Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 [1].

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) edit

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is safe to bring it back to FAC after three peer reviews, two failed FACs, and one copy-edit by by an experienced copy-editor. Most importantly, "Single Ladies" documents one of the most culturally significant pop songs of the decade... Many people around the world know this song for its catchy hook and its viral dance video. The fact that it is still in the top 400 of US iTunes nearly four years after its release in late 2008, further supports what I mentioned. I will be very happy to make the corrections needed. You help and suggestions are most welcome. With that being said, "Help me put an FA icon on it". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "All the singing ladies, all the singing fellas [...]" - don't need that ellipsis
done I have removed it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 4: do you have an album ID or catalog number?
Well, i cannot understand why you are asking me about this? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Album numbers are a good thing to include where possible as they make the source easier to locate. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a physical copy. Can i ask someone else or it is necessary that i own one? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to ask someone else. You might also be able to find that info online. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is 0088697417352. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, could you add it to the citation? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
May I remove all the locations? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done I have removed all the locations to maintain consistency. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspaper, and if so how these are notated. Compare for example FNs 31 and 33
Well, this is difficult to do. Simply because it depends on whether I use cite web or cite news. The Times is a magazine, which means I should use cite web while The Guardian is a daily newspaper, which implies i have to use cite news. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done I have removed the locations and checked for correct usage of cite news and cite web. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Times is a UK newspaper; it publishes magazines and supplements. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. I have fixed that.Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Can you please exemplified this? I actually did not understand. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think i have done this but i am not confident. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
Billy Johnson (Yahoo!) is an experienced music writer, writing in Black Voice News and Rap Sheet Newspaper, Vibe, The Source, Entertainment Weekly and the Hollywood Reporter. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the FN. This has over 200 references. Actually, the website is down temporarily. I started feeling dizzy searching for it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urlesque is an entertainment magazine, part of The Huffington Post and owned by AOL. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Need a bit more. What are the author's qualifications, and what is the magazine's editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, what exactly do i need to provide? Things like where the author has worked before? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are all i could find. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urlesque has been replaced everywhere. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this reference along with its associated prose. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Edward Nero (About.com) has written in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comic Book Resources has been described as "the premiere comics-related site on the Web" by by the University of Buffalo's research library. It is also the favored research and news site on comics and graphic novels by American Libraries and Universities. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 44: this doesn't match the formatting used for earlier Billboard refs
I replaced cite news with cite web. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check wikilinking for consistency
done Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid using leading zeroes (ex. FN 85)
Good? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how you format TV episodes
Please explain further. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think i have done this but i am not confident. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. You have two citations to TV shows: one with season/episode at the beginning, one with it at the end. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide me with the FNs. Please. Jivesh1205 (Talk)12:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently FNs 126 and 168. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher listed for this source seems to be incorrect.
done I have replaced this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes: Jivesh boodhun, please read the WP:FAC instructions and refrain from using "done" marks. Also, please revisit WP:WIG and your sig, which makes this FAC utterly dreadful to view. On an article's third time at FAC, we should not still be seeing a long list of reliability of sources and MOS issues-- presumably, by the third time through, these kinds of things should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sandy. I will change my signature temporarily. By the way, the sources i have defended above were already defended in the first and second FAC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Not sure why a whole sub-section is devoted to Kanyegate, which is very, very tangentially related to this song. Also, avoid single-paragraph sub-sections and lists such as "Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom", especially in the lead ("Many countries" will suffice). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indopug (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 November 2011

With all respect i owe to you, did you read that paragraph and did you know what happened at the VMAs in 2009? Do you know about the coverage it received?
I don't see why i should avoid "avoid single-paragraph sub-sections"? Do you think it is better to present a whole lot of information under a same section? Our aim on Wikipedia is to facilitate reading. That is why we have sub-sections.
And it is better to list the countries that way. Do you realize saying many countries will be confusing? What if people start thinking that the song made the top 10 in Europe when that's not the case? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you write "very, very tangentially related to this song"? Well, let me explain now:

While Taylor Swift was making her acceptance speech for winning Best Female Video for "You Belong with Me", Kanye West got onto the stage and interrupted her; he took her microphone, saying: "Yo, Taylor, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!", referring to the music video of "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)". Angered, he flipped off the crowd. His behavior was not appreciated at all. Celebrities, bloggers, newspapers, and even U.S. President Barack Obama complained. This whole situation, which has a direction connection with "Single Ladies", was termed as Kanyegate. You can go on Google any type Kanyegate and see the number of articles that will appear. All of them will mention "Single Ladies". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I read the article a few times and really impressed me with all that information that it possesses. From the concept, recording and release to the composition, critical section and etc. I also had a look at the references, but as I seem there is also not a problem with them. The only thing that I found slightly disturbing is the repeating of "Single Ladies" in the lead. Instead it could be use, the song, the single or eventually it. All in all the prose is good. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will address your concerns shortly. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All in all good, but you could also change this:
  • As of November 2009, "Single Ladies" had sold over 6.1 million copies worldwide. → As of November 2009, it had sold over 6.1 million copies worldwide. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, i think it should remain as such because i previously mentioned "Single Ladies" as The song and then listed a number of countries, followed by the use of a connective and. So, just to avoid confusion, it better remain like that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's obvious that you are talking about "Single Ladies", but nevertheless ... my support still remains — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on issues with prose, layout, and media. - As I told you before, in all good faith the prose is still rough and shall I say sloppy.

  • Writers in the infobox are credited with birth names.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics praised the song for its smooth production and noted its aural similarities to Knowles' 2007 single 'Get Me Bodied'." – What is "smooth production"?
Let me quote the seventh edition of Oxford dictionary. Smooth in a musical context means: nice to hear, and without any rough or unpleasant sounds. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of November 2009, 'Single Ladies' had sold over 6.1 million copies worldwide." – November 2009? It's been two years.
Well, the sales have not been updated. Is that a problem? If yes, may i know why?Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been no update since, then I will not question it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song's accompanying music video, directed by Jake Nava, was shot entirely in black-and-white." – I do not see that use of "entirely". Without the word, it means exactly the same thing.
Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk)
Well, it s done but i feel i need to explain why i put that word. Actually, during the I Am... Sasha Fierce era, several videos were shot in black and white but not all of them wore shot entirely in black and white. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People from around the world have parodied and imitated the routine, including US President Barack Obama and pop artists Justin Timberlake and Joe Jonas." – Similar thing here; "from around the world" is just exhausted. I suggest the sentence be re-worded like: "There have been parodies and imitations of the routing by people such as US President Barack Obama and singers Justin Timerblake and Joe Jonas."
Wait, "by people such as US President Barack Obama and singers Justin Timerblake and Joe Jonas"... that seems as if only celebrities did the routine. Pardon me but it does not read well. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, i attempted to rephrase it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the Toronto Star, the music video started the 'first major dance craze' of the internet age." – Why do you have a specific quote in the WP:LEAD, which is supposedly a general overview of the topic?
Please have a look at the first and second peer reviews and the previous FACs. Such mentions (similar to worldwide sales) have to be sourced in the lead. I hope that was what you are referring to. If ever it was to this, "'first major dance craze' of the internet age", i hope you know that the dance craze "Single Ladies" started is not just an overview of the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If i remember well, the lead has been criticized many times for being lengthy and over-detailed. In the first and second GAN, the peer reviews, editors posting on my talk-page and i think even in one of the FACs. So please, with all respect oi owe to you, do not expect me to re-write the lead. Because every time it is the same thing, someone say A, the other one says Z. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The video won several awards, including Video of the Year at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards." – Is it important to say in the lead which year ceremony the video won the award? Can't we just way "The video won several awards, including the MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year." Maybe throw in a few other amazing achievements into the sentence as well?
Yes it is. Simply because the song did not win awards only in 2009. Please help me with this, "a few other amazing achievements"... A few examples? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Artists such as Katy Perry have covered "Single Ladies", and television shows and other media have used it." – Could you expand on other cover artists?
Expand but why? Please explain. As you said previously the lead is just an overview and the word overview fits here best because the covers did not really receive the attention that the song itself received. They were just covers. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like quotes from specific publications in the lead. I don't see the problem listing a few other artists who have covered the song. Maybe two more? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, the lead looks a bit dry as a summary. It focuses little on the lyrical meaning and production.
I have responded to this above. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice is overused in the Background and release section. "Was produced by" this, "was written by" that. It is much preferable to say "This wrote the song, which that produced."
  • Your use of quotations in this section is too much. The flow is disruptive and there is little original prose, sorry.
Okay. I will try to do this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check and let me know if you are satisfied by how it is now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are awkward formations such as "Speaking about marriage, The-Dream said". They need to be re-worded so that you do not use both "speak" and "say". Otherwise, just cut "Speaking about marriage".
These will be taken care of soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It appears on the second disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce because Knowles portrays her alter ego, Sasha Fierce, in the song." – What appears? Using "this" is awkward and rather unencyclopedic; it also does a bad job specifying what is being referred to. "This reinforced the theme of the album" What is "this"?
It means releasing two singles simultaneously, each taken from either discs. So do i need to replace this by what i wrote? Don't you think it it will be repetitive? Jivesh1205 (Talk)
Iunderstand what it means. I don't like the use of "it" here. Why not "The song"? Note: Do not say "The single" because it does not make sense for a single to appear on a disc, it can appear as a disc though. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Single Ladies' contains musical similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"; Andy Kellman of Allmusic called "Single Ladies" a "dire throwback" of that song." – A sentence that can easily be condensed. "'Single Ladies', according to Andy Kellman of Almusic, is a "dire throwback" of Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"."
To tell you frankly, the first sentence helps me to understand what the second sentence means because i am not a native speaker of English. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what [Knowles] responds to" – What does that mean? I'm not looking for a reply, I want you to paraphrase the quote so that it is better understandable.
Hmm how am i supposed to do that. I left it like that because of the source. Please read the article from People magazine. Jivesh1205 (Talk)> 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song has been compared to schoolyard chants,[32][33] and has been said to feature "playground vocals".[34]" – By who exactly?
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember you should also be trying to shorten sentences as much as possible without loosing meaning, and make the prose dense. You can do this by re-wording or taking out redundant words that are too vague to give added meaning. (ex various, a number of, multiple, from around the world, etc.)
Excuse me but my English teachers say quite the contrary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, different communities and organizations have a different perspective on this, But here on Wikipedia, making wordy prose ruins the flow. You will see strong copy editors like Baffle gab trying to "condense and clarify text". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What in the world is "danceability" and is it even a real word?
Will dance beat be a good replacement? Or "ability to urge people to dance"? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"dance beat" sounds good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Background section in Music video is awfully small and I question its raison d'etre as a standalone subsection.
I am merging it with concept. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video screenshot needs fair use rationale to be expanded.
With all respect i owe to you, it is more than enough. Please have a look at the PRs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you get a bit more detailed than "To demonstrate the use of J-setting choreography in the music video"? FAC is different from PR, Jivesh. Havea look at File:4MinutesVideo(G3).PNG.
Oops, my sincere apologies. I just realize what you really meant. I did not understand at first that it was in fact here that i needed to improve the rationale. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like a reviewer above, why does Kanyegate need its own section? The info can stay, but I really don't see the need for a subsection. It looks really cluttered.
I will not remove this. If i remove Kanyegate, the whole incident will fall directly into the Response and accolades section. Do you realize that it will be hard to find the ideal place to fit that because you need to understand that it was not a common kind of response. It is not every year (i have not written everyday because i am trying to be reasonable) that Mr X will get on the stage and interrupt Miss Y; saying: "Yo, Miss Y, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Mrs Z had one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!". Is it clearer now? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem removing this. You could then say where the word "Kanyegate" came from? Right now, it's just not pretty.

I understand with such a long article it is hard to polish it to perfection, but that is the only way you will get a featured article. Note that all prose issues I have listed were only from sections up to Composition. Thorough copy editing is required. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i understand but this is discouraging. Every time, i am told the same thing. It has already received several copy-edits. I have responded to all your issues above. Except the Background and release section which will be re-written soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The copy edits should have been more thorough. And you can have several of them and still not satisfy the criteria. At FAC, if we see prose issues, we will definitely bring it up simply for the best of the article. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved all the issues except the quote in the lead, which i strongly believe should remain as such. There is nothing wrong in having a quote in the lead. Please do not get me wrong but ever since since this article has been nominated, whether it was for its numerous PRs, GANs, FACs, it has always been condensed. This time, nothing more will be removed. It has already lost more than 22 Kb. Jivesh1205 (Talk)> 11:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning in the lead (just to give the third paragraph more volume) that SL remained at number one on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart for twelve consecutive weeks. I believe such things do not happen very often even tough it is just the R&B chart. But if you think it is not necessary, then i won't. By the way, i just expanded the lead a bit more. I tried my my maximum to follow "Love the Way You Lie" but you know, "Single Ladies" does not have so much information about recording and/or production because most often, Beyonce does not talk about her songs nor she lets her producers or writers talk about them. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And will i have to remove Main article: Kanyegate as well? Penguin, i still do not understand why we need to remove it. I mean, it received so much coverage. That incident prompted more people to watch the video. It was notable enough to merit its own article on Wikipedia. And look at the sub-title, it is Response and accolades. It will look horrible if merged directly. Imagine someone knowing absolutely nothing about music, Beyonce, Kanye West or Taylor Swift reading the article. Having that section tiled as it is right now, will help the viewer to understand what impact that the incident left and coverage it received. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, the heading stays. :) I still do not understand what's is so important about the quote that it has to be in the lead... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know it was not a quote before but i was told to change it to a quote + add a source to that. The one who reviewed it, could not believe that "Single Ladies" had really had that impact as he knew nothing about music. Look at what he wrote. That's why i always say that when we write a song article, especially one that had a cultural impact (like "Single Ladies"), we should keep in mind that not everyone may have across the song or its video (for various reasons). So, sometimes it is better to quote and cite. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has improved thanks to the well-done copy edits. I have struck through my Oppose and am looking forward to support this article eventually. Further input from other reviewers is always appreciated. One question; I am uncertain about why the image in the Chart performance section was moved. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copy-editor asked me clarify the US chart run. I had to add three more sentences and that completely disrupted the structure of the article, mainly because of the image placement. That's why i moved it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at the previous revision, and it looked fine. What do you mean when you say "completely disrupted the structure of the article"? Maybe a re-sizing to the default could help? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done it the way you want. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you will support only if more people support? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will do what I did at "Rehab" and try and make as many fixes myself until I reach the point at which I can do no more, Then I feel that it is ready and will support. Won't take time. By the end of this weekend hopefully. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My issues have been addressed, article has been thoroughly copy-edited and the prose is looking much better. I will be happy to see this article one day at the main page for all readers to celebrate the music revolution known as "Single Ladies". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I currently have some personal problems (in real life) which i cannot share. I will not be here from Friday 06 00 UTC to Sunday 17 00 UTC. Please bear with me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Penguin, since i have fixed all your issues apart from that 'another thorough copy-edit' one, is there a possibility you may change your opinion if SL gets another c/e? I read the article two times on Thursday and did whatever i could but i do not know if it is satisfactory (according to you). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the copy edit. If I am satisfied with the prose (which will not be easy), I may change my opinion. 'Till then, my oppose stands strong, sorry. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So am i right to consider that you opposes only on the prose? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see atm, yes. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Penguin, the article is being copy-edited. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I will post some comments before I decide Support or Oppose, as I can't go through the entire article right this minute.

