Talk:Born This Way (album)/Archive 3

Singles
All of the singles in the singles section are organized in paragraphs. So please do the same for Edge of Glory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.105.84 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Annabel's performance
Should it be included in promotion? YZJay  talk tome  15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is that and notability? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 15:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it was a private performance.  YZJay   talk tome  15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh so Annabel is a night club. Ya it can be added if a better source than Gigwise can be found. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 16:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Metro
 is this real? YZJay  talk tome  16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If they say so. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Zynga promotion
This could be included in the promotion section. http://www.zynga.com/about/article.php?a=20110510 She will basically stream some unreleased tracks directly within Farmville, as far as I can find this is a first for artist promotion on non music-specific games. Just a simple note regarding the reach of the promotion efforts, no need to go as deep as describing the full promotion. afr.mx (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's IMPORTANT to note this...
"The Edge of Glory" was initially released as a promotional single, but was then chosen as the third official single. "Hair" is also a promotional but the section at the beginning of the article as well as the side bar implies that both are singles released to radio. "Hair" is NOT the fourth single. It's the second iTunes promotional single for the album. Please change that section. Griggj12 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair Promo Single
Can we incubate an article for Hair? I don't know how incubation works, honestly, so I can't do it myself. There's a fair amount of information available, including the cover, a statement by Gaga, a review by Rolling Stone, some lyrics, etc. It is far from becoming an article, but we should start by making an incubator (or whatever its name is), and it could gain notability after the album's release. --Evengan (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Article incubator. Here you go. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 17:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I create one, then? --Evengan (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Post the sources that you got here first. Let me see if they are reliable sources, if so then you can incubate it. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 17:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1
 * One of my favorite songs on the album is called "Hair". It’s a really uptempo club record with a Bruce Springsteen vibe to it. I had Clarence Clemons come in from the E Street Band and play saxophone on the record. It has this KISS / Iron Maiden to the melody. - Lady Gaga during an interview with Ryan Seacrest. I can't find a reliable source for the interview, but there's audio.
 * 2
 * The name of the song is revealed.
 * 3
 * Cover revealed.
 * 4
 * Review by Rolling Stone.
 * --Evengan (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article incubator is for articles that have previously been deleted. Instead, create a userspace draft such as User:Evengan/Hair, which can then be moved into mainspace when the time comes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, should have thought of that. Whenever I have a little time I'll work on it. Thanks. --Evengan (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I created a tentative article for Hair, with the information I could find. Please feel free to edit it, fix some sources, or add more information. Also, please tell me what else is needed to make it a real article (besides the song charting) without going through a deletion process.

I believe that the information displayed is interesting and new, it should give a new perspective to the song. Please let me know what you think. Also, Lady Gaga released the cover artowork for the album, but on a very low resolution (given that she revealed it through a video), so as soon as I get an HQ cover, I'll add it. Thanks for the help given so far, as well. --Evengan (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are doing a good job, just keep it in your userspace till the song charts (which it will of course do). So that you don't have to go through the hassle of deletion process. Patience is virtue my lad. :P — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm patient, don't worry, and after The Edge of Glory's discussion, believe me, I'll wait until it charts =P Besides the charts, is there anything else I should change? I consider my sources reliable (there are no fan sites), but Wikipedia's policies are incredibly strict, so I want to have everything ready before creating the real article. That, some extra information and the charts, and we're ready to go I suppose. Thanks for the help. --Evengan (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Try to format the references using the cite web template. Reaad it, you will understand how it works. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 15:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Now we wait? --Evengan (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

She just posted a HQ picture of the cover art. Here: http://twitpic.com/4y8apx Mi.bryson (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, but I can't upload files to Wikipedia. Maybe you can help, Legolas? --Evengan (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any registered user can upload pics, but the cover art will have to wait until the article goes into the mainspace because it's not a free image, it's a "fair use" image, and they're not allowed on user pages. Plus they must be used on a page in order to be allowed to remain at Wiki. Robman94 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair and Singles Listing
Hair is only a promotional single of now, therefore it should not be listed in the singles section under the main article sidebar. Promotional singles are usually not listed under this section. An example can be Beautiful Dirty Rich for the Fame and Dance in the Dark for the Fame Monster. I'm going to remove it. Jpagan09 (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. Thanks for doing it. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair
Article please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.26.158 (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See above (and please use ~ to sign your posts). Robman94 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaked
The album has leaked. Twitter and Tumblr are going insane. Thought you'd like to know. 92.235.224.50 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't, it's people recording the Metro preview. Chill. (I'm new to this) 2.121.156.206 (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it did actually leak last night. Buxton87 (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It didn't leak, it is being streamed on metro.co.uk 84.113.151.242 (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add my say. I was up last night,and the standard album did leak before it was up on Metro. None of the tracks from the deluxe edition have leaked yet, as far as I know--Nyswimmer (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hate to break up the party but how is this discussion helping in the article's development? Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss anything unrelated to the article. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum guys. ℥nding · start 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The album DID leak before the stream! You can not know more than everybody else if you didn't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.249.68 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GAGA herself leaked Born This Way on iTunes and Spotify; http://twitter.com/#!/ladygaga/status/70571278981013505 Squidoh (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again a last remember, WP:NOTFORUM. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The album did leak beforehand: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/lady-gagas-born-this-way-leaked-hours-before-uk-streaming_1220207 Griggj12 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please add this to the article, the bonus tracks leaked too, and that isn't on the stream. This is something which relates to the album and has impact, even if it was the evening before the standard version was streamed. 92.235.224.50 (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New Guardian Review
Please add the new Guardian review to the Critical Reception section

