance was not recorded in film or audio, and was the only play Sheeran made prior to the song's release as part of an album." --Efe (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm misinterpreting the fact, but I would suggest Sheeran first played an unrecorded demo of the song for a German radio station in February 2013. I don't think the "fans" bit is essential, do we not know which radio station this was perhaps? CoolMarc 12:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed "fans" as it is not significantly encyclopedic vis-a-vis the status quo of the narrative. The pairing of "unrecorded demo" would probably be confusing. A demo is normally recorded. I think Sheeran was saying that he played it and was not recorded in film or at least its audio, which happen almost everytime when fans get the chance what with the ubiquitous smart phones. He probably noted that incidence because if it was recorded, that recording might have gone online. And the story of this song would probably have been different. But that line is a far-fetched idea of mine. --Efe (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the album's "collateral" song, stating the they could -> the album's "collateral" song; he stated that they could. I'm not sure who "they" are in this case also?

*I think it's important to state that it impacted those radio formats in the United States.

*"Photograph" is the fifth and last single *was

  • The song "was" released as a single, not "is" released as single, hence why this should read similarly. "Is" and "released" in one sentence are conflicting tenses. I would suggest "Photograph" served as the fifth and last single released from the album CoolMarc 12:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • but when "Thinking Out Loud" spent within the "charted" would read less awkwardly in place of "spent".
  • I use "spent" because "UK Singles Chart" is very proximate it would read chart chart. Also, to give more emphasis that it did spend within the top 20 without radio. What do you think? --Efe (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I understand the point you're making now. I would suggest stating how many weeks it was in the top 20 then if you can find a source because "'Thinking Out Loud' spent within the top 20" reads very vaguely. Or use the word "stayed" instead like the source states, it reads a lot better even though "spent" or "stayed" are more or less the same thing. "Spend/spent" is generally associated with an amount of time or numerical value - which is missing in this sentence. One is left pondering how did the song "spend" within the UK Singles Chart, it's a tricky word to use when there is no length of time or numeral amount given. CoolMarc 12:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheeran claimed that "Photograph" is one of the bests in the album, thinking it would change his career path *was
  • "I think that will be the one that will change my, kind of, career path." Is is just me or is there a word missing in this quote? I can't say that Sheeran touted "Photograph" as one of the bests in the album reads well sorry, "bests" is a verb and a better word could be used in place of "touted". CoolMarc 16:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Touted" removed. Re-used "favoured", and used "asserted" which is appropriate for the last sentence. I agree on "bests"; it should have been "best", without the "s". --Efe (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*serving as use "; it served" to fix the tense issues here.

  • Nice work on the expanding you have done in this section!
  • , favouring "Photograph" as that was always thought of being the "big song". I would suggest "; they favoured "Photograph" as the "big song" to keep it simple and fix the tense.

Critical reception

[edit]

*I'm not sure what Capital FM said of the song should be included in this section, radio stations generally never criticize a song online nor are they credible music critics.

  • Sheeran's use of imagery in the lyrics is noted by Jamieson Cox of Time, stating it "helps bring it to life " tense issues.

*I've noticed much of this section is written in the present tense with a lot fused "ing" participles. This is of course your choice of writing, so it's up to you, but I'd suggest writing in the past tense and keeping it simpler because as it reads now one gets the impression that these reviews are taking place at this very moment...

  • I'm going to have a quick skim through. I was recently called out in GA review for writing such aspects in present and conflicting tense. Things such as reviews or recording processes, charting are not fiction or continuous or living beings and should be in the past tense. While aspects such as the song's music and lyrics or a music video synopsis are different. It took me a while to get my head around but once it clicked with me, I realized how grammatically incorrect I was (lol). CoolMarc 12:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a bit of a copyedit of the section, I hope you don't mind. I'm still a bit worried about this sentence though In his review for MusicOMH, John Murphy also felt that although "it's not that it's bad", "Photograph" is "calculated and a bit cynical" which I feel could be paraphrased better. CoolMarc 13:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to In his review for MusicOMH, John Murphy also felt that "Photograph" was "calculated and a bit cynical, almost as if it's been written specifically as a soundtrack to a particularly emotional scene in a US television series". --Efe (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I was hesitant because at present, the comments on the music are general: "soulful", "haunting", and "swelling". Anyway, once we get a rather cohesive view from the critics, sure the lead will be revised. Thank you again. --Efe (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

[edit]

*See my previous suggestion regarding MOS:NUM and integers smaller than 10 being spelled out.

  • Done. Though I read somewhere that if within the sentence a figure is rendered in words, everything within that sentence should be in words. I must have misunderstood it. Anyway, I've fixed all that I saw. --Efe (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*UK Singles Chart was linked in the "Release" section.