  • FN1: Billboard and PGM need to be wiki-linked
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN38: Yahoo! linking needed.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN55: Shows as Time Inc.. (two full stops). Remove it from the parameter.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN111: Publisher?
Calvin, it is a press release. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN115: Shows as Time Inc.. (two full stops). Remove it from the parameter.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN146: Shows as Time Inc.. (two full stops). Remove it from the parameter.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A sample of "Single Ladies (Put A Ring on It)," a dance-pop" → There is a double space there.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was mentioned in the first FAC and it has been removed where necessary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "Commercial reception" to "Chart performance", it seems more appropriate to use that title.
I prefer to leave it like that because this was the title proposed. It was Chart performance previously. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Critical reception and Commercial reception work well. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing it then. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while wearing her roboglove, and pointed to the glove as she sang the song's chorus." Why is this so notable in this performance? She does it in every performance.
Well not really. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She always points to her ring at the end of the performance and during the middle. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She does not always wear the roboglove Calvin. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've always seen her wear it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Search for each performance on YouTube. She does not always wear it though she never forgets the ring. After all, it is her wedding ring. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the line "Put a Ring on It"" Technically it's a lyric, this is a music article.
Well, i don't understand you here. They used that line where the ring is the female condom and the 'it', well you what it is. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Female condom?!!? I mean't change "line" to "lyric". Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth did you arrive at female condom?!?! haha. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why i understood. It was a campaign for women. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and to be honest, I can't see anything else wrong with it. This song deserves to be an FA due to the impact it's had as well as its success, and the information in the article clearly provides this information to a high level of competence and coherence. Only four points to address from me now, but you have my Support.

Support Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Penguin, the article is being copy-edited though the copy-editor himself told me that there is not much to b e done here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done, and I've left a few notes on your talk page for the remaining things I think need to be dealt with. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't see any problems regarding prose, or any other aspects pertaining to FA criteria. Happy to support. --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Two Hearted River''(paddle /fish) 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

