Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Footprints in the Sand (song)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Footprints in the Sand (song) edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to nominate it to GAN in the future, but prose is always unclear with me (always). So, I'd like to know what's wrong with the article, thank you. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer

Overall, it looks pretty good, but the prose needs some work and I have a few questions/comments on references. A few comments:

  • The second external link ("Official Sport Relief Video") goes to a "video not available" page for me.
  • Why is ref #6 the only bundled ref?
    • Because it would be seen like this. Of course it is not a problem and I can remove it. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not seeing an issue with that format. Is there something specific that you were looking at?
        • There are two problems, sometimes references are mixed with text, and sometimes there is an error at "references" sections, where they are not recognized. This is the correct link 1 ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background - Why does "which according to music critics, contains a gospel production performed by the choir, and features "crashing drums"." need four refs (three bundled, one stand-alone)?
    • And why not? If the problem is the lack of consistency is because I cannot identify why it does this, but as I said, I can remove it. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "does this". I've gone to the link, and on a quick scan see nothing wrong with the format of those refs. For this and the two following comments, it's over-referencing. Unless something is particularly contentious, only one ref is needed - just pick the best one and stick with it. References to sources provided by the article's subject (in this case Lewis' website) should also be minimized, which is not done by using them as gratuitous sources when there are multiple uninvolved sources available.
        • Overreferencing is not a problem (until somebody believes it is a problem). The reason why there are four references is because of the "which according to music critics", thus, there are needed at least two or three references. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background - Why does "The song is an adaptation of the Christian poem "Footprints"," need three references?
  • Release and promotion - Why does "with proceeds going to the charity." need four references?
  • Lead, "It received generally positive reviews by music critics, some of them noting its gospel sounds, but others compared Lewis' vocals with American R&B singer Mariah Carey." Are you deliberately doing a compare and contrast here? The "but" makes it sound like being compared to Carey was a bad thing.
    • Well, I do not know if it is positive being compared with another artist. She has bee compared to Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey and Céline Dion many times, most of time in a negative way (see Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song))
      • It can be either positive or negative. However, unless the critic specifically compared her in a negative way (i.e., "Lewis can be compared to the histrionic warbling of Mariah Carey" would be an (overblown :) example), then you should not set up an unintended (by the critic) compare and contrast. Just present the facts and let the reader draw their own assumptions.
  • Lead, ""Footprints in the Sand" song charted in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Hot 100 Singles, while the double A-side appeared in Germany and Switzerland, and was certified silver in the UK by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)." What is "song charted" Also, not sure why the "double A-side appear[ance]" is relevant in this discussion of charting.
    • It was a typo; I believe it is relevant because "Footprints" was released as a double A-side, unlike "Better in Time". Although the latter was released with "Footprints" in some countries, "BiT" was released alone in those and many other places. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a bit to this to make it, I think, a bit more clear.
  • Background, "It incorpores five instruments: Keyboard instruments (a piano, an organ and synthesizers) guitar, bass, drums and choirs performed by The Tuff Session Singers". Is a choir really considered an instrument?
  • Background - In the Lewis quote, I don't think you need the first sentence "I recorded Footprints In The Sand in the UK with Steve Mac". You've already told the reader this, so having it in the quote is just redundant, and pulls the reader's attention away from the important part - the song being based on the poem and Lewis' reaction to the song.
  • Critical response, "Upon the release of Spirit, "Footprints in the Sand" received generally positive reviews by music critics, but some of them compared Lewis' performance to other singers, such Mariah Carey and Christina Aguilera." Again, you're setting up a compare and contrast. Being compared to other singers is not always a bad thing.
  • Critical response, "that in "Footprints" Lewis would drawn comparisons to Carey." Not sure what you're trying to say here. If that she would be compared to Carey, perhaps "...that by recording "Footprints", Lewis opened herself to being compared to Carey." or something similar.
  • Critical response - I'm not sure why the Digital Spy reviewers have "two different opinions". Both of the reviewers compare Lewis to Carey and seem to think the song is over the top, so I'm not really sure where their opinion differs.
  • Chart performance, "After selling 40,476 copies and being beaten to the number one spot by Duffy's song "Mercy",[6] it soared to its peak position at number two on 22 March 2008" It was beaten to the top spot and then soared to its peak position?

More shortly, just saving for now. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just added the rest. I've made quite a few copyedits; feel free to revert any that changed meanings or you just don't like. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I won't revert, any help is welcomed. I have some replies as you can see. Thank you so much Dana. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's always nice to have a prompt reply on suggestions! A few responses above, and I made a few more tweaks to the article. It should be OK to go for GAN now, although any reviewer will probably find issues that I missed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again :) ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Footprints_in_the_Sand_(song)/archive1&oldid=1136085327"