Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive2

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:05, 8 April 2011 [1].

---

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

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

• Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive4

Nominator(s): Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because of the same reasons for the last time (see archive one). The article is well-organized, and as complete as it is possible. Thank you Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Query - This is a question I find myself having to ask of almost all music-related FACs: aside from the Billboard articles, have you made sure to consult all non-web sources that might be available? I'm primarily thinking of music periodicals here. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sincerely, I have to say no, I haven't. Recently, Adabow gave me five links I didn't see and I check them ASAP, so, I think I'll have to make some research at GBooks. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely focus on looking from material from magazines that don't host print material online: NME, Mojo, Q, Uncut, stuff Rolling Stone might not have, and so on. It also might be beneficial to ask around on Beyonce fansites to see if anyone has seen any articles that might be useful sources. I doubt there's anything available in book form at this point, so the mags look to be the one area you need to focus on source-wise before we can proceed further. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in my country (excepting for Rolling Stone) those magazines as far as I know don't exist, so it would be really difficult to me to find their information. I'll try to find all the relevant information online. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Images/Media

• Captions should be grammatically correct and meet WP:MOS rules

The images/media themselves are properly licensed, and those under fair use have appropriate FURs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you mentioned the period thing, so I removed them. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Dabs and deadlinks No dabs, one deadlink found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the dead external link. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It was really dead? I mean, it was the official Youtube video and for something I don't know it tagged it as dead when it was never dead, and VEVO is not internationally received. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I used to be able to view the SME video, but today it said it was unavailable in my country. I think that Vevo on YouTube is available worldwide. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Copy-editing needed throughout to eliminate redundancies and improve prose:

• "According to Simon Cowell, agent of British singer Leona Lewis, the writers originally created "Halo" for Lewis." → "According to Simon Cowell, the writers originally intended "Halo" for his client, British singer Leona Lewis."
  • Changed. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• "According to Ryan Dombal . . . reported by him": two attributions in one sentence.
  • Changed. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure of some of the sourcing; for eg: a tabloid for musical analysis.
  • Nor WP:EL nor WP:REFERENCES ban or prohibits "tabloids". Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• "As stated in the music sheet published at Musicnotes.com by Sony/ATV Music Publishing" is a comically long disclaimer for something as obvious and non-controversial as "'Halo' is a love song featuring a R&B and pop production".
  • Changed. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• The bit from "When Knowles delivers the lyrics..." is simply incomprehensible.
• The body begins with the dry "'Halo' was written by ..." - but we already know these facts both from the lead and the infobox. Is there a more interesting way to say this? Maybe you can delete that opening sentence completely and begin with Kidd's interview and origin story.
• The Composition section is extremely clunky and verbose. I suggest Slts#Composition as the gold standard to aim for.
• he worked with Knowles because "she’s Beyoncé! Once I heard the song, I had to do it" - this is an encyclopedia, puh-lease.
• The Promotion and covers section leaves me utterly perplexed, as do such sections in all new pop-song articles. Why the need to discuss every show where she performed the song? I fail to see how anybody outside of a hardcore Beyonce fan would need to know that "She also performed the song at The Late Show with David Letterman after an interview on April 22, 2009. The next day, she performed it at NBC's Today."
  • Sorry for being a fan, but it is part of the song's promotion. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As always, the above is only an indicator of issues, not a comprehensive list. A throughout review is needed and hopefully you can find a good independent copy-editor is sufficiently interested in the article to see it all the way through.—indopug (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, mostly on sourcing

• Referencing format is quite inconsistent, needs serious attention
• Did she really write her own album notes?
• Ref 9 - given that this is a digital download, can you provide an external link to the download page?
• What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? This?
• Agree that this article needs thorough copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, in that order:
  • Could you be so especific in which sources?
  • No, but there's no name of who wrote the album notes.
  • According to some users, Musicnotes is not a reliable source, but the music sheet itself is.
  • And what don't?
  • I've requested to a GOCE member some help here. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I can't really point to a specific source that's poorly formatted, simply because I can't tell what the "correct" formatting is here. For example, compare refs 21 and 22 - they're from the same source, but the formatting is quite different.
    • Then don't include a name, because it looks from what you've got now as if she did write them
    • I'm not questioning the reliability of the sheet music, I'm just asking for a link
    • Some of those are blogs, are potentially published by non-experts, are published by sites with a less-than-stellar reputation for fact-checking...is there one in particular you're unsure about? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll check this throughout the article.
      • Removed.
      • OK, I'm refactoring it: the site itself (Musicnotes) is not considered as reliable (I really don't know why), that's why there's not such link.
      • I removed sputnikmusic link, Yahoo! link is reliable (we've discussed this at We R Who We R FAC), Top40 is published by the NY Times and Courcelles told me that the reliability of those links depends in the reputation of the individual author. I believe that Lamb's crediability is good enough for Wikipedia. For Mahalo.com, I believe that the article asserts why this website is reliable. For the other two links, I'll check reliability ASAP, and remove/replace them if possible. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        • This Yahoo! link has a different author - do we know what his credentials are? About.com is, per Courcelles at the We R FAC, "in best case scenarios, barely reliable, and often not reliable at all". You'd have to make a much stronger case about Lamb's credibility. I looked at the article on Mahalo - "Mahalo.com's approach is similar to that employed by Ask.com in 1998"? That makes me question its reliability more, not less. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Mahalo removed, and I'll keep Yahoo! and Lamb links, in that order: I don't know why we have to know Carter's credentials. Working for Yahoo! is enough crediability for anyone. Furthermore, we are not "checking" credentials of every author of every FAC, are we? For Lamb, working nine years for The New York Times, do you need more? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Lamb's comprehensive career in writing about music makes him reliable. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.