–Comprehensive/amount of detail
  • Nothing is said about the recording of the song. There are a few sentences about its writing, one sentence about Knowles' not wearing a ring while recording it, and then it's released. As the subject of this article is a recorded song, I don't see how the article can be called comprehensive (FA criterion #1b) without some discussion of the song's recording.
  • Beyonce does not talk about her songs very often. For instance in 2011, she gave only two interviews; one in Australia in October 2011 and the other one in the US in December 2011. Though she has both a new album and a DVD out, she did not mention a word about them. That's all i could find. And if you see the source, the title is The Making of "Single Ladies and that's all a magazine like People knows about the making of the song. I cannot add something which does not exist (on the web) or not supported by reliable sources, can I? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to know that this song swapped chart positions with "Live Your Life" a couple times? Why isn't it enough to summarize, as done in the next sentence, that the song was at #1 for four non-consecutive weeks?
  • If you see how the page was yesterday, that information was not there but a reviewer asked me to put it. Now you tell me, to whom should i listen? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any problem in commentary about a song's commercial performance. It is interesting from a reader's point-of-view how a song went up-and-down a chart. Let's face it, general public lives for commentary, not overt technical details. Jivesh, keep this information. — Legolas (talk2me)09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does knowledge of when Knowles first, and later, wore the roboglove further the reader's understanding of this song?
  • I've retained the first reference to her wearing the glove, but removed the second mention.--Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does knowledge of what Knowles was wearing in various live performances further the reader's understanding of this song?
  • I guarantee you that there will be people who are wondering what Beyonce was wearing during her performances, so I don't think it would hurt if the information regarding her performance apparel was included.--Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
–Prose issues (not exhaustive):
  • "The-Dream was inspired to compose the song as it explores an issue that affected many people's relationships: the fear or unwillingness of men to commit." – Suggests to this reader that if a song is to explore men's fear of commitment, one couldn't help but be inspired when writing it.
  • Please explain and if possible use shorter sentences. Did you mean that there should be something like according to him?
  • No, that didn't change the meaning. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but surely you didn't mean it the way I read it. Did you mean that Knowles' marriage inspired The-Dream to compose a song about an issue that affected...? That would make sense. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of critical comments creep into the Composition section, which is distracting. In fact, almost everything after the first 5.5 sentences ought to be moved to the Critical reception section. Noting the lyrical theme is fine, but that should be summarized without quotation instead of rattling off a bunch of critics' characterizations of the theme.
  • Composition sections for recent songs are crafted using material from critical reviews. It is preferable to quote to avoid copyvio issues as i have been told numerous times in the past. And frankly, i don't see how i can fit those pieces of information into a critical reception section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, THR I have to agree with Jivesh. These are not mere pedestrians commenting about the song, these are well-respected critics who have opined about the composition. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that you say that, because my point is that the writing style treats their characterizations as just some people's opinions that we don't want to stand behind, which is less respect than they deserve. This section would work much better if the source material were synthesized and written in the editor's own words, without naming the writers but with citations to back it up. The last sentence of the second paragraph is how the entire section should be written. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you write without naming the writers? But that would be like stealing from them. I have done this in the past and in less than a day, i saw someone adding by who templates at the end of each sentence. I don't want that to happen again., And whoever did that was article as that avoids copyvio issues. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music video for "Single Ladies" was shot immediately after that of "If I Were a Boy", to reinforce the concept of conflicting personalities..." – Is it the filming date proximity or the release date proximity that reinforces the concept?
  • Should we go by what the source says? Every time one video from I Am... and another one from Sasha Fiercewere shot immediately one after the other though they weren't always released at the same time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jivesh, the videos were indeed shot and released also simultaneously. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release date as they premiered on the same date, exposing people to two videos, each from a different disc. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with whom Knowles had worked on her previous music videos" – the inclusion of "her" suggests that Nava was the only person to have directed Knowles' videos to that point
  • "they were released to major outlets on the same date" – What constitutes a "major outlet"? Was the video released to minor outlets later? What constitutes a minor outlet? Are there minor outlets?
  • Okay, now I'd like you to replace "outlets" altogether in the name of clarity (and lest the reader think you mean outlet store). My guess is that "outlets" means TV networks and perhaps certain websites but not brick-and-mortar/internet retailers where a physical/digital copy could be purchased. Is that right? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing it to media outlets. No need to complicate things. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She explained that it was shot without numerous different camera shots..." – "numerous different" as opposed to "numerous same"? How about just "multiple"?
  • Numerous shots can mean a whole heap of the same camera shots, so the addition of different here is spot on.--Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Numerous different camera shots and cuts" still seems quite ungainly. Would "multiple camera angles and cuts" convey the same meaning? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the most viral videos..." – There are levels of viral?
  • Viral is an adjective, so most is applicable. --Sp33dyphil © •© 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "YouTube" could be an adjective that modifies "videos" --> One of the most YouTube videos? Nah. One of the most-viewed viral videos? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...it addresses a serious issue that women experience everyday" – "everyday" is an adjective
  • ""Live Your Life" by T.I. featuring Rihanna climbed the top spot of he Hot 100 chart issue dated December 20, 2011." –spot the error
–Fair use issues:
  • A music sample is not necessary to illustrate the corresponding caption.
  • Really? Frankly, i would have never known what robotic effects feel like to the ears. Nor would i have known what a song compromising of R&B, dance-pop, and bounce as well as dancehall influences altogether may sound like. I don't see how the reader will understand the prose fully without the music sample. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree with this, reading the section and the rationale with which it is being used. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boxed quote from Ann Powers is excessive and doesn't really further our understanding of the theme of the song beyond what's written elsewhere in the article.
  • With all the respect i owe to you, that analysis is simply perfect. Please read it again. What is easy for you may not be easy for everyone else, especially youngsters who have just began discovering music. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with the second boxed quote.
–MOS issues (not exhaustive):
  • In American English, "[month day], [year]" constructions not ending a sentence require a comma after [year]. ("[city], [state]" constructions do, as well.)
  • Inconsistency in the Chart section: "number 72", "number twenty-eight". Check throughout.
  • Please see WP:ORDINAL. "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either '5 cats and 32 dogs' or 'five cats and thirty-two dogs', not 'five cats and 32 dogs.'" (A must) It also says "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words". (Editorial preference). --Sp33dyphil © • ©02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
":*Thanks for this. I have fixed them. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THR is right in this case Sp33dyphil. WP:ORDINAL does not apply here. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quoted phrases in successive sentences and only one citation at the end of the series. I believe citations are required after every quotation.
  • "American rock band, A Rocket to the Moon, covered..." – commas not warranted here
  • [142][6] – order numerically
–References that don't support the text (not exhaustive):
[6e], [102]
  • What do you specifically want? Should i add in the sense that the dance steps of Knowles her two female dancers were similar to those of Gwen Verdon and her two female dancers? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference doesn't mention bloggers at all, so you can't use it to back up a sentence about bloggers.
  • I recommend removing that sentence and moving the detail about "Mexican Breakfast"/"Walk It Out" to the previous section where Knowles discusses the inspiration for the video. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
–Text not supported by references (not exhaustive):
  • "However, the main intention is to attract the viewers' attention toward their hands and ring fingers."
  • The quoted claim from Miklós Jancsó Scott Cudmore (which is misattributed to Kate Carraway in the article, as is the source article in the reference) that this video inspired people to seek out artful music videos seems dubious. How could one draw that conclusion?
  • I wonder how the author changed when i archived that source. I don't see anything dubious. It is very easy to understand. "Single Ladies" was inspired by "Mexican Breakfast". As a result, people (especially youngsters) searched for "Mexican Breakfast after having watched "Single Ladies". Evidently, after watching MB, they would want to watch other artful music videos. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where would Cudmore have found such evidence? I think he's making stuff up and the quote should not be used. (Also, attribution problems remain.) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, with all the respect i owe to you, who are you to question what he said? Do you think Eye Weekly is has no editorial policy and is unprofessional to the point to publish any nonsense people will say? Try to think about it with a cool mind mind. You are stressing on the matter too much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who am I? I'm a person with a brain. Reputable sources need not establish the veracity of every statement they wish to quote before printing it. (Here's one from The New York Times today: "'Congressman Jackson acted honorably at all times and did not violate any House rule or federal law in connection with the Senate appointment process,' the letter says.") Consider my original question. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by Reputable sources? Are you referring to politicians, celebrities, ect? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused now. The article is from Eye Weekly, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want to say Cudmore is wrong and you are right? What exactly don't you like in what he said? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The internet has really changed the way people make music videos. Beyoncé’s video for ‘All The Single Ladies,’ for example, broke out on the internet and made people consciously look for music videos because of its art. The music video is a format that allows for a lot of experimentation, but it’s a very young medium of film that’s disappearing, at least from the mainstream public eye.

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe Cudmore has any basis for saying the "Single Ladies" video "made people consciously look for music videos because of its art". Three facts would need to be established: 1) that people were consciously looking for videos at the time, 2) that "art" was the driving force for the previous fact, and 3) that "Single Ladies" was the catalyst for it all. The second and third are impossible to prove absent a survey or maybe some highly detailed YouTube statistics, and I'll eat my hat if the former exists or if Cudmore were privy to the latter. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see everything is here

YouTube killed the video star. Yet Toronto director Scott Cudmore has a plan. They Shoot Videos, Don’t They? a bi-monthly music-video screening series debuting July 9 at Trinity-Bellwoods gallery 107 Shaw (107 Shaw), features some of video’s best and brightest auteurs — most of them Canadian — proving that the art form can live on long after Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze take to bigger screens.

The internet has really changed the way people make music videos,” says Cudmore, whose films for Timber Timbre, The National and Brian Borcherdt boast a wintry melancholia that recalls Hungarian filmmaker Miklós Jancsó. “Beyoncé’s video for ‘All The Single Ladies,’ for example, broke out on the internet and made people consciously look for music videos because of its art. The music video is a format that allows for a lot of experimentation, but it’s a very young medium of film that’s disappearing, at least from the mainstream public eye.”

