Welcome to Beyoncé Knowles' WikiProject, created by stealing with guidance from WP:GAGA. There is a bit of work to do to get the project off the ground, so get stuck in! Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice if all could add this to there watchlist.Moxy (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors including myself have noted a decline in the quality of recent GA nominations relating to Beyoncé articles. Apologies for pissing on your bonfire, but ladies and gentleman GAs are supposed to represent our near-best articles on wikipedia and some of the recent Beyoncé ones have slipped through the net. Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song) is the only one from the I Am... era which, in my view, is the standard you should all be striving towards. However there are some bad offenders such as Ego (Beyoncé Knowles song) and Broken-Hearted Girl, which stick out. Amongst the issues, are a number of MOS fails and unsourced unverified claims. Not forgetting to mention the poor quality of prose. Now to curb some of the negatives, its wonderful work that the project is doing... whatever the controversies with Beyoncé she is an important artist in the industry, like her or not, she's made a noticeable contribution to the industry and she is a standard setter. The speed of the progress of the project is excellent but it needs to come back to basics. Lets focus on quality and less haste. Reviews should take around a week if not more to be thorough. In light of the concerns some of the GAs will be taken to GAR... As they are nominated I will add them to this post so that you are all aware of what's happening. I think essentially the issues here are simply a combination of rushing through things and inexperienced reviewers. Note that members of the project should not be reviewing any articles related to Beyoncé even if you have not worked on them... it is a conflict of interest. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 05:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the user who started this hoopla, I of course agree with the above statements. Lets hope that the situation is improved, and I don't have to be the fly on your cream always. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this discussion and comments are a threshold level of tolerance for crappy reviews all across the music articles, just that the recent activities at Bey's articles are the most distrubing. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. I may be involved in this too. And, I really support the action of taking ones with issues to GAR. Novice7 | Talk 06:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the main problem about the state of the Queen B articles is that they have been written hastily and immediately nominated like there will be no more time in the world to edit them. Myself, involved in the SL project wanted to span it over time to make sure everything was right, and next thing I knew it was attempted to be nominated for FAC in a few days after initial expansion. I also was involved a bit in "Diva", but it was nominated before I could continue fixes. But not calling anyone out in particular, or her articles, it seems to be a trend across GANs. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 06:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I'm not sure how a few of these got past GA reviewers, but they certainly don't deserve to be of GA status. As Candyo32 said, many of them have sloppily written prose and seem hastily created. --Cprice1000talk2me 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I commend efforts being proposed and made here to improve the quality of articles, especially those listed as GAs. However, it is factually incorrect to say that GAs "are supposed to represent our *near best* articles". They are not: according to the GA criteria, "A good article is a *satisfactory* article that has not met the criteria for featured articles. The good article criteria measure *decent* articles". Good articles should be assessed against the GA criteria, not against other articles, which may be of considerably higher quality than required for GA. Thanks. Geometry guy 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA-worthy in current state?