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/may/18/lady-gaga-born-this-way-review Buxton87 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Popjustice post Metro.UK Stream
Since this article is Elite-only-edit oriented, here's the Popjustice album review they did after allegedly listening to it on the Metro website.

http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5446&Itemid=206

"What an extraordinary album." Was the consensus. 9/10 was their rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.249.68 (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotion/Singles
There should be a separate Promotion section just like in the articles for her previous albums. And "Hair" and "The Edge Of Glory" should be mentioned under that tab. However, The Edge Of Glory should be mentioned under both the Singles tab and the Promotion tab. 119.153.29.136 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I very much agree and I also believe that "Hair" should really recieve its own article instead of a sentence which is what it currently has detailing only its release date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki1517 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, "Hair" fails notability now. And Wiki1517, don't even think of creating it again. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 17:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But what do you think about organising a separate Promtion/Singles section, Legolas? 119.153.29.136 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * EOG is released as a single not promotional. There's no point in having a separate promotional tab as info about Hair will go under the main promotional content, ala DITD for TFM or BDR for TF. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 17:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wednesday 18th UK Leak of Album
The entire album was leaked to the Internet after Gaga created a micro-site for her UK fans, stated by the Toronto Sun ... and the Inthenew.uk.com --(http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/18/gagas-born-this-way-leaked) (http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/entertainment/music/lady-gaga-s-album-leaked-early-$21386491.htm) Sadly this might be the most devastating for any future profits off the album. --+Zack 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)AddZack

Edit request from 187.7.194.49, 19 May 2011
Please, add the songwriting credits for Government Hooker 1

187.7.194.49 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Looks like it has been done.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New BBC Review
Very favorable review from BBC. Please add it to the Critical Reception section. Chicolover (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/5pzb

Hair
Hair has made it to the Finnish Charts so it should have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.189.78 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Source please. The present charts shows no charting for "Hair". — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 18:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Professional Review
I don't know why this review hasn't been included. UNLIKE others reviews that were included before, this one is from a qualified journalist, Bill Lamb has been in the industry of music for years, I think this review is very reliable, and should be included. http://top40.about.com/od/ladygaga/fr/Lady-Gaga-Born-This-Way.htm He is a very well known critic. I don't know why it was removed. Include, please. This one is professional. --West231 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Genre
"The album is a marriage of electronic music with major, epic, dare I even say, metal or rock 'n' roll, pop, anthemic style melodies with really sledge-hammering dance beats."

I think the genre should be Dance-pop, Metal, Electronic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.50.241 (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue to wait for what the critics say in terms of the musical analysis. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 05:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But she just said it herself! She made it, and she knows best about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.34.111 (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fair with the albums release and multiple critics views (many highlighting rock influence/elements) to expand the genre section slightly. The album is supporting Rock and Roll tunes (Yoú and I) as well as other songs holding the genres influence (Highway Unicorn (Road to Love), Electric Chapel). Shall 'Rock and Roll', 'Electro Rock' or even 'Metal' be added to the genre list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talenthiel (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair Charts
Does anyone know if "Hair" has charted yet... somewhere? I really want to transfer the tentative article as soon as possible, without having people proposing deletion. --Evengan (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No Hair Hasn't charted yet, Edge of Glory charted #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 however it is because it was changed form promotional single to an actual single. Hair will only appear at the end of This Week (May 30th I believe) ... so you might have to wait however, keep the article as it is a promotional single --+Zack 00:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)AddZack
 * I actually meant overseas, because I know we have to wait one more week for Billboard. I won't delete the article, and as soon as it charts (and it will), I'll transfer it to the mainspace. We'll have to wait, I guess, but international charts' release may vary, so if we're lucky enough, we can create the article before the next Billboard's Hot 100 release. --Evengan (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe just a heads up for the following week. The little blurb at the top of the UK's website (http://www.theofficialcharts.com/) says that "Hair" will enter at number 9. Probably wait until the official chart is released, but at least you know. Whimsicality, 05:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info :) --Evengan (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone review
Rolling Stone magazine has just published their review for Born This Way. They said "What makes Born This Way so disarmingly great is how warm and humane Gaga sounds. There isn't a subtle moment on the album, but even at its nuttiest, the music is full of wide-awake emotional details." Link: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/born-this-way-20110520 --West231 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Song Writing/Production
Recently, Born This Way's booklet scans were released and each song has her listed within the production. Perhaps we should also do this on the wiki page? You can see the images here: http://www.propagaga.com/news/2011/05/20/born-this-way-album-booklet-scans/