  • And how can you question someone who has accomplished so much in that field? I cannot understand your claims. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unswayed by the responses to my concerns about comprehensiveness and fair use and cannot strike my oppose at this time. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, who told you that Comprehensive/amount of detail is about details. Here it says, it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. How do you want me to get details that do not exist on the web? Do you how many times i have contacted Columbia records and Beyonce on her official website. But they won't reveal the details. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have explained the fair use and i still cannot understand how you can figure out what robotic effects are. Don't just think about yourself. Also think of others who will read this article and will not understand what robotic effects are. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Legolas
  • Another point Jivesh, the image of Kanye is simply not needed. Its not a major section of the article, and Kanyegate has its own issues. The image simply overlaps and disrupts two free flowing sections. I would strongly recommend removing it.
  • "It has a basic chord progression of Em–C–Em in the verses, and Em–C–Am–C–Am in the chorus" – That's not exactly a basic chord progression is it. I would recommend removing the word "basic".
  • Kinda hung-up sentences like "Nick Levine of Digital Spy particularly lauded its beats" --> Readers are left wondering how did he laud and what beat?
  • The recognition and accolades section needs to be separated into what it is. Recognition "and" Accolades. At present you have two paras devoted to recognition while the third starts with awards. Merge the first two for a clearer picture.
  • No what I meant was to have a para for recognition another for accolades. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please substitute that (ugh) Twitter link.
  • Nikki said as long as the account is verified, there is no problem. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you are mentioning certifications, you have to mention the shipment for which the song received it.
  • During her tour in Melbourne, Australia, on August 13, 2010, Katy Perry performed "Single Ladies" --> Which tour?
  • song as part of Billboard magazine's --> the word magazine is unnecessary here.
  • Regarding the cover versions, that whole section appears pretty stale. Can you try to find some critical info regarding those covers? At present it looks like a WP:DIRECTORY.
  • I replied to this below (it was unintentional). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it, Trish Crawford's commentary on the impact can really be changed into prose and merged into the first para of the Cultural impact section. It really does seem unnecessary to put it in the quote box.
  • The quote paints a powerful picture of people from many age groups performing the "Single Ladies" dance, which is a distinctive aspect of the song. @Legolas Do you mind if I trim the quote to half its current size? --Sp33dyphil © • © 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i think what he wants is for it to be "changed into prose". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a cultural impact and legacy section loses its weight if the prose part is less and the quote box part is huge which was the case here. That's why I asked to change it into prose or shorten the box. You removed it altogether? — Legolas (talk2me) 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think much text was removed. Should we add the quote box back then? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything about the Glee performance in their concert added to the prose. So what is that image doing there?
  • Legolas, most often, we learn about covers through YouTube and you know better than me how difficult it is at times to find reliable references to source the covers. In all the sources i have (all are reliable), the reviewers do not leave a single critical commentary worth mentioning. Click on them one by one, you will see. What should i do then? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If their only availability or notability is YouTube, then I'm afraid they are not notable. Performances and other usage will only be recognizable and noteworthy, if aided by critical or journalistic interpretation. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got one for Sara Bareilles. The rest seems hopeless to me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't any sources, I suggest removing the photo. 10:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I have already added and sourced that. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical commentary has been added where possible (after you asked for them). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all at present. I will look for more later. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Legolas, all your issues have been addressed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I think all my issues are addressed plus the article has grown much and reads like an ideal FA for Wikipedia. Best, — Legolas (talk2me) 09:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Oppose Comments Oppose
For reasons that I cannot keep up with Jivesh's pace, I am changing this to "comments" only. --Efe (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place inline citation for direct quotations such as "consciously look for music videos because of [their] art." --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the same, please be consistent where to put the closing quotation mark. See WP:LQ for guidance. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the quotation is factual, better paraphrase and get the most essential. Regarding the video for "Single Ladies", Knowles said, "Out of all my videos, it was the least expensive and took the least amount of time. And it ended up being the most iconic. I just wanted to keep this one really minimal. But once we got on the set, it was like, wait a minute. This is something special." --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph under "Response and accolades" is read like the staccato notes towards the end of her song "I Care". Its not written well, doesn't flow well. Needs trimming perhaps and transitions? --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are transitions? Can you help me because frankly, three copy-editors and I have done our best to make that section look good. The list is too long and we cannot help it. I will really appreciate if you help. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really a piecemeal list, and it's difficult to present such things well if each entry gets its own sentence. I've tried a different way of presenting it. What do you think? This issue arises quite often in popular music articles, so it would be good to know if this works or what else might. --Stfg (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Kanyegate worth a subsection? Its part fancrufty. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very verbose structure: Knowles said that she wanted to keep the video simple.[7] She explained that it was shot without numerous different camera shots and cuts, without alterations to hairstyles, costumes, sets or lighting.[7] She focused only on the performance.[7] --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the viewpoint of Nava, or whoever is quoted here: He deliberately used lengthy shots so that viewers "would connect with the human endeavor of Beyoncé's awe-inspiring dance". --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nava said that on the day the video was shot, the song was divided into three parts. This lacks explanation, or elaboration. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is J-setting discussed under "Synopsis"? --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply because it is the best place to include it. The plot of the video (synopsis) has a direct connection to it. It is one of the many styles to which the dance routine exposes the viewer. There is no better place it could be. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of COIs and POVish quotations here: "Nava later wrote to MTV, stating: "I don't think any of us predicted the amount of parodies it would attract. It's a testament to Beyoncé's mind-boggling talent and to the fact that sometimes, less really can be more."" Of course Nava would always promote the interest of the artist. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I partly reformulated this. But i definitely agree and won't remove that it is a testament to Beyoncé's talent. What guarantee do you have that if Mariah Carey, Lady GaGa, Katy Perry or Rihanna was in the place of Beyonce, the video would have had the same impact? And Mark, the video may seem simple to you but that choreography is very hard to tackle. I bet that any of the four artists i mentioned above could have never done that choreography. And it is not for nothing that so many reliable sources credit Beyonce as one of the best dancers (i mean singers who also dance). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about Beyonce's talent here. Just focus on the facts. Not anyone else's opinion, much less those not disinterested to the subject in question. Nava is the director. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not talking about Beyonce's talent, are you sure? Then whose... Nava? Was he dancing in the video? Would the video have existed without someone dancing in it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are not. That introduces POV. And as I have said, do not introduce opinions by "interested" parties. --Efe (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think when Nava said that he is not being biased? Or readers might construe it as being biased? --Efe (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all honesty, I think Mark is correct. The article is not supposed to focus on Beyoncé's general "talent", but the song itself or its video. The article must be neutral and focused. "I don't think any of us predicted the amount of parodies it would attract" is enough. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, i don't think so. You are trying to remove something which is sourced. Why? Because according to you he is biased. For me, this (what you think) is a WP:POV because your opinion cannot be sourced. What about MTV News? Do you think they are biased and have no proper editorial policy? But i am removing it for peace and as evident as it is , you will never agree with me and i will never agree with you. Nevertheless, i am removing it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jivesh, I again would like to repeat and reestablish my point that quoting somebody who is INTERESTED to the subject introduces biases, unless critics agree. Even so, we handle it with so much care so as not to breach anything around here. WP:RS and WP:NPOV are interrelated in some respect, but are completely independent from each other. Just because Nava's statement is sourced by Rolling Stone, MTV News or Time Magazine doesn't exempt it from being biased. --Efe (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What matters now is that i have removed it since three days, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Live and performances. There's no need to mention all those. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why is there no need to mention all live performances? What's your reasoning behind this? Is it a rule? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to EFE (Mark): I have asked for a user to help me fix some of the issues to which i have not responded. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check if all your concerns have been addressed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • The section "composition" is poorly written. I don't understand why almost every song article has this chord progression stuff when it doesn't even add value to the section as a whole. Just a passing through of that single fact, which is very technical to average readers. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Mark but i think it is not to be removed. I know i should not cite other examples as that will fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. To tell you frankly, i do not understand a single word here... set in common time.[25] ... Morse code beeps.[26] According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Sony/ATV Music Publishing, "Single Ladies" is written in the key of E major with a moderate groove of 96 beats per minute. Knowles' vocals range from the note of F♯3 to D5. but that does not mean i should cut off those sentences. It sure is a technical term but is that a valid reason for removing it? Having such term may motivate people to open their dictionaries or learn more about music just for the sake of understanding what was written here. Think about this from a broader view. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove those not very important, or those which do not give value to the readers. --Efe (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Efe, you seem to think none of our readers can read music, or know even very basic musical terms. In fact these are very common skills, and those who don't have them can just skip. I hope not much of this material has been removed, as it all "gives value". Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introducing POV: "Knowles displays much attitude in her voice", "Knowles emphasizes her more aggressive and sensual side, her alter ego Sasha Fierce". This needs attribution. Who said these? --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay i will add it back. Sorry but it really disturbs me when someone says A and another one says X. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An attribution added to this Knowles emphasizes her more aggressive and sensual side, her alter ego Sasha Fierce will be an inappropriate thing to do as it is obvious Knowles is doing that. It has already been explained in the Background and release section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "playground vocals" in quotation marks while 'schoolyard chant' is not? --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schoolyard chant is a common term while something like "playground vocals" was obviously formulated by the writer. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the importance of the very long quotation (Ann Powers)? --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It helps the reader to understand the lyrical content. Again, i have already explained this above. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The article is going somewhere, but I still see so much issues. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "showcasing the contrast between Knowles' persona as herself and her aggressive onstage alter ego Sasha Fierce." I think we also need to add something about her "persona as herself"? Parallelism should be applied here because her alter ego is being described. --Efe (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what do you think should be added? If you are suggesting it, I assume that you have an idea as well... because to me Knowles as herself is more than clear and easy to understand. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More clearer to you as a Beyonce fan. How those not so fanatic about her? Do you think they are getting the point you are trying to convey? What is in her self that is being portrayed??? --Efe (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "beat's arrangement"? And upon reading the source, I can't find it saying such. --Efe (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were you able to spot, the beats just don't quit? By the way spotchecks have already been done. And I am changing that phrase for peace. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. But I was looking for and interested in "arrangement", because its a technical and broad term, and I don't get what do we mean by beat's arrangement. Its like the word is taken literally. --Efe (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been corrected. Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel some of the facts are littered with POVish additions or the way it is presented. For example in this sentence: "Knowles' marriage inspired The-Dream to compose a song about an issue that affected many people's relationships: the fear or unwillingness of men to commit." It seems it is being presented as a general fact, agreed by the majority. I suggest rephrasing this as to convey it as something that is an opinion of the composer. --Efe (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen to me now., I cannot add something which is not in the source. I can all add information which is in the source. So please do not ask for impossible things per the rules of Wikipedia. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not asking what is not found in the source. What I am trying to say is that the fact is being conveyed as being a general truth. The source just quoted the composer, and therefore should be paraphrased here as his own opinion about the issue, to which people might have different take. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wondering why there is such no ample discussion about Knowles as herself, except in the lead. Why Sasha Fierce is discussed heavily. --Efe (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all the respect I owe to you, you are asking for too much. This article is about a song not about I Am... Sasha Fierce. You can go there to find more details about Knowles as herself. Coming to the song again, it concerns Sasha Fierce and that's why Sasha Fierce is discussed here. This is not "If I Were a Boy". 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Balancing is just what I asking Jivesh, as much as I want to have that portion in the lead to have parallelism. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What parallelism are you bringing over and over again? I asked for your help but you did not even propose something while all the other reviewers have helped me so much. Why aren't you suggesting something? Efe, don't you think you are weighing too much of your personal opinion in this article? I cannot, in fact, no one can write an article the way you want it o be. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this important? "At the 2008 World Music Awards in Monaco, Knowles performed "Single Ladies" while wearing her roboglove, and pointed to the glove as she sang the song's chorus." And what about her pointing to the glove? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever watched the video? What does Beyonce wear in the video? What does she do in the video? Do you think she does the same thing in all her live performances? And please read everything before posting. All these things have already been discussed above. Please, this is a humble request. You are repeating the same points over and over again and this FAC is getting longer for nothing new. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believed that parody on SNL gained attention. It is being mentioned? No. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you summarize some of them? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gained attention? And where do I need to put that? In the lead? If that was you you meant, a NO will be my answer. A lead is only supposed to summarize the content of an article, not to give particular attention to only one parody. You are indirectly encouraging favoritism here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussing a well-known parody is actually a good way to show the song's lasting cultural legacy. A mention in the lead is probably overkill, but something towards the end of Reception - or whatever section best described the song's lasting impact - wouldn't go amiss. {{cite video}} would work. It will probably only give one more sentence and not seem like it is worth adding, but SNL is a fairly big show so a parody by them is pretty notable and a good indicator of lasting notability. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the fact remains that all this information is in the article already. Please read it. Melicans, if i understand well, you are telling me to write a description of the performance. But you know, the video itself is very simple. It does not even have a story line. It is only about dancing, hip shaking, wrist twist and jazz hands. So, the word parody is more than enough. A parody in other words means an imitation. And what did they imitate? It was the dance. It cannot be described. Frankly, tell me yourself... what will I describe in the dance? The way they were dancing? Well that will be very tricky. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm afraid I omitted part of response when I was typing it (I seem to do that a lot, thinking something in my head and then forgetting to actually say it). With the above I only meant that it should be included if it wasn't already being mentioned (which now that I re-read the article, I see that it is). Taking a second look at Efe's comments, I think that by "gaining attention" he means it received a lot of discussion (from music journalists, from pundits, commentary from Colbert or the like); though again, if I am incorrect in this guess, please correct me! If there is any mention out there on her performance and the parody it would be a good thing to include. Live reception is more than useable, especially if she was in on the joke. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you mean I should add a few critical commentaries? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if any exists. Based on the links you showed me, I think a little background on the skit could easily be added. It just helps to give a little more detail on what went into it; a more complete picture if you prefer that phrase (I think I do, XP). Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Melicans did it and there are no reviews. Sorry. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and its deployment of jazz hands with a wrist twist". Why is this mentioned on the legacy section, and not on the analysis of the video? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check in the dictionary or online, hand twirl and wrist twist are the same thing. I am not going to explain anatomy to you now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been credited with starting the "first major dance craze of both the new millennium and the Internet"," I think this is where the attribution (Toronto) is best added. I personally removed the one in the lead. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "critics have compared the song to Aretha Franklin's "Respect" and Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive"." What about these songs? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? Can please be more explicit when you post... because you usually reply after a couple of days and each time, I have to wait for you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm interpreting Efe's comment right (and Efe, please correct me if I am wrong)... I think what is being asked is what aspects of those songs are being compared. It isn't enough to say that it has been compared. Put simply, why are the critics comparing them? That information should be in the reviews themselves and easy to find.
For an example, here is how the comparisons are discussed in "City of Blinding Lights": The sound of "City of Blinding Lights" has been compared to U2's 1987 single "Where the Streets Have No Name", prompted by a similar style of guitar playing, as well as to the atmospheric tone of the band's 1984 album The Unforgettable Fire.[15][16] The melding of guitar and piano in the introduction was likened by the Edmonton Journal to the Coldplay song "Clocks".[17] Rolling Stone described the song as "building into a bittersweet lament", while Uncut said it was "beautiful but slightly sinister", comparing the quality of the lyrics to the George Harrison song "The Inner Light".[18][19]
I hope that this explanation and example help. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes... both your explanation and example helped. That's why I like your style of reviewing so much. Thanks. :) The clarification has been added there. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (after these are addressed or are replied).

  • Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the first sentence of the lead be "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song by American R&B recording artist Beyoncé Knowles from her third studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008).?
  • Otherwise the lead is well-written and flows very well. The infobox for Length should be in {{duration}} template.
  • Can you please do i for me? I cannot understand. 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Released, I see no country listed there; however, in the "Background and release" section the release reads The singles debuted on US radio on October 8, 2008 and Both singles were added to rhythmic contemporary radio playlists on October 12, 2008.
  • That's because a radio premiere is not a radio add. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in this section, what does this mean? "Single Ladies" did so on mainstream urban New York radio station Power 105.1.
  • It means impacted. It was formulated this way to avoid repetition. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't all publications supposed to be italicized? If so, Slant Magazine isn't in italics in the "Composition" section. That's all for now.

Good luck with this nomination and happy holidays, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you and everybody here the same. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This has no doubt been a tough gig for Jivesh, and to be honest I had no great hopes for it when I first looked at it. But a lot of work has been done since then, and I now believe the article to be a worthy example of its type. Malleus Fatuorum 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've read the article several times and I couldn't find any mistakes. A very nice article. Nice job. My love is love (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that this section has been re-written and the big quote box has been removed as some of you (THR and Efe) asked for. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with just a few minor corrections/suggestions:

  • In the lede, Composed by Stewart, The-Dream, Kuk Harrell and Knowles... – Stewart who? Christopher Stewart?
  • I know dealing with people's stage names and real names is hard, but it's a little confusing in the lede and "Background and release" sections. Could you do one of these the first time names like that are mentioned: Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, etc.?
  • Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this already, but you might want to add a reference to and a sentence about the minor scandal that broke out when a group of pre-teen girls covered the video. That generated quite a bit of buzz in the news. The most logical place I can see for it is in the "Parodies" section, though it actually wasn't a parody (and some of the other stuff in there doesn't seem entirely parodic to me, either... maybe "Parodies and homages"?). I'd be happy to add it in if the author is currently too frazzled fixing the 500 other suggested corrections :)

Great work and good luck! Accedietalk to me 07:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure fell free to help. I am a bit overloaded. I was told to remove that incident and just summarize it as such. Reviewers told me to add it only if the girls one day become singers. However, tell me yourself... should i add it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that in this long, long thread. Yes, I think it's definitely as notable as the baby parodies! I'll just stick it in there, and if anybody complains, feel free to remove. Accedietalk to me 07:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Malleus. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Support Hi Jivesh, very good article. A few smallish comments:

