Talk:B'Day/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 16:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Nearly 3 months is too long to wait for a GA Review, will begin shortly!

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Quite a lot of mistakes/cases of not enough detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Lead info

1. "Its release was meant to coincide with Knowles' twenty-fifth birthday". It reads like it didn't coincide with her birthday, even though it did. Re-word to the past tense → "It was released to coincide with Knowles' twenty-fifth birthday".
2. " However, the project was put on hiatus due to the recording of Destiny's Child's final studio album Destiny Fulfilled and her starring role in the 2006 movie Dreamgirls." Need to place a comma in the sentence, because I needed to take a breath badly by the time I got to Dreamgirls lol, → ", Destiny Fulfilled,".
3. "she employed techniques for faster collaboration" ? What do you mean by "she employed techniques" ? You need to elaborate on this, be specific as to what this means.
4. "Live instrumentation was employed" → employed was used in the previous sentence, use "used".

   • Not any more. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

5. "B'Day Anthology Video Album was..." → "The B'Day Anthology Video Album was...".

   • Why? Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

   • Because it's basic grammar. It's like starting a sentence with "Album" instead of "The album". Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 01:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

   • The title is B'Day Anthology Video Album doing what you're suggesting is like writing "The B'Day was released... Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

   • Agree. --Efe (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

   • No, because you would say "The B'Day album". It makes more sense to read with "the" before it: "The B'Day Anthology Video Album was..." , but if you don't want to change it, then don't, I am only trying to help. Considering how many failed nominations this article has had, I would have assumed that you would want it to pass this time. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 13:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

   • B'Day Anthology Video Album again, its a title. --Efe (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

   • Considering how many failed nominations this article has had, I would have assumed that you would want it to pass this time Nah, its not how we wanted it to be. --Efe (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

#"...released alongside the deluxe edition of B'Day, and contains..." Tense issue, change "contains" to "featured".

1. • Transferred that clause. --Efe (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

2. "...and it has..." → remove "it"
3. "which she titled" → "called"

   • Why? Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

   • "titled" just doesn't fit in with the sentence, well it didn't to me when I read it. "Called" seems more appropriate. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 01:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

   • The title is TBE, therefore, we can say she titled it so. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 17:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Will continue tomorrow.

• Background

1. "by her band Destiny's Child" → Sounds like it is her band, and it wasn't, contrary to what people may think of her elevated status in the group. Remove "her band".
2. ", which was her childhood dream" → ", which was a childhood dream of hers". I'm sure it wasn't her only childhood dream.
3. "second album because she had landed the starring role in Dreamgirls" → "second album due to the fact that she had a lead role in Dreamgirls". She wasn't the sole star in the film, which is what you imply.
4. "and manager" might want to say "and manager (at the time)" as he is no longer her manager.

• Recording and production

1. "Knowles rented the Sony Music Studios in New York City, and taking influence from her boyfriend Jay-Z's method in collaborating with multiple record producers, she had four of Sony's recording studios going simultaneously." → Tense issues. "Knowles rented the Sony Music Studios in New York City, and was influenced by her husband Jay-Z's method of collaborating with multiple record producers, which prompted her to use four of Sony's recording studios simultaneously.".
2. ", spending up to fourteen hours a day during the recording process" → Doesn't make sense "...a day in the studio".
3. "B'Day, which is coined as a tribute to Knowles' birthday,[12] was completed in three weeks, ahead of the originally scheduled six weeks." → Tense issues. "The title "B'Day" was coined as the album was released on Knowles' birthday, and was completed in three weeks, ahead of the originally scheduled six weeks". Tribute is the wrong word here.

• Composition (Themes)

1. No issues.

• Composition (Musical Style)

1. "like Beyoncé's previous album," → "Knowles", not "Beyonce's". Keep consistency with "Knowles".
2. "songs in B'Day through" → "songs on B'Day". They aren't "in" it, wrong choice of word.
3. "Evident on the song" What is evident on the song? You need to specify this before, not after, your point about Deja Vu.Actually, this sentence doesn't make sense, change to " "This is showcased on "Déjà Vu", which utilizes bass guitar, conga, hi-hat, horns and the 808 drum, and features rap vocals by Jay-Z". Too many words were over complicating the sentence.

   Done, except I kept "evident" instead of "showcased" for a more NPOV. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Releases and promotion

1. "B'Day was first released outside of North America through Columbia Records in collaboration with Sony Urban Music and Music World Music on September 4, 2006 to coincide with Knowles' 25th birthday." Where?? You don't go on to explain this. Was it a global release on the 4th? You need to elaborate, or include a "Release history" like this with a wikichart toward the end of the article.