It's a GaGa fansite so I refrain from putting up immediately, but they seem genuine to me. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talenthiel (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Refrain from adding them before the official release, for fear of Copyright violation. Those maybe leaked copies. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 16:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone review
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/born-this-way-20110520 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.216.225 (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

New Reviews
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/8523548/Lady-Gagas-Born-This-Way-track-by-track-review.html

http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/reviews/lady-gaga-born-this-way-abebe-review-2011-5/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.218.126.73 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic score
Can anyone add this?? http://www.misformusic.com/index.php/2011/05/lady-gaga-born-this-way-review/ 5 stars to the professional ratings for Born This Way. Wikiwikiman2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

Should it be noted that the 72 score on Metacritic is only by 5 ratings? There are many more ratings for this album by critics, but Metacritic has thus far only gathered 5 of those, so it doesn't really represent the actual average score, depending on the way you look at it. Cross Pollination (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should wait some more for it to collect more reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.218.126.73 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the users above.72 is not an accurate score and does not reflect all of the critics that have submitted reviews. Also, the score has gone up to 76. http://www.metacritic.com/music/born-this-way

Reece Leonard (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reece Leonard

Edit request from Manny12001, 21 May 2011
hair is a single by gaga. it is a succesful promo song. it has good reviews..why doesnt it have that there?

Manny12001 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't it have what there? An article? We're working on one now (check it out here), but it isn't notable yet. Also, Hair is not a single, it's a promotional single, and not successful yet (we have to analyze charts). Please be more accurate with your question. --Evengan (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not a request. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 04:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair has entered Irish charts
I think the article for "Hair" should be published now. It has charted at #14 on the Irish charts. http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.38.35 (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Hair" article is now created here. Thanks. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And from New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/reviews/lady-gaga-born-this-way-abebe-review-2011-5/ --67.173.100.245 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, include only PROFESSIONAL reviews.
Can anyone please add this: http://www.misformusic.com/index.php/2011/05/lady-gaga-born-this-way-review/ M For Music gave the album 5 stars/5 Wikiwikiman2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

