Under 'Critical reaction', it says "The nomination category is odd in that it credits the entire Death Cab for Cutie group for Gibbard's solo performance." Unless a source says it's an odd nomination, it's best left out of the article.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
1. Are you sure you're fully aware what a
run-on sentence is? The sentence is long, but grammatically correct as far as I can tell. I've reread the sentence multiple times and have found that the way it is currently written flows naturally in my mind. I don't feel obligated to rephrase simply for personal preference. Mentioning that all of the reviews aren't actually for the song itself seems like an important enough detail to mention and lets the sentence feel less jarring. In short, it complies with criteria 1.
2. First thing has been cited.
Release section is unsourced because there's no controversial information within it (See
when policy says to cite). Plus I can't think of a good way to cite it. I would have to cite at five sites just to tell some very basic information.
6. Image size is irrelevant; only resolution quality matters for fair use. The image is quite clearly low resolution. I reuploaded it at 800px so that the "No higher resolution available." message now appears, but I feel that making it any smaller would deny the readers the ability to tell what's going on in the screenshot and would not help its claim for fair use any further.
--
Remurmur (
talk)
08:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Due to the lack of response and unresolved concerns, I'm forced to fail this article. Please resolved any and all concerns before renominating this article. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you.
DiverseMentality05:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)reply