Un-linked now. --Efe (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

*ten months prior to the single's release. "ten" should not be spelled out in this case per MOS:NUM

  • , Sheeran is ranked among male solo artists *was ranked

*Elsewhere, the single has reached top 5 in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia, and South Africa. These need to be refrenced by means of a "refname" parameter in the singlechart templates in the "Charts" section of the article. It technically did not reach the top 5 in Belgium, the "Ultratip" chart is like Belgium's "Bubbling Under" chart. I also would suggest that you state Slovakian Airplay Chart as there is a digital chart as well.

  • Gosh. I'm so ignorant. I really don't know. I checked the page. I'm just wondering how come Ultratip become a "bubbling under" when it is based on airplay and sales "whereas Ultratop charts are based solely on sales"? Appreciate if you could clarify. I retained it until clarified. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main Belgium chart is called the Ultratop chart, its Bubbling Under is called the Ultratip chart. They aren't the same thing and should not be interpreted as such. This is explained to an extent in the source given. I would recommend citing the references in this sentence after each comma to avoid WP:OVERCITE issues. CoolMarc 13:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On WP:OVERCITE. It looks ugly, to me, but yeah, I'll find one source for this one of these days. =D --Efe (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Belgium charts. It still doesn't make sense to me, but yeah, on the basis of someone's experience in chart stuffs, I have removed Ultratip, therefore decreasing down to six. I have however said in the lead "more than five". I feel it's not safe to say six. Is our counting comprehensive? Or is the weekly chart complete? --Efe (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine though I would suggest in the lede that you also speak of the fact that it peaked at 15 in the UK but was certified platinum - this is a very interesting and rare event that a song peaks averagely but sells that much, also that it became Sheeran's third top 10 in the US. These are important events regarding the song's success. CoolMarc 15:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*"Photograph" is placed *was

  • The Guardian columnist Tim Dowling suggests that the report is an indication of should be in the past tense.

*Like Calvin999 I find the Spotify logo a bit unnecessary.

  • , denoting sales I would suggest the simpler "for" to replace this and fix the tense
  • In the US, the single has reached number 10 on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming the third top 10 from the album -> In the US, the single reached number 10 on the Billboard Hot 100 and marked the third top 10 single from the album.
  • It previously became the fourth top 20 single off the album; as a result, Sheeran ranked among male solo artists to have achieved, in the 2010s, four top 20 singles from a single album replace "off" with the more encyclopedic "from". The achievement here reads rather vague, was he the first male solo artist of the 2010s to achieve this?
  • Split into two sentences. I think the word "among" is sufficient. From the source: "Since 2010, eight other male solo artists have scored at least four top 20 hits from one album, not counting deluxe editions." --Efe (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to clarify this in the article Efe as its rather vague as it is at the moment for both the image caption and the sentence in the prose. Both also need some reshuffling. CoolMarc 16:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*the single reached the top 10 as of the week ending 29 August 2015 remove "as of" per WP:ASOF

  • , denoting sales I would suggest the simpler "for" to replace this and fix the tense
  • the single has reached top five in Austria -> The single reached the top five in Austria
  • Done. Oh, where did I get this. I think in the past a user said that it should be "has" because its still a possibility that the single will achieve a new peak. --Efe (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Photograph" placed at number 18, joining Sheeran's other six songs ranked in the top 20 conflicting tense
  • Sleep is one of Spotify's most popular categories "that people also use for general relaxation and to help themselves unwind". needs attribution.
  • suggested that the report is an indication *was

Music video

[edit]

*Sheeran also admitted he cannot attend to an actual video shoot, hence opting for the montage. Tense issues.

  • Writing for Music Times, Ryan Book noted that Music Times should be unlinked per WP:OVERLINK and it should be in italics, a "the" is also missing.
  • Per MOS:QUOTE terms should not be linked within a quotation. "Legos" in this case should be unlinked, unless you can paraphrase the quotes.

*WP:ALT text for the image.

  • A music video for "Photograph", which is a montage of real home footage, was released on 9 May 2015 I would suggest splitting these into two separate sentences for clarity and to fix the conflicting tense
  • who was compiling it -> who compiled it
  • cannot attend -> could not attend
  • The clip reveals that he has "had a lifelong obsession with Legos" attribution needed
  • A footage features a teen Sheeran busking "a footage" do you mean "the footage" or "other footage"? This whole sentence needs to be clarified/simplified.
  • Split into two. I used "a" because using "the" would, to me, read like the whole montage. Unless you'd want me to change the whole flow of the sentence. --Efe (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media form utilized in the montage contradicted the song's title, according to Ryan Book of the Music Times this sentence should begin with "According to"
  • Daniel Kreps of the Rolling Stone stated that the video is reminiscent of Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck,[23] a documentary film about Nirvana front man and '90s rock icon Kurt Cobain no need for "the" before Rolling Stone, "is" should be "was", no need for "and '90s rock icon".
  • According to him replace "him" with Kreps for clarity as Cobain is also mentioned in the previous sentence.

Track listing

[edit]

*Do we have a source for this? If so, I would recommend including this release in the "Release history" section as well.

