Wikipedia:Peer review/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article was failed on its previous FAC merely because of the poor flow of the prose. I've listed this article for peer review to check everyhing, specially the prose and the comprehensiveness.

Thanks, --Efe (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LuciferMorgan[edit]

  • "She asked him to record what he had shown; Jay-Z ended up a rap verse." - I don't understand the phrase "Jay-Z ended up a rap verse", which is essentially saying that Jay-Z became a rap verse. It doesn't make sense.
  • ""Déjà Vu" is a contemporary R&B, performed in a moderate hip hop groove.[4][5]" - Any reason for the use of "a"? The sentence should either begin with ""Déjà Vu" is contemporary R&B", or ""Déjà Vu" is a contemporary R&B song".
    • Oops! added "song". --Efe (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knowles says in an interview: "When I recorded 'Déjà Vu'...I knew that even before I started working on my album, I wanted to add live instruments to all of my songs. It's such a balance [of music on the song], it has live congas, live horns, live bass. It's still young, still new and fresh, but it has the old soul groove."[2]" - "Says"? She "said" those words in an interview actually, given the fact the interview is now past tense. If you quoted from an archive interview with Jimi Hendrix for example, would you use the word "says" then? I don't feel its use can be justified.
  • ""Déjà Vu" contains elements that drew similarities to American pop singer Michael Jackson's 1980 single "Off the Wall" from his 1979 album of the same name.[5]" - This statement is misleading, and suggests that several critics drew such comparisons. They didn't, so the statement should be attributed to the critic and publication.
    • Fixed the phrase "drew similarities". --Efe (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knowles begins the song mentioning three instruments: bass, hi-hat and 808." - Do you mean she actually names those instruments in the lyrics?
  • "The sound of each instrument layers as they are mentioned one after the other." - I don't understand.
    • I think I need to use blend. --Efe (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the repeated bass slides, Knowles introduces hi-hat and the vintage Roland drum machine 808." - Whether something is "vintage" is an opinion, so that POV word should be scrapped.
  • ""Déjà Vu" fared poorly to critics, receiving mostly negative feedback." - "To"? Don't you mean "amongst"?
  • "The song was noted for being "catchy" but reviewers found that "it lack[ed] a consistent melody" and "a sense of true exhilaration".[10][16]" - Who noted the song was "catchy"? Who thought it "lacked a consistent melody"? "Reviewers" can mean two critics, or even a hundred. Please attribute these statements to the authors, so then the section will have context.
  • Attributed now. --Efe (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sasha Frere-jones of The New Yorker magazine deemed the lyrics a confusing view of memory.[19]" - This quote should be in the "Music and lyrics" section, and a different quote from The New Yorker magazine should be used in the "Release and reception" section.
    • I think its ok there. Its still a review. --Efe (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be "ok", but that still doesn't change the fact that such a quote is better in the "Music and lyrics" section.LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Europe, "Déjà Vu" had similar success, reaching the top ten in many countries.[26]" - ""Déjà Vu" had similar success"? According to whom? That's drawing similarities, and therefore arriving at a conclusion. How similar does something have to be in order to be considered "similar". 70% similar? 90% similar? Also, how "many" is "many"? Please state the X amount of European countries that the single reached the top ten in - "many" can be ten, or twenty, and is all according to the readers interpretation.
    • removed vague/unattributed terms. --Efe (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I notice anything else I can provide feedback on, I will do so. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The music video was simultaneously premiered on July 12, 2006 on Total Request Live (TRL), a television show of the cable television network MTV, and MTV Overdrive, MTV's broadband video channel." - The word "was" isn't needed. The sentence "a television show of the cable television network MTV" needs rephrasing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I'll be back later. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics had a positive review of the video." - Sentence needs rephrasing. Critics can hold a positive "viewpoint" as regards the video, or can make positive comments as concerns a video. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any suggestion? --Efe (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Critics were generally positive when reviewing the music video". - That's my suggestion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy[edit]

