Talk:Sing (Travis song)

message: :Image:Sing (Travis).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sing (Travis).jpg

message: I checked the 2 refs used in the BG section, and the Independent only says Sing was written in 1999 (no mention of "spring"), while the yeoyl.tripod.com one seems to be a fansite(?) that posted transcripts of the band's notes on the song. If this is correct, is there an actual reliable secondary source that specifically mentions "spring of 1999"  that could replace it? Otherwise the wording in the BG section (and the lead) should be changed to just say "...in 1999", as we're supposed to avoid seasonal phrasing for dates anyways. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a feeling someone was going to bring WP:SEASON up, and I'll honor that. As for the fansite, I used it because I checked Travis's official site but couldn't find this information anywhere. I even checked several archives but came up empty (hence the "via" param in the ref). I'll run through the archives again and see if I can find it. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Wait, actually, the site I use isn't loading right now, so I'll check again later. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Carlobunnie, I had to go back almost 20 years, but I've found the original source. I also managed to procure some information about the development of the music video, so you can expand that section if you want. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I figured so from the "via" but it's gotta be a rel. 2ndary source or no dice, y'know? I was actually going through Wayback archives of the Travis website myself last night to see if I could find the one the fansite was referencing, but hadn't come across anything as yet when I left the above msg, so I'm glad you found it. Re the MV section, idk how strict or not another editor will be when they review the page, since primary sources (and the info they support) can easily be contested (and removed altogether) for various reasons, but if there's any acceptable secondary coverage of it you can in the meantime, that would give you a better leg to stand on. Will take a look in a bit when I'm more awake—woke up not that long ago and only firing on two cylinders rn. --  Carlobunnie (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring of 1999 

message: The lead section seems a bit long and overly detailed. Granted, it's only three paragraphs, but they are pretty meaty. A lot of minor details do not really belong in the lead. For example, "although retrospective reviews have been more mixed, with British website NME calling it a "characterless mandolin dirge" in 2005." Judging by the well-written Critical Reception section, NME is the only negative review out there and including it in the lead casts a somewhat negative slant. I'd remove this and other details, if the article is to be considered for GA. Any more thoughts? Leoseliv (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the paragraphs do seem a bit "meaty" now that you point it out. If you could, would you please take a look at this revision and tell me if the information provided in the lead there is satisfactory? It's the edit immediately preceding the expansion. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 19:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, as far as the lead is concerned, that 'pre-expanded' revision is better and more concise. But even then, I would cut down on some detail, for example in the the last para - the music video. Is that TOTP performance really worth mentioning in the lead? Was it that significant? The bit about the then format precluding live performances definitely has to go - it's sufficient to cover it in the corresponding Music Video section. Don't get me wrong, it's a good article but I think it can be made better for GA and, perhaps, FA nominations. Leoseliv (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've tweak the lead accordingly, but I'm going to keep the TOTP bit for now since it was a memorable send-up. If I receive this suggestion a second time, I'll remove it. Thanks for your feedback. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 21:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead & Critical Reception