Talk:Bad Day (Daniel Powter song)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 15:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm MarioSoulTruthFan and I will be reviewing this nomination. It's my first review so any additional input by more experience users is more than welcome.

Lead

""Bad Day" is a piano-infused pop rock power ballad, written and recorded by Canadian singer-songwriter Daniel Powter and produced by Jeff Dawson and Mitchell Froom. Powter and producer Jeff Dawson recorded the song in 2002 but at first they could not find a label to release it. The song was first used in a French Coca-Cola television advertisement at Christmas 2004 before its official release. A piano-infused pop rock power ballad, it was released by Warner Bros. Records as the lead single for his self-titled debut studio album in Europe in early 2005."

Hm, the current lead is not like this. It is ""Bad Day" is a song written and recorded by Canadian singer-songwriter Daniel Powter. Powter and producer Jeff Dawson recorded the song in 2002 but at first they could not find a label to release it. The song was first used in a French Coca-Cola television advertisement at Christmas 2004 before its official release. A piano-infused pop rock power ballad, it was released by Warner Bros. Records as the lead single for his self-titled debut studio album in Europe in early 2005." Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is quite messy. How about: "Bad Day" is a piano-infused pop rock power ballad from Canadian singer and songwriter Daniel Powter's self-titled debut studio album. It was written Powter and produced by Jeff Dawson and Mitchell Froom. It was recorded by the former two in 2002 as they could not find a label to release it. The song was first used in a French Coca-Cola television advertisement at Christmas 2004 before any official release. Tom Whalley, a chairman of Warner Bros. Records, after hearing it in a demo tape offered a contract to Powter. This track, once without a home, ended up by being released as the lead single in Europe in early 2005 by Warner Bros.

• Based on your suggestion, I did some alterations. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Also remove "by Warner Bros" it is already in the infobox and disrupts the lead a bit. My suggestion: "This track, once without a home, ended up by being released as the lead single in Europe in early 2005 and was digitally released on February 22, 2005 in US." That would be it for the first paragraph. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you have, now add the new release date you found after "Europe in early 2005". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "It was the first song ever to sell 2 million digital copies in the U.S. and was certified three-times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America." Get your facts straight if the other million comes from streaming you have to say so, however I don't believe this is the case.

• Added dates to contextualize. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I don't get the sentence. it was the first song to sell 2 million digital copies in US or the first song to sell 2 million digital copies in US in 2006"? By the way, add a full stop after US and write "It was certified three-times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America in 2009". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Tried in another way. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The song's accompanying music video was directed by Marc Webb and was also successful, registering 10 million views in 2006." - remove was also successful since success for music videos have no standards for success, unless you reach one billion views and seems bias to me. "The song's accompanying music video was directed by Marc Webb and it was able to reach 10 million views in 2006."

• Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The song was often used for advertisements and for television programs, most prominently as the elimination song of American Idol." - Ok, any other show?

• Yeah, it was used in other shows—all they are mentioned in the body—but American Idol is definitely the "most prominently" because of its frequent usage. For the lead I think it's enought to mention only it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just add a relevant advertise and it will be done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Coca-Cola would be the most relevant but it's already mentioned. Just removed "often used for advertisements"—Right Guard and Coca-Cola is not often. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the word often, the rest is fine. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Different shows and artists covered and parodied "Bad Day", and Powter has performed the song on television and during his concert tours." I need examples, saying it's not good enough. By the way change the sentence to. Different shows and artists covered and parodied the song, such as (add artists and shows). "Bad Day" was performed by Powter has performed on television shows as (add tv shows) and during his concert tours, a(ad tours with year dates).

• Just followed Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) logic but I can see what you are saying. Is it definitely necessary? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would use it, all the GA articles I have done have so. Just use the most relevant example for each except the for the tours, since he performed it in all his tours. Just be sure to have the links to all the tours in the prose. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Added examples of parody and cover but I don't know how to decide which show in which he performed is more relevant. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jay Leno show and Ellen DeGeneres are fine.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I might have two review this once again, but first fix the issues I have addressed.