  • This one exited prior my editing. I cannot find in iTunes of this availability - one download with three versions in it. There's one remix though, under Sheeran's page, that of Felix Jaehn. I'm planning to have this section removed. --Efe (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't use Hung Medien for release info; that aspect of their website is handled by forum users, hence unreliable. I would suggest you find a better source for the stand-alone digital download. I would also suggest you add an "B-side" parameter to the infobox now and update the "Release history" section. The "Track listing" section should now be renamed to "Formats and track listings" and should not be formatted with Template:Track listing since this is not an album and no info regarding the writers/producers are given. Here are some examples for how this section should be formatted: 4 Minutes, Diamonds (Rihanna song). CoolMarc 12:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a b-side. I'm afraid you haven't updated the release history sufficiently. E-Bay are not reliable for release dates, it's a secondhand retailer. The UK CD single and remixes aren't in the release history either. CoolMarc 12:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. The CD single appears to have been released specifically for the German market 12 June 2015. It became available as an import CD for the UK market on 15 June 2015. I have added it on the release history. But should imports constitute a release? I doubt but I would like comment / clarification. --Efe (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are correct. I would also suggest that you double-check all release sources to see that the record label you state in the release history match with the ones in the sources. CoolMarc 12:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

*Ref 1 should read Music-News.com

  • Ref 2 should read Noise11.com
  • Ref 4 should read Capital
  • Ref 5 link VH1
  • Ref 7 link Billboard
  • Ref 8: capital "M" for Musicnotes.com
  • Ref 10 should read MTV News with no Viacom publisher parameter
  • MTV has various subsidiaries such as MTV Style, MTV Buzzworthy, MTV Hive, MTV UK, etc. If you see the url of the source, this one is specifically attributed to MTV News. CoolMarc 13:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot validate, but at least it's not copyvio. Do you have suggestions? I'm sure finding one today would prove useless in the coming months (read: outdated). I can remove the information though. Nothing spectacular in terms of views. --Efe (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 53: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 54: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 55: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 57: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 58: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 59: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 60: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 63 lacks an accessdate parameter
  • Ref 64 lacks an accessdate parameter
  • Ref 65 lacks an accessdate parameter
  • Ref 67 lacks an accessdate parameter
  • Ref 68: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 71: lacks an accessdate parameter
  • Ref 72: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 76: lacks an accessdate parameter
  • Ref 78: lacks an accessdate parameter
  • Ref 79: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 80: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 81: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 82: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 83: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 84: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 86: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 87: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 90: should be DMY dates
  • Ref 91: lacks an accessdate parameter
  • Please be informed that I removed the "forced" non italicization of the "work" / "website" parameter. I learned through here that markup characters "contaminate the metadata". Is there a way to properly format them without using those "contaminants"? --Efe (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first time I have heard of this metadata issue? My issue is that many of these sources should not be in italics as they are not newspapers/magazines/webzines. If you feel the use of the "publisher" parameter contaminates metadata or disagree with my suggestion then I would suggest you find a way to work away around it. I also noticed the editor who changed the MDY dates to DMY dates has accidentally fixed the wrong dates in the singlechart templates and as a result has broken the links altogether... CoolMarc 14:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more referencing concerns:

  • Ref 5 & 6 (VH1) are duplicates.
  • Ref 7 (VH1) should be unlinked, it's already linked in the duplicates above
  • Ref 10 (The Straits Times) should be linked
  • Ref 13 (The Guardian) should be The Observer
  • Ref 18 (Billboard) should be unlinked, it's already linked in Ref 8
  • Ref 25 (WBMP (FM)) should be linked
  • Ref 31 (Music Times) should be unlinked, it's already linked in Ref 17
  • Ref 36 (Official Charts Company) should be unlinked, it's already linked in Ref 24