  • "recorded for her second solo album, B'Day." - just say it appeared on the album (since, well, it did) rather than "recorded for"
    • I re-jumbled the first para. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems awkward... generally really basic info (title/artist/album/release date) go in the first paragraph, then there's a paragraph about the song itself, and then one about response to it. Thoughts?
    • I think its fine now. First para is talking about the "song" while the second one detailing the song as a "single". --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and also reaching number one in the United Kingdom." - the also isn't needed
    • Removed as suggested. I see it not useful as well as suggesting POV. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the single received several award nominations, the quality of its accompanying music video displeased fans, thousands of whom petitioned for it to be re-shot." - what to the awards have to do with the video quality?
    • Ahm, re-jumbled second para. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • American hip hop rapper and Knowles' long-time boyfriend Jay-Z was not planned to appear as featured guest of the song. When Jay-Z heard he track, Knowles saw his "lips moving". - A "however" or something like that is needed here to make it clear that he did appear on it despite it not being originally intended. Also, you can probably do without specifically quoting that his lips moved (and you can probably say more about that...).
    • Fixed as suggested. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knowles approached English production..." - is the wlink here really needed?
  • "The track is hook-laden, similar to how Knowles' 2003 song "Crazy in Love", from her debut album Dangerously in Love, is constructed." - rmv the "how" and "is constructed" and see if it flows better.
    • Removed. I just realized its redundant. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lyrics detail a woman being constantly reminded of a past lover." - is that really all you can say about them?
    • Yah. That's the very common interpretation of the song's lyrics. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant is that is there no more than one sentence said about the song's lyrics? Anywhere? giggy (:O) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No more I think; I'll try to scour the net. --Efe (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claimed that "this time [Knowles] out-bolds the beat"." - what does that mean??
    • I dont know also. I think she sings with the beat not well. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The phrase "out-bolds the beat" means nothing to someone who doesn't listen to this type of music, like me. :) giggy (:O) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added something to clarify. --Efe (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chris Richards of The Washington Post, also an American newspaper, characterized Knowles in "Déjà Vu" a "love-dazed girlfriend"." - not necessarily positive, yet it's in the positive reviews paragraph?
    • Transfered to the preceding para. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song won at the 2006 MOBO awards in the UK for Best Song." - why is awards plural?
    • Same in the next section
      • It is how MOBO Awards is written. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So is ARIA Awards, but when referring to a singular object you don't put an s on the end. giggy (:O) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe when you say, Knowles received an ARIA Award for Best Song. The way it is phrased is different to the preceding sentence. It refers to the event. --Efe (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references section, websites (eg. allmusic.com) should not be in italics. You don't need to list (again using the allmusic example) Macrovision Company as a publisher; allmusic is fine. (That's just one example; check all references before going to FAC.)
    • I think its fine. Its italicized because Im using the {{Cite web}} tag and Allmusic is written in the "work" parameter while Macrovision Company is in the "publisher" entry. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per MOS:ITALICS Allmusic should definitely not have italics. Dunno about Macrovision Company. giggy (:O) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • yes it should not be in italics since its only an online website and neither a magazine nor a newspaper. but the way the ref tag is formatted, everything under "work" goes italics. --Efe (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps! giggy (:O) 08:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs)[edit]

Reviewing from a FAC point of view:

  • Looks pretty good.
  • Current ref 1: "New Bay Media, LLC.." - I think you need to remove one of those periods.
    • Ooops! Fixed now. --Efe (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you expand the lead a bit? Please see WP:LEAD.
    • I'll try but this version already summarizes the important parts of the article. --Efe (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://acharts.us/ a reliable source?
    • Its accepted as reliable. --Efe (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By who? Has it been through the reliable sources noticeboard? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yah. I think. User:Ealdgyth did not complain during "Baby Boy"'s FAC. --Efe (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My concern is that they don't actually cite their sources (and there isn't an About page). Where are they getting the chart information from? Its always best to reference from an original source, so that we know the information is accurate. In this case, acharts.us seem to get the info from somewhere else - but you never know if they've copied it wrong. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know why this site isn't criticized in FAC...if this is a non-reliable site. --Efe (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, Ealdgyth is human, so they do miss things sometimes. And most of the other reviewers do not check the reliability of sources. Please try and find an alternative source for the chart information. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to pick at the prose, but I think it's clear you need a new pair of eyes to look at it. I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!
    • I'll try. It would be better though if you'll check the prose but I think you're busy. I contacted Ceoil about this and (s)he'll be dropping comments anytime soon. --Efe (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good luck with it.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

No clue how to work the archive or way back machine stuff, sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for the help. Maybe I'll remove the source but will leave the content. Anyway, it is not too contentious. --Efe (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's there, look at [1] and scroll to the bottom where the templates used are listed. Citation is one of them. It's the "B'Day deluxe edition - CD booklet" ref Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Done. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Déjà_Vu_(Beyoncé_Knowles_song)/archive2&oldid=1084305619"