Talk:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: One found and tagged, no archived version at the Internet Archive.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Done

Replaced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA 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):

   The song was released dually with .... Would be better to just say "The song was released with ..." Done

   The two songs were released simultaneously to demonstrate the contrast between the two conflicting personae of Knowles. Columbia Records later released "Single Ladies" as the album's second international single after the success of the other lead single, "If I Were a Boy". This is confusing and somewhat contradictory. Done

   The song's development was motivated by Knowles' and Jay-Z secret marriage, in April 2008. Surely "Jay-Z's"? Done

   The dance routine of "Single Ladies" prompted a legion of imitations and parodies from men and women all around the world, including celebrities such as pop singer Justin Timberlake, US President Barack Obama and actor Tom Hanks. "legion", would appear to be a weasel word. Done

   According to Toronto Star, "The Toronto Star" Done

   ''The song also derives from the genre of R&B, Poor prose Done

   Darryl Sterdan of Jam! praised by Knowles' "sassy" vocals during the hook-filled chorus. "praised by"? Done

   Trish Crawford of Toronto Star again, missing "the" Done

   the Critical reception section appears to repeat material in the preceding section. More separation from the Composition section is needed. Done

   '' for having the fifth-most number ones Clumsy, needs rephrasing. Done

   Knowles flashes a ring that camouflages with her titanium glove. Clumsy, please rephrase. Done

   She was also wearing her metallic hand glove, which she pointed to as she sang the chorus of "Single Ladies". She also sang the song on television show Saturday Night Live on November 15, 2008. That particular night, Knowles was also featured in a parody of the "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)" music video, where the two female backup dancers from the video were replaced by pop singer Justin Timberlake and Saturday Night Live cast members Andy Samberg and Bobby Moynihan. []"Single Ladies" was also performed by Knowles on November 18, 2008 at BET's 106 & Park, and during the 2008 American Music Awards on November 23, 2008.[]She also delivered a performance of "Single Ladies" on The Tyra Banks Show with two male dancers, on January 9, 2009. Repetition of "also" is clumsy. Done

   I think pretty much every instance of "also" needs removing, it adds nothing and is poor prose.

   I think Adabow has already fixed that. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   In May 2010, a group of five girls, all seven years of age, participated in a dance competition for which they chose to dance on "Single Ladies". Very clumsy. Done

   An animated version of "Single Ladies" even surfaced on the internet in late 2009. "even" is a weasel word in this context. Done I removed the word "even".

   So, with regards to the prose, consider the overuse of "also" throughout the article. Try reading out aloud and see where improvements can be made. I shall examine the rest of the article later. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   I believe I have addressed the specific prose problems you have mentioned, however I will continue to read through and copy-edit the article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry i was not free. I will address the forthcoming issues for sure. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   JUst take a look at "also". It can be removed without altering the sense so is unneccessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

    Done There are now only six occurrences of the word. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   One dead link, ref#69[3] Done

   ref#33[4]] is only available in the US. We need a note in the reference explaining this.

    Done Added an archive from the Wayback Machine, which is available everywhere. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   ref#176[5] links to the constantly updated chart lists so does not support the statement.

    Done Found a book. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   ref#171[6] links to a link to the archive, replace with http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/23790/20081220-0000/issue980.pdf

   There's no difference between the two; both link straight to the PDF. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   Otherwise references check out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

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):

   Licensed, tagged, suitable fair use rationales for three images. Short sound clip is ok.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days, just a few referencing issues and the word "also". Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   I made a few copy-edits, I believe that the article meets the criteria. I am listing it ass GA, congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)