Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baby Boy (song)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [1].

Baby Boy (song)

edit

previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)


Self-nominator I asked the user who opposed this article's previous FAC to conduct a copy edit and its now ready. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - It looks good, but the prose is still not brilliant. I can see misuse of commas throughout, and I even found a spelling error. Please get another copyeditor to go through it. Lists of copeditors can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members. Also, is the fair use image in the music video section really needed? The article already has many good photographs. References look good, links are fine. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that makes you oppose, I'll try to sift through the article and try to contact someone to copy edit. I think i need to capture the best image for the video for it to pass. --Efe (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I'll remove the image. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still opposing. There are still commas everywhere I look, for no good reason. For example, " "Baby Boy" is a hybrid of R&B and dancehall, and also features influences from reggae." - Why the comma here? There are similar examples all the way throughout. The unnecessary music video picture is still there. Now that I think about it...you've never written R&B in the full (which you should, on the first instance). And isn't it contemporary R&B, not just R&B? I still think this needs a copyedit from someone new to the text. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have only addressed what I mentioned, please get a copyeditor new to the text involved - they will help polish and make the prose "brilliant". See the links of copyeditors I posted above earlier. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For non-copy editors like me, or should I say, non-English native, how do you gauge "brilliant"? --Efe (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, a prose becomes brilliant when it has no misused punctuations, clear language, correct grammr, no awkward passages, and the like. If you can spot some of them in the article, I welcome you to highlight it here so that I can fix them. Thank you very much. --Efe (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a copy editor already. --Efe (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not many edits have been made from editors other than yourself since 27th May - can you get someone else involved for copyediting? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks much better now that it has been copyedited. And in response to your earlier comment on someone's Talk page, Efe, I am not hard to please - I just like the prose to be excellent as it should be for a featured article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. I left a response in your talk page. --Efe (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is this so important that it need s mention in the lead? "The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers recognized the British record company EMI at the 2005 Pop Music Awards as Publisher of the Year, for publishing "Baby Boy" as well as other songs recorded by contemporary artists." An award for the record label isn't important for the song.