I can go on and on. Please double check ALL your references that they are appropriately linked and not overlinked. CoolMarc 12:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coolmarc, has there been a guideline on linking articles in the references? That can be easily fixed (based on your concerns) but I was thinking that to link all would facilitate easy access for users navigating citations, i.e. they don't have to mind if there was a link above with similar details (such as work or website). --Efe (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Efe I think you have misunderstood my previous proposal regarding replacing website parameters with publisher parameters to omit italics, it does not contaminate metadata, forcing italics by means of 2x ' marks contaminates metadata. I consulted an editor who was involved in the discussion you referred to and he clarified this to me. Template:Cite web also clarifies this. Regarding the linking, per WP:CS1 If the work is notable and has an article in Wikipedia, it should be wiki-linked at first appearance in citations in the article. CoolMarc 12:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Coolmarc. First, thanks for extending the deadline. As to my comment above, I said "I learned through here that markup characters 'contaminate the metadata'." I was, at the outset, referring to the markups contaminating the metadata. I have commented on J. Johnson's talk page though regarding the effect of putting title of work(s) under publisher. As to the links, yes, I'll clean it up. Per CS1, "If the work is notable and has an article in Wikipedia, it should be wiki-linked at first appearance in citations in the article." I was wondering though how we are providing "easy access" to people who verify citations. I mean, if I were to check VH1 which appear (for the fourth time) on citation #123, should I trace the lists of citations just in case there's another VH1 that is linked? But yep. This should be discussed somewhere else. --Efe (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, that is what I asked J. Johnson on the talk page... Websites that don't function as "works"/should not be in italics, his reply was that it is appropriate for them to be in the publisher parameter then. MTV News for example does not function as a "work", irregardless if Viacom is its publisher. If you want to include Viacom, that will mean you will have to include publishers for every single other reference in the article because it is GA criteria to be consistent in your referencing. CoolMarc 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we go back to the link I provided. It mentioned that per MOS, "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized ..." Should we refer this stuff elsewhere? --Efe (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to be what the long quibble was about on the CS1 talk page, the user was proposing that the website parameter should change to non-italics, but it was opposed because many websites function as "works"/should be italics; hence why I asked J Johnson if it were acceptable to put those websites that don't function as "works" in the publisher parameter to remove the forced italics which he said was appropriate; they function more as a publisher than a work. Pure websites aren't "works" and should not be in italics like websites that are webzines for example. It's a mouthful, but the MOS regarding italics has always (from my experience) been practiced consistently from the prose to the referencing, there are countless GA/FA reviews I can refer to. CoolMarc 17:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree that Amazon.com isn't a "work". Musicnotes.com isn't, either. I will fix the instances in the article. These are obviously not "work" and while people at MOS are still debating, I see no harm putting them in publisher. --Efe (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking for stuffs that don't need italicization. --12:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Please make sure you do not ignore my suggestions I posted above and originally regarding the refrencing. There are several sources that should not be in italics. The people at MOS are not debating what and what should not be in italics, they are debating to change the parameter and it's clear there is no consensus for it to be changed. I do not want to post another long list of referencing errors again please. Also double-check that all citations are consistently attributed to the correct template, ie. Newspapers should be cited per Template:Cite news, magazines per Template:Cite journal, websites per Template:Cite web and so on. I'm not going to point out every single error again, it is your duty as nominator to fix all of them. CoolMarc 12:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point for clarification. I doubt I can use "cite journal" for this article? I assume it refers to print, and I have used none (yet). --12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Efe per Template:Cite journal This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in magazines, journals, newsletters, and for academic papers. there are specific parameters such as Example text, access-date archive-url etc for Cite journal. Sources like Billboard, Vibe, Time that are magazines and not websites, need to be credited as such. Hope this clarifies. CoolMarc 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Efe I've fixed most of the referencing issues for you, here are the remaining ones:

  • Ref 5 & 6 (VH1) use the same "refname" parameter.
  • Ref 53 & 63 are duplicates

*Can we not replace Ref 22 (Entertainment Tonight), Ref 59 (Ryan Seacrest), Ref 64 (Headline Planet), Ref 67 (So So Gay) with better, more reliable sources?

  • The ET source seems legit, though, run by CBS. However, if you feel its not 'that' reliable, that can be taken off as the fact is supported already by Billboard. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:*Ryan Seacrest - replaced with rte.ie. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I hope my fixes are of assistance to you in future, referencing can easily become inconsistent if you do not pay close attention. CoolMarc 09:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You again beat me to it. But I had to go work on a Sunday!!! Anyway, I had this, and considering you've already made the changes. Not to contradict you, anyway, but this kind of a way to validate my understanding. --Efe (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Efe I'm not going to get into that discussion, but what the editors are saying there is purely of their opinion and is ambigious/contradictory to the guideline. There is not even a mention of Template:Cite magazine on the WP:CS1 main page. Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite news all have parameters such as "url=", "archiveurl=" and so on, not for decorative purposes. I, for one follow the guideline and not contradictory talk page opinions, it is those users WP:BURDEN to add/gain consensus for those opinions so that it co-relates with the guideline. CoolMarc 16:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances and usage in media

[edit]

*Would it be possible to include some info about any of Sheeran's notable live performances of the song? Such as on The Voice, Good Morning America, The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Undateable, Live Lounge, MuchMusic Video Awards etc

  • I'll do research. I personally dislike the addition of live performances alone, without establishing connection to the subject. I mean these performances are notable inherently because the performer is notable and the show is notable. I read last week that "Thinking Out Loud" shot to number 1 in the UK after Sheeran performed it. It's that kind of information I'd like to find. If there's some, I'll probably add it to the section "Release" and change it to "Release and Promotion" or something. --Efe (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. I personally feel how an artist promoted the single is also of importance whether it proved successful or not. I know of many music fans (such as myself, lol) who are very interested in such info. Like I said it's all up to you. CoolMarc 14:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or any cover versions? Such as the one by Foxes

