Wikipedia:Peer review/Crazy in Love (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive1

Crazy in Love (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to take it to FA soonest possible. This is hopefully the second PR the article will be getting. I promise i will do my best to better this article. I really want Beyonce to be one of the artist having the best articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is not a complete review, just a few comments.

Lead

"After having been added to US radios on May 18, 2003, Columbia Records released the song as the album's lead single on May 20, 2003." - Columbia Records wasn't added. Maybe "After US radio stations began playing the album on May 18, 2003, Columbia Records released the lead single on May 20"? Or something like that. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Crazy in Love" was critically lauded, with music critics complimenting the assertiveness with which Knowles delivers the lyrics, the horn sample and the guest appearance of Jay-Z in the song. - To avoid suggesting that Knowles delivered the horn sample and the guest appearance, perhaps this would be better: "Crazy in Love" was lauded by music critics who complimented the assertiveness with which Knowles delivers the lyrics. They also praised the horn sample and the guest appearance of Jay-Z." Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotation marks. For quotations of four lines or more, blockquotes are better. WP:MOSQUOTE has more info. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart precession and succession

I would not make this chart collapsible because it might be inaccessible to screen readers. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Beyoncé e Jay-Z.jpg is licensed as free on the Commons, but the source page on Flickr says that all rights are reserved. Unless the uploader to the Commons owns the copyright, he or she can't make a non-free image free. Is the image really free? How can we tell?

The Flickr upload bot uploaded the image, which means that it was under a cc-by license, but the owner has since made it "all rights reserved". Since Flickr free-use tags are irrevocable, it is fine to use on Wikipedia. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that two non-free images pass WP:NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The second image, "File:Crazyinlove.jpg", appears to be purely decorative.

Other

The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds three dead links in the citations.

Only one dead link remains. I will replace it later. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very helpful, my friend. I shall made the necessary changes soon. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]