I'll remove that. --Efe (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to discuss more about the song's music and the lawsuit. If Sheet Music Plus isn't even notable by Wikipedia standards, what makes it a reliable source? indopug (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned about the lawsuit. The sheet music is published by Hal Leonard Corporation, so I believe its reliable. --Efe (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested that the music video image be removed because it is was copyrighted material, and I do not think a fair use rationale can be justified when the article is already well illustrated with free images. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*nods* They're usually seen in song FAs but I see your point. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Yes, it's a book, but the telling phrase here in the Google review is "tell-all book" and it's a publisher I've never heard of. Google search on the publisher reveals they are probably reliable. It's also classified as a "Juvenile" book. While I won't say it's unreliable, it might be able to be replaced with something better. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source that tell the same information. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given what it's sourcing, it's probably reliable and I've struck it. Is the other one still being used? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yah. Its still there. I cant access the site now; the connection got awry. Any strong reason for me to remove it? Or can find any "about us" in there site that suggests negative impression? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is it looks like a personal or fan site. Granted the information isn't exactly controversial, but it is going to what appears to be a personal site. This seems to bear out the "fan site" impression, it says "... it builds on our legacy as the #1 fan site for MTV's TRL, and it reflects the community that keeps the site alive to this day." Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that fail against WP:RS? Is the sourced content very controversial? Am not expert on this so Im depending on you. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think it fails RS. However, if you want a second opinion (and I won't be at all offended if you do) go ahead and ask about it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks for the link. --Efe (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments taken from my talk page
  • What does it mean that the tour "began from late 2003 to early 2004"? It can only begin at one point in time, did it last this long?
  • There's an inconsistency between "Murder She Wrote" and "Murder He Wrote". This may not be wrong, but it needs clarification.
  • Under "Chart performance": "attained more and immediate commercial success than". This makes no sense to me at all.
  • Description of the video does not require sourcing, as the video is the source. Still WP:POV terms like "footage designed to have sex appeal"/"Knowles tosses herself sensually" should be avoided.
  • In the same section: "Scenes of Knowles and Sean Paul are separate." If the two artists do not appear together, I assume this is because they shot the video at different times, perhaps even at different locations. Can you find sources for this?
    • No. But its in the video. There is no scene where two is present. They always have different scenes. Like Knowles with a man; Sean with girls. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Lampman Talk to me! 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Nice article overall but still needs some fine-tuning. Points in the first few sections:
  • "The track was produced by Knowles and Storch, and was released on October 14, 2003" - second "was" probably not necessary.
Removed. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The case, however, was dismissed the following year in favor to the defendants." - "however" not contradicting anything
Removed too. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole of "Background and writing" is a bit clumsy and occasionally seems overly informal ("something was missing", "delighted") although that may be hard to get around. I think it should be "was to add vocals"; the phrase "whose musical approach she admired" jars with me slightly (possibly a personal thing); "Knowles talked to him by phone for possible collaboration" does the same (should it be "about a possible collaboration"?).
Is "whose musical approach she admired" tends to be POVic? Knowles say it in a source. Anyway, Ill try to change it. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Roger Friedman of FOX News" - that statement does not suggest he has the expertise or credentials to comment; does he? Is he a music journalist? If so, it would be better to say that than simply "of FOX News".
Removing the name. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sequel of sort" - it's quoted, but we have no idea who sees it as that? The artists, the journalists, the public?
The artist? Is it better to add his name? --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the releases varied in content" - how and why? Is it worth mentioning at all?
Amh, this part has been fixed so many times. Am removing it. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was released in 2003." - "which was" could be removed.
Removed. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is especially bad, but I think the article can be improved and requires detailed attention all over for words which can be cut, sentences which can be phrased more clearly or concisely, etc. I don't think it's far off though. Trebor (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking pretty good since the copyedit. Quick points: "In the following scene, Knowles is seen on a bed tossing herself" - um, in the UK tossing can refer to something else which I'm assuming you don't mean...might be worth rephrasing. And the first sentence of "Chart performance" (which has a lot of commas - maybe split it) says the song "attained more and immediate commercial success than "Crazy in Love"" - the "immediate" doesn't really make sense. Did it receive more commercial success, more immediate commercial success, or something else? Trebor (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that alarmed me too (!) The chart performance sentence is fixed, I think. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
No get rid of it as fast as you can. See cmt from trebor above....eek. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that chart performance need to be so huge? It is very dry and boring: it charted here, here , and here, and there too. And all the information is sufficiently covered by the chart tables below. Honestly, I don't see anybody reading the section with interest (if at all); whittle it down to a paragraph and add it to the Reception section.
  • The recption section is meant for for magazines saying if the song is good or bad and why. "Lisa Verrico of the daily US newspaper The Times called the song a "Latino-tinged collaboration ... set to clicky beats that sound like castanets"" is just a description of the music. Further, "called the song" is poor wording in this case.
  • The lead suffers from proseline.
  • OK, not exactly "proseline" a bunch of disconnected sentences that hardly bring out whatever is unique about the song.

Needs much copy-editing, indopug (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved. — JD554 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entering the top ten in most countries" in the lead section and "peaking inside the top ten on most charts" in
  • Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I mean is that there are a lot of countries and is it really known that the song reached the Top 10 in most of them? If it's not I would suggest "many" instead of "most", or something to that effect. --JD554 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Chart performance". Are you sure? There are an awful lot of countries and indeed charts. You also say "In most European countries" but then only list 12 in the charts section (there are approximately 50 countries according to Europe).

Says "many" now. I think 12 covers that. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in August 7 to 8 in 2003" should on "on August 7 and 8 2003"
  • Given the The Guardian's reputation for spelling mistakes, I'm quite amused that you've spelt it "Guardin" in reference #22.
  • All Music Guide in references #10 and #42 should be Allmusic.
  • The infobox should only contain the earliest know release date (the Canada one?)
  • I agree with indopug's comments about "toasting". I keep imagining Sean Paul saying "here's to you" before drinking a glass of wine. Maybe I'm just too old!
Ha..There's an image! How would you suggest we rephrase it? Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I can't think of anything I'm afraid, but it's not a huge issue. --JD554 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--JD554 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support Gave this a copy edit, but there are a few issues above that I'm sure Efe will be able to tend to. I think the article is quite comprehensive, and the "Composition and theme" is particularly well done; an area usually sadly lacking in articles of this kind. I'm also impressed by free images, though I do see an About.com. ref which needs to be repaced or removed. As a disclaimer I do love Beyoncé; though I rarely listen to her music. Anyway.... Ceoil (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Well done sir. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ceoil for the help. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Tips hat) Just doin' my job. ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks sir! I mean Jb. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further: thanks to Ceoil's remarkable copy-editing, the prose is fine indeed. Just two more points:

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/Baby_Boy_(song)&oldid=1126593346"