I'm very concerned that you are ignoring this aspect Efe. A good article should be broad in its coverage, and you have decided to neglect one of the most important aspects of a single article; how it was released and promoted. This is also evident in the release history/track listing sections. Please rethink and be open minded to what I am suggesting to you. The average reader will be very confused to as how this song was released, there is no discussing of the CD single/remixes/b-side in the prose. Absolutely no mention of how the single was promoted by Sheeran, one would think the song was a success on its own and with no promotion based on what is currently in the article. The Foxes cover was discussed by several third party sources, it is indeed notable. CoolMarc 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check again. I'm not positive into creating another section though. I might add it in the release section. Despite broad, the article must be focused. I have seen articles even mention what singer wore during that performance!! But yeah, I'll try to fix this. I suppose this is not a "deal breaker". --Efe (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not suggesting a whole new section. A few sentences would even suffice, in say the "Release" section like you suggested. CoolMarc 12:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added Photograph (Ed_Sheeran_song)#In_culture, where I'll gather information such as performances, covers and other usages. --Efe (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this, fantastic. "In culture" seems like a very vague and inaccurate title for a section though when it is simply live performances and usage in media from what I see. Let me know when you're done with the section and my referencing and release concerns, so I can do a second read-through the article and spot check the sources so I can post my final comments. Thanks. CoolMarc 12:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*had been *was

Done. --Efe (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 13 December 2014, Sheeran appeared on the British The X Factor, in which he sung "Photograph" for the first time on television -> On 13 December 2014, Sheeran appeared on The X Factor UK, where he gave his first televised performance of the track.
Done. --Efe (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Efe (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheeran had also performed the song for various US television shows such as in Good Morning America,[63] The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,[64] and Undateable, [65] and in awards shows such as in Canada's Much Music Video Awards. drop "had" replace both "in"s with "on", drop "in awards shows such as" as there was only one awards show.
Done. --Efe (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other usages, English singer and songwriter Foxes "and songwriter" is not needed
Done. --Efe (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • on a video campaign "in" not "on"
Done. --Efe (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence needs attribution.
Done. --Efe (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Efe, sorry, one last suggestion, could we perhaps have an inline citation for the song being performed on the x tour, even though it's obvious from the linked tour article given. Thanks! CoolMarc 12:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will find one if available. If there's none, I do not think that will be challenged. But I'll find. --Efe (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The song seems to have been added only in 2015. The tour page did not even include the song. While a source maybe need to support this, I split the sentence into two. The first part, which mentions the song, has the inline citation. --Efe (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment

[edit]

 On hold for seven days. Feel free to let me know if I should extend. Cheers. CoolMarc 20:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coolmarc, thanks for giving me the chance to further improve the article according to GA standard. This is my first GA since "semi retiring" from WP. I obviously am outdated I am not sure if I'm complying with MOS. Also, I was expecting comment on the prose because it's where I'm weak. At any rate, I'll see to it that your comments are properly addressed. --Efe (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Efe. I've pointed out my prose concerns above. I would suggest you give the article a second read through and check for tense issues throughout, try shy away from the word "is" where possible and "ing" participles as conjunctions. Let me know when you're done and I'll do a second spot check regarding the prose. Regards. CoolMarc 05:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coolmarc, on the first three sections of the review, I'm done with some and left replies. May I request that you check my responses if you have time so we can discuss it while I'm also dealing with the rest of the reviews? Thanks. --Efe (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Efe I've replied accordingly. CoolMarc 06:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coolmarc, just got home from office and it's already past 11 pm. I'll get back to you as soon as I can. If not weekdays, mostly probably this weekend. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Efe Apologies for the delay. I shall post my replies tomorrow when I have PC access again. CoolMarc 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Efe please let me know once you've addressed my referencing and promotion/release concerns. When you are done, I will spot-check the sources, go through the prose again, do some copy editing and make some final suggestions. I don't want this review to drag on for too long. Regards CoolMarc 12:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you know then. --Efe (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coolmarc. Another busy week in real life. As I have yet to address all the remaining points stated above, may I request for another seven days? I'll probably get to it on Wednesday or Thursday night (PH time). Thank you!! --Efe (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Efe. No problem. The review will now be  On hold until 13:31 (UTC) on 12 October 2015. See my above replies. Thanks. CoolMarc 13:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good day Efe. I have added my final prose concerns above which you can start addressing. I am going to do a spot-check of the media used on the page, as well as a spot-check of the sources for possible close paraphrasing/original research in the mean time. Good luck. CoolMarc 10:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Efe Unfortunately, I have to love and leave the review until Tuesday when I have free time again, though I am extending the review  On hold until 13:31 (UTC) on 19 October 2015 now. Please do not give up. Regards. CoolMarc 13:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coolmarc, thank you. I have responded to all of the new sets of suggestions. There's left a few, that which need further verification with sources. --Efe (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: I've done some final copyediting and fixes for you. So pleased the article is up to standard at long last, congrats Efe! CoolMarc 14:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from Calvin999