+++PopJustice 9/10+++The review made on Sputnikmusic.com was NOT made by a professional critic. He isn't a qualified journalist for the matter. You can see this by clicking in the name of the reviewer.You should know this things. In fact, you can look to his user profile (like it was a forum!) http://www.sputnikmusic.com/profile.php?name=mynameischan his musical tastes are all "indie, metal, hard metal..." Where's pop? It's clear that his music tastes are pretty biased. Sputnikmusic is not even a reliable or famous source! There's a huge difference between someone like this "reviewer" and Bill Lamb (from About.com), who is an expert in the matter. This section, must ONLY include PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS from reliable and qualified journalist...not from everyone. What's next "Teen magazine", "OK magazine", etc? I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. Please, fix it. AGAIN, Let's be serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by West231 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm only a casual observer of this page as a fan of Lady Gaga, but I'm baffled as to why the Sputnikmusic review has been included. Sputnikmusic reviews weren't included for her previous albums, nor are they generally included on other Wikipedia album articles. It's been done by some forum user on a website dedicated to non mainstream music, not a professional critic. Who thought this was noteworthy? One would almost think somebody just wanted there to be a negative review on the page... RM-47 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To that end, I just added the review by The Independent. It's not the most positive of reviews, but at least it's professional. RM-47 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed about removing the review, as it isn't professional, and as you said, it does look like its from a forum website. As for the comment above me, I hope you're not implying that only positive reviews should be placed here, because that's simply not the case. The reviews should show both the positive and negative, failing to do so would be in fact, biased. ℥nding · start 02:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Channing Freeman is a former staffer who still reviews occasionally. He has an "Emeritus" tag, which means that his reviews are given the same treatment as staffers on wikipedia. Also Sputnik is included on WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites and the review is therefore notable and worth including. Whether you disagree with the rating or find it biased is completely irrelevant. TrafficHaze (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I agree that this section should include all kind of reviews (the good and the bad ones), but my problem here (and the problem that many others readers have) is that the Sputnikmusic review is not from a reliable/professional or known source. This section should ONLY include sources that are recognized. How about posting a review from kerrang.com or exclaim.com? NO. If you see any other album review on Wikipedia, you'll see that the majority of them have well known sources specialized in the matter, with journalist that are active in the music industry (like Rolling Stone magazine for example). The fact that he has "Emeritus" tag is irrelevant. Don't forget that this person started as a regular user of this site, and earned this label(tag)thanks to his collaborations with the site. Everyone of us could do it too. This DOESN'T mean that he is a professional critic or qualified in the subject. In the same way that none of the staff of Wikipedia is qualified to reviewing an album (referring to your analogy). The fact that you can actually see his profile and see his musical tastes and the date he join the website indicate the character of the review. Do we even know if he is a journalist...a professional musical journalist? The only thing we know is that he has "Emeritus" tag, but, that this mean he is a professional critic? The source is not even known or reliable! I'll accept The Independent, since it's known, but this one is just ridiculous, and other readers seem to agree (according to the coments that were made above). Dear Wikipedia staff, this is the 3rd time you delete the review and then include it again...why do you include it again? Let's be serious, the objective should be the edification of a good article with RELIABLE (known) sources. Please, consider the opinion of many readers and remove that review. Only professional (and known) JOURNALIST should be included (staff members of random websites (forums) shouldn't!).--West231 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * again, please refer to WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites.TrafficHaze (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sputnikmusic is a good review site, not Channing Freeman. He hardly has a reputation, which equals probably the crappy reviews at Examiner. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 05:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * whether or not he has a "reputation" is 100% beside the point. TrafficHaze (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a point. Its the combination of a reputed source + reputed reviewer which makes a review reliable. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 05:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * wikipedia's policies supersede your personal opinions. TrafficHaze (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesnt. Ask anyone, even the album project. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 06:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As a member and editor of album articles, I can say I have never seen the use of this "Sputnik" website on an album page. For album especially, we try and use the most revered magazines and websites (NY Times, Rolling Stones, Allmusic, Billboard, Entertainment Weekly) as they become available (you can be sure this one will have tons after its official release)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the readers have spoken. The Sputnik review must be removed. As "Legolas" said, it's the combination of a reputed source and reputed reviewer which makes a review reliable. Wikipedia should take take this in consideration. We need only representative reviews from professional music critics.--West231 (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's already commonly known that some Sputnikmusic reviewers are professionals, while most have registered and write their own little reviews of whatever. Now the professional journalist reviews are even included in Metacritic, but besides those by the staff, Sputnik reviews should NEVER be used. Ones by registered nobodies are as bad as something from a blog. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  12:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's on the iTunes charts. 69.113.235.6 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This particular critic only specializes in indie and rock. So the review is bound to be biased, plus he isn't professional and the things discussed above should be enough to remove the review. As well as Metacritic, as it still hasn't collected that much reviews. If you disagree with me, then we should include Sputnik in ALL album reviews of all artists. And we should wait before adding the Metacritic one.--HusseinIED (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I feel I should clarify that I wasn't at any point suggesting that only positive reviews should be included. Naturally, you should include the same professional review sources as for all album articles on Wikipedia. I was simply lending my voice to the argument that I'd never seen "Sputnik" reviews around Wikipedia and doubted its professionalism. Also, due to the site's apparent focus on indie and alternative music, it's neutrality. RM-47 (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I just took the Sputnik review out. StephenG (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Who keeps reverting it? Clearly this review is not reliable, if we are to include it, then it should be included in all albums of all other artists, I thought Wikipedia wasn't biased? And to the user above saying that "it's neutrality", if the site focuses on those genres ONLY, then it is sure to be biased against pop music, not to mention that the critic isn't even professional, there are plenty of reasons to NOT include the review, but apparently, someone is reflecting his/her personal opinion of Gaga, which is against Wikipedia's policy.--HusseinIED (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just taken it out again, as the general consensus is to remove it but someone seems determined to place it on the page repeatedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.79.22 (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Singles
Please organize the singles in Paragraphs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.103.130 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not SPUTNIKMUSIC Review?
as you all know Sputnikmusic is a very famous website and it gives out a lot of Professional reviews... but as it gave a bad review to the album people call it unprofessional, FYI that review was made by the staff of that website... seriously, if it was not professional metacritic wouldn't submit it as one of the reviews to its website, and actually the unprofessional one is About.com. that website never had a chance to submit its name in metacritic but as it gave a 5 star review to the album they call it PROFESSIONAL. plz submit Sputnikmusic review and remove that About.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.229.98 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion above. --Evengan (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again! As it has been discuted endlessly, the review from Sputnikmusic is NOT reliable. With all respect, did you took the time to actually view that review? I mean, you can see his profile!! as he is just an user that has gained the "emeritus" status (wich every person can gain, if collaborate constantly) This has nothing to do with the review being good or bad. If you take the time to read above, you'll see that this site is not even a reliable source /known source and has not enough experience in the music industry to give a valid critic, remember that it's the combination of a reputed source and reputed reviewer which makes a review reliable!, but, this is not the worst...the worst is that this reviewer isn't even a professional music journalist. Yes, he's part of the staff of the site, but that doesn't mean that he is qualified to submit a critic (If I was a member of the staff of Wikipedia should I be able to submit a critic?). Several readers agreed in the section "Professional reviews" (see above)...this person only specializes in indie and rock (as you can see in his profile). So the review is bound to be biased, plus he isn't professional and the things discussed above should be enough to remove the review. Again, this has nothing to do with the review being bad, in fact the review from The Independent is still there (and I wouldn't call that review a good one). On the other hand, about.com IS a reliable source as Bill Lamb is a recognized professional critic with more than 10 years working for the music industry. You can read more about him here http://top40.about.com/bio/Bill-Lamb-15651.htm. Dear Wikipedia staff, why is that despite all the previous discussions and final agreement that was made to remove the sputnik review you decide to include it again, for the 4th time!? There are plenty of valid arguments to remove that review (made by me and others readers). Don't forget this is a page for the public, therefore, the reviews included here must be reliable and well known. Please, remove that review. We are applealing to common sense here! ONLY PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST (quialified jurnalist!) must be included (not nobodies from a site that resembles a forum....OK Magazine has plenty of years too...does that make it reliable?) Think on that!--West231 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just add loads of reviews from random forum members and argue that they're as notable and professional as 'Sputnikmusic' because the forum member in question has made a lot of posts. Better still if it's not even a forum about pop music. Obviously I jest and I'm not trying to kick off any arguments, but it's not a totally inaccurate analogy. I think there was a consensus about removing the 'Sputnik' review, but either way, as a casual visitor to this page it's a bit of an eye roller to see it there, then gone, there, then gone. RM-47 (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with you West231. Sputnikmusic's review is based on a review by a long time editor, that's it. Not realiable at all. Maybe if I make many reviews there, I could be featured in Wikipedia... yay. We should reach a con census here. Also, I haven't seen Sputnikmusic's reviews in other albums. A little bit biased? --Evengan (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this guy has a determined taste of music, as displayed on his user page (yeah, he's part of the forum and has a user page as everyone else). He likes Alternative/Indie, Metal, Post Hardcore, Rock, Folk and Alternative Rock. How can we consider this reliable is he isn't open to other genres, in this case Pop? Now I think this is completely biased. If he's a "critic" (which he's not), he wouldn't have specific music taste. Unless I get a good reply, I'm removing this so-called review tomorrow. --Evengan (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sputnik Music clearly edits some level of editorial control, by singling out some reviewers as "Staff reviewers." So I think it meets minimal criteria to be a reliable source; I don't think it would be out of line to include it. However, Born this Way is a huge release, and will doubtless be reviewed everywhere, and we don't have to include all these reviews. As we can include reviews from the most prominent sources of music criticism like Rolling Stone and the NME, I don't think there is any particular reason to include the Sputnik Music review, is there?VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What Makes you to call Sputnikmusic Review Unprofessional? cause it gave a bad review? I said that before... Sputnikmusic is a place to give opportunity to the young critics to show the world that they can review albums... as you all see that review made by a staff of that website and also Metacritic that is the most important website in submiting review, submited that one, so why you can't get over it? why don't you call About.com unprofessional? cause it gave a 5star? About.com is the most unreliable website in reviews... i bet if Spotnikmusic gave a 5star to that album you were begging them to submit it, as you all did for some unreliable sources such as M for Music, About.com and these kinda websites. Wikipedia did the best thing to submit that review cause it should shows the people that this album has negative reviews too. and there are many many negative reviews on the way... you can't change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.230.7 (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Lamb has been reviewing music for about 10 years now, he IS professional. If you don't like her, then this is not the place to show it, Sputnik's critic is not a professional one, and the website focuses on indie and rock music, which makes it biased against pop music in general, so the review is not reliable to give a professional opinion on the album, so If I write a blog saying the album's good, then should we include it in Wikipedia? We should also include fans' reviews, see what I mean? And while we're at it, why don't we add a Sputnik review to ALL albums if it's "reliable", everything seems to be unfair now, the review doesn't reflected critics' opinion of the album.--HusseinIED (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

