Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:19, 3 August 2011 [1].

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)[edit]

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Andrewstalk and Jivesh • Talk2Me 09:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You all probably know this song for its catchy hook and/or its viral dance video. As for the article, it has been through another PR since the last FAC, and the prose has been tightened up. Now, comment away! —Andrewstalk 09:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am taking part in the WP:CUP. —Andrewstalk 08:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose again - the article has been improved since its previous nomination, but in my opinion it still does not meet the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms, don't link the same term multiple times
    • Unlinked some terms. At present items are linked once in lead, once in prose body and linked in refs (first time), tables etc. —Andrewstalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • More work needed. On a quick look I see alter ego, Black Entertainment Television, Eye Weekly, and Saturday Night Live linked at least twice each in article body. Also, wikilinking is not consistently done first-time-only in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Allmusic linked in all refs due to the use of {{Allmusic}}. I have linked Amazon in refs once per store (ie Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de etc). Would you prefer a link in only one Amazon ref? —Andrewstalk 00:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that's fine, but why is for example Eye Weekly linked in both FN 52 and 101? Why is Los Angeles Times linked twice in two paragraphs? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hand clap" or "handclaps"? "J-Setting" or "J-setting"? Check for internal consistency
  • File:Singleladies.ogg: "purpose of use" needs improvement, particularly given the sample's placement in the Composition section
  • File:Single_Ladies_(Put_a_Ring_on_It)_screenshot.jpg: who holds copyright to this screenshot?
  • "Both singles were sent to rhythmic contemporary radio on October 12, 2008,[13] and "Single Ladies" was also sent to Urban contemporary radio the same day,[14] while "If I Were a Boy" was instead sent to contemporary hit radio" - what does this mean?
    • Attempted to clarify. I think readers will need to read the linked article to understand the concept fully. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did, and unfortunately I'm still confused. Can you explain what you want to convey with that? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the radio industry, record labels pay to add songs to a playlist—a pool of songs from which radio stations play. In the US there are distinct radio formats (urban/rhythmic/contemporary/adult etc), and each format has a different playlist. What this text means is that SL was added to the playlists of urban rhythmic radio formats, while "If I Were a Boy" was added to contemporary hit radio. If this is still unclear I will try to find another editor who understands the concept more clearly and have them explain it. —Andrewstalk 23:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, what if you phrased it like "Both singles were added to rhythmic contemporary radio playlists on October 12, 2008;[13] "Single Ladies" was also sent to urban contemporary playlists the same day,[14] while "If I Were a Boy" was instead classified for contemporary hit radio." or similar? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have rephrased it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is in need of further copy-editing for clarity, tone and flow. Some examples: "recently put a stop to a bad relationship" - not encyclopedic in tone; "thus Knowles became the seventh female in the US to have two songs in the top five positions of the Hot 100.[68] The following week, "Single Ladies" ascended to number one on the Hot 100 chart, selling 228,000 downloads, and thus became Knowles' fifth solo" - repetitive; etc
    • Cleaned up. —Andrewstalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those specific examples are done, but this is a general point. I would suggest you find a non-music editor to read it over if possible; if not, you might try reading it out loud to see if you can hear places where the prose is lacking. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (Rechecked 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC), not done. Further example: "As at November 2009...")[reply]
  • Be consistent in what is italicized when. Check for other WP:MOS issues
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This?
    • Paul Grein (Yahoo!) was an editor for Billboard for a long time, and his data is taken directly from Nielsen SoundScan numbers. Billy Johnson (Yahoo!) is an experienced music writer, writing in Black Voice News and Rap Sheet Newspaper, Vibe, The Source, Entertainment Weekly and the Hollywood Reporter. Mark Edward Nero (About.com) has written in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News. The other two have been replaced. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation formatting needs editing for consistency. For example: compare refs 9 and 10, italicization should be reversed on ref 108, compare refs 3 and 112, compare refs 33 and 128, etc
    • Done a few, will finish soon. Billboard has two different publishers because it changed hands in Dec 09. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the Billboard inconsistency I knew about. There are still quite a few others, though, so don't give up yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (Rechecked 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC), not done. Further example: be consistent in whether or not you include a retrieval date when you include an archive date)[reply]
  • Ref 162: page(s)?