   Not necessary. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, it is. I just asked someone and they said that one should be included. Don't bold the countries though. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

   "It is advised to have it" does not make it necessary. The prose already makes the release info clear enough. Feel free to construct a release history wikitable yourself (I won't revert), but I feel that with re-released albums, prose is the easiest way to communicate this info so as to not over-complicate and confuse readers. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

2. "Seven months from (Change "from" to "after") the release of the original version, an expanded double-disc deluxe edition of the album was released on April 3, 2007 (In North America??),[26] which was later released on April 23 in the United Kingdom".
3. "Aside from" → "In addition to'"
4. " the new edition features..." → "the deluxe edition featured..."
5. "including "Beautiful Liar"" → Tense issues "which included"

   Errm, it still includes BL. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   What?? Just change "including" to "which included" Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

   That makes it sound like the edition no longer includes it. Past tense is not required 100% of the time. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

6. ""Amor Gitano" ("Gypsy Love"), a flamenco-pop duet with Mexican singer Alejandro Fernández and a soundtrack for Telemundo's "El Zorro" telenovela,[29] is included in the new edition, alongside several Spanish re-recordings." → ""Amor Gitano" (Spanish for "Gypsy Love"), was a flamenco-pop duet with Mexican singer Alejandro Fernández, which served as the soundtrack for Telemundo's "El Zorro" telenovela,[29] and was also included on the deluxe edition of "B'Day", alongside several Spanish re-recordings.". Also, several Spanish recordings of what? Amor Gitano or other songs? Need to say Spanish after for Gypsy Love because who is to know what language it is in?

   It still exists. It does not need to be in past tense. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

7. "songs in foreign language" → "songs in a foreign language"
8. "four or five years ago". When? Be specific.
9. You say "B'Day Anthology" here, but in the lead info you say "B'Day Anthology Video Album". Which one do you want to use? Be consistent.
10. "Most of the videos are accompaniments for her up-tempo tracks;[30] it is more on retro, colors and black hair styles which Knowles thought would be like her character Deena." → "Most of the videos were accompaniments for the up-tempo tracks on the album;[30] which featured retro stylisation, use of color and black hair styles, as Knowles thought it would create a resemblance between herself and the character she played in Dreamgirls, Deena Jones."
11. "The shooting...". Perhaps include some of the video directors in this sentence, or mention Melina Matsoukas, as she directed 4 of the videos. Change to: ", and were directed by Jake Nava, Anthony Mandler, Melina Matsoukas, Ray Kay, Sophie Muller, Diane Martel, Cliff Watts and Knowles.[33]" Grammar point, and put Watts second to last as he doesn't have a hyperlink.

    There is nothing wrong with the current grammar, and the fact that Watts has not article is irrelevant. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, but it disrupts the flow. But whatever, I know you won't change it. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

12. "Other editions of the second issue in several countries do not include the Spanish songs, but instead the ten music videos in the video anthology DVD.[33]" "The Spanish songs were not included on many of the international releases of the deluxe edition. Those that did not feature the Spanish songs featured the ten music videos in the video anthology DVD instead.[33]"

Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 15:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Will continue tomorrow.

• Releases and promotion - Singles

1. ""Déjà Vu" was..." → "Deja Vu, featuring Jay-Z, was...".
2. ""Green Light" was planned to be released as the second single for the international market, but the management opted for "Ring the Alarm" instead, which was released in the United States only while "Irreplaceable" was serviced to international markets as the second single and third overall single from the album.[36]" Can you re-word this to make it flow better, might need to break it up a bit.
3. "and charted well." re-word this.
4. "Irreplaceable" was the most successful single off the album, having earned positive critical response and performance in the music market, noted for staying on the Billboard Hot 100 at number one for ten consecutive weeks." → "Irreplaceable" became the most successful single to be released from the album and received positive critical acclaim, and spent for ten consecutive weeks atop the US Billboard Hot 100 chart."
5. "Get Me Bodied" was the album's lowest-charting U.S.-released single, having reached the Billboard Hot 100 below top fifty." Remove the hyphen before 'released' and can you say the actual chart position, because "having reached the Billboard Hot 100 below top fifty." just doesn't read right. Write "and peaked at number sixty-eight."
6. "features former band-mates Kelly Rowland and Michelle Williams and sister Solange Knowles in its 1960s-influenced instructional music video." Former band mates, you need to say the band. → "features former Destiny's Child band-mates Kelly Rowland and Michelle Williams, as well as her sister, Solange Knowles, in its 1960s-influenced instructional music video."
7. You might want to mention that although they were not released as singles, music videos for Kitty Kat, Suga Mama, Flaws and All and Freakum Dress were filmed for inclusion on the Anthology Album.

   BAVA is already mentioned in previous paragraph. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

   I know, but mention the actual song titles. You could also mention that Kitty Kat went on to peak at 66 on the US Hot R&B/Hip Hop songs chart, look here. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

   Those songs are not singles. As for the non-singles that have videos: readers can navigate to the BAVA article or individual song articles. That is why those articles exist. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

8. Also, anywhere in this paragraph, and the whole article for that matter, where you say either "Hot 100" or "Billboard Hot 100", change to "US Billboard Hot 100"

   Why? The country and publisher need only be mentioned the first time. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   For every new section where you mention the Hot 100, the first time just write "US Billboard Hot 100".

• Releases and promotion - Tour

1. "Knowles named the band Suga Mama" Why?

