Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ucucha 20:56, 28 January 2012 [1].

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jivesh1205 (Talk) and Tbhotch.™ 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel it is safe to bring it back to FAC after three peer reviews, three failed FACs, four copy-edits by four experienced copy-editors, and much work done by the two of us. We hope the fourth time will be the good one. We will be very happy to make the corrections needed. Your help and suggestions are everything we need and more, we've written all over the page (forms part of the song's lyrics). :D With the essential being said, "Help us put an FA icon on it". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC) and Tbhotch.™ 19:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Jivesh boodhun. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I didn't do a full spotcheck, but I noticed that "glorious and perfectly produced" is a verbatim quote from the source used. Please check this before spotchecks are done
  • Be consistent in whether retrieval dates are included in addition to archive dates or not
  • Don't italicize editions
  • Nikki was probably referring to FN 43.
  • Check for repeated wikilinks in footnotes
  • Not done. On a quick check ASCAP is wikilinked twice. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare formatting on FNs 65 and 66 - why the difference?
    • I see none
  • Nikki, I sat down for 10 minutes but could not see the difference. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been fixed, but there's a similar problem with FNs 142 and 145 - check how publisher is treated. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 85: is this the correct title?
    • British Phonographic Industry's one or which? If the answer is yes, "Certified Awards Search" appears as a title. Tbhotch.™ 05:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current FN 84 - you're absolutely sure that "Certifified Awards Search" is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Certifified --> Certified. That was a nice catch. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord. What happened to my eyes. :D Thanks WP. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pitchfork Media or Pitchfork Media Inc.? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pitchfork Media is the publication, Pitchfork Media Inc. is the publisher. Tbhotch.™ 05:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first alone will do as I am not using the Inc. ending. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My points have been satisfactorily addressed. Happy to give the thumb up. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "January 20, 2009 in" missing comma; please check for consistency with MoS throughout article. The same applies with "[town/city], [city/country]," construction.
  • "relationship between Knowles's character and Ealy's." --> "relationship between Knowles's and Ealy's characters."?
  • ""Halo" was taken from a different disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce to "Diva"" --> What does "taken from a different disc" mean? The word to prior to "Diva" need to be replaced with from.
  • Well, I thought I was clear enough that in the production information that I Am... Sasha Fierce is a double album. The word to was verified by three copy-editors. You can check the history. In fact, I should say that they changed the sentence to what it is now for better understanding. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any particular reason why the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Release" is not placed at the paragraph's end so it follows a chronological order?
  • I think the US information should be grouped together. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the decision was out of her hands as her album" --> "but it was not her decision as her album"
  • Forgive me but your wording is awkward. Read it aloud. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL
  • "Clarkson was furious and confronted" --> "A furious Clarkson confronted"
  • I was told to avoid this sentence structure. Again, rad it aloud. You will understand why. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Halo" debuted at number 93 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart issue dated February 7, 2009.[63] It peaked at number five on the chart issue dated May 23, 2009.[64]" Perhaps ""Halo" debuted at number 93 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart issue dated February 7, 2009,[63] before peaking at number five on May 23, 2009.[64]"
  • Can I know what is wrong with the original sentence. Frankly, I see nothing wrong it in. Your sentence however, give the impression that the events occurred in a short length of time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy?
  • Did you realize the sentence itself is not correct? issue dated May 23, 2009 =/= May 23, 2009. Billboard charts are 13 days in advance. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "female artist in the 2000s decade" Since MoS is against using 2000s', and because nobody uses decade after "XX00s", perhaps replace with "female artist during 2001–2010".
  • ""Halo" had sold 2,518,000 digital downloads copies"
  • Done. I cannot understand what difference your wording will bring but I have changed it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't sell downloads, you sell copies.
  • Hmm, okay if you see it that way. Anyway, I have changed it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have missed this aspect in Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), and everybody seemed pretty happy but, are there any negative reviews at all? This article sounds very complimentary from top to bottom.
  • Unfortunately, no. It is not necessary for a song to have negative reviews. This is out of our hands. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over a period of six weeks up to April 4, it climbed to number four." Prior to those six weeks, did the single drop below number 98? Otherwise, we could just say ""Halo" entered the UK Singles Chart at number 98 on February 27, 2009,[80] before peaking at number four on April 4."
  • "two additional weeks in April 2009." Not sure when additional ever applies to chart positions; it's not like there's a threshold.
  • "At first she sang the ballad on stage, but later she descended to shake hands with everybody in the front rows." Perhaps "She initially sang the ballad on stage before descending to shake hands with everybody in the front rows"
  • The second paragraph of "Live performances" should be split because there are two distinct themes, Michael Jackon's death and the Haiti earthquake.
  • In both, she is paying tribute. There is no need to split it and I won't. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – At the nominator's request I ran an eye over the prose a little while ago. It seemed fine to me then and it still does. The subject of the article is not within my area of expertise, but I can say that I found the article clear, well proportioned and easy to read. Moreover, it looks to my layman's eye to be comprehensive and objective. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your nice comments. They made my day. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Declaration - I did some heavy copyediting on this article, so I am not quite a disinterested party. Nor am I knowledgeable about the subject, but it does seem a much-researched article with over 3,000 edits, and appears to cover every possible aspect of the song (and the prose is good). A labour of much love, indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this was not consciously but you just wrote what Beyonce said recently, "a labor of love", that's how she described her album. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The article says that "Ray LaMontagne became one of the primary inspirations for 'Halo'." It might be true, but the only supporting source does not say so. Just Ray, or am I missing something? --Efe (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singer was the first inspiration. The idea was always, “Let’s write a song that embodies Ray LaMontagne.” Then, they focused on his song "Shelter". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate. How did the editors arrive at that assumption? --Efe (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? I am not able to really catch what you wrote. It is simple. The singer was the inspiration at the very beginning. Then, they suggested they create a song like "Shelter", a song of that singer himself. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I assume there's other inspiration aside from Ray: one of the primary inspirations. --Efe (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just responding to your comment. You are starting it again. --Efe (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how to rephrase this, but "dips in and out" seems informal. --Efe (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informal? How is it informal when you don't know an alternative for it? I just checked my dictionary, there is none. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just I have no idea how to rephrase doesn't make the term informal. Dip. That's too vague, or something that is being used elsewhere in the internet. --Efe (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to find an alternative but what if I don't get one? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go get you copy editors. And because I f***ing don't have an idea how to get that term right doesn't warrant your antagonizing reviewers here. Be good to them. --Efe (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you adopting this tone now? I just asked a question, why was what I should do if I don't get one? Should I remove the whole sentence? It is absolutely natural that I expect you to have the solution (correction to be made) to an issue you raise. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you wanted it. I started very plainly and matter-of-factly, and then your sort of insulting a reviewer's comment: How is it informal when you don't know an alternative for it? --Efe (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen Mark, just like you I am also not a native speaker of English. I use the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (seventh edition). It clearly states when something is informal... (informal). However, it does not do so here. Nevertheless, I will see what can be done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "changes back and forth between..." would work as an alternative? I agree that "dips in and out" isn't ideal. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to what the copy-editor suggested. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Glee caption needs editing for prose
  • File:Beyonce_-_Halo.png: Sony link is dead
  • File:Ryan_tedder_one_republic_austria_3.jpg: image description indicates that caption credit is requested, and first source link returns error. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused for the first part. Will it be okay if I remove the first source? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original image was OK; see this MCQ discussion, where the author states he is fine to have his works go without credit in captions in Wikipedia, but wishes direct attribution in external uses. —Andrewstalk 01:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So can I add it back? I would love to have that image rather than the current one. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I did some copyedit work before it reached FAC, and with the combined efforts of several before or during the FAC, it seems to have overcome a tendency towards overly stiff prose. It is also certainly comprehensive; I can't imagine there'd be any more to say about the song. I'm not a Beyonce fan (I'm not even certain I've heard her music) but this seems very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and references. I am really satisfied with how this article looks after some good c/e. I really can't find on what could I possibly oppose. Nice song, well-written, comprehensive = perfect formula for FA =)! Cheers. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 14:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support After raising a few small issues, which have all been fixed, I am glad to support the article for FA. It is comprehensive and in-depth and I really do have to agree that there is little or nothing more that could be added to the article. The prose is good and it does make good reading, indeed parts of this article have intrigued me enough to make me go on to read others about issues raised by it. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I have discussed my concerns outside the review, most were dealt with but one still remains. There is a possibility that SYN or OR have crept in, in interpretations of sources. I will include the previous conversation from the talk page:[reply]

(Composition and lyrical interpretation (section))

  • None of the four sources say a stomp-box was used in either the video or the recording. Two of them mention stomp: "soul claps and step stomps" (stamping with the foot on the ground) and "a stomp-clap beat" (alternating between claps and foot stomps)
  • When we edit music articles, we must read and interpret what was written in a review. Here stomp means stomp box, it is a percussive instrument which provides the beat. A stomp box provides sounds similar to foot steps. Again, I consulted experienced music editors before adding that into the article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely not - we cannot interpret the quotes to derive what instruments were used, that would be WP:SYN or WP:OR. None of them say a stomp-box, they clearly say "stomp-clap" and "step stomps". You cannot interpret how the sound was made, only that two sources mention step-stomp and clap-stomp. I cannot stress how important that is. Here, nothing means stomp-box, they just mean that the sound is that of stomps. I was a sound engineer by trade, working in recording studios and live performances for 20 years and I would never try and identify what made what sounds. I have made recordings of percussion, organ, trombones, trumpet, sax and piano which were all played by a guitarist on a guitar synth - You would not be able to tell the difference to the real instruments, I know this because many people have commented on the cost of employing those musicians and how we managed to record it in such a small studio before being told the truth "it was one guy on a guitar". Chaosdruid (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: started reading, got to the second sentence:

    Included on the I Am... disc, it was intended to give a behind the scenes glimpse of Knowles, stripped of her make-up and celebrity trappings.

