Talk:Broken-Hearted Girl/GA1

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

Reviewer: ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT  17:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * I'm not really liking the way it's worded. The first paragraph that is. May I suggest something more of the lines of: "Broken-Hearted Girl" is a song by American recording artist Beyoncé Knowles. It was written by Knowles, Kenneth Edmonds, Mikkel Storleer Eriksen and Tor Erik Hermansen, and produced by Knowles, and Stargate for Knowles' third studio album I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008). The song was previously announced as the album's sixth single, but "Sweet Dreams" was released instead. The song later became the album's seventh single, and was released on August 28, 2009.


 * Infobox
 * I'm pretty sure a second single cover isn't allowed on Wikipedia anymore.


 * Background, composition and release
 * Maybe try to separate composition to it's own section, and have background and release a section on it's own.
 * 30 October 2009 should be October 30, 2009; as it fits with the way every date is in the article.


 * Reception
 * Remove the reception header and just have both as their own.


 * Music video and concert performances
 * Separate into two headings: Music video and live performances. No need for them to be the same, even though there isn't much about it being performed.
 * Two sentences doesn't really warrant its own section. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Release history
 * Maybe expand on it a bit and add the format, record label, etc to it.
 * Why? Columbia released it everywhere, and I don't see the point of including formats. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that release histories documenting different formats are useless, as it is extremely difficult/impossible to track down release formats and dates. For example, it was probably released on CD here in New Zealand, but I don't know of any source to use. Release history sections are not required any more, so I can remove the entire section if you prefer? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's alright. I was just wondering if it could be expanded more. It's not that necessary. ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT  17:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am passing the article. :) Great work you've done here!


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: