Talk:B'Day/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * However, the project was put on hiatus ...' "put on hiatus"?
 * ...she employed techniques for faster collaboration, and completed B'Day in three weeks... This is semi-literate
 * In 2002, Knowles had generative studio sessions in the making of... "generative studio sessions in the making of"?
 * prompting her to begin working without telling her father-record label manager Mathew Knowles. you might be wanting a longer dash there
 * People who knew she went to the studio were her A&R man Max Gousse, and the team of producers they contacted to collaborate for the album? So what?
 * She also collaborated with several studio personalities:  "studio personalities"?
 * When Knowles conceived a potential song, she would tell the group who would deliberate, and after three hours, the song would be created. Inappropriate positioning of commas.
 * While Knowles and the team brainstormed the lyrics, other collaborators like the Neptunes, Jerkins and Swizz Beatz would simultaneously produce the tracks. "like"?
 * Much of the themes and musical styles of the album were inspired by Knowles' role in Dreamgirls. "Much"?
 * The plot of the film revolves around The Dreams, a fictional 1960s group of three female singers who had changed in plight after discovering their manipulative manager, I am lost for words. Whatever inspired you to nominate such a badly written article for good article status?
 * Get it transformed into good plain English, please.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * needs publisher author and date details
 * Other sources appear reliable
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Reasonably broad and focussed
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are captioned and licensed or have suitable rationales
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is a very badly written article, nowhere near the £reasonably well written criteria, so I sahll not be listing it. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is a very badly written article, nowhere near the £reasonably well written criteria, so I sahll not be listing it. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)