- If I Were a Boy - Agree -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) - TBC -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For this one, too many cooks spoiled the broth. Too much of Copy-edits from everyone, and the prose deteriorated again. When I green-lit Jivesh to nominate it, I was happy with the flow nad prose, but alas. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm concerned there's too much meat and not enough bone to support it. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 08:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) - Agree , almost FA. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Diva (Beyoncé Knowles song) - Disagree, issues with the introduction, infobox, referencing. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ego (Beyoncé Knowles song) - Disagree, multiple referencing issues, poor quality prose and horrific introduction. fail
- Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song) - Agree -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Broken-Hearted Girl - Disagree, this is amongst the worst of the bunch. The readability is horrific. The introduction does not conform to WP:LEAD and the sentence quality leaves a lot to be desired. The Background and release section, for example, contains tiny sentences and repeats the release history. If there's a lack of information that doesn't justify repetition (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). fail -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- e.g. in Background and release section, the recording information is already given in the infobox. And you start sentences with the same phrase three times. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 08:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Video Phone (song) - Agree
- Why Don't You Love Me (Beyoncé Knowles song) - Disagree it reads like a WP:QUOTEFARM. The entire article is almost exactly made up of nothing but quotes. No attempt to paraphrase or bundle/condense things. Background and release section is ridiculously long and unstructured. Amongst other things. fail -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio (Beyoncé Knowles song) - Disagree. Multiple issues with the article structure. The article lacks sufficient detail and breadth in coverage. It is also oversectionalised and I've spotted one or two NPOV issues. Additionally it, too, reads like a quote farm. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall pass four out of ten. In my opinion three of these articles would fail utterly and completely. Sorry guys and girls. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope we can better this articles. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just looked at Deja Vu article. It has some unsourced statements (or section like credits). Novice7 | Talk 07:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the Sasha Fierce things have just come up in the past few weeks. The BDay and Dangerously in Love GA's have gone downhill for a while now. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 07:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And Irreplaceable is practically at FARC, at least
15 8 dead links. Tbhotch™ © Happy New Year 07:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So guys, lets take up one article ata time and better it for trying to retain their status. Which one should we work on first? The FAs? They are my strong point obviously. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Well, from what I've seen reviews before 2008 were not this thorough and many articles passed. I know this is off-topic, but see Ashlee Simpson discography. So many unsourced additions.. Novice7 | Talk 07:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I suggest that the project stops nominating any more Beyoncé articles and focusses on improving the ones already given GA status to prevent them from being delisted. That has to be main priority. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 07:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats a good one Uniquboy, I believe SL is the last nomination atm that we should have. PRs are fine, like "Halo". We have to talk about the NFCC of the images too. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it would help (since we have some lead issues) to establish basic standards for what makes a good lead section.... e.g. When Love Takes Over, 4 Minutes (Madonna song) and Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song) but not Ego (Beyoncé Knowles song) and most certainly not Broken-Hearted Girl. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 08:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Broken-Hearted Girl is definitely the worst and needs attention immediately. The prose is terrible and it's so choppy. In fact, most of them are like this. It's actually quite sad that these articles are in this poor condition; Beyoncé deserves better. :) I don't like how Singles Ladies has been ruined by so many copy edits; "too many cooks spoil the broth." Also, I agree with Lil-Unique1, they need to stop nominating articles of inferior quality and then having reviewers see past those problems and promoting them to GA status. I think 4 Minutes should be what they are all based on, since it has one of the best lead sections I've seen. --Cprice1000talk2me 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should be reflective of the song. "If I Were a Boy" suits, as it could be comparable to "4 Minutes" or "When Love Takes Over." But songs of smaller stature like "Broken-Hearted Girl", "Ego", "Why Don't You Love Me" should be similar to smaller scaled works like "Lil Freak" and "I Can Transform Ya." Seeing leads that are bigger than sections themselves should set off alarms. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 20:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes of course. Apologies I should have pointed that out. The thing with "Broken-Hearted Girl" is the lead is not all-encompassing and is of poor quality prose. That's the trouble. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Broken-Hearted Girl
- I agree that Broken-Hearted Girl is sub-standard. For some reason I felt a bit rushed when I put it together, and have neglected it a bit. However Lil-Unique, can I ask what about its lead is not up-to-scratch? It is a smaller article, as was not released in the US, and had a poor response elsewhere, therefore there are not many sources of info. Consequently, the lead is smaller, as there is less to cover from the body. Also, with the release section, is it not meant to cover the history pretty broadly? I plan to do a good revamp of it, though. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles don't have to have set sections. You give them sections according to the information available. Take Hello Good Morning by Diddy-Dirty Money. It has no information about its background like "BCG" therefore rather than try to fudge a section I've started off with composition. I would recommend you merge the background and composition sections as both are quite small. Folllow this format:
- "BCG" is a blah blah blah song, written by XYZ. It is written in the musical key of ... with a chord progression and time signature of abc. It was produced by StarGate, who used a piano-based melody for the base of the production. According to Mr Smith... "it also uses tender strings and hollow drums". Initially it was intended to be released as the sixth single (source), but was eventually released as the seventh (source). Etc.... The lead we can address after the rest of the article is fixed. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 08:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose there is any way at all that [http://www.allgigs.co.uk/view/review/4321/Beyonce_Broken_Hearted_Girl_Single_Review.html is reliable? Shame. it has quite a detailed analysis... Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but its not reliable. However a quick search of google comes up with the following sources:
- Ironic that you've used this source in the composition section but not in the review section. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 09:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fraser McAlpine's reviews aren't actually reviews. They don't offer any real criticism. He writes in such a sarcastic/joking tone that it is hard to tell when he is being serious and when he isn't. His writing is great for composition, but he doesn't really offer an opinion on the song. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've put nothing about the UK release despite the UK being one of the biggest music markets. Did you seriously not search google when expanding this article? It took me less than 5 mins to find these sources. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 08:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Female First actually reliable? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When it was discussed previously at RSN there have been few objections to it. See the article now... I've re-written the background section for you. Now by trawling through the album's many reviews as well as the sources above I expect you can follow suit fixing the rest of the article's sections including expanding the critical reception. I'm sure you'll agree this is more like it? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 09:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Thank you. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I did already nominate BHG for a GAR. Do you want me not to be bother with it? It just looks like you guys are trying to fix it up. I'm sorry again for passing it wrongfully. I really didn't take notice the standards of her other ones. ℥nding·start 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments at the GAR would be welcome. As I note above (in the same edit as this), articles should be assessed for GA status against the GA criteria, not the perceived quality of other GAs. Of course, all efforts at improving article quality are welcome. Geometry guy 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course each article should be taken on its own merit (different info is available for each) but as I've said in my comments above "BHG" has been rushed. The quality of prose is missing and so is vital information about the single which could have been found by looking at other Beyoncé articles and looking at which sources have been used. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diva, Ego, Single Ladies, Radio
I have formatted all references on these articles. I have also put the year end and decade end charts for all songs of Beyonce apart from "Get Me Bodied, "Greenlight" and "Ring the Alarm". I have noted that "Irreplaceable" has a dead link from Rolling Stone, which i am not able to replace. I have already formatted all references in "Irreplaceable", replaced redirect links and dead links (except one or two). I will work on "Why Don't You Love Me" very soon. I know the articles has too many quotes. Sorry for that. And when all this is finished, i will open a second PR for "Single Ladies" and upgrade "Check on It" to GA. I have not been here lately because i was in some kind of serious trouble. But now i am here. And i will help to the maximum for my Queen B. Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sit down kiddo, its good to have my enthusiastic user back. :) Hope your real life issues never stop you again from editing here. :D I am very happy to see the developements on the GA articles. I personally was taking note of the FA articles of WP:BEY, and felt that all three have deteriorated in terms of prose and content. Esp, both DV and IRR, donot conform to WP:LEAD, have issues of NFCC, and slow poisoning in terms of fancruft. I am taking up the charge to clean the muck and the shit off their faces. Any one has any point? — Legolas (talk2me) 11:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have some good news for you. The dead links (There were many) have already been replaced by me. I have formatted all references ++ I added some information to Critical Reception but i could not manage to write a better lead. You are infinite times better than me in these issues. And yes, i am very happy to be back and everything is alright now. I am so happy. I have also added year end charts to ll articles of Beyonce. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comments at Candy's talk page. I did not know about it. Novice7 gave me the link. Thank you for calling me an "enthusiastic" editor. I love Beyonce. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are enthusiastic, and that's really good. I felt you were a little gloomy that day and thought the discussion would cheer you up :) Novice7 | Talk 13:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes yeas, we know you love Bee, but another line of "I Love Queen BEEEE" and I will seriously suffer a brain damage, or might even hang myself!! Anybody has anything to say for the FAs? — Legolas (talk2me) 16:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, Legolas :D Yes, about FAs, they are good, but I really don't see them parring with 4 Minutes or some other recent FAs. For example Irreplacable, Credits (no source), what is MT in certifications (actually I don't know). And, I don't know about this, but, is the screenshot okay? I mean NFCC?? Also, usage of "#", and some unsourced statements. Novice7 | Talk 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Legolas, i will never repeat that sentence, i mean i will try my best because i do not want you to hang yourself as i need your help nearly everyday. On which articles do you want me to work? Something i will love to do is formatting references in all the articles. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|