Talk:Crazy in Love/Archive 1

Archive 1

Does this article still meet "good article" criteria?

I'm concerned that this article may need to have its "good article" status reassessed unless someone would like to perform some edits to bring it back to proper good article form. I am of the opinion that it is no longer "clear and concise" - it is exceptionally long, and the prose has become clunky in some sections. Furthermore, it has undergone some edits that have introduced grammatical errors and stylistic issues. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skpearman (talk • contribs) 04:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Someone might try to straighten out things. --Efe (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Respected Skpearman, since YOU are the one who added the template, can you care to point out a few issues in details? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sorry that I wasn't more specific. It's not a *bad* article, it just needs a little bit of attention to return to its former glory, and I happened to notice it but am just not the person with the knowledge or time to do it myself. Normally I'd prefer to do the edits myself instead of inserting the template, but there are surely people with more of the necessary time and knowledge in this case. So I'll point out the specific things I see:

• First of all, the article no longer fits the conciseness criteria. It seems unnecessarily long, and some sections are organized in a way that make the information quite overwhelming. Some of the extreme length may come from the large number of quotations from music critics and other figures. Some of these are clearly worth including, and all may arguably be relevant, but the most important information in the article is lost in the sea of quotations and details.
• Some of the most noticeable problems are in the "Recognitions and Accolades" and "Chart Performance" sections. The chart performance information that should be presented in charts/tables... and in fact, a lot of it is, at the end of the article. Why is there a paragraph-form section for chart performance (section 5) *and* an extensive set of tables containing information about chart performance (section 10)? This is repetitive and unnecessary, and section 5 could be scrapped and its information incorporated into section 10. The "Recognitions and Accolades" section would also be better presented in a table or some other non-paragraph format. The current format does not present the information in a clear, concise, accessible way.
• Comparing this article to Featured Articles about pop songs can demonstrate all of these points. For an example, see this Featured Article about another Beyoncé song: "Baby Boy" (Beyoncé Knowles song). (You can see from looking at those articles that Featured Articles about songs, even songs more famous than this one, are usually quite a bit shorter than this article.)
• The article is in pretty good condition in terms of copyediting, but a grammar stickler with more time on his/her hands than I have needs to go through and edit for comma errors and the like. I also saw a broken wikilink in there somewhere. The errors I saw were relatively minor, but there were enough of them to be worth noting. This step should come after any editing for conciseness and organization anyway.

Skpearman (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The grammar thing you pointed out may be right but the rest is meaningless. (No offense intended). It seems clear to me that you do not heavily edit articles released to songs and that you have never a song article neither ot GA nor FA. Watch (Put it in you watch-list) this page please because i am going to contact a few editors to respond to some of the issues you pointed out. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 06:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And it is perfectly normal for GAs or even FAs to have broken links. They just need to be replaced. It has never been said in Wikipedia that a GA or an FA cannot contain broken links. It may happen that you promote an article today and tomorrow a link appears to be broken. These are normal things. They just need to be replaced. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 06:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some copy edit and grammar correction. There is also a links to 1 disambiguation page and 1 dead link that needs to be fixed. However, there are a few issues that Skpearman noted that aren't necessary. The "Recognitions and Accolades" sub-section looks almost the same as "Accolades and legacy" of Mariah's "Vision of Love". The sections are also correctly organized, and contain images in appropriate sections. I think it still meets the GA criteria; the issues that I pointed out just need to be fixed. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 10:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jivesh. I really don't see problems with the mentioned sections. They look both good to me. However, I must say the article needs some good copy-editing. Some sentences look very much like a POV/magazine text. By my opinion, a c/e would be great for the article and than can stay a GA. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Respected Skpearman, i want to tell you that your comment regarding the article size has no ground here. "Crazy in Love" was Beyonce's debut single (taken from her first studio album). Consequently, it gained much attention both critically and commercially. That is why its critical reception and chart performance sections are so big. It was critically acclaimed. You can read the reviews. If you find them overwhelming, there is nothing that can be done. I do not think Wikipedia is the right place to complain about those reviews.

Comparing it to "Baby Boy" is even more ... (i cannot get the word). If you follow how the music industry works, you will know that when you have a first single which is massive, the second (at least if not the third and fourth) is bound to attain more immediate success. May be that's why the chart performance of "Baby Boy" looks quite small in size. Moreover, as far as i know (because i spend much time doing research about Beyonce), "Crazy in Love" was the one which appeared on the Best Songs of the 2000s Decade list of many media, and not "Baby Boy".

Now coming to your comment about the conversion of the prose to tables... Articles related to music are not formatted the same ways as articles related to cities, newspapers or nutrients. All (decent) music articles have both prose and tables. "Baby Boy" (which you mention) has both, being an FA like the rest.

The broken link has been removed. It stopped working only recently. I think you do not know that that website was converted or something like that. So any information that was there is lost permanently. So, i removed the link. And the copy-edit has already started. Thanks for coming here and placing that tag. That helped to improve the article and place it on the right track again. However, "Crazy in Love" is not the only GA on Wikipedia that have these issues. With all the respect i owe to you, i do not believe it was necessary to put that tag there,. You could have left a comment on the talk-page or even found out who are the major contributors and leave then a message. There are many more and while the issues here were minor ones, you will find major ones in ones. Thank you very much. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am removing your template now. The c/e has been done by an excellent copy-editor and i mean it he is really excellent. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It was removed by the copy-editor himself when he finished. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 12:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)