    Are we not missing some hyphens? — SandyGeorgia 01:03, January 18, 2012 — continues after insertion below
  • Hmm, not sure about this. Will it be good this way: Included on the I Am... disc, it was intended to give a behind-the-scenes glimpse of Knowles' life—stripped of her make-up and celebrity trappings. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then this:

    OneRepublic had to cancel their tour after Tedder had broken his Achilles tendon and underwent surgery.

  • I skipped down a few sections to this:

    Having spent 33 non-consecutive weeks on the chart, the song was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ), denoting shipment of 15,000 copies.

    Subordinate clauses? Can this be more smoothly worded?
  • Done for this.

Denoting? I'd like to see another pass at the prose, please?

  • Sandy, please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an excuse but that how it is done. I mean it is a style that many music editors have been following for years. Denoting has indicating and representing as synonyms. A certification denotes/indicates/represents shipment of xxx copies. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a WP:MOSNUM check is needed, sample:

    "Halo" debuted at number 40 on the New Zealand Singles Chart on February 2, 2009,[71] and peaked at number two three weeks later.

    number 40, but number two ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used WP:NUMBERS where number smaller than 10 are written in words and those greater or equal to ten are written in numerical form. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jivesh, that also states "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." —Andrewstalk 05:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Andrew, we have the word number in front. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note for future reference, Jivesh-- you should not interrupt another editor's comments [2] or separate their comments from their sig-- I've added the {{interrupted}} template to reattach my comments to my sig. I'm glad those fixes are underway, but those were only samples, and I'm concerned that, since so many grammatical issues showed up on my first look (even in the lead), the prose needs another independent look, and the article needs a MOS review. When I started reading the lead, I found unaddressed copyedit issues, so I looked closer at a few other sections and found more-- this is an indication that another close look is needed before promotion. But you're getting close-- keep at it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Sandy. And thanks for the last line, which is very encouraging. Do you think asking someone to run another look through the article will help? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could always ask Malleus, on the chance that he's still interesting in contributing to Wikipedia :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see repetitive prose ... some version of "certified platinum by ... denoting shipment of ... " occurs at least four times in two short paragraphs-- varying the prose would be good :) Also, if a spotcheck of sources (accuracy in representation and close paraphrasing), has been done, I'm missing it-- please let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested a spotcheck at WT:FAC, but on the prose and MOSNUM issues, we're moving backwards a bit :) If I get a chance today, I'll clean up some of the MOSNUM errors and have a new look at the prose, but I hope a reviewer will get to it first. I'm a bit worried about getting the text stabilized, since the article has seen several copyedits, and then subsequently errors are introduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you wholeheartedly Sandy. I have already talked to Malleus. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have queried the WP:MOS talk page, since WP:MOSNUM has changed wrt charts-- I'm not sure yet how to fix this article, but there are MOSNUM issues everywhere. Quotations also need to be checked: I found several with issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. But don't you think the original style I used was correct? I mean I have always used it or should I say, that's what I have been taught to use. In other words, writing only numbers less then 10 in words. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jivesh, similar quantites should use the same format, ie chart positions should be either all figures or all words. It is OK to spell out numbers from one to one hundred. —Andrewstalk 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from involved editor - Hi. Me and Jivesh have been fixing the prose and many rough spots have been dealt with. Any MOS or grammatical issues found were fixed. Although I cannot guarantee the prose is perfect, we've done our best. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with a few comments. This fine article is the result of a healthy collaboration, which is true to the spirit of Wikipedia. I saw two possible problems. Here, "The song also consists symphonic crescendos and electronic accents" is there an "of" missing as in "consists of". And, would "arrangement" be better than "song"? Is [sic] required in this quote, "the music and the emotion in the story is told so much better" ("is" should be "are")? Graham Colm (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am so happy. Having a support from you is very precious (and unexpected) to me. Really. Thank you wholeheartedly. I have fixed both issues. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support.
Meets all criteria as far as I can see. Orane (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Read through the article. Good job you guys. Ryōga Hibiki (talk • contribs) 07:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 6 sources found no verifiability problems or clear copyvio. That being said, compare "she was unaware of any similarities between the two songs" and "she was unaware of any similarities between her song and Beyoncé's "Halo"", or "the similarities are most notable in the backing tracks, which in both cases feature a melancholy piano, loud drums, and handclaps" and "some striking similarities, most notably in the backing track, which features somber piano, crashing drums and hand-claps.", or "challenged people to listen to the two ballads and to form their own views" and "challenge people to listen and form their own opinions". These are examples of wordings that are quite close between the article and its sources, and should be avoided or put in direct quotes as appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tbhotch and I have put some of them into quotes while we made some modifications to the others. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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/Halo_(Beyoncé_Knowles_song)/archive4&oldid=1140156327"