whatever... so happy that metacritic cares about PROFESSIONAL reviews and submited them and you can't do anythig about that. calling Sputnikmusic unprofessional is like calling Allmusic or Rolling Stone unprofessional. have fun with BILL LAMB and his 5star review. as About.com review is up there so let's submit a review that i made by myself. i'm writing reviews for about 10 years. oh too bad cause i gave a 3star to the album it can't make it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.228.103 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-read my comment, analyze it, then we can talk. 10 years are worthy to be a professional critic, the other one is young, still starting out and biased as he only specializes in indie and rock music. And um, just so you know, Metacritic doesn't focus on the level of expertise the critic has, as long as it's read by many people and official, then it's included. And you're comparing Rolling Stone to Sputnik? Then it's no surprise that you want the review included. And, again, this is no place to express your dislike for her, the album is receiving highly positive reviews and that's that.--HusseinIED (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

yeah i can see that... just like this: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/music/201105/lady-gaga-born-this-way-album-review and the rest of negative reviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.230.242 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

'The Guardian' Review
There are two reviews of 'The Guardian' But it seems that this one is more recent than the other.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/may/23/lady-gaga-born-this-way-review —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.245.203.185 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This review is actually from the Observer, the sister paper of the Guardian (as it says under the byline); I guess we could potentially include both in the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

'Yahoo Music' Review
'Yahoo Music' Review = 7/10 !

http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/albumreviewsuk/6117/lady-gagaborn-this-way/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.245.203.185 (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

