Wikipedia:Peer review/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive4

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) edit

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 it has already failed it FAC thrice. I want someone who can help me take the prose of this article to FA standard. I kindly request that someone, who is familiar with issues that are often raised at FAC, reviews this article. Please. I hope i am not asking for too much. IO do not want this to fail again and again.

Thanks, Jivesh 1205 (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 09:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'll try and give this a shot. It's been a while since I've done a Peer Review, but I've brought a few music articles to FA before (most of them taking multiple attempts to succeed) so I might be able to help a bit. I'll see what I can find. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:Halo.ogg — I feel like the rationale needs to be tightened up/improved somewhat. "It makes a significant contribution to the readers' understanding of the article and the song, which cannot be conveyed by words alone." - how does it do that? Is there any aspect in the article's prose (critical commentary in reception, discussion on the song's meaning/theme, etc.) which specifically relates to this sample? That will need to be tightened before FAC. See File:U2 Mothers of the Disappeared.ogg for an example of what I mean. You don't have to list ten or eleven points, but you do need to be more explicit in the rationale.
File:Beyonce - Halo.png, Kelly Clarkson, Halo live, and O2 Arena rationales all look good.
YouTube music video link - is BeyonceSME an official channel? If not, try and find one that is (a record label, Beyonce's personal channel, etc). If it is, you may still want to try and find an alternate from another official channel as the video is not available in all locations; I'm in Canada and cannot view it, so a lot of the world will probably be cut off from seeing it. This won't be an issue at FAC, just a personal quibble that you might want to look at to make sure that it's available to the widest possible audience :-)

I cannot access it either, but it comes from Sony Music Entertainment, Beyoncé's label. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryan Tedder 3.jpg rationale is good, but consider cropping it so that the subject is the center of attention/focus. Cutting off a bit of stage that isn't adding anything to the picture will make it look better.

Sources

This will mean a lot of tedious work, but I highly, HIGHLY recommend you archive all active weblinks. If a website is remodelled links can be lost permanently, meaning that the information can no longer be verified. Sometimes articles are only available for a finite amount of time; then they're either taken down or hidden behind a subscription barrier, as happens with Hot Press and billboard.biz to name two examples. The latter can be satisfactorily saved with the use of {{Subscription}}, but if you don't have a text source to back it up (and since this is a recent subject you probably don't outside of the occassional newspaper article), the information can be lost forever. It's a tedious process, but entirely worthwhile. WebCite is excellent for this. All you need to do in the citations is add |archiveurl= |archivedate= to the templates.
As far as I know, Adabow (talk · contribs) archived all the links, so I'll ask him for them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checklinks reveals a few issues with links. There are at least two dead links, and three or four others that may have connectivity issues. Those dead links will need to be fixed or replaced before FAC. Again, I recommend archiving so that this doesn't affect the article in the future.
Don't forget to add authors to citations. Most refs have them but some, such as this, are missing them.

Prose

I'd consider reorganizing some of the content entirely. One article I worked on, "City of Blinding Lights", was in much the same state yours is now. During the FAC or a PR (I can't remember which), an editor suggested reorganization. The end result looked a lot better and flowed much more nicely, and it passed at FAC. I've made a suggested reorganization at User:Melicans/Halo. All of the content is identical (except for the non-free files which I removed only because they aren't allowed on user pages), it's just in a different order. Some images may need resizing or shuffling around, but I think as a narrative it flows much better. Theme has been added to "Composition". All the compenents dealing with the release (music video, promotion, release dates) are now under a general "Release" section. Live performances have been split off into a separate category. All aspects of critical reception (reviews, chartings, awards, covers; basically all the stuff that makes the song notable) have also been grouped together. Subheadings remain.
I concur with previous FAC reviewers in that I am leery about having a section titled "Controversies". It's inherently not a NPOV. I'm unsure what it could be renamed to, however. Perhaps another option would be to amalgamate that information elsewhere in the prose; but that raises the question of where. Perhaps under Writing/Production or Release? Your call, but I think that it will be one of the biggest obstacles at the next FAC.
Prose is admittedly not my strongest suite (which I know you won't find very helpful, since it is specifically what you asked for help on). That said, there are some things that even I noticed which need to be fixed. Here are some examples:

It was composed by Ryan Tedder, Evan Bogart, and Knowles within three hours in Tedder's studio. According to Bogart, the track was inspired by Ray LaMontagne's song, "Shelter". → It was composed by Ryan Tedder, Evan Bogart, and Knowles in three hours. The track was inspired by Ray LaMontagne's song, "Shelter". The lead should be a concise overview of the article as a whole. All the little nitty-gritty details should be saved for the meat below.
Its instrumentation essentially consists of a piano, and keyboards and synthesizers. The music provided is further amplified by the soul claps and step stomps. The lyrics to "Halo" lyrics describe a sublime love. → The song consists of a piano, and keyboards and synthesizers. The music is further amplified by soul claps and step stomps. Thematically, the lyrics to "Halo" describe a sublime love. Careful of repeating words ("The lyrics to 'Halo' lyrics"). Keep it concise.
The song was originally written for Knowles, but it was rumored to be intended for Leona Lewis. Kelly Clarkson, who worked with Tedder in 2008 for her album All I Ever Wanted, claimed that Tedder used the same musical arrangement of "Halo" in her song "Already Gone", which was serviced as the third single from her 2009-released studio album by her record label against her will → "Halo" was written by (who? Bogart? Tedder? Both?) for Knowles, but it was rumored (by who?) to be intended for Leona Lewis. Kelly Clarkson, who worked with Tedder on her 2008 album All I Ever Wanted, claimed that he previously used the musical arrangement of "Halo" in her song "Already Gone". Again, extraneous details. The lead should be bare bones, not the meat and gravy.
The lyrics to "Halo" have been changed twice in live versions: first into a tribute to Michael Jackson following his death, and secondly into a tribute to the victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Not relevant or notable for the lead. Many, many artists change the lyrics of their songs in the live setting. That she did it for this song is just business as usual. The tributes are fine in the actual body.
Concerning the composition of "Halo", Knowles elaborated as follows: → Knowles described the theme as "angelic..." resume rest of quote. Blockquote probably isn't necessary, it would fit just fine as part of the regular prose.
According to Simon Cowell,[24] the writers originally intended "Halo" for his client, the British singer Leona Lewis. However, Tedder commented that Cowell was upset that the single's writing was intended for Knowles, and Knowles eventually claimed the song.[1] David Balls, editor of the British media website Digital Spy, interviewed Tedder about the rumor. Balls asked Tedder if "Halo" was originally penned for Leona Lewis, and Tedder answered that he had only tentatively offered the track to Lewis after Knowles took a long time to record it → Following "Halo"'s release, Simon Cowell claimed that the song had been written for his client, Leona Lewis. Tedder responded that he had tentatively offered the track to Lewis after Knowles took a long time to record it. A lot of repetition there. You only need to establish it once. I'd suggest making one or two of the blockquotes into {{Quote box}}es. It looks nice (you don't have one or two lines of regular prose sandwiched between blockquotes), and allows you to tell the different viewpoints without devolving into 'he said/she said'.
The first time you mention it in a new section or subsection, you should refer to it as "Halo", not "the song" or 'the track".

Those are only a few examples to get you going on the kinds of things that need tweaking. There is much more in there, all on similar lines. I don't have time to copyedit the whole article, unfortunately. The biggest thing is to just be as clear and concise as you can. Get rid of the extranneous words, don't use the same words multiple times in consecutive (or even the same) sentences, and it will be a huge improvement.

Other things that don't really have a category

External links - Why not add a link to Knowles' website? Presumably she has a discography or lyrics section which holds the lyrics to the song. It's always a good link to have.
Track listing - consider converting the raw prose to {{Tracklist}}. I find it makes it look more neat, though that is of course a personal preference and not mandated by any WikiProject or policy so far as I know.
Consider adding a "Personnel" section.
I removed this section to avoid many tables the article already have. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that these points help. Good luck with the fourth attempt at FAC! Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness. This is the best peer review I have seen in two years. You are simply GREAT. I have no other word to qualify what you have done for me. I express you my heartfelt thanks. If I need help, may I contact you here itself, I mean if ever I do not understand some of your points. For now, I am not very active on Wikipedia. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! If you have any questions after the review is closed, my talk page is always open too. Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are very kind. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 12:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]