  • I'm not a big fan of the "[statement], as stated by so-and-so" structure. It doesn't seem very elegant to me. I edited one, about Sarah Liss and the CBC, but I noticed two or three more cases of it: "She displays much attitude in her voice, as stated by Nick Levine of Digital Spy."; "Knowles goes out to celebrate with her crew in a club, where she is snaring a new man, but her old one is watching, and the song is directed to him, as commented by Powers."; "On the bridge, Knowles affirms that she wants her new love interest "to make like a prince and grab her, delivering her to 'a destiny, to infinity and beyond'" while "Prince Charming is left standing there like the second lead in a romantic comedy, [and] Beyoncé lets her new guy sweep her off her feet", as noted by Powers." If nobody else objects to this structure, I won't insist, but all things considered, I think it'd be better if it was changed.
  • Very good point. This point is repeatedly brought about. Well, I do not know whether you usually edit music articles (preferably material released after the 2000s). I will not change it. Let me explain. When we write music articles, we have to take care of mentioning each and every attributions. This is what I have learned through all the articles I have been promoting since 2009. Actually when we do not attribute, some editors (I do not know them personally but I can assure you that they are very quick at noticing such things), leave {{by who}} templates through the article where attributions are missing. Music articles are different; they are NOT written the same way other articles are. (Well this is obvious, right?) We rely 75% on critical commentaries to write them (recent ones). Since we do not own those critical commentaries, we have to attribute them appropriately. The rest (mainly chart performance has a major weighing in the remaining percentage) are independent of what critics write. Even if I change it as per your comments, the nine other reviewers who have supported my FAC will not appreciate it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the way the attribution is presented could improve it. Instead of "[author] of [publication]", try varying the way it is presented. I know attribution is particularly annoying when it comes to music articles, but there are little ways to tweak it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I have no idea. Can you please help? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't proposing you remove the attribution altogether (and, yes, I do regularly work on music articles, and I know how that attributions are important). I was just saying maybe they could be reworded. For the Sarah Liss one, I rewrote it as "The instrumentation includes a bass drum,[31] a keyboard[32] and spaced out synthesizers which occasionally zoom in and out; one commentator, Sarah Liss of CBC News, noted that their arrangement surprisingly comes as light, instead of dense." By using the semi-colon, and starting with the vague phrase "one commentator" (but still attributing the commentator) the emphasis is still on the idea rather than the person saying it, which is what I think you probably want. I'm not proposing that you change all of them to this exact structure, because that would get repetitive, too, I'm just agreeing with Melicans that with a little creativity, there are other ways to express the same idea and keep the right emphasis. Right now I have to do some other stuff, but maybe later today I can try to have another look at the three other instances and see if I can reword some of them effectively. If you don't like my new version, you can always revert them. :-) Moisejp (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't end up coming up with anything better for those three lines, and now that I read them again, they don't bother me as much as they did. Anyhow, I am changing my Leaning to Support to Support. This is an excellent article, which covers the topic very thoroughly and contains really good prose. Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune noted that the lyrics reflect "post-breakup" situations." Would this line be better moved to after the "call and response" one, to where other sentences are talking about break-up?
  • No, simply because before doing a break-down of how the song proceeds, we have to mention the general points, among which is the lyrical meaning of the song. In this case, it is post-breakup situations. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the Greg Kot reference needed? "Single Ladies", and his perspective on the song's lyrics, isn't discussed in his article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is but he did not comment much. This how we get to construct an article about song. I mean we have to use a large number of references and make things connect without ruining the flow. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Melicans, the first time I read it I was also wondering if that quote was necessary. It doesn't seem to flow (in the spot where it is at least) and it doesn't seem to add much. It would be easy enough to remove. Moisejp (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. It's only now that I understood what you were asking for. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to leave the computer right now, but I might have one or two more small comments to add later. Moisejp (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not sure if this has already been brought up in the discussion above and I missed it, but should the Parodies section maybe be called Parodies and Imitations? It doesn't seem like everything in the section is about parodies per se. Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accedie had suggested something similar above—that we rename the section to something along the lines of "Parodies and homages". I agree that not all the acts were necessarily parodies or mocks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WP: Penguin. I thought I maybe remembered seeing something about that before but I guess I didn't look hard enough for it just now. Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :-) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "on May 31, 2011, Matthew Raymond-Barker sang the song on the seventh prime in live of the second series of the X Factor France." I assume "on the seventh prime" is a phrase used in X Factor? How about "in live"? Should that just be "live"? Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I present my heartfelt thanks to everyone who helped me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Pretty much ready to support, but given that the lyrics give an unusually coherent story for a pop song, the lead should say more than "the song explores men's unwillingness to commit". The section below should be expanded with some more quoting of the lyrics. Too many journalists are credited in the main text, rather than footnotes, for my taste. For example, do we need the "authority" in the text for: "According to a critic for the Daily Mail, in the second verse, Knowles "urges women to dump their boyfriends if they don't propose",[46] and tells her ex-lover that, as he did not attempt to make things more permanent when he had the chance, he has no reason to complain now that she has found someone else.[47]"? The 2nd part is referenced to someone else anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I cannot make extensive use of lyrics because they are copyrighted and that would be knowingly committing a copyvio. I can remove the attributions. I have no problem with that. But every time I do it, bots place {{by who}} templates on the article. We do not own those critical commentaries and that's why we need to attribute. Can you suggest something that could be added to the lead about the lyrical content? Everyone seems satisfied with how it is at the moment. What specifically do you want me to add? Hmm, a suggestion please... :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some changes to both the lead and the composition section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed a bit. In a piece this long, you would be able to make more use than you do of quotation for the purpose of commentary without breach of copyright. The lyrics seem rather more ambiguous than you say - whether the former lover is wholly rejected is unclear in the "Don't treat me ...." section, but you need sources. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what exactly aren't you understanding? Do you want me to narrate the story that the lyrics contain? I can do it. Feel free to ask. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't treat me to the things of the world / I'm not that kind of girl / Your love is what I prefer, what I deserve / Is a man that makes me, then takes me / And delivers me to a destiny, to infinity and beyond / Pull me into your arms / 'Say I'm the one you own / If you don't, you'll be alone / And like a ghost, I'll be gone

The lines are directed to her former love interest. She is telling him about the kind of lover she wants. But I did not find a reliable source for the first three lines. But I have sources for the last six lines and they are in the composition section. Please... this is a humble request. Don't ask me to put things which I cannot source. This goes against Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your hair on. How do I know that you can't source them? Can I predict that none of the numbskull pop "critics" have performed a basic textual analysis? There is a pretty clear ambiguity as to who "Your" and "you" are, and what he is supposed to do, but as you say that needs sources. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listen I am totally unaware of what Keep your hair on could mean. And if you ever thought I was being rude, then I am sorry. I was not trying to be rude. To tell you frankly, there is no ambiguity. It just depends on how many songs you listen... What type of song you listen to... if you are familiar with the artist, etc. And the analysis you are talking about... Well this is something I have told in the past. Every article has its own style in which it is written. When you write a music article, there is only a very small chance that you will have a source which will do an entire composition analysis. Most of the time, we have it for old songs... that also in books. And "Single Ladies" is not old yet. I did my best to take one line from this source, one line from there and so on in order to make things connect. I cannot do more unless I can find another source. But there is none. I mean, there are many sources but they are blogs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep your hair on" is an idiom that means don't get over-excited or upset, nothing more. I know this has been a tough FAC for you, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it restarted, but faint heart never won fair lady. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do song lyrics need to be sourced? Aren't they analogous to the plot section of a novel, in that they're the source for themselves? Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrics are copyrighted. They should not only be sourced but also very limited usage of lyrics (quoting) should be made. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is not perfect, but I think meets the FA criteria. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Media review
  • Infobox image has detailed rationale and is acceptable for use.
  • File:Tricky.jpg was produced by the uploader, so is fine.
  • File:Singleladies.ogg - I'm not too picky, but if the file could be reduced to 64 Kbps, then it would be nice for compliance with WP:SAMPLE. Length looks good. Source should be I Am...Sasha Fierce, not "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)".
  • The file is currently at Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 18s, 68kbps. I hope it is good. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too fussy. If it's too difficult, then fine. It was always 68 Kbps. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penguin... look at all the attempts of the editor. He/She really tried but it was in vain. It is already lowest quality. It can be lower... She did it but the sound quality was full of accentuation and unpleasant noises. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's okay. It can be lowered but is very difficult and sound quality is messed up. I think a 4 KBps higher quality won't hurt. I just raised the issue so that if it was possible, it could be done. Thanks for trying anyway, Moisejp. :) —WP: PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been lowered to 64Kbps. :) But the audible quality is now meh. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other images look fine as well.

—WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • All concerns have been addressed.

—WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick additional note; I'd say that the rationale on File:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) screenshot.jpg isn't quite there yet. Could the purpose be expanded a little to tie it in with the text? What's the image showing, and what part of the text does it illustrate? There seems to be a very good case for the image, but the rationale isn't quite 100%. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. How is it now? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I'd say that the key to writing a strong explanation of the purpose of an image is to tie it to the text- say what is said in the article, and how that cannot be fully understood without the picture. I'm happy with that rationale, and the images generally, but it's a good thing to know. If you can't tie the image into the text that way, it's more than likely that it's not needed. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you. I am happy to see some positive notes. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Single_Ladies_(Put_a_Ring_on_It)/archive3&oldid=1078806662"