[edit]
  • The info box says soul, but there isn't a source provided saying this "the soul song" or "a soul track". Being "soulful" doesn't make it a soul music song. Thus, this is original research and you are synthesising info.
  • British singer-songwriter → British singer and songwriter (since he has co-written pretty much all of his material, he can't be a singer-songwriter in the traditional sense).
  • A singer-songwriter is by definition in the traditional sense someone who writes their own music by themselves. Sheehan collaborations 95% of the time. His bio should not use this term, and Taylor Swift's shouldn't either. I used to apply it to Mariah articles (she wrote the lyrics to her first six albums by herself) but subsequently she started to collaborate. So it is not used.  — Calvin999 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "singer-songwriter" is not strictly attributed to artists who write alone, it's a style and manner of performing as well. I for one recognize Sheeran as one and as do many reputable sources. Either way, here is not the place to decide on what his occupation is, if you disagree with him being called a singer-songwriter you should take it up at Talk:Ed Sheeran. CoolMarc 12:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, doesn't apply. "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies, as opposed to most contemporary pop music singers who may write or co-write their songs, but who rely mainly on professional songwriters for their musical material." Use singer and songwriter.  — Calvin999 18:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm telling you to change it here. His bio is not a rule of thumb. You are ignoring the definition. No pop artist is a singer-songwriter. All pop artists collaborate. If you don't change it, I'll change it for you. You need to set your fandom of Sheeran aside.  — Calvin999 20:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really not the place. There clearly hasn't ever been an issue regarding him being a singer-songwriter at his main article, this article is in turn related to his main article and should be consistent with it, hence why we are suggesting that you should take it up there. I do not think it has anything to do with fandom. CoolMarc 07:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • British, or do you mean English?
  • studio album, x (2014). → Why isn't 'x' in italics? It's an album title.
  • Sheeran eventually solicited → Why 'eventually'? Was it a struggle previously? Remove.
  • This collaboration generated a version that Bhasker further enhanced; → Obviously/Boring. Remove.
  • Sorry Calvin999, but I very much "get that" and disagree with your generalisation. I would suggest reading the body's prose before demanding these changes like you did below. CoolMarc 13:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read it through, hence why I picked up on things you didn't. If a song is complete, then it is complete. You don't need to say "properly completed", because completed is already indicative of "properly".  — Calvin999 18:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of Emilie Haynie? She was a producer too.
Sorry to burst into here during the GA review but Emile Haynie it's a GUY, not a girl, so it's he. Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is the first properly completed song for the album. → Was
  • properly completed song → Remove 'properly'. It was either complete or it wasn't.
  • Upon x's release → All instances of album titles should be in italics. This is standard MOS
  • received generally positive reviews. → Okay, so give an brief summary of feedback of what was actually said (good production, emotional lyrics as examples)
  • "among other elements of the song." - Such as?
  • It is the fifth → was
  • consecutive chart-performer → There is no such thing as having consecutive "chart-performers". How can this be defined?
  • as it reached the top five in more than five countries. → So you're saying that it was his fifth consecutive song to reached the top five in five countries? I doubt a source existed for this. Reaching the top five in five countries is good but not that impressive.
  • I just counted based on the chart section. Yes, not as impressive as his other songs. But is that how we measure when writing a lead? Do you have suggestions? --Efe (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peaking at number ten in the US, "Photograph" thus became the third single off the album to have reached within the top ten. → This sentence is all wrong structurally. You haven't even said the name of the chart.
  • "It reached the top five in more than five countries, and in the US, where it peaked at number ten," Is confusing, because it initially sounds like it reached the top five in the US too. It would be much simpler to separate into two sentences, with the latter saying "Peaking at number 10, "Photograph" became the third song from the album to reached the top ten on the US Billboard Hot 100. (When you are giving a fact of sorts, you need to say the name of the chart, as America has loads).  — Calvin999 19:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reached number 15 in the UK and has since been certified platinum. → By who?
Hi Calvin999. Wouldn't that be confusing? The single is available for download in the UK and would be certified based on shipment? The only physical release made was in Germany. --Efe (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's just how it is done. Best to stick to what they do.  — Calvin999 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we're in UK. I would like to make this clear that in UK, it's BPI who does the certifications and stuffs. And per our page, unless it was vandalized as I would not know until I have checked it but would not as of this writing, "The number of sales required to qualify for Platinum, Gold and Silver discs was dropped for singles released after 1 January 1989 to the current thresholds of Silver (200,000 units), Gold (400,000 units), and Platinum (600,000 units). Prior to this, the thresholds were Silver (250,000 units), Gold (500,000 units), and Platinum (1,000,000 units)." Emphasis mine. --Efe (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding this: "Although the awards program was for many years based on the level of shipments by record labels to retailers, since July 2013, certifications have been automatically allocated by the BPI upon the relevant sales thresholds being achieved." --Efe (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the chart note for UK certification: sales/streaming figures based on certification alone. --Efe (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this as a way of saying I rest my case. --Efe (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you feel necessary by adhering to List of music recording certifications. I would change the footnote sales/streaming to shipments/streaming, as that is what it says.  — Calvin999 13:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, I have provided you argument(s). I prefer you counter-argue based on the bullets I have presented above. That would be productive in the process. Also, the page List of music recording certifications was tagged as rather confusing. Besides, that's not a definitive guide. I rather, yet again, you discuss this over there, the relevant Wikipedia pages. And changing the footnote inside the template requires consensus. So that would be silly a thing to do. --Efe (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see why that would be "silly", because the Certification template doesn't match the article it belongs to. That, is silly. BPI denotes shipments, I said that first off, and this is quote clear on List of music recording certifications. I don't see what there is more me to counter argue.  — Calvin999 17:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You haven't understood the point? Silly because that's a template and a template of that nature is created based on a consensus. If you must insist, I suggest you change it and let's see what will happen next. Have you read the link I provided you? --Efe (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's been overlooked and either one or the other needs changing. You're not going to change it so do as you please. Yes I have read the link, I don't see what you are wanting me to see.  — Calvin999 18:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I got some the lead and info box alone, and why I expressed concern in the beginning. I'm surprised CoolMarc hasn't picked up on a lot of these very basis, standard things, such as not having the album title in italics. I have never seen a GAN before which doesn't do this. Another glaring thing is the Spotify image which carries no significance at all and doesn't help the reader in understanding what it is, and should be removed. We don't need an image of a business logo. Your usage of the present tense for various sentences throughout reads awkward too. Also, the Region column (Country) in the Release history table should be marked up for access. External links go under the references. There is also way too much overlooking in the references. Another glaring issue is: "all of the album's 12 tracks, including "Photograph"," It's pretty obvious that if all the tracks charted, this included "Photograph". Also, "(as well as the third top 10 from x)." is unsourced, it's not mentioned in the Billboard article, so that is also original research.  — Calvin999 08:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It adds nothing to the article what-so-ever and is a complete waste of space. Readers don't need to see the logo of Spotify in order to gain a better understanding or give context (of which it gives neither).  — Calvin999 08:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rechecked and seems no more improper use of "is" now. --Efe (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On third top ten, I have to find the Billboard source yet. Another editor added the data. Although I noticed it, I think I eventually forgot to find the source. There's one from Headlineplanet.com, but I want "mainstream" so I have to find one from Billboard. --Efe (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Calvin999, I have responded to most, if not all (yet), of your comments which I find helpful. Please if you could response further. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999 Like Efe says, these errors were recently introduced by Unreal7 after I had posted my review. Efe, I would suggest you undo Unreal7's edits, no explanation is needed - there is no source given for soul and it's a basic Wikipedia policy that album titles should be in italics. I'm going to do a second read-through the article and source spot-check once Efe has addressed my concerns above. CoolMarc 12:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed good faith. After all, Unreal7 fixed some of the grammatical errors I introduced. Will do anyway. We will see if he pops up for a comment.--Efe (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, just to let this stuff out my system, Calvin999, I had several GAs. And even without it, I would probably know how an album title should be formatted. Please be careful in your next reviews because you might encounter someone who wouldn't let it pass without being told off. --Efe (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to know Unreal7 added them? He shouldn't have done those edits, and it is okay for you to undo them yourself. I don't get why you are both having a go and saying about being "told off". I don't know if that is supposed to be a threat but I'm not affected by it. I've just given additional comment to what I saw before me there and then. It's not my fault if someone else changed stuff prior which they shouldn't have and it's not my job to get involved with content disputes (even though there's no disputing it) when you can sort them yourself. Anyway, you've done it now, so I don't get the issue here nor why you're getting it out of your system. It's not me you should be taking issue with, it's Unreal7.  — Calvin999 12:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999 I would recommend you start commenting on articles rather than editors like you did here I'm surprised CoolMarc hasn't picked up on a lot of these very basis, standard things, such as not having the album title in italics and at the beginning of this review to Efe, you would spare yourself and everyone else a lot of unnecessary drama. We simply explained the situation you called us out for. There is no need for (to put it frankly) bullshit like "How am I supposed to know" and "why you are both having a go" and "is supposed to be a threat". If you want to engage in fighting and derailing of reviews please go do it elsewhere. You were told in the "Man Down" FAC that your attitude was a paradigm of how not to work with editors in a review process, and yet here you are again derailing another review... CoolMarc 13:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are still many points that are unresolved/refused to be resolved. I won't endorse the passing of this article until they are.  — Calvin999 08:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Calvin999. Although with best intentions, I would like to address first the issues raised by Coolmarc, the first reviewer. But as you can see, I have replied to some comments of yours; I will get to the rest later. May I request that you provide comment regarding certifications? I have already presented facts. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calvin999 Please note per WP:GAI Other editors are also welcome to comment and work on the article, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer, since I have not asked you for a second opinion whether you want to "endorse the passing" of this article, it lies with me (the reviewer) not you. This is not a FA review and as you can see, I am still in the process of reviewing the article above. CoolMarc 13:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coolmarc, I've commented here out of good will, I don't have to do it, but I have. You should be grateful that I picked up on basic things you should have and be more appreciative. I've reviewed more than 230 nominations and had over 70 passed myself, I know how GAN works, thank you. The decision does not lie with me, but you should take note of what I'm saying. If you pass this with my outstanding issues still outstanding, then it will only cause you more hassle.  — Calvin999 13:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's strange, because on September 26 you said "On hold for seven days. Feel free to let me know if I should extend. Cheers," so I don't see how you are still busy reviewing over two weeks later You don't really seem to have added much more. I never said anyone is better than anyone else, I said that I don't need to be reminded of GAN works, as I am very active in it and have been for a long time. I don't understand why you are linking to the History of Japan GAR, either. I suggest that you carry on completing your already completed review. You are fairly inexperienced and I have given a second opinion out of goodwill despite our previous history together. You should be thankful, not annoyed, that editors give second opinions, as you will only learn and benefit from it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project.  — Calvin999 17:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WOW. I suggest you read and search this whole page what went on and had the reviewer extend the review period. And please do not call them inexperienced. That's not a nice thing to do. These actions /statements will be used against you, I must say. And be warned. --Efe (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But he is inexperienced, relatively speaking. Coolmarc has only ever conducted 4 good article reviews, and has had approximately the same number passed himself. Plenty of people called me inexperienced 4 years ago, and did so for a quite a while. We were all inexperienced for a while at some point, Efe. I think you're taking things a bit too personally. I've only tried to help and give a second opinion, but clearly neither of you wanted that.  — Calvin999 18:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Calvin999 while I don't appreciate you constantly talking down on me, I very much do appreciate your concerns and opinions. Efe/I have replied to all of your issues, and stated where we disagree/agree with you. I trust that from now on we can stop criticizing the editor, rather than the content. I am very much here to collaborate and hope you are too. If you have such an issue with me Calvin, please take it to ANI and criticize me there. This is a GA review for "Photograph" so let's stick to reviewing the article and not the reviewer please. I will post my further concerns today, Efe. Here's hoping we can progress, drama-free. CoolMarc 06:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking down to you nor am I criticising editors. You said the other day you don't value my second opinion and didn't ask for it, now you're saying you value it.  — Calvin999 10:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC) And I am ceasing to be involved with this nomination. It is clear how the nominator feels. I have unwatchlisted his review and will not respond to further commentary.  — Calvin999 11:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oh my god Calvin999. Please stop. You have critized/talked down on me several times on this review page: 1. "I'm surprised CoolMarc hasn't picked up on a lot of these very basis, standard things, such as not having the album title in italics" 2. "You should be grateful that I picked up on basic things you should have and be more appreciative. I've reviewed more than 230 nominations and had over 70 passed myself, I know how GAN works, thank you" 3. "You are fairly inexperienced and I have given a second opinion out of goodwill despite our previous history together" 4. "Coolmarc has only ever conducted 4 good article reviews, and has had approximately the same number passed himself", let alone the way you have criticized/talked down on Efe on here, and both of us during the "Man Down" FACs, you need to begin accepting that you are very much out of line with these comments and they do not help the review process. Several editors, besides me and Efe have told you this. Your comment despite our previous history together", there is no "history" between us unless you are suggesting that you have some sort of grudge against me and Efe for some reason for our suggestions at the "Man Down" FAC, as that is the only "history" which I can recall, and speaking of that "history", that is where you also fabricated nonsense/talked down on me/crticized me and where you were told by several editors that you were out of line for doing so. I said at the very beginning of this review: Hi Calvin999 I appreciate your concerns, but as the reviewer I do think this can meet GAC. Feel free to specify what exactly your concerns are or any additional concerns that I have not brought up yet. I would suggest refraining from comments such as "I wouldn't have expected you to have nominated an under-prepared article considering". Such comments do not help the review process and I would appreciate that this review not get derailed like what happened at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive2. Thanks so yes I did say I appreciate your concerns, please stop fabricating drama and nonsense... I was referring to the procedure Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Asking_for_a_second_opinion which I did not do, but told you above Feel free to specify what exactly your concerns are or any additional concerns that I have not brought up yet. Now, please, let me ask very nicely again, please can we stop with the criticizing of the editor and start commenting on the article. I really want to clear the air, I am not in the mood to continue arguing with you and want this review to continue drama-free. If you want to continue fighting, I will consult an admin and the GA help desk. Thanks. CoolMarc 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Photograph_(Ed_Sheeran_song)/GA1&oldid=1049204178"