More fixes:

• "This track, once without a home, ended up by being released as the lead single in Europe in early 2005." - you have a new reference regarding the release date (January 9, 2005, if I'm not mistaken). Please add it after this sentence and in the infobox. example given: "This track, once without a home, ended up by being released as the lead single in Europe in early 2005. A source claims it was first released on January 9, 2005."

Added Vernon source on the note to not have a WP:SYNTH nor a contradiction between the sources. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Although "Bad Day" received generally mixed critical reviews" - Needs a bit of detail, use the reviews. Eg: "Although "Bad Day" received generally mixed critical reviews, with some music critiques finding a "universal appeal" and others calling it "boring"...

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You should change the word boring, it was my fault, look it up in the reviews to see what they say regarding the song. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "In 2005, it was the most played song on European radio,"- At the begging of this sentence add "The single charted inside the top five in more ten countries, becoming the the most played song on European radio in 2005"...

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "on the UK Singles Chart" - "on the UK Singles Chart, being certified Gold by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI).

When I added the former suggestion, I thought to mentione UK and Irealand was redundant. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not, I missed a word there, worldwide. "The single charted inside the top five in more ten countries worlwide, becoming the the most played song on European radio in 2005..."Then add only the UK sentence and the Gold certification. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I added "worldwide" but now that I'm thinking about it I'm wondering why should I prefer UK over others since it also charted as well as or better in Czech Republic, Ireland and Portugal, and regarding sales Japan was better. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I just said UK because you had it there previously and since the single was certified gold it would be more appropriate. I wouldn't advise the use of those, since they are airplay charts and therefore not so relevant, while Japan you only have the peak of digital sales. Nevertheless, you can also use Australia where it went Platinum or Canada, his home-country, perhaps more appropriate or even France. In the end is up to you, try to conjugate these factors: Sales, chart relevance and peak on the chart. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Added a generic bit about certifications worldwide. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done, Gabriel Yuji. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The song's accompanying music video was directed by Marc Webb and it was able to reach 10 million views in 2006." - add a bit of summary of the video. eg: "The song's accompanying music video was directed by Marc Webb and it was able to reach 10 million views in 2006. The video depicts two people living a similar life separated, they end up by completing the image of a heart symbol and find each other in the end of the video."

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Background and writing

• He "got killed" - too informal even for a quote, try something else.
• He "got killed", returned to Vancouver, and "decided to forget about it" because "once a record company says no, it's difficult to come around again" - too many quotes in a row, use your own words.

• Done. Both. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The last song to be composed for Daniel Powter, Powter wrote it in an hour during a ferry journey between Victoria and Vancouver"; change to: "Powter wrote the song in an hour during a ferry journey between Victoria and Vancouver. It was the last track to be composed for the album". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't get the point in doing it. I mean, the two phrases togehter are more hook-y and it flows better, I guess. I think they complement each to demonstrate how he was not worried on writing it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"It was the last song to be composed for his debut album, Powter wrote it in an hour during a ferry journey between Victoria and Vancouver". Try this instead. The first sentence was not flowing very well. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Tried another option. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed it, and you missed "It was". I fixed it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm, "It was the last song to be composed for his album, Powter wrote it in an hour during a ferry journey between Victoria and Vancouver" is not correct, I guess. Either it should be a dot in the place of the comma and we would have two separate sentences or we remove "It was". Alternatively, we can have an "and" or "which" to connect the phrases. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The latter option.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Tried another option because I realized if added a "which" it maybe sounds like it was referring to the album: "his album, which Powter wrote"... Tell me what you think. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Composition

• How about adding a music sample? Don't you forget to add a description to it.

• Hm, I don't know. There was a sample and its rationale was questioned. Is it definitely necessary? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Audio sample needs to be reduced and comply with WP:SAMPLE. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem resolved(?). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I missed it after you add the FUR. I'm sorry.

• "Powter's comment about the song's subject" - I would move this to the previous section.

• I don't know. This section is the one discussing the song's subject, not the other.

On the other you have "writting". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree again. I mean, the song's subject is about what lyrical content it has; writing is about how this content was written by Powter. The quote is about what the song is about, not about the process of writing. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

After careful thinking I believe you are right. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Who produced and wrote the song? - Powter wrote "Bad Day", while production was handled by Mitchell Froom and Jeff Dawson.

