Talk:Ego (Beyoncé song)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 02:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Pre-review comments

Non-reviewer comment - I believe the lead for this article is too long, as the prose doesn't require much of this lead. The lead is supposed to summarize what is to come in the article, not state everything that comes after. For a song of such little information and impact (NPOV-ly, of course) I highly doubt a 4-paragraph lead. Even a song of the status of 4 Minutes (Madonna song), a featured article does not have anything this long, and something for "Ego" should be in the vein of Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song). Candyo32 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It, actually, summarize its content, which parts can be removed? Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 03:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing it over again, it wasn't as bad as I thought. However there are somethings. Too much information is about the release of the single changes. Two sentences at most should be it, then the prose goes into detail about it. The same goes for Chrisette Michelle. Just said it was intended for her album, then explain why in the prose. Thirdly, stating videos previously directed by Frank Gatson should be listed only later on. Doing just some of these should chop it down a bit. Candyo32 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I must agree. That was one of the first things I was gonna comment about. It makes it look a bit much. And none of the information is sourced either. I will begin the review once it gets toned down just a tad. Can't really give any specifics, but a lot of that information is unneeded in the lead. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 01:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Enging-Start (sorry if i wrongly typed your user name), i have already shortened the intro,. By the way, you are reviewing the article. As you know, i have reverted your edits several times in the past. I hope it is not because of this that you told the article has sourceless information It's better we make everything clear right now so that we do not have any further misunderstandings later. By the way, i agree the intro is too long but as far as i know, an intro is supposed to summarized everything. I have removed the surplus information. And there is no need to compare it to other song of Beyonce (unless you are talking about "Why Don't You Love Me" and "Scared of Lonely") because no reviewer told that Beyonce chose to show her vocal limitations on other songs and they never mentioned that they could have also been placed ion the I Am... disc. I do not have anything against you. It's just that i wanted you to know all this. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about, but anyway, thanks for shortening it, and I will get to the review soon. I've been quite busy. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 17:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What i am trying to tell you is just to forget the past (when we used to have edit conflicts, if you still remember) and work as a good and collaborative team. I am sure we can accomplish a lot together. Let's just be friends. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't remember, so. xD ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I will get to this, and the review of Broken-Hearted Girl this week, I promise. :) Been so busy with school. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 19:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I really understand you since we are both of practically the same age. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues

Lead

• The only issue I have here is this sentence: "Columbia Records released it as the fifth single to urban radio in the United States on May 19, 2010." It would sound much better like this: "The song was sent to urban radio in the United States on May 19, 2010, as the album's fifth single."  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Infoxbox

• Blac Elvis should be linked it writers, and not in producers, as the writers part comes up first.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove the music video from the infobox.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Music video

• Have the remix music video, and fan exclusive one under it's own tag in this section, and not under the original's synopsis section.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• Overall, I really don't see much problems with the article at all, as you can see from above. An amazing job was done here! Fix these few issues, and I can promote it to GA status! ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 22:34, 26 December 2010

Thank you. Look forward to be working with you more often. Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Final criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.