AristDirect?
Is Artist Direct considered a reliable source? [http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/lady-gaga-born-this-way-review-5-out-of-5-stars/8973686 If it is, someone add this. 5 star review.] 67.6.70.214 (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you said it was 5 out of 5. Now Elite-edit-only won't add it. Anyway I second it's inclusion. They are music centered and they also have a record label for independent artists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist_direct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.81.39 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GQ Review
i think this review should be added to the page: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/music/201105/lady-gaga-born-this-way-album-review —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.230.242 (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the GQ review really qualifies. Do many other wikipedia articles mention GQ in their list of professional reviews? If not, then it shouldn't be there.: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.104.132 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

IGN Review
IGN just posted their review of Born This Way. I've seen IGN all over the place on wiki review lists, so it should be included here too: http://music.ign.com/articles/117/1170186p1.html --184.144.104.132 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Very nice review. They actually point out one of the best features in the album which is Gaga's vocals. But this review is from a site not specialized in music, I don't think I would make the cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.81.39 (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews
I found a review here, a Rolling Stone one here, and one from Vulture (Anyway, wow, they state). All positive. --190.43.83.208 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes have published their review now, can someone add it? http://www.tinymixtapes.com/music-review/lady-gaga-born-way (85.24.185.91 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

One Thirty BPM Review
Can someone please add this One Thirty BPM review to the main page?

http://onethirtybpm.com/reviews/album-review-lady-gaga-born-this-way/

They gave it an 82%

Source:

Wikipedia approved them as being a professional site, as they are featured on Metacritic and will affect the overall Meta Score:

http://www.metacritic.com/publication/one-thirty-bpm?filter=albums

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thirty_BPM —Preceding unsigned comment added by NIN815 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE:

Metacritic has added the review to the total. Bumped the overall score from 69 to 70.

http://www.metacritic.com/music/born-this-way/critic-reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIN815 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GQ review
I don't know if someone wants to add this one, GQ isn't like Rolling Stone in that it doesn't primarily review albums, but it's a well-known and respected source of journalism, also I know the critical reception section typically tries to include a spectrum of different opinions and this review is one of the few that falls on the "scathing" side of that spectrum

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/music/201105/lady-gaga-born-this-way-album-review


 * Doesn't looks like a professional review to me, cause they are going on and about 10 things they HATE and one they love about the album. But if someone from Elite-edit-only wants to add it, go ahead. Negatively biased reviews always have a place in 'the free encyclopedia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.81.39 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How is something "negatively biased"? Do you consider yourself "negatively biased" about anything that you hate? So... anyway, I'm not too sure I would call this a 'review.' GQ calls it a review (based on the link), but I haven't seen any other albums use a GQ review. If there's proof somewhere that it's a legitimate source, I guess someone could add it.Heardafeeling (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) contribs) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tracklisting
"Yoü and I" contains elements of "We Will Rock You" recorded by Queen and written by Brian May. - Shouldn't this be mentioned in the Composition section and not under the tracklisting? 203.99.178.213 (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The liner notes of the album includes this under Y&I, hence it is included here. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of Reviews
A review was taken out for the reason that only 10 reviews are allowed... There are 11 now. How does it get decided which ones stay? Heardafeeling (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reception Section
I think the first line should be changed to :

Born This Way was well-received by MOST music critics....

The reviews are not mixed but they are not just positiv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.245.253.96 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, fixed. Also, negative reviews should not be lumped with the mixed review, so they now have a separate paragraph. I think the mixed reviews paragraph should be expanded though. Heardafeeling (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Scheiße article
Is there an article for the song Scheiße yet? Samlikeswiki (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes Review Should Be Added
They gave the album a rating of 0, but it is not representative of the album's quality (it's actually a positive review). The review itself, however should be added to the body of the article; it's very good. "Beyond all else, perhaps, think of this zero as the massive bedazzled orifice out of which our heroine has spawned a new era of popular culture."