• Is it not clear in the previous section? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It is, but the Lead is like the "intro". You should have a little of every section in the lead. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

But the lead has "It was written by Powter and produced by Jeff Dawson and Mitchell Froom." I thought you were talking about "Composition" section here. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, copy that into the composition section as well. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

But it's alreayd on "Background and writing". My reason is the same for not doing the previous suggestion: who wrote is more part of the process, while this section is more about the content. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

" He accepted the offer in April 2003 and along with Dawson and producer Mitchell Froom, finished his album in Los Angeles", this is the closest it comes but talks about the album. However you can complete the sentence by adding "and the song". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Vocal range?

• Well, I saw it on other articles when I was looking for a good example. I see most articles use MusicNotes.com sheet but sincerely I can't understand it. I even don't know what version I should choose... Can you help me in this case? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure I can. You use the first one (http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0067708). You have to see the key to see if it checks out, then you scroll down and you have the Vocal range. U have good information there.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I included it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can you find another reference for the song genre? Besides All Music, of course.

• Chuck Taylor of Billboard also classified it as "pop/rock". Now I realize that just pop is probably the most used genre. Should I change it? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, just use the billboard one also. But if you see reviews saying "the pop song" or "the based pop track" or even "pop track" more often, just add as well. example "The pop track infused with rock segments". But I would keep and and the billboard reference as well. All Music isn't strong only by itself. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is not mandatory but would fit quite well on the article and make it more GA status. Try to find similarities between this song and another one, usually reviewers do that a lot. Also some from were Powter drew his inspiration to create the song.

In case you find influences change the name of the section to "Composition and influences".

• I'll look for it. I remember several comparisons to James Blunt's Beautiful. I just need to look at the sources again. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The lyrics of "Bad Day" are about somebody who had a bad day". Too repetitive, re-write it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reworded. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Release

• You need a precise release date (Day, Month and Year). I see you have added some from retailers, add the first to the infobox.

• Is it fine? I mean, Single Ladies use the first airplay as its release date. The first airplay was definitely in Europe in "early 2005" [sic]. If it's ok, probably I should the American digital release (February 22) instead of the exclusive EP version of Barnes & Noble (February 8) even if B&N version came first because it's not official I guess. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The first specific date was the American digital release. Of course keep the airplay reference it's important. If it's not official shouldn't even be here.Don't forget to change the infobox. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm, it's not that B&N is not official but it's a kind of limited edition so it preceds the "official" release. Anyway, I've found this source that gives an exact date. I only don't know if Vernon Morning Star is a reliable source. It seems a relevant local newspaper. What's your opinion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Use that one instead and archive it just in case ;). I think you know you have to replace the date on infobox, on the lead and release history. However don't delete the early radio release it's good enoug for US since that one is for Canada. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I was assuming January 9, 2005 was "early 2005". Canadian single release was only in July. Most sources (like the Billboard one used and Chicago Tribune; and probably others that I don't remember right now) say the song's first release was in France, so I assumed it was referring to it. But who knows? Would it be WP:SYNTH if I say that? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even read the whole sentence and it is WP:SYNTH. However you can use both sources, just don't "mix" them up. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• If I were you I would create a release date history box and add it in the end of the article along with this prose.

• I will see what I can do. I've already considered it and I don't know why I didn't. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• ""Bad Day" was also included on Powter's compilation albums B-Sides (2007) and Best of Me (2010)." - ad this to the lead as well.

• Why? Lead is a summary of main info, I don't think it's. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It shows the relevance of the song and how it influenced his career. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. I added it. I'm not sure it was the best place to include it. Do you have an opinion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the right place, since you say "The success of the song" and on that same paragraph you are trying to show the success of the song. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception

• You need to say that it received mixes reviews or it was praised for it's composition, while reviewers felt the lyrics felt short to the instrumental. Something on this vein.
• A few more reviews would really complete this section. As I say this first put the single reviews then the one's you have taken from the album review.
• Crete "Accolades" section for second paragraph.

