Talk:Naughty Girl (Beyoncé song)/GA1
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article flagrantly violates points 3b and 4 of criteria for GAs.
Let's start with the introduction: "Produced by Beyoncé and Storch," (fine) then "the song continues the Western sound of 'Baby Boy'". One needs to be a Beyoncé expert to know what this refers to. Then, later the song is "available in several countries" (obvious) “on CD and download, through Columbia Records”: Is Wikipedia in the business of selling downloads now? Unnecessary detail.
Still in the introduction, “Its lyrics make reference to a celebration of sexual lust and conquest, culminating in a desire for a one-night stand.” Completely literal spelling out of something obvious even just in the title's song. Unnecessary detail.
“opinions about how convincingly Knowles was able to portray a naughty girl were polarized.” Violation of 4. Is the song the Camp David Accords?
“Elsewhere, the single reached the top ten in New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and the top twenty in many European countries.” Borderline unnecessary detail. But in the body of the article there are two paragraphs on chart performance alone, the second graf including the Belgian territories of Flanders and Wallonia not to mention Oceania. Too much detail, giving undue weight to song release.
Next we have the "Background and release" section, which begins with a rehashing of what can be found on the main Beyoncé article: “After the release of her former group Destiny's Child's 2001 album Survivor, Beyoncé began a solo career and recorded her debut solo album, Dangerously in Love (2003). Knowles stated that it is more personal than her previous records because she was writing for herself.[1] She contacted Scott Storch, who had produced hits for Christina Aguilera, Robert Waller and her cousin, songwriter and personal assistant Angela Beyincé.[1]” Unnecessary detail.
Then, writing again goes off-focus into painful nitty, gritty detail: "The song was first released in the United Kingdom as a maxi single on April 5, 2004, containing four tracks as well as a multimedia one[5] and a CD single was released on May 18, 2004.[6] In the US, it was later released as a 12" single[7] and a CD single on April 20, 2004.[8] A different CD single was released in Australia on April 23, 2004[9] containing the album version and two remixes of the song, and Destiny's Child's "I Know" from The Fighting Temptations soundtrack – and later as a digital download on June 1, 2004.[10]
On April 26, 2004, "Naughty Girl" was released in Germany as a maxi single[11] while different CD singles were made available in the iTunes Store[12] and Amazon.com.[13] The song was released as a digital EP in several European countries, including Austria,[14] Belgium,[15] Denmark,[16] Ireland,[17] the Netherlands,[18] Norway,[19] Switzerland,[20] and Sweden in early May 2004.[21] The same EP was also serviced in Canada[22] and was exclusively released as a CD single in Switzerland on May 31, 2004.[23] "Naughty Girl" was released as a download-only single in New Zealand on June 1, 2004.[24]"
Whose eyes don't glaze over except for readers who are aspiring pop singers or die-hard fans of Beyoncé?
This graf is not only completely focus, it's pretentious: "According to Spence D. of IGN Music, Knowles' vocals on the song are layered, making them sound like '...a harem of Beyoncé's warbling for the affections of some sultan of swing.'[31] According to James Poletti of Yahoo! Music, the female protagonist in the song sings about her '...potential to turn on the filth.'[32]"
An explanation of the lyrics is again, explicit and obvious as the one sentence-description in the intro: "Lyrically, the song is a celebration of sexual lust and conquest, culminating in a desire for a one-night stand.[33][32] This "lustful sexual confidence" is further demonstrated in the lyrics of the first verse: "I'm feeling sexy / Wa[nt to] hear you say my name, boy/ If you can reach me, you can feel my burning flame / Feeling kind of N A S T Y / I might just take you home with me [...]"[34] and the chorus lines: " Tonight I'll be your naughty girl / I'm callin' all my girls / We're gonna turn this party out / I know you want my body [...].".[34]"
Lastly, the description of the music video is three paragraphs long, for something that didn't make all that much of a cultural impact on its own, the middle graf itself the plot summary of a typical dance music video. --Aichik (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Before going any further, and considering this is the second WP:GAR you open to the same subject, I can assume you know how GAR works. Question number one. Excluding this edit, have you tried to "fix any simple problems yourself. [without wasting] minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds." In some paragraphs you said "unnecessary detail". If it is unnecessary, why you didn't remove it by yourself in first place? Second question, you tagged it as if it has a long lead para, which is not true per WP:LEAD. But, have you tried to reduce its size? if not, why it is a "serious [problem] that you cannot fix"? Question number three, where is the correct GA criteria assesment? You find two problems, doesn't it fail other GA points? Question number 4, have you "Notified major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects" before GARing it? I see no talk pages discussions here, WP:BKYONCE, or major contributors. Why nobody has been notified about this?