http://www.tinymixtapes.com/music-review/lady-gaga-born-way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.71.15 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ever heard of sarcasm? (Or are you being sarcastic in your comment on this sarcastic review, haha.) This is definitely a negative review. He's pretty much spending the entire review taking the absolute piss out of her. Chicolover (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Tiny Mix Tapes review isn't actually a proper review of the album; it's a review of Lady GaGa's pop culture stature that's dripping with disdain and sarcasm from start to finish (clearly by someone that's tired of the amount of media attention she's gotten over the past two years). This review doesn't belong on the list - there are plenty of other negative reviews out there that take their job of album criticism seriously 184.144.104.132 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please revise this section!!
In the RELEASE AND PROMOTION section, it says that Gaga performed Judas on the American Idol finale on May 19, which she didn't. Besides, the finale is on May 25th. Please revise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griggj12 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sputnik
I think we should reach a consensus here, from the posts I've read about 80% agree on removing the Sputnik review, obviously, the readers agree to it's removal, so why not?--HusseinIED (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It's unprofessional, it's musically biased. I'm all for it being removed. If somebody really wants a poor review up, that's fine, get one from a professional critic. I'm sure there's a couple out there. RM-47 (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not unprofessional. You will see that the reviewer is an "Emeritus" which, according to this here, is a professional reviewer. There is no reason why their review should not be counted and duh, of course it will be biased. You can't base a music review, or really a review of anything, by facts. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  22:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wait. I'm not sure we are on the same page. I am referring to this review which is the one that metacritic displays. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  22:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the reviewer has an specific taste for music, which makes the reviews biased. If he doesn't like Pop, how can he review a Pop album? --Evengan (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reviewer in my link above is a she. Still, it would not matter. You cannot wedge out reviews because that person does not like the type of music you do. That is biased on your part. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * actually mr. freeman is a he. and i can't believe this debate is still happening. the review is included by metacritic AND WikiProject Albums/Review sites. it seems like everyone objecting to its inclusion is simply upset that the reviewer isn't fawning over this album's "brilliance." TrafficHaze (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Never had a problem with Sputnikmusic reviews before, and it's even used by metacritic. I bet that if the review had been positive, no one here would advocate for its removal. But don't worry: the negative reviews will come in, and when they do, this article will definitely receive the balance it deserves. I'll see to it. Oran e  (talk)  09:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, Wikipedia is not a democracy. And most of these comments have no practical bearings on why the site should not be included in this article. So, when I have the chance, I'll make a push for its inclusion into the article. Wikipedia is about being impartial, and we have to take the good with the bad. Oran e   (talk)  09:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So tell me this, why isn't Sputnik included in other albums' reviews of other artists, why Born This Way? That's biased, of we include here then we should include it everywhere, please someone respond to this.--HusseinIED (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? That may be the dumbest excuse ever. It would be biased to include a professional review? Not every album has even received a review from many of these publications. Are those album articles biased? -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's also a review that rates the album 1.5 out of 5... Maybe the ones who consider this place a reliable source because the reviewer is 'Emeritus' and Mediacritic (wonder why?) considers it relevant might like to look up for it and want to add it. It's actually a lot worse written and less readable (I mean, if you're going to do a negative review about the album, write why the album is supposedly bad and not why the artist is not on your top 10 of all times) and it's obvious the blogger who wrote it didn't get paid that day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.81.39 (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You do know that an Emeritus is a retired professional staff writer, right? Though, it is true that they are no longer considered professional, Sputnik must have still thought highly of them to submit his review to Metacritic. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  20:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.72.211.76, 25 May 2011
I noticed that the full length of the album was featured on the infobox and the track listing section, but it has been taken off. Could that be put back?

189.72.211.76 (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, per Infobox album only the standard edition template is to be used. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 05:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
The second paragraph of the article is very poorly worded and outdated - "On May 17, 2011 the contents of the album that supposedly released next Monday was leaked online and all the tracks of the album then reviewed by Jody Rosen, senior critic of Rolling Stone on the next day." - Could this be corrected/deleted?

Americansicko (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole article is badly written, not just this line. You will have to wait until I revamp it. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 12:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * True; this one just made me cringe a little! Great, yes would make sense to wait until the week of release is over at least. Americansicko (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What is "Scheiße"?
It is mentioned as track 7 for her new album, however the second to last letter is weird...and there is no verification that even is part of the spelling of the word. So, is that the actually name of the song? If it is there is no way to listen to the song and the other 13 songs on the album you are able to listen to online...I have not been to Best Buy where the album is apparently being sold...so I can't be sure that Track 7 is actually "Scheiße" Ladygagafan33 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Scheiße is a German word, and that last character is a letter used in German, called a ß|sharp S. It is the correct spelling of the track, as can be verified by looking at the album cover or many of the reviews linked to in the article. I'm not sure what you mean by "If it is there is no way to listen to the song..."?VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I meant like if it that really was how it was spelled (which I guess it is since you've seen the album cover itself) than it really isn't on music websites...which is fine.