• But accolades are kind of critical reception, I guess, and there are not too much info right now. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have always separate them, that's why it's a subtitle, it's kind of reception but a little bit different. I know, but more one or two more reviews will do the trick here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Something else, this reviews don't they give the songs a ranking? Such as stars? and that, don't you forget that. About.com always does that. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Chart performance

• Calvin999 has already said this on his review and I can't stress it enough. This section is way too long to start with.
• To begin with why don't you separate in sections by countries or continents? Example: North America, Oceania, Europe...whatever is necessary.
• "It peaked at number 17 on the German Singles Chart, topped the German Airplay Chart" - remove all this.
• "and the top 20 in Austria." - remove it we are going for top 10 with such a successful songs and we need to short this section.
• "It also performed well on other year-end charts, ranking first on Hot Digital Songs, second on Hot Adult Pop Songs,third on Hot Adult Contemporary Songs, fourth on Pop 100 Songs, and twentieth on Hot 100 Airplay." - Remove the last two, for now.
• ""Bad Day" became the first song on the Warner Bros. label to top the Hot 100 since Cher's "Believe" in 1999" - not necessary its the label's concern. It could be a curiosity to be ad on the Warner page, not here.
• "a ringtone version of the song was certified "million" by the Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ) for shipment of over one million copies" - Remove "million", just ruins the whole sentence.

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We will need to rephrase the whole sentence. But first address the issue I raised below. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• "and peaked at number 5 on the RIAJ Digital Track Chart". - Is this really necessary?

Removed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• ""Bad Day" was certified silver by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) for shipment of over 70,000 copies." - You have platinum in the certification box.

For now amend this I will give it another look once you have fixed this.

Well, it was separate: first Europe, second UK, two paragraphs for US, then Japan, and the rest. Now, I've cut down it a bit and it's mixed up: Europe, US, UK and Canada, and the rest. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You joking, right? You need sub-headings. One says "North America", "Europe" and "Oceania", for example. Don't mixed it up, it becomes a huge mess. Do this and I will help you with the rest. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. There's no need to have subsection to have a logic division by paragraphs. Look at "Single Ladies" for example: there are two paragraphs for US and one for the rest of the world. Looking at other FAs it's completely fine; Hollaback Girl has three paragraphs for US, one for Canada, and one for the rest of the world; and Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) has one for US, one for Australia and another for UK, Italy and Europe. None of them has subsections nor they avoid to group different countries in a paragraph. There's not only a correct way of doing things. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree, I have checked those articles. In the "Cry me a River" there is few chart performance, while on "Hollaback Girl" there are multiple paragraphs to make it easier to read. We have to do something like that. I'm going to write here a couple more suggestions to improve further this section. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph: All the FA have this not only by a chronological order but also by a charts order.

Like this: "Bad Day" debuted at number 55 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart issue dated February 25, 2006. On March 30, 2006 it reached the top spot of the chart.

"Bad Day" became the first song to sell two million digital copies in the United States in December 2006, therefore becoming the best-selling "digital track" and "digital song" for 2006. The single has received a three-times platinum certification from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for digital sales of over 3 million in September 2009. It was the number-one song of 2006 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and the seventh most played song on the American radio in 2006. It also performed well on other year-end charts, ranking first on Hot Digital Songs, second on Adult Pop Songs, and third on Adult Contemporary Songs.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I guess only Hot 100 was not following a chart order. I've fixed it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

*3rd paragraph: Here you are mixing stuff awards/accolades with chart performance. Example given:

"In the rest of the world, reaction to "Bad Day" was generally positive. In Canada, it was certified platinum by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) for selling 20,000 downloads."Bad Day" peaked at number seven on the Canadian Singles Chart and at number six on the Hot Canadian Digital Singles chart. It was one of the six Canadian pop songs with the most radio airplay in 2005. In Japan, a ringtone version was certified as "Million" by the Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ) for shipment of over one million copies. Its "full-length ringtone" version was certified Platinum for shipment of over 250,000 copies, while its "Single Track" version was certified double platinum for shipment of over 500,000 copies. It was one of the most-downloaded international songs in Japan. "Bad Day" was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) for shipment of over 70,000 copies. The song debuted at number 21 on the ARIA Charts issue dated July 4, 2005, peaked at number three on the issue dated August 15, 2005, and spent 20 weeks on the chart. It was the 18th top single of 2005 in the year-end ARIA Charts, and was the second-most-played song in the country in 2006. It peaked at number 7 in New Zealand and on the Venezuela's Pop Rock chart, appearing for 23 weeks on the former and 19 on the latter."