- Apparently you are not understandind this is Wikipedia, this is a site where you can and will find people that does not think as you do. GAR is not a place to say "I believe this article is fancrufty" giving poor evidence about it, or to denote you have a problem with the subject of the article. GAR is serious than that, and for GARs like this is why WP:FAR decided to obligate FAR-taggers to attempt to discuss the issues before they nominate articles there. Perhaps the article is a B-class article, I haven't read it, but if you are going to start a crusade against Beyoncé, articles about and releated to her, "die-hard fans of Beyoncé" or anything releated to her, at least have a valid point to do so, and do it correctly, not as if everybody is for you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't entirely know the GAR process, I'm throwing myself into it so I can learn. I am hesitant to fix the problems myself because this is the second article that is overseen by an editor that has taken my edits very personally. But this article is glaringly not a Good Article and so I made these quick notes when I read the article so that someone else (like you) could find it and start to work on it and perhaps the author would feel less persecuted. You found it so why not work on it? Don't put me in the category of crusading against Beyoncé: I've done a ton of copyediting of that monster article on her and argued for many things that some editors thought weren't important, taken stuff out that was misleading. If you need a list, put a note on my Talk page, thanks --Aichik (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you "don't entirely know the GAR process", don't use it. The four questions I asked you, which you haven't answered yet, are the GAR rules you can easily find at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment at "Before attempting to have any article de-listed through reassessment, take these steps". Now, if you have a problem with Jivesh, it still trivial. "Naughy Girl" is within the scope of the WikiProjects: Songs, R&B and Soul Music and Beyoncé Knowles, Jivesh is not the author or owner of the article, and it was GANominated by Efe (talk · contribs), you don't have any justification to have not notified other people about the problems it has before GARing it. Now, if I found this GAR it was because I usually check what community wants to promote and delist. Should I work on it because you don't want to work on it? is it fair? Of course not. Recently, you have done nothing to help these articles. You just find an article, apparently edited by Jivesh and/or related to Knowles, tag it when you find minimal issues, you don't try to fix the issues (and you can take a few hours to do so (I reduced the lead at 4 in the morning in less than 10 minutes), you tag it and left it, and nobody is notified, and then you GAR it as if it was necessary; and there are two examples of this, and I'm sure "Why Don't You Love Me" was the next article in your sight. You've been here for more years than me and I have more experience than you. Frankly, stop doing this kind of editing or a topic ban will be requiered considering your editing from the last months. The evidence is your current ANI case. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't threaten me, Tbhotch. No action resulted from the ANI case, other that Jivesh and his allies showing how completely unobjective they are. Will this include you now too? Do I care? You jump to conclusions and make assumptions based on complete immaturity (or perhaps your personal problem--I'm not trying to be mean, just stating a possible fact). "Recently, you have done nothing to help these articles. You just find an article, apparently edited by Jivesh and/or related to Knowles, tag it when you find minimal issues, you don't try to fix the issues, you tag it and left it, and nobody is notified, and then you GAR it as if it was necessary" is complete exaggeration: You imply I did that to 10 articles when I only did this for this article and you know it. Why do I have to outline what I did step by step when it is right in front of your face? Efe (talk · contribs) is semi-retired, by the way, and these things happen. I tagged "Why Don't You Love Me" with completely appropriate edits, and you put a notice on my talk page then this nasty rant. I don't think I will be conversing with you anymore with this retardataire attitude that you remain stubbornly attached to.--Aichik (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't talk to me, I can't obligate you, but you opened this GAR and I am going to work on this page, you can withdrawn it or move it to a community GAR and let other people to do the right things. Finally somebody treats you like you treat others and you believe it is "nasty", "retardataire", and "stubborn", but this is the way you treat people who disagree with you, didn't you called Jivesh as misogynist, which is a potential violation of the living people policy? If Efe is semi-retired still trivial to what you should have. You have to notify him, not assume he will not return someday, and which is the excuse for the WikiProjects? They are what, inactive? You don't have justifications to do what you do, but you do them because you believe nobody will stop you, as you has returned with your uncivil and quasi-personal attacks just in this page. Just because your ANI case was archived(?) you have the right to do whatever you want because "No action resulted from the ANI case, other that Jivesh and his allies showing how completely unobjective they are"? If your concept of objectivity includes attack everybody and treat them as if you were better than them ("reality and truth"), let me inform you nobody is putting a gun in your head and obligates you to edit here. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't threaten me, Tbhotch. No action resulted from the ANI case, other that Jivesh and his allies showing how completely unobjective they are. Will this include you now too? Do I care? You jump to conclusions and make assumptions based on complete immaturity (or perhaps your personal problem--I'm not trying to be mean, just stating a possible fact). "Recently, you have done nothing to help these articles. You just find an article, apparently edited by Jivesh and/or related to Knowles, tag it when you find minimal issues, you don't try to fix the issues, you tag it and left it, and nobody is notified, and then you GAR it as if it was necessary" is complete exaggeration: You imply I did that to 10 articles when I only did this for this article and you know it. Why do I have to outline what I did step by step when it is right in front of your face? Efe (talk · contribs) is semi-retired, by the way, and these things happen. I tagged "Why Don't You Love Me" with completely appropriate edits, and you put a notice on my talk page then this nasty rant. I don't think I will be conversing with you anymore with this retardataire attitude that you remain stubbornly attached to.--Aichik (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Update? (TL;DR above) Can we get back on track here? Aichik, have your issues been resolved or addressed? This review has been open for close to three months with little activity. Adabow (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- No activity for over four months, so I am closing this as a keep. If someone disagrees, feel free to open a fresh GAR. 22:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)