    • There has been a dynamic IP address anon adding false information and incomplete citations for Brazilian charts recently, so I have removed the info until someone else can verify (and correctly cite) the info. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • This link says "the requested page is currently unavailable or not found".
    • That refers to a banner advert at the top. If you scroll down the article is there. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck some, more work needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - UK situation poorly researched and unverified. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the source: "In the US she trailed the album with two separate singles - one from each side - but things were played more cautiously over here. We got the classic balladry of 'If I Were A Boy', but not the club-pop throb of 'Single Ladies'. Until now. 'Single Ladies' has proved so popular, cracking the top ten on downloads from the album, that it's been granted an official release - as a download-only single." I have reverted your addition of {{OR}} and {{fv}}. Thank you —Andrewstalk 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Hi Jivesh and Andrew and habitues here at FAC. Am I allowed to support or oppose? I am member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles. Anyways, here are my comments
  • No citations please in the lead. WP:LEAD.
  • Per WP:LEADCITE some claims need refs in lead. Quotes should always have cites directly afterwards. The sales numbers in the lead have been contested in the past, so I added the cites to maintain stability and verifiability. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Some critics noted its aural similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied". I can see only one two, and why the mention in the lead? "Single" is compared to a lot of Beyonce's songs. Thought this might have been compared with "Independent" (other female empowerment-themed songs) in lyrical interpretation
    • Many of Beyonce's songs have the female empowerment theme, but some critics compared it to GMB, musically (dancey R&B). —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. Are we gonna enumerate all those countries?
  • These are the notable top-ten appearances. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*I though the term certified should have been linked to Music recording sales certification instead of RIAA certification?
*The video achieved great success How do we qualify the term great? Might be POVish.
  • Good catch. Removed the whole phrase. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tense issues: "Single Ladies" won numerous awards" it might still earn Knowles awards. "Single Ladies" was a commercial success in the United States the single I believe is still selling.
  • But it has won awards. Past tense doesn't mean it won't again. Eg "I ate some apples" doesn't imply I won't again. Re the second part: Knowles and her labels have moved on to new projects so SL was a commercial success. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You got it. You could say has won or a variation of the "won", but retain has. --Efe (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Inconsistencies: United States and US.
  • United States the first time, US afterwards. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*"Single Ladies" was a commercial success in the United States, and peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Perhaps the use of and here is incorrect.
*The-Dream's main inspiration for the song was Knowles' engagement to Jay-Z. The source says this was recorded after their marriage.
  • First sections doesn't flow very well. Writing -> Mixing -> Inclusion in the CD -> Inspiration -> Wedding -> Recording -> Inspiration -> etc...
  • Shuffled around a bit. Hope it's clearer now. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not smooth. Production (mixing) was relegated to the second para, which is an unlikely place where this info should be. Perhaps you could create another para for the production, so 1 for production, 1 for inspiration, 1 for release. Also, you could merge that block quote. --Efe (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had another go at it; I can see now how messy it was before. Although I think that splitting the first paragraph into two would disrupt the flow of prose. —Andrewstalk 10:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still can find some. --Efe (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Italics: People Magazine to People magazine
  • The live performance section is trivia-like. Perhaps needs re-org and expound those with importance.
  • Reorganised into a more logical format. —Andrewstalk 09:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional
  • No mention of J-setting in the lead
*There's a review included in the lead, its not supposed to represent the view of other reviewers/ people in general.
  • Not a review per se, but a title coined for the video. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Thanks. --Efe (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional
  • Why is it that Stewart's photo is in the article? What is the basis? How about the other contributor's to the song?