Awards/Accolades: It won an award from the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada as one of six Canadian pop songs with the most radio airplay in 2005. It shared the 2007 Japan Gold Disc Award for the most-downloaded international song with "You Raise Me Up" by Celtic Woman and "Dani California" by Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Hm, I orignally included them there becasue theses awards are related to airplay and downloads (and most of the sections deals with it too). Do you think it is reasonable? Anyway, I see your point and I can move them because now I see what the focus of the section should be. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes please move. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Last fix: 1st paragraph:

• Remove: "It topped the UK Singles Downloads Chart for five consecutive weeks", not necessary info, despite peaking for five straight weeks.
• Remove: "In France, the song peaked at number 2 on the airplay chart, while it topped the German Airplay Chart." In order to make the section shorter and those are components of main charts.
• Remove: Poland, Portugal peaks, away to many examples on that sentence. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

All done, though I've removed more than Poland and Portugal for the last one. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Music video

• Parts of the video are shown in a split-screen. Why is that? Should they be together and are separate and only in the end find each other?

• Yeah. I've added a bit more to clarify. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• The music video was directed by Marc Webb and premiered on Yahoo!'s website in early 2005 - Have you tried to look up for the date on MTV.com or videostatic.com?

• Yeah, I've looked on both. Mtv.com, like Yahoo, presents no date. I even tried Wayback Machine on both but the close I came is what you can see. Videostatic has a news from June but if it was in April in Yahoo, I can't say it was released in June. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTCe

Ok, leave it a that. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The Synopsis section of the music video section is too short to warrant being a sub section" - Calvin999 has already warned about this and nothing was done about it, how about once you find more information such as in reviews, they usually give a nice input divided it in sections such as "Development and synopsis" and "Reception"

• Hm... I did Calvin999 recommendation. There's no subsection there. Your suggestion even contradicts his one. Anyway, I'll try once again but it was really difficult to find sources on the video. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't made myself clear...what I was trying to say was: expand this section (use reviews to do such and use this a news from June), then divided in subsections. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Usage in media, cover and parodies

• Change this title to "Usage in other media". As user Calvin999 said: "The quote box in the Usage in media, cover and parodies section isn't appropriate, it's only a few words long." - once again nothing was done about this.

• Hm... nothing was done? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Now you have changed it, well done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Live performances

• Unnecessary use of picture since it disrupts the all section, don't remove it right now let's work this section and it might be able to stay. It will stay, since it doesn't disrupts the section like it used to do. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• The first paragraph it's not well written, it doesn't flow as I read. Besides this how about a chronological order? Say it like this "Bad day was performed at (X place) and (Y place) on (add date) at (places). The single was also sung live...".
• Powter has performed the song on several television shows, including Total Request Live, The Today Show, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Live with Regis and Kelly, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and The CBS Early Show. Add some dates and places, it looks like a supermarket grocery list!

The first paragraph is chronological but I'll see what I can do to improve its flow and I'll try to find sources for the date in which he went to those shows. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Dates added. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you find one or two reviews of those live performances and added it, there? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I already searched for it by time I was expanding it. I couldn't anything more than that Chicago Tribune Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I also tried to look it up, but nothing was found. Nevertheless, I found a performance he gave on CD USA, it's even uploaded in his Vevo channel on youtube, seems worth the mention. ALso, a Live Acoustic Performance for Rush Hour Entertainment in 2012, since it's acoustic and differs from the others seems correct to brought it up. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Added CD USA appearance. Not sure about Rush Hour Entertainment since it doesn't seem to be notable. No article here nor third-party coverage of his performance on the show (is it a show?); I guess to link to their Youtube video is not appropriate. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, take care of the other points I have raised awareness trough the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• On the picture "Powter at the MTV Asia Awards 2006 in Bangkok, where he performed it live" - "Powter at the MTV Asia Awards 2006, where he performed the song live", just cut to the chase. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• "was slower and prettier than on record, [with] the spartan arrangement nearly rescuing the tune from montage hell" - paraphrase it please. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It was kind of complicated, I'm not really sure what he meant to say with "the spartan arrangement nearly rescuing the tune from montage hell" but I've tried. Give it a look. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That's it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Formats and track listings

I need a little prose to each release.