I like the other 13 songs on the album anyways...me being a Lady Gaga fan.... Ladygagafan33 (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Review
I think it's fair to say that BBC's review is more notable than the LA Times one, isn't it? I mean, I don't think I've seen any other album use the LA Times review, whereas BBC's review is included on most records. Chicolover (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Los Angeles Times is as much a notable and reliable source as BBC. Cut the "I haven't seen it in any other album" crap please. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly disagree. Reviews should be limited to 10, and as such only the most notable reviews should be included. Like NME, Rolling Stone, Allmusic and, yes, BBC. Just like Chicago Tribune's review was removed when more notable reviews became available, LA Times' review should now be replaced by BBC's review. Or Pitchfork if/when that arrives. Or Q Magazine. All of which are far more notable than a blog post by LA Times. Chicolover (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blogs from reputed publications are reliable sources, per WP:RS, so no again. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's unreliable. I'm simply saying that there are more notable reviews out there that should get priority before the LA Times one. Which, really, can't be that hard to understand. Chicolover (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LA Times is as much a notable and reliable review as BBC. So there's no reason that it should be removed under the pretext of being less notable. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you say so, old sport. Chicolover (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about "Electric Chapel"?
It's not specific really who played what--I hear a nice guitar sound that is usually not in her songs...and I'm just curious... There is no seperate page for Electric Chapel that I know of....Any thoughts about that at all? Ladygagafan33 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not a forum. Go to Gagapedia, they must have the information and discussion you are looking for.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * LadyGagafan33, I recommend you to listen to 'I Help, When I Can', the articles there are better and much more informative than here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobercool (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish Charts
BTW debuted at #12 in Polish.--NicolásTM (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a reliable chart, see WP:BADCHARTS. -- Frous (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Sweden
Just went to #1 in Sweden: http://www.sverigetopplistan.se/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect First-Day Sales Information
The source you have found claims that Born This Way sold just 288K on the first day. However, this is clearly incorrect. The source also claims Coldplay sold 400K in digital sales to be a record holder, when the album in question ACTUALLY sold that 288K for it's first week digital sales. The source has the number mixed up, quite obviously, because other sources claim Born This Way sold about 500K or more on the first day. Billboard already estimates that Amazon's promotion alone sold 330K on the first day, so I think it's quite obvious that the sales you have referenced are underestimated, mixed up, and more than likely both. This source should clear that up: Billboard.biz sales & projections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.105.66 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Credits
BMI lists all writers and producers: http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?fromrow=1&torow=100&keyname=GERMANOTTA%20STEFANI%20J&querytype=WriterID&keyid=1069550&page=4&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&affiliation=BMI&cae=519338344 84.113.151.242 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Adding the songwriting credits now. As for the producers, that doesn't confirm anything. ℥nding · start 23:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Composers of Government Hooker. --200.121.230.56 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please correct the writer/producer credits on Americano and Road to Love (highway unicorn) Highway Unicorn: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12871272&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Americano: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12871271&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID

Redone is not registered to Highway Unicorn, and the songs were registered already CheChe Alara is also not registered to Americano.

(YET103 (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

If you see the credits for Government Hooker as well, the album artwork credits is not accurate..... this is correct: http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?p=5908898#5908898 since everyone is registered that is mentioned the correct credits are registered to BMI and ASCAP (YET103 (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

please take REDONE's name off of Highwayunicorn....he is not credited on the itunes booklet....nor did he register it with BMI(YET103 (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Consensus is for album tracklisiting to follow album booklet, singles follow BMI registered credits. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 05:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

They are doing a 2nd run of the album booklet, however, can you please add the missing writers and producers to the credits, since it is confirmed by BMI (YET103 (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

It is confusing if Redone is listed as a producer writer but he is not registered to the song when it was already registered.(YET103 (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

Please correct the credits on the track listiing for Government Hooker, DJ snake is NOT credited or registered with bmi as well as on Gaga's website , william G and clinton sparks are supposed to be on the song  http://www.ladygaga.com/lyrics/default.aspx?tid=23592565

for Highway Unicorn (Road to Love), Redone is NOT on the song at all, Brian D. Lee is a writer on the song http://www.ladygaga.com/lyrics/default.aspx?tid=23592558 also: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12871272&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID

for Americano, Cheche alara is not, Brian D. Lee is credited and registered to the song as a writer according to BMI and there is new updated booklet with the correct credits http://newworldpop.blogspot.com/2011/05/recensione-born-this-way-lady-gaga-in.html#comments

please make these changes (Distro46321 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC))

#1 in Australia
It says near the end of the article that she has hit #1 in Australia.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/lady-gaga-will-make-a-whirlwind-pit-stop-down-under/story-e6frf96x-1226064777970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks but its still better to wait for an official update from ARIA. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 14:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1G50 -- Is this not a reliable source.

Platinum in Poland
http://universalmusic.pl/news.id_757

It says here that Born This Way has been certified Platinum in Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry we cannot accept Universal Poland as a source. And neither OLiS, nor ZPAV confirm that the album has been certified Platinum. Wait till next week. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 11:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

1,000,000 seller
According to Billboard, Born This Way will probably sell more than 1,000,000 copies in its first week. Even without the 99 cent pricing, Born This Way would be a million seller. Please add it. --Mister Platinum (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

UK Album Chart
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/albums born this way is #1 on the uk album chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.164.201 (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Special edition cover
Cant we already feature the special edition cover, the album has been released, cant we show it now!!??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.96.96 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No it fails Wikipedia's Non-free content policy. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 14:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In which sense? I don't understand. Could someone explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.47.193 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its the same image, just the close-up. Wikipedia cannot allow more than one same image, which doesnt help in the reader's understanding of the article, than the original image. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being so attentive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.119.130 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish Album Chart
BTW is #12 (but this is sales for the period 16.05.2011 - 22.05.2011... ;)) http://olis.onyx.pl/listy/index.asp?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.134.28 (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a reliable chart, see WP:BADCHARTS. -- Frous (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I take that back. It is reliable. -- Frous (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)