  • Further informs readers and helps to identify person(s) key to the song. I have added an image of The-Dream, as he and Stewart produced the song. I have asked the copyright holder of this image to release it under a free license; if he does, I will add it and a pic of Knowles as the four writers of the song. —Andrewstalk 10:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Placement of multiple images is sloppy. You could somehow juxtapose the two images instead of the current setting. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be interesting if you could provide a free photo of the ring and/or glove.
  • I doubt there are any free images, but I shall see what I can find. —Andrewstalk 10:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Efe (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Single Ladies" was a commercial success -> "was" does not seem appropiate.
"digital downloads in the US" -> "US" is redundant as "in the United States" and "by the RIAA" has been mentioned.
Per WP:LEAD, cites are unneeded here, excepting those listed at WP:LEADCITE.
  • The sales numbers in leads often have {{cn}} tags added when without refs, so it is better for stability reasons. Also, it's better to undercite than overcite, and it helps readers locate the reference source more easily. The third ref verifies an opinionative quote. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Composition
"According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Alfred Music Publishing," According to this, it was published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, not AMP
  • Where are you reading that. "Publisher:Alfred Publishing Co., Inc." in the 'Song Details' tab. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading it at the sheet itself. At the bottom of it, it appears "©2008 EMI April Music, Inc., B-Day Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing]], LLC," etc.
Fixed. —Andrewstalk 07:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recognition and accolades
""Single Ladies" contains musical similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"; -> this needs a source, if it is somebody's commentary, then rephrase it to "it was/is/has been noted by whom that SL ..."
  • That phrase is credited to the second half of the sentence: "Andy Kellman of Allmusic called "Single Ladies" a "dire throwback" of that song." —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and in the "Record of the Year" category at the 2009 Premios Oye! Awards." -> There are two "Record of the Year" categories.
Fixed, nice catch :-) —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response and accolades
"and it was ranked at number 4 on BET's Notarized: Top 100 Videos of 2008 countdown,[109] and at number 3 on VH1's Top 40" -> WP:NUMBERS written below 10 are written out.
Fixed —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cultural impact
"included in her live album, I Am... World Tour (2010)" -> (2010) was mentioned when the album was linked
Removed —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usage in media
Link mash-up, as far as I know it is not a common word.
Done. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cover versions
"set-list" -> consistency needed
Fixed —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • References
Refs 13 and 14 -> According to Radio & Records VNU Media published them.
Added —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 18, 19, 22, 23, 95, 119, 157 and 159 are publisher by Amazon.com Inc.
Adding that an Amazon website is published by Amazon.com Inc. isn't that helpful to readers and just adds clutter, I feel. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 29, 75, 118, 152, 155 are published by Rovi Corporation
These refs use {{Allmusic}}, so I cannot add the publisher. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can. See Halo_(Beyoncé_Knowles_song)#cite_ref-65. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Andrewstalk 07:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 47 is published by Contactmusic.com Ltd.
Self-published source, we don't need to add the names of publications that are published by their own companies
Ref 55 is published by Viacom
Added —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 61 is published by the Consejo de la Comunicación
New Sabah Times says it's published by Inna Kinabalu Sdn Bhd; where did you find Consejo de la Comunicación? —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol, wrong number, I meant the Premios Oye!. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My error, again, Los Premios Oye! are presented by the Academia Nacional de la Música en México and transmited by the Consejo de la Comunicación. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added —Andrewstalk 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 99, NPR was linked at ref 91; NPR is published by National Public Radio, Inc.
Unlinked. Self-published source, we don't need to add the names of publications that are published by their own companies —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review

I put one of the images into a Template:Information page. The only other issue is that the quality of File:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) screenshot.jpg is abysmal. Please consider doing it over (the video must be online). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Andrewstalk 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Single_Ladies_(Put_a_Ring_on_It)/archive2&oldid=1140113924"