I don't remember seeing an article who had prose in this section. None of the three I've already mentioned ("Single Ladies", "Cry Me a River", "Hollaback Girl") do it. WP:SONG#Single track listings doesn't say nothing about it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Add prose of this track listening to the release section. You got there something, but add that besides "Bad Day" it include "Stupid Like This" on the CD single release. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I got it. Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Weekly charts

• Remove the following charts: German Airplay Chart, UK Download (Official Charts Company) and UK Airplay Char. You have the main chart for each so this is unnecessary. As I say this can't you find Japan Hot 100 or other japanase chart besides the Japanese Digital Tracks Chart?

Well, is there any relevant guideline and/or recommendation? It's not a problem in other articles. For Japan, it was Oricon Singles Chart (Hot 100 was created in 2008), and I surprisingly (since the album charted) it did not peak ([1], [2]). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. but [3]. Let the Digital Track chart for Japan be there, then.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. It was just a sincere question and I hoped for your answer. But how I know it's a component chart? Digital downloads are not separate chart? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You missed the question mark at a first instance. It's just like Hot Digital Tracks in US, they are used to compile the Hot 100. In UK they are used to compile the UK singles charts.

Removed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Bad Day" was also covered by the fictional music group Alvin and the Chipmunks for their 2007 film Alvin and the Chipmunks. Their version made the charts in January 2008, peaking at number 67 on the Billboard Hot 100." - You need to add their version to the charts in a separate section like in here [4]. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Year-end charts

• Divide them in two separate columns according to each year.

I guess the layout is fine. Why do you think it's best? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Two different years with some different charts. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's fine on "Single Ladies". I think it's more a matter of personal preference. Anyway, there's indeed a clear division, although not by columns. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I just believe is less confusing. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if "US Hot 100 Airplay" is worth to keep on this section. I would just keep a reference to it in the "Chart performance" section.

I included it because "Single Ladies" was my primary example and it uses it. Is there something wrong with it?

Nevermind, let it be. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Certifications

• Put the certifications in a new section.

References

Dead links.

• You have a dead link for "on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on April 24 and on The Ellen DeGeneres Show on April 27", once you find a link for it or the same I would advise you to archive it.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

My bad. The link was wrong, not dead [5]. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to link publishers (wiki link) and work as the first links of them appear, as you have done with Australasian Performing Right Association (example well done).

• AllMusic. Rovi Corporation - link it
• MTV News. Viacom. - link it
• Billboard (Prometheus Global Media) - link it
• Hartford Couran - link it
• The Scotsman - link it
• People (Time Inc) - link it
• Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique - link it
• Bundesverband Musikindustrie - link it
• IFPI Denmark - link it
• Yahoo Music - link it
• Recording Industry Association of Japan - link it
• Canadian Recording Industry Association - link it
• Australian Recording Industry Association - link it
• Record Report - link it

Sometimes you have Billboard (Prometheus Global Media), then Billboard Prometheus Global Media - choose one of the styles and apply it

I just wikilink something in its first appearance i.e. it doesn't mind if it's in the body or in the footnotes. Per WP:Overlink "a link should appear only once in an article" except if it's helpful for readers. I don't think it's helpful to link it in the references section if it's linked in the body. Sometimes it does occur but it's because templates like "singlechart" and "Certification Cite Ref" automatically link the publishers. Anyway, if you think it's important I can do it.

I would appreciate if you do this. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Linked. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

For Billboard inconsistency, it's because of "cite journal" and "cite web" difference. I can change everything to "cite web" or use manual formatting to make it more consistent if you think it's better. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me finish the review, hold on please. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Overall

• This is the first section of notes that need to be addressed. I'm putting this on hold since I believe in a week something can be done to improve the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What else I didn't do that is required to be a GA? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Look into the "Critical reception" some of those reviews give starts or something like that such as about.com, look individually into each other and add the ranking to the critical reception. The others issues have been addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Besides from this ask another "Guild of Copy Editors" since I believe there is still too much copy editing in some sections. Only do this after doing the previous. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