   She provided no reason. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

2. "well as singing songs from B'Day, Knowles also performed tunes from Dangerously in Love[47] and gave a Destiny's Child medley.[48] " → "As well as singing songs from B'Day, Knowles also performed songs from her previous album, Dangerously in Love (2003),[47] and performed a medley of Destiny's Child songs.[48]" Don't use "tunes", you should have put the release date in brackets after Dangerously in Love and don't hyperlink Destiny's Child as it already is in the Singles section above.

   It is indicated previously when DIL was released. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

3. "She embarked on the tour in Japan on April 10, 2007[29] and concluded it on November 12 in Tapei, Taiwan.[49" Consistency. Either put the venue before the date both times or put the date before the venue both times. When you say November 7, put "the same year" or "2007", because some people could interpret that as being 2008. It's only a little thing, but some people don't have any common sense to work it out.
4. Hyperlink "Los Angeles" and remove the hyperlinks for Kelly and Michelle, as they are hyperlinked in the Singles section above.

• Reception - Commercial Performance

1. "B'Day peaked at number one on the Billboard 200, the official albums chart in the United States, on September 23, 2006.[50] The album sold 541,000 units first week into its release,[50] becoming Knowles biggest debut week sales in the Unites States compared to her other three albums" → "B'Day debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 on September 23, 2006,[50] with first week sales of 541,000 units,[50] becoming Knowles biggest first week sales in the Unites States compared to her other three albums." WP:OR Source for it being her highest first week sales out of her 4 albums?

   Reworded, but slightly different from what you suggested. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

2. "as triple platinum, combining the sales from the original B'Day album with the deluxe edition." → "as 3x Platinum, combining the sales from the original version of B'Day with those of the deluxe edition."

   No. "triple platinum" is better than "3x platinum", especially in prose. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   Well I've been told in my reviews that "x" should be used. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹

• Charts and certifications

1. Can you attach the lone 2011 chart to the 2006 chart, there's no need for it to have been separated and would improve the aesthetic as they are different widths. What has happened to the wiki chart that showed B'Day had charted again in the UK this year?

   The re-entry is irrelevant to the album's overall performance. Generally, we don't keep new tables for chart peaks for each year. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   I wasn't saying for every year, I mean't because so many of her songs re-entered the charts and so did B'Day because of her Glastonbury performance.

2. Why does the certifications chart feature the refs in the right hand column, but the other 4 charts features the refs in the left hand column? Be consistent.

   Most articles do this; it is because placing refs next to the chart positions looks strange because of the clash of numbers, and in the certs table after certs because in some countries there are two types of certifications received, and the refs are specific to that chart. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Awards

1. International Dance Music Awards WP:OR
2. Latin Grammy Awards WP:OR
3. MTV Europe Music Awards WP:OR
4. MTV Video Music Awards Japan WP:OR
5. Peoples Choice Awards WP:OR
6. The Record of the Year WP:OR
7. VH1 Awards WP:OR

Tell me when you have done this

• I highly disagree on this. A fact might not be properly sourced but not necessarily an Original Research. Especially awards which can be easily sourced. I must react on this because the reviewer stated below that "it warrants a fail" because of original research. "The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." --Efe (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well I disagree with you. I included awards on one of my GAN and I was told remove all the ones where a source had not been provided, or at least provide a valid source. And can you stop nitpicking at what I am saying like what you wrote below. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 15:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• References

1. Multiple problematic links, including 3 dead links

There are a lot of mistakes and issues which need to be resolved in this article. It warrants a fail, especially as there are 8 cases of WP:OR and lots of grammatical and prose issues. However, it has been failed two times before, and you have waited as near as makes no difference three months for this to be reviewed, and I think that if I fail the article, you might not get a review for perhaps yet another 3 months or possibly longer. Therefore, I will put it on-hold for 7 days. Leave me a message on my talk page when you have completed the edits. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 21:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Have gone through and put a strike through all points which have been addressed. Any points which have either been half addressed or not addressed are in bold. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 11:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another thing. This article might be badly written before but it has gone through massive editing by those who are native to the language. Putting that assumption aside and while we do uphold high standards in writing, GAN is not as strict as FAR. While I was amazed by the capacity of the reviewer to go over the details, this is some sort of nitpicking which is a process by which articles submitted to FAR go through. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, well I apologise for being too thorough and too detailed. Next time I won't really bother. It's obviously a bad thing that I like to provide a detailed review, and something I would have thought everyone would like to have to ensure that their nomination is to a very high standard, I know I would. You should always aim high, not for just enough. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 14:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sometime before, I was active in reviewing GA nominees, and I reviewed them based on my standards. But I realized there is an existing standard that all reviewers must follow. Anyway, providing detailed review is not a bad thing generally. --Efe (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Calvin, I appreciate your detailed and thorough review as it puts the article in the best shape it can be. Thanks. Efe, you are correct too; WP:WGN: "Article editors and reviewers should have as a common goal the ideal to make the article as good as it can be. However, the decision to list or not list an article should be based on the GA criteria alone.". I would like to thank you both for your tremendous help with the article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Passed :). You really stand your ground for things don't you! lol. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 22:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)