About.com is the only that gives some kind of rating, so it's kind of strange to only give it. Most are album reviews and the others don't have it. Anyway, I don't think it's part of the GA criteria nor any other song I've mentioned has some kind of score. I'll send it to GOCE. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not mandatory, it would just improve the page further. Thank you. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

With so many accolades it's time add that section to the critical reception. These recommendations along with the one on the chart performance and the review by the GOCE should be good for a pass. Nevertheless, since it's my first time reviewing a song, I will wait for a second opinion after all of the previous issues are addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So, MarioSoulTruthFan, there's been a time since it started and I guess I've finished everything under GA criteria. Are you going to ask some other more experienced editor to re-review it as you said (I guess there are not too may editors who would give a second opinion here without a request) or is there something to do? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you to submit it to the GOCE. Once you do that I will ask someone. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

But this is not mandatory for GA unless you think it's prose is below the criteria. In this case, we should fall it for not complying with the criteria. I thought it was just a suggestion to improve its quality and that I could do it later... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I will ask a second opinion then. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(Just to note, I've sent it to GOCE [6]). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(Update: I've got an incredibly quick response and it is copyedited now [7]). Thanks to Twofingered Typist. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, now we we need to wait for a second opinion. Nevertheless, I think this qualifies as GA material and only want someone to re-ensure that. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

2ndopinion

Since this is my first review according to GA criteria, I would appreciate for a more experienced user to take some of its time to give a general overlook on the whole article. Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll do the second opinion review. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tbhotch.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   MarioSoulTruthFan's decision

General

• Some MoS issues
• 2 dead links; some links need updates

Infobox

• June 27, 2005 is not the first release date.
• Pop rock is mentioned, but nothing in the article supports it.

Lead

• "self-titled debut studio album." -> "self-titled debut studio album (2005)."
• "could not find a label" -> "could not find a record label"
• "first song ever to sell 2 million digital copies ... three-times platinum " -> Choose one, also see article for consistency

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Link the first "certified" to List of music recording certifications
• "It was certified gold in the United Kingdom and Germany, and platinum in Australia and Canada, and also received certifications in Japan, France, and Denmark." -> "It was certified and platinum in Australia and Canada, gold in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom, and also received a certification in France and Japan."
• "The song's accompanying music video" -> The accompanying music video for "Bad Day".

Background and writing

• Vancouver -> Vancouver, Canada; multiple places
• Not necessary, but if it is possible, you can say where he moved from and which college he dropped out.

MarioSoulTruthFan fixed it ([8]), according to SongUnivese. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• For two weeks[3] -> For two weeks,[3]
• struggling musician -> you are citing them, quotes needed.
• "After this failure, his new representative, Gary Stamler, played a demo tape for Tom Whalley, chairman and CEO of Warner Bros. Records" -> Source 6 doesn't say this (or anything about Powter). It solely confirms Whalley was the CEO. Source 1 supports this, though.
• Los Angeles -> Los Angeles, California; Los Angeles, Texas also exists.

Performance

• Performance -> Composition
• midtempo[9] pop -> This is the AllMusic wording, attribute it, or quote it.
• "Powter's vocals range from the note of E♭4 and D♭6". -> Refer to Wikipedia:Using sheet music sources for the correct attribution text that its to be used.
• "features rock instrumentation" -> The source says: "...with a hook that lasts and lasts and intrumentation that sets Powter apart from the scores of adolescent thrust-rockers currently dominating the scene." That doesn't make it a "rock instrumentation" (see WP:OR).
• Link Foo Fighters and zeitgeist.

Release

• The section is to short. I suggest merging it with another section.
• I think this has to be mentioned as well.

Mario again ([9]). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception

• You can merge Critical reception and Accolades into a supersection, as they are related.
• "The song received mixed reviews" ->
• "it was praised for its composition" ->
• Link Billboard
• Erlewine did not called it the best track on Daniel Powter; he simply highlighted it.

Chart performance

• "topped it for three weeks", "number one", etc. -> consistency needed with ordinals throughout.
• James Blunt's "You're Beautiful" -> Link both.
• "reaction to "Bad Day" was generally positive." ->

Mario fixed it ([10]), though I think it's clear by the following lines.

• "Media considered its exposure on American Idol as a major factor in its success in the United States.[23][80][117]" (from another section), should be mentioned here.

Ditto ([11]). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Music video

• File:BadDayVideo.png's current caption does not satisfy WP:NFCC. It should say something about Adelman and Armstrong sat in the same spot, but in a different time (remember she wakes up at 6:30 and him at 7:00). In my view, I'd replace it with a still from the billboard in which it can be noted (and if possible explained) what's going on with the billboard (Armstrong using a black Sharpie to deface the billboard with negativeness, while Adelman uses a red Sharpie to "counteract" it); and how their live interact more than being in the same locations but at different times.

• A free alternative would be use a free image of Pershing Square or Metro Rail.
• I truly need an answer for this, se WP:NFCC. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope the new image, caption and body text satisfy it, Tbhotch. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The paragraph that begins with "The music video was directed by Marc Webb and premiered on Yahoo!'s" should come first than "The music video accompanying "Bad Day"".
• If possible, it should be mentioned it was filmed in LA (with a source, of course).

I really can't find any reliable source, unless SongFacts ([12]) is reliable. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• "three-day period." -> as above (MOS:NUM).

I don't see anything wrong as WP:NUMERAL says "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."

• they paint separately on the same billboard -> This should be ellaborated.

Added a bit. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• "the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards Japan[113]" -> "the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards Japan,[113]"

Formats and track listings

• The titles at "Barnes & Noble extended play" need quotation marks.

Credits and personnel

• The section is missing.

Certifications

• "Japan - Million". According to List of music recording certifications it is "Diamond". I can't truly know as the Japanese text lost in the translation.

As it says in that wiki page. "Japanese physical and digital download sales exceeding 1,000,000 are given the "Million" award." So is it Diamond or a million? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Japanese don't use the concept of "Diamond" but "Million" is their equivalent of "Diamond". And that's why the List of music recording certifications puts the "Diamond" on the top so to help Western readers to understand but in the XX note clarifies that the name they use is "Million". You can check it in the source ([13]) where he have "ミリオン" ("million") to "バッド・デイ〜ついてない日の応援歌" (their stylized title for "Bad Day"). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Release history

• United States[25][26] -> February 8, 2005[25]; February 22, 2005[26]

References

• Reference 6 -> "Rolling Stone" -> "Rolling Stone"
• Reference 10 -> Is "Review Publishing" the publisher?
• Reference 17 -> Link Entertainment Weekly.
• Reference 18 -> Link Manchester Evening News.
• Reference 19 -> Link PopMatters.
• Reference 20 -> Link BBC News Magazine and BBC.
• Reference 21 -> Link About.com; also, About.com is not italiziced.
• Reference 41 -> Link Tribune Company.
• Reference 44 -> About.com is not italiziced.
• Reference 45 -> Link Los Angeles Times.
• Reference 47 -> Link both, ChartAttack and Channel Zero.
• Reference 48 -> Link J-Wave.
• Reference 49 -> Unlink both, ChartAttack and Channel Zero.
• Reference 51 -> Link Recording Industry Association of Japan. Also, you need to guide the reader what they have to click.
• Reference 57 -> About.com is not italiziced.
• Reference 58 -> Link Nielsen Music Control (Nielsen N.V.)
• Reference 74 -> The publisher is Hung Medien
• Reference 81 -> POWTER'S 'BAD DAY' MAKES GOOD -> "Powter's 'Bad Day' Makes Good"; 118(14) -> 118 (14)
• Reference 93 -> Unlink Recording Industry Association of Japan.
• Reference 103 -> Link VH1.com; VH1.com is not italiziced; the publisher is Viacom.
• Reference 104 -> Link both iTunes Store and Apple Inc. (unless you add what I suggested about iTunes Live from Tokyo. If that happens, link them there.) Also it should be iTunes Store (US).
• Reference 110 -> Link Warner Bros. Records.
• References 147 to 151, 156, 157, 158, 160 and 161 are published by Hung Medien.

You got two dead links. Reference 56 and 170 at Gabriel Yuji. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, MarioSoulTruthFan. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• OK. In my view, it is good to go. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

From my prospective it as passed as well, I couldn't stress enough the congrats Gabriel Yuji and once again to